U.S. intel report identifies Russians who gave emails to WikiLeaks -officials

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-intel-report-identifies-russians-gave-emails-wikileaks-020036818.html

The CIA has identified Russian officials who fed material hacked from the Democratic National Committee and party leaders to WikiLeaks at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin through third parties, according to a new U.S. intelligence report, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Central Intelligence Agency and others have concluded that the Russian government escalated its efforts from discrediting the U.S. election process to assisting President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign.

The intelligence assessment was presented to President Barack Obama on Thursday and will be briefed to Trump on Friday. Trump has rejected the broad intelligence community’s assessment that Russia staged cyber attacks during the election campaign to undermine Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Russia has rejected the hacking allegations.

“By October, it had become clear that the Russians were trying to help the Trump campaign,” said one official familiar with the full report speaking on the condition of anonymity because the complete version is Top Secret.

In some cases, one official said, the material followed what was called “a circuitous route” from the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, to WikiLeaks in an apparent attempt to make the origins of the material harder to trace, a common practice used by all intelligence agencies, including U.S. ones.

These handoffs, the officials said, enabled WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to say the Russian government or state agencies were not the source of the material published on his website.

In an interview with Fox News this week, Assange said he did not receive emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton aide John Podesta from “a state party.” Assange did not rule out the possibility that he got the material from a third party.

Details of the report emerged as the top U.S. intelligence official, James Clapper, said on Thursday he was “even more resolute” in his belief that Russia staged cyber attacks on Democrats during the 2016 election campaign.

Not all 17 intelligence agencies participated in preparing the assessment. An unclassified version of the report is expected to be released on Friday morning, two officials said.

The report contains some of what the officials called “minor footnotes” about open questions and other uncertainties, in part because some of the evidence supporting the conclusion is inferential.

One such example, the officials said, was that intercepted messages and conversations among senior Russian officials in Putin’s inner circle indicated they were aware of the hacking campaign and celebrated Trump’s election as a victorious end to the campaign.

The officials declined to discuss the nature of the communications, including whether they were domestic, international, or both.

“People who knew what this was about were celebrating a victory over the United States,” said one official.

Another example of inferential evidence, the officials said, was that as time passed and the early leaks attracted media attention that undermined or eclipsed Clinton’s campaign, the Russians increasingly focused their hacking “almost exclusively” on Democratic rather than Republican targets.

There was also strong resemblance — including the use of the same computer malware — the Russians have used against targets in Europe and the marriage of traditional espionage tactics used by Soviet and Russian intelligence such as bribery, blackmail and internet vulnerabilities, which they said Putin has devoted increasing resources and attention to exploiting.

For example, one official said, the Democratic databases and email servers the Russians hacked also contained personal information that WikiLeaks has not published.

Such information could be used to search for financial, medical, browsing history and other records that can be used to target individuals for recruiting efforts by Russian spies.

Research says there are ways to reduce racial bias. Calling people racist isn’t one of them.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study

In 2016, researchers stumbled on a radical tactic for reducing another person’s bigotry: a frank, brief conversation.

The study, authored by David Broockman at Stanford University and Joshua Kalla at the University of California Berkeley, looked at how simple conversations can help combat anti-transgender attitudes. In the research, people canvassed the homes of more than 500 voters in South Florida. The canvassers, who could be trans or not, asked the voters to simply put themselves in the shoes of trans people — to understand their problems — through a 10-minute, nonconfrontational conversation. The hope was that the brief discussion could lead people to reevaluate their biases.

It worked. The trial found not only that voters’ anti-trans attitudes declined but that they remained lower three months later, showing an enduring result. And those voters’ support for laws that protect trans people from discrimination increased, even when they were presented with counterarguments for such laws.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this research since Election Day. After Donald Trump’s victory last week, it is clear that the prejudiced views of a lot of Americans helped elect to the White House a man who’s repeatedly made racist, offensive statements. Not only did Trump build his campaign largely on fears of immigrants and Muslims, but based on a lot of polls and surveys, he also attracted the voters who reported, by far, the highest levels of racial resentment and other prejudiced views.

THE PROCESS OF REDUCING PEOPLE’S RACISM WILL TAKE TIME AND, CRUCIALLY, EMPATHY
One telling study, conducted by researchers at UC Santa Barbara and Stanford shortly before the election, found that if people who strongly identified as white were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in 2042, they became more likely to support Trump. That suggests there’s a significant racial element to support for Trump.

But just noting these racial attitudes and biases did not seem to have a huge impact on the election. Despite bigoted policy proposals that at one point even called for banning an entire religious group from the US, and the media’s constant reminders that Trump is racist, Trump won. Clearly, a lot of US voters either shared Trump’s prejudiced views or, at the very least, didn’t find such ideas to be fundamental deal breakers. That suggests there’s a lot of racism — or at least the enabling of it — in America, perhaps even more than one would think in 2016.

So how can we reduce this type of prejudice? The canvassing study provides a model for anti-trans attitudes, but can it be applied to other kinds of bigotry, such as racism, that might be more entrenched in the US? And even if we do embrace the canvassing model or something similar, how can we ensure that the conversations don’t lead to a backlash — the kind of defensive posturing and denial of racism that might lead even more people to support candidates like Trump?

In talking with researchers and looking at the studies on this, I found that it is possible to reduce people’s racial anxiety and prejudices. And the canvassing idea was regarded as very promising. But, researchers cautioned, the process of reducing people’s racism will take time and, crucially, empathy.

This is the direct opposite of the kind of culture the internet has fostered — typically focused on calling out racists and shaming them in public. This doesn’t work. And as much as it might seem like a lost cause to understand the perspectives of people who may qualify as racist, understanding where they come from is a needed step to being able to speak to them in a way that will help reduce the racial biases they hold.

The coded language that many white Americans hear

So how do we have a better conversation around these issues, one that can actually reduce people’s racial prejudices and anxieties?

The first thing to understand is how white Americans, especially in rural areas, hear accusations of racism. While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.

Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.

Maybe he does have some level of white privilege. But that doesn’t take away from the serious problems he sees in his world today.

This is how many white Americans, particularly in working-class and rural areas, view the world today. So when they hear politicians and journalists call them racist or remind them about their privilege, they feel like elites are trying to distract from the serious problems in their lives and grant advantages to other groups of people. When Hillary Clinton called half of Trump voters “deplorable,” she made this message explicit.

“TELLING PEOPLE THEY’RE RACIST, SEXIST, AND XENOPHOBIC IS GOING TO GET YOU EXACTLY NOWHERE”
“Telling people they’re racist, sexist, and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere,” said Alana Conner, executive director of Stanford University’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions Center. “It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”

Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist and author of Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, provided an apt analogy for white rural Americans’ feeling of neglect: As they see it, they are all in this line toward a hill with prosperity at the top. But over the past few years, globalization and income stagnation have caused the line to stop moving. And from their perspective, people — black and brown Americans, women — are now cutting in the line, because they’re getting new (and more equal) opportunities through new anti-discrimination laws and policies like affirmative action.

As a result, Hochschild told me that rural white Americans “feel like a minority group. They feel like a disappearing group. Both minority and invisible.”

One can pick the facts here — particularly since black and Latino Americans still trail white Americans in terms of wealth, income, and educational attainment. But this is how many white Americans feel, regardless of the facts.

So when they hear accusations of racism, they feel like what they see as the “real” issues — those that afflict them — are getting neglected. This, obviously, makes it difficult to raise issues of race at all with big segments of the population, because they’re often suspicious of the motives.

What’s more, accusations of racism can cause white Americans to become incredibly defensive — to the point that they might reinforce white supremacy. Robin DiAngelo, who studies race at Westfield State University, described this phenomenon as “white fragility” in a groundbreaking 2011 paper:

White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.
Most Americans, white people included, want to think that they’re not capable of racism — particularly after the civil rights movement, overt racism is widely viewed as unacceptable in American society. Yet racism, obviously, still exists. And when some white people are confronted with that reality, whether it’s accusations of racism against them personally or more broadly, they immediately become very defensive — even hostile.

“Most of us live in racial segregation,” DiAngelo told me. “Our teachers are white. Our role models are white. Our heroes and heroines are white. That insulation is very rarely challenged.” She added, “So when that reality is questioned, we don’t tend to handle it very well.”

DiAngelo’s paper explained that white Americans have a range of “triggers” that make them defensive about race, from suggestions that a person’s viewpoint is racialized to the rise of people of color into prominent leadership positions. All the triggers that she listed were present in 2016 — through President Barack Obama’s elections and Black Lives Matter protests against the dominance of white privilege.

Consider how often throughout the 2016 election people would respond to even the slightest suggestion of racism, whether in media or everyday life, with immediate vitriol, disdain, or dismissal. This, DiAngelo argued, is a defense mechanism to confronting questions about privilege. And it makes it difficult to have a reasonable conversation about race.

DiAngelo offered a telling example, from an anti-racism training session she facilitated:

One of the white participants left the session and went back to her desk, upset at receiving (what appeared to the training team as) sensitive and diplomatic feedback on how some of her statements had impacted several people of color in the room. At break, several other white participants approached us (the trainers) and reported that they had talked to the woman at her desk, and she was very upset that her statements had been challenged. They wanted to alert us to the fact that she literally “might be having a heart-attack.” Upon questioning from us, they clarified that they meant this literally. These co-workers were sincere in their fear that the young woman might actually physically die as a result of the feedback. Of course, when news of the woman’s potentially fatal condition reached the rest of the participant group, all attention was immediately focused back onto her and away from the impact she had had on the people of color.
This illustrates just how defensive people can get in the face of accusations of racism: Not only did the woman who faced the criticisms genuinely feel like she was having a heart attack, but the white people around her believed it was totally possible she was. This is the reality of trying to have a conversation about race in America.

We need to develop a way to have this conversation that doesn’t make some people feel condemned

The innate resistance and defensiveness to conversations about bigotry don’t mean that you should never talk about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other kinds of hate. But those conversations may have to be held more tactfully — positioning people into a more receptive position to hear what these problems are all about.

One key issue is that people want to feel heard before they can open their minds to other people’s points of view. “Democrats in particular need to go out of their way to reassure these groups that they are being respected, that they are being listened to,” Conner said.

That was crucial in Broockman and Kalla’s transgender canvassing study. In a traditional canvassing session, the canvasser does most of the talking — throwing out all sorts of statistics and reasons the person on the other side of the door should take a specific side on a certain issue. But in the transgender canvassing study, the person getting canvassed often did as much or even more of the talking.

As one example, consider an actual conversation from the study, as reported by Brian Resnick for Vox:

In the beginning of their conversation, Virginia asks Gustavo how likely he’d be to support transgender rights legislation. Gustavo says he wouldn’t support it because he’s worried about predatory men using the law as an opportunity to enter women’s bathrooms.

Virginia asks why he feels that way.

“I’m from South America, and in South America we don’t like fags,” he tells her.

This next moment is crucial: Virginia doesn’t jump on Gustavo for the slur, and instead says, “I’m gay,” in a friendly manner. Gustavo doesn’t recoil. Actually, he becomes more interested.

Gustavo and Virginia go on to discuss how much they love their partners, and how that love helps them overcome adversity. Gustavo tells Virginia that his wife is a disabled person. “God gave me the ability to love a disabled person,” he says, and that taking care of one another is why love matters.

“That resonate a lots with me,” Virginia responds. “For me, these laws, and including transgender people are about that. They’re about how we treat one another.”

Now that Gustavo is in a place where he’s more open, Virginia asks him to imagine what the worst thing could happen if he used a bathroom with a transgender person. He admits he wouldn’t be scared. Then comes the breakthrough.

“Listen, probably I was mistaken,” he says of his original position on trans rights.

Virginia asks him again if he’d vote in favor of banning transgender discrimination. “In favor,” he says.

Hochschild shared similar stories in her book. In one example, a woman tells Hochschild about her love for conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh because he stood up to people — feminists, environmentalists, and other liberals — that she felt belittled her and her lifestyle. As the woman explained, “Oh, liberals think that Bible-believing Southerners are ignorant, backward, rednecks, losers. They think we’re racist, sexist, homophobic, and maybe fat.” She felt that these accusations overlooked many of the problems that rural white Americans faced — growing up poor, struggling to get a better education, and so on.

Because Hochschild, who’s liberal, didn’t immediately dismiss the woman’s comments and insult her, the two managed to have a frank conversation to reach a better understanding of each other. And the two continued talking as Hochschild wrote her book. From one simple exchange of empathy, it was possible to have more frank conversations.

“You can turn your political alarm system off without jeopardizing who you are and what you believe,” Hochschild told me. “And you can learn something about the person at the other end of the conversation that’s going to be of profound importance.”

These stories, from the canvassing study and Hochschild’s research, demonstrate a key point: People don’t want to be immediately dismissed because they might have a view that you consider wrong or even vile; they want to feel heard. And once that happens, it’s a lot easier for them to make mental space to understand other people’s problems.

Of course, there is a balance to strike here. Insofar as absolutely any mention of racism triggers a backlash among some people, that may just be an unavoidable consequence of a long-neglected but necessary conversation. After all, we can’t just ignore the real racial disparities in policing, the criminal justice system, health, wealth, housing, and nearly every other aspect of American life until everyone is ready to talk about these issues openly. We could be waiting forever if we did that.

Thankfully, researchers have come up with several ideas that strike the right balance.

One approach is to pursue certain policies in a race-neutral manner. For example, equipping police with body cameras has become a prominent idea in response to the police shootings of black men over the past few years. But the inherent idea behind body cameras doesn’t have to be racial — it can just be about generally holding police accountable, no matter whom they’re interacting with. And indeed, polls have found that support for body cameras on police officers in general hovers above 90 percent.

But this approach has its limits. Some issues have an explicit racial element to them, so the conversation about these problems has to bring in racism at some point. In the face of resistance, then, actually reducing people’s racial anxieties — rather than glossing over them — is necessary.

This will require conversations. Maybe it will be through canvassing by activists, much like the transgender study. Maybe churches and schools can take on public education campaigns. Maybe these and other civic institutions can facilitate public forums in which people can openly discuss these problems.

But how, exactly, should those conversations and campaigns take form — in a way that can meaningfully reduce or eliminate racial prejudice?

“We can’t pretend we’re post-racial, because that’s absurd,” said Rachel Godsil, director and co-founder of the Research at Perception Institute. “But we need to work past the idea that our divisions will prevent us from coming together, from solving problems collectively.”

In The Science of Equality, Godsil and her co-authors proposed several tactics that seem, based on the research, promising: presenting people with examples that break stereotypes, asking them to think about people of color as individuals rather than as a group, tasking them with taking on first-person perspectives of people of color, and increasing contact between people of different races. All of these interventions appear to reduce subconscious racial biases, while interracial contact appears most promising for reducing racial anxiety more broadly.

Of course, interracial contact can be hard to achieve in communities that are racially homogeneous — in other words, a lot of rural white communities. But the researchers note that even indirect contact — for example, knowing that one of your white neighbors is friends with a person of color — can reduce prejudice, suggesting there are ways to reduce racial anxiety without direct contact.

Godsil and her team also put forward tactics that can help people limit actions based on racial biases, such as getting people to slow down in their decision-making and teaching them about how subconscious processes can influence their impulses — even on issues unrelated to race — in order to push them to question their own objectivity. The research suggests these ideas have potential, but they generally seem to require that people are genuinely willing to reduce their biased behavior and actions.

More broadly, people need to be shown that people of different races can live and thrive in diverse communities. Trump supporters are clearly worried, as the study I noted earlier found, that white Americans are losing status in the country. But there are plenty of examples — in big, diverse cities like New York City, for example — that show they don’t have to look at race relations in a zero-sum manner in which white people lose and everyone else wins. The empirical research, after all, shows that more immigration can ultimately lift up the entire country’s economy, benefiting everyone.

“There’s an unfortunate lack of understanding that interactions across groups can be positive and enrich rather than divide,” Godsil said. “That’s what people who do live in pretty homogeneous parts of the country just don’t know. They’ve never experienced it.”

So how do you get people to see that diversity isn’t a threat to them? Godsil pointed to the transgender canvassing study as one example. Perhaps nonconfrontational conversations with people of color in which both parties share their lived experiences could go a long way to demonstrating that different racial groups don’t have to be at odds. And white Americans could engage in these types of dialogues with other white people to help open their minds to another perspective.

But there’s other ways too, from creating local spaces in which people can talk about race issues and air out their fears to more formal public education campaigns.

The key to these conversations, though, is empathy. And it will take a lot of empathy — not just for one conversation but many, many conversations in several settings over possibly many years. It won’t be easy, but if we want to address some people’s deeply entrenched racial attitudes, it may be the only way.

The Search: Demoff Talks Head Coach Interview Process

By Myles Simmons

http://www.therams.com/news-and-events/article-1/The-Search-Demoff-Talks-Head-Coach-Interview-Process/367692b9-28e8-40d6-b082-370398472438

The Rams have begun the search for their next head coach, with the club reportedly interviewing Panthers assistant head coach/defensive backs coach Steve Wilks for the position on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, Rams C.O.O./E.V.P. of Football Operations Kevin Demoff sat down with Rams insider Myles Simmons and Voice of the Rams J.B. Long to discuss the interview process and all that it entails to find a new head coach.

Here are some of the highlights from the interview.

Q: How do you feel about where the Rams job stacks up against other teams?

A (Demoff): “I think the job is very attractive. But I think it’s going to take the right fit. There are also going to be people who, there are some coaches who may say, ‘I want to coach in Los Angeles.’ There are some coaches who may say, ‘I prefer to be in a smaller market.’ I think all of those factors come in. It’s individualized for us, and it’s individualized for each of the coaching candidates — how they prioritize the way the world works. You may have a coach from a certain area of the country who wants to get back there. I would love, at this point, if all of the coaching candidates were from Southern California and wanted to get back here. But that’s not the case.

But I think as the jobs stack up, I’m sure there are positives and I’m sure there are negatives. Quite frankly, if you have an opening, there are negatives. That is why you have an opening. The key is, what are the positives to your job? How do people view it? And I think when you look at us, the first thing people look at is ownership. Stan’s commitment to Los Angeles, the project that we’re doing at Hollywood Park, the fact that he’s been a patient owner in all sports. When you look at not only the Rams — I think people point to that — but you look at Arsenal and the run that Arsène Wenger’s had, and you look at the Nuggets and the run that George Karl [had] — you have a history of veteran coaches who have had a long time and the people have done that.”

Q: Many of the NFL assistants the Rams are reportedly interested in played the Rams in the 2016 season. Is part of why you’re casting such a wide net to get honest, candid feedback about where the roster is?

A: “Well I think there are two reasons you do it. The first is, you want to know what everybody thinks about our football team. This is your best chance to learn about your football team, your organization that you’re going to get — ever. These people are walking in and telling you, hey, I’ve played against you, I’ve studied your team. This is what I think your strengths are, this is what I think your weaknesses are. You’d be a fool not to try to get as much of that opinion as possible — to try to get away. … Al Davis used to have coaching searches that went on for three, four weeks because he wanted to talk to everybody about every player on his team. And some of it was just informational, and some of it was, you were a real candidate.

“I think for us, the way it’s a different era now — you can’t just do informational interviews. You have to identify who you want, talk to them, and have them be real candidates. But it is helpful, as you’ve mentioned, that nine of the 11 guys that we’ve been linked with have played us because they have experience. And when you talk to guys, maybe it’s a team who blew us out. Maybe it’s a team we played twice and split with. Maybe it’s a team that came down to the very end and we made a mistake, and they say, ‘Hey, that’s your fatal flaw.’ You learn a lot about your football team. And it’s easy to walk in and say, hey, Aaron Donald, Johnny Hekker are really good players. But what you find out is… maybe you’re the 32nd-ranked offense. We liked some of your talent, but maybe your scheme wasn’t there. Or maybe your scheme was there, but your talent wasn’t there. Those are the questions that we’re trying to get to the heart of and people do give you great information there. And then you can go build that back and filter.”

Q: What are some of the traits that you prioritize, or would like to see in the next head coach?

A: “We talked about this at the press conference — it’s leadership. It’s getting the most out of the 53 guys, the 10 practice squad players, the training staff, the equipment staff, working hand-in-hand with personnel. It’s leading the organization. And the one thing, I think you look at the past few years — Jack Del Rio going to the Radiers probably wasn’t the most talked about hire of that cycle. Jack Del Rio’s done a really good job developing Derek Carr and that franchise to where they’ve gone. It’s a defensive coach taking a good, young offensive player and making him better. Dirk Koetter getting promoted in Tampa and the improvement Tampa made. When you look at Tennessee, Mike Mularkey and the improvement they made. I think if you look at John Harbaugh coming out of nowhere and how that hire’s done — there’s so many different ways to get this right, and the formula that works that people look at. But I think the common trait that you find in all of them is leadership. There isn’t the offensive side of the ball, the defensive side of the ball, special teams coach, a college coach — there is no silver bullet in head coaching. You can study all the numbers and the analytics — if everybody knew the one formula to get, you would go do it.”

link:http://theramshuddle.com/topic/demoff-this-is-not-a-rebuild/

The Rams have reportedly requested interviews with at least 10 coaches, a list that includes

Kyle Shanahan (Atlanta Falcons offensive coordinator)
Josh McDaniels (New England Patriots offensive coordinator)
Sean McVay (Washington Redskins offensive coordinator)
Harold Goodwin (Arizona Cardinals offensive coordinator)
Matt Patricia (Patriots defensive coordinator)
Teryl Austin (Lions defensive coordinator)
Vance Joseph (Dolphins defensive coordinator)
Steve Wilks (Carolina Panthers assistant coach)
Anthony Lynn (Buffalo Bills interim coach)
Doug Marrone (Jacksonville Jaguars interim coach).

Wilks, who has spent a long time with Ron Rivera, interviewed on Tuesday.

InvaderRam wrote:

o the dline is supposed to be the strength of this team and we’re hoping to draft 2 defensive ends.

Well IMO the DL won’t be the strength of the team UNLESS they draft 2 ends.

Quinn has been hurt for 2 consecutive seasons now, and Hayes is up there and not that productive. They need a rotation at both DE spots.

OR teams just double/triple Donald and there’s no defense.

I think they can get things out of this offense without pouring in a ton of resources.

But they won’t win if they let the defense slide while trying to get a top offense. That would just be gray area hell.

..

alyoshamucci

DE) Maybe the best DE draft ever. Great top end, great second tier. …there will be second round talent in round 4 and maybe 5

and so many DBs.

CB) Good top end, not elite

—

off the net from alyoshamucci

what I’m seeing:

Quality starter at 37.

DE, CB, WR … there should be a few. The DBs in this draft are high end and deep … but I’d much rather go DE or WR which are also high end and deep

InvaderRam wrote:

at the very least they need to find a new left tackle and a new center.

And even that may not be the case.

.

Dak wrote:

bnw wrote:

SPLC is a hate group that focuses on other groups hatred but not their own. The veracity of their reports defines Fake News since so many high profile instances are later proven to be BS. The report is a sad pitch for money but the previously gullible have awakened to the reality that the MSM and the SPLC have been lying to them for many years and the donations are drying up from mom and pop. But relax, Soros will still pick up the slack.

Provide some proof of your claims that the SPLC is a hate group. That sounds like something a good old-fashioned Aryan racist would say because the SPLC is the only organization willing to take on bigots these days. The federal government stopped after 911.

Yeah there’s not going to be any valid dismissals of the SPLC…there will be some partisan shot taking mostly based on repeating right-wing bot sites, but nothing real or valid. (Right wing bot sites are very quick to try and manage this kind of thing for their partisan readers.)

And btw 900 incidents is just scratching the surface.

Rather than condemn that kind of racist and disturbed action, which they OUGHT to do, partisan types will try to smear the messenger.

As I said there were incidents right in my town.

Here are all the candidates Rams plan to interview for head coach job

Bryan Kalbrosky

Here are all the candidates Rams plan to interview for head coach job

The Los Angeles Rams have many names on their watch list to fill their head coaching vacancy. We will update this post as we learn more.

Could Mike Shanahan become Rams GM with Kyle Shanahan as head coach?
Kyle Shanahan (Offensive Coordinator, Atlanta)
The Falcons offensive coordinator appears to be the early favorite for the job. He has done a tremendous job with the Atlanta offense and Matt Ryan.

Between Friday and Saturday, #Falcons OC Kyle Shanahan will do HC interviews with #Rams, #Jaguars, #Broncos & #49ers, sources say.

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) January 2, 2017

He will interview between January 6 and January 7.

[​IMG]
Rams will request interview with Falcons’ Kyle Shanahan for coach
Sean McVay (Offensive Coordinator, Washington)
For a coach who’s only 30, McVay has already accomplished quite a bit during his career. His work with Kirk Cousins is especially impressive.

He will reportedly interview for the job on January 5.

[​IMG]
Washington offensive coordinator Sean McVay is a sleeper for Rams job
Josh McDaniels or Matt Patricia (Patriots Coordinators)
The two Patriots coaches are both fantastic options if they’re willing to leave New England for next season.

#Patriots OC Josh McDaniels will get plenty of requests. My understanding is he’ll do 3 interviews late this week: #Rams, #Jaguars, #49ers.

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) January 2, 2017

McDaniels will reportedly interview for the Rams job later this week.

[​IMG]
Rams plan to interview Patriots OC Josh McDaniels and DC Matt Patricia
Harold Goodwin (Arizona Offensive Coordinator)
The Arizona offensive coordinator destroyed Los Angeles during the final game of the season. He was a former offensive line coach, which is perhaps the biggest need for the Rams.

Rams, Jags and Bills all expected to interview Cardinals offensive coordinator Harold Goodwin for their head coaching job, per sources.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) January 1, 2017

Anthony Lynn (Buffalo Offensive Coordinator)
The Buffalo interim coach will likely stay with the Bills, but if he doesn’t, the Rams would love to have him as their head coach.

[​IMG]
Rams among teams interested in Bills interim coach Anthony Lynn
Steve Wilks (Carolina defensive back coach)
Wilks is an assistant coach for the Carolina Panthers who also coaches the defensive backs. He doesn’t exactly seem to fit the needs of the organization.

The #Rams will interview secondary coach and assistant head coach Steve Wilks for their HC job, source said. He has filled in for Rivera

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) January 2, 2017

Vance Joseph (Miami defensive coordinator)
The Miami Dolphins defensive coordinator is considered a favorite for the Chargers job.

The #Rams and #Bills are requesting permission to speak with #Dolphins DC Vance Joseph, sources say. #Chargers, too.

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) January 2, 2017