I Don't Even F#@king Know

This is a real thing in the world:

Trump just said "my father is German, was German. Born in a very wonderful place in Germany." Fred Trump was born in New York. pic.twitter.com/U6eWYPzjrJ

— Tommy MMXIXtopher (@tommyxtopher) April 2, 2019

Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House: "...I mean, Germany honestly is not paying their fair share. I have great respect for Angela, and I have great respect for the country. My father is German, right? Was German. And, uh, born in a, a very wonderful place in Germany. So I have a great feeling for Germany."

As Tommy Christopher notes in his tweet, Fred Trump, Donald Trump's father, was born in New York City in 1905.

This is apparently the third time that Trump has told this inexplicable lie.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Entire Trump Family Is a Scourge

This is a real thing in the world:

The wastrel son of an abusive chauvinist whose entire family history is one of undeserved influence captured by nepotism being given a byline to lecture a female prime minister that she should have listened to his daddy is peak 2019.

And Theresa May should have done a lot of things, but taking Donald Trump's advice isn't one of them.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Is a Real Thing in the World

This is just a real thing that a real person wrote and other real people edited and then decided to really publish in a real publication in the world: Biden Should Run on a Unity Ticket with Romney.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.

The author of this heap of trash is Juleanna Glover, whose author bio at the end of the piece informs us that she "has worked as an adviser for several Republican politicians, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani and advised the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Jeb Bush. She is on the Biden Institute Policy Advisory Board."

Cool cool cool.

Setting aside that the Biden Institute has on its advisory board a Republican operative who has presumably also found gainful employment between election cycles as a fox guarding hen houses, I suppose we can assume that her affiliation with the Biden Institute means this is a trial balloon.

If this is an indication of the sorts of ideas we can expect from Joe Biden should he run yet again, HARD FUCKING PASS.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Is a Real Thing in the World

OMFG. "A commemorative coin featuring Trump & North Korea's Kim Jong Un has been struck by the White House Communications Agency ahead of their planned summit next month. ...A number of the coins are available for sale through the White House Gift Office." https://t.co/FGAfshcybK pic.twitter.com/QQFlcOATiN

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 22, 2018

Not since the glorious Ronpaulbuxxx of yore have I seen such a magnificent specimen!

(This is why bitcoin will ALWAYS be inferior. Can bitcoin offer me a commemorative cryptocoin of this historic meeting? I DIDN'T THINK SO.)

Obviously, everything about this is perfect: How beautiful it is, how perfect the likeness of the two stunning leaders, how classically authoritarian it is, what a superb money-making opportunity it is for a totally uncorrupt White House and an ethical AF president who definitely isn't exploiting the office for his own personal wealth or glory, how classy it is (although I admit it could use a little more gold).

But this is definitely my favorite part:

I love that the White House is hawking commemorative coins for a peace summit the vice-president is out here saying the president might bail on. https://t.co/8TUCPEbvya

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 22, 2018

Although Pence warning Kim not to "play" Trump (epic eyeroll) is catching the headline, this is probably the bigger news: "He also said there was 'no question' that Mr Trump could walk away from the 12 June summit." https://t.co/q43v0AX6i9

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 22, 2018

Methinks I spy a silver fox who's angling to get a coin of his own! Don't worry, Pence — all the great authoritarians get them, so it's only a matter of time.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This is a real thing in the world.

[Content Note: Guns.]

Look, I didn't want to have to tell you that this thing exists, but, unfortunately, Fannie alerted me to the fact that it exists, so now you're just going to have to deal with the fact that I can't keep living a normal life without talking about its existence until my brain doesn't feel like exploding anymore.

It's like truck nuts, but for your assault rifle. COOL.

If there is an inanimate thing that could be said to be the exact opposite of me, this is it.

Opposite, antithesis, nemesis.

I have a pretty clear picture of the sort of person who would purchase this item, and it's exactly as unfair as you'd expect.

The truth is, there's nothing I can say with absolute certainty about anyone who would purchase a set of gunballs except this: I don't want to be in the same room with them. Ever.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

OMG Trump Is So Ignorant

Earlier today, Donald Trump suggested yet another solution to gun violence that isn't reduced access to guns: Putting a rating system on violent movies.

No, I am not making that up.

Here's the video of Trump talking about video games and movie rating systems pic.twitter.com/OlsbLVO0yI

— Gideon Resnick (@GideonResnick) February 22, 2018

We have to look at the internet, because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds, and their minds are being formed, and we have to do something about maybe what they're seeing and how they're seeing it, and also video games. I'm hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people's thoughts.

And then you go the further step and that's the movies. You see these movies, they're so violent, and yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn't involved, but killing is involved, and maybe they have to put a rating system for that.

And you get into a whole very complicated, very big deal, but the fact is that you are having movies come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else that maybe that's another thing we're going to have to discuss.

Either the President of the United States doesn't know that movies already have ratings, or doesn't know that those ratings already come with content indicators, but, either way, Jesus fucking Jones this guy.

And he's "hearing more and more people" talk about violence in video games, huh? Someone should tell him about how rock music is introducing children to Satan.

[Video via Gideon Resnick.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

WTF Is This?

[Content Note: Misogyny; white supremacy.]

Actual Headline: "In defense of the white male."

Actual Paragraph from This Actual Article Actually Published by the Boston Globe in the Year of Our Lord Jesus Jones Two Thousand and Seventeen:

It's not hard to argue that white men have done more harm in history — from the keeping of slaves to the genocide of Native Americans, and a thousand other examples — than any other single group. But it can also be argued that they have done more good — in combatting evil regimes, in developing medicines, in inventing everything from the automobile to the cellphone to various methods of birth control. White men discovered penicillin, Novocain, the drug regimen used to treat people afflicted with AIDS. In many places the chances are good that if your home is on fire, it will be a white man who comes to put it out. And, if it were not for the millions of white men who gave their lives in World War II, we might all be starting the work day with the Nazi salute.

Someone remind me: Were any of the Nazis white men?

LOL wow. Zero acknowledgment of history of WM keeping women/non-whites out of the sciences, fire brigade, military. https://t.co/kJt1J4QtDs pic.twitter.com/M6ojQslh0A

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) July 5, 2017

Yes, white men have accomplished quite a lot on the uneven playing field they created to favor them! Thank you, white men!

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) July 5, 2017

I mean, honestly. What is the Boston Globe even doing publishing a piece titled "In Defense of the White Male" esp. at this moment in time?

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) July 5, 2017

"In defense of the white male." One hundred and sixty-seven days into the presidency of a white man, the successor of a Black president and defeater of a female rival, who endeavors in every way to roll back equality for people who are not straight, white, cisgender, able-bodied, Christian, wealthy white men.

Fuck off.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Is a Real Thing That Happened at Today's White House Press Briefing

As you may recall, over the weekend, Donald Trump took to Twitter to accuse President Obama of having broken the law by ordering Trump Tower wiretapped during the election.

His exact words were: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

Since then, Trump has provided no evidence to back up his accusation, and his various spokespeople and surrogates have claimed, incredibly, that Trump was just seeking an investigation into the possibility, despite the fact we can all read his words and see he was levying a serious charge.

At today's White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about this untenable bullshit, and his response was expectedly ludicrous.

Surreal exchange here re: Trump's claim Obama wiretapped him: pic.twitter.com/w3aiIa7nOk

— Tom Namako (@TomNamako) March 7, 2017

REPORTER (a young Black woman, whose name I don't know offhand): Two quick questions. So, just to follow up on the follow-up: So does the White House feel that it's appropriate— You say that you want it to be adjudicated by the Congressional committees, but the president made declarative statements on Twitter, so I guess— Is the White House position that the president can make declarative statements about a former president basically committing a crime, and then the Congressional committees should look into that and basically prove it? I mean—

[crosstalk]

SPICER: I take issue with— It's not a question of "prove it." I— As I said now five times to the follow-up to the follow-up, that it's not a question of "prove it." It's that they have the resources and the clearances and the staff to fully and thoroughly and comprehensively investigate this, and then issue a report as to, as to what their findings are.

REPORTER: So, but, but President Trump's Twitter statement shouldn't be taken at face value about what—

SPICER: Sure it should. Of course it— I mean, why—? No. I, I— There's nothing, as I mentioned to Jim, it's not that he's walking anything back or regretting— He's just saying that they have the appropriate venue and capabilities to review this.

So, just to be abundantly clear: The White House position is that Donald Trump has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants to say on his Twitter account, including levying utterly unsubstantiable charges against a former president, and then it's up to Congress to investigate it on the taxpayer dime and write a report determining the veracity (or lack thereof) of whatever random dogshit Trump said.

Sure. Apart from everything else that's wrong with that, that is a position that allows for an incredible abuse of power. JFC.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Is a Real Thing in the the World

Authoritarianism watch, part 87,942 in an endless series: "Trump names his Inauguration Day a 'National Day of Patriotic Devotion'."

No, really.

President Trump has officially declared the day of his inauguration a national day of patriotism.

...On Monday, the paperwork was filed with the federal government declaring officially that Jan. 20, 2017 — the day of Trump's inauguration — would officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion."

"Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Jan. 20, 2017, as National Day of Patriotic Devotion, in order to strengthen our bonds to each other and to our country — and to renew the duties of government to the people," the order says [pdf].

"Our Constitution is written on parchment, but it lives in the hearts of the American people," the order continues. "There is no freedom where the people do not believe in it; no law where the people do not follow it; and no peace where the people do not pray for it."

The order opens with this declaration: "A new national pride stirs the American soul and inspires the American heart. We are one people, united by a common destiny and a shared purpose." This, despite the fact that Gallup announced yesterday that the Loser President has set a new low for inaugural approval ratings.

President Donald Trump is the first elected president in Gallup's polling history to receive an initial job approval rating below the majority level. He starts his term in office with 45% of Americans approving of the way he is handling his new job, 45% disapproving and 10% yet to form an opinion. Trump now holds the record for the lowest initial job approval rating as well as the highest initial disapproval rating in Gallup surveys dating back to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

He doesn't even have a 50% approval rating, and yet he's declaring a "new national pride" among "one people, united by a common destiny and a shared purpose."

We're not even united by a common reality.

Relatedly: Last night, the Loser President met with Congressional leaders and insisted, with zero evidence, "that he only lost the popular vote because between 3 million and 5 million people voted illegally."

This straight-up did not happen. It is a lie—and it is a lie with two very specific purposes. One: To justify tasking incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions with encroaching on voting rights under the auspices of "preventing fraud." Two: To salve the Loser President's ego, because he cannot bear that he legitimately lost the popular vote by a huge margin and has no mandate.

The Loser President is still stinging from losing popular vote. Bring it up every chance you get. #resist https://t.co/jMiGibddHN

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) January 24, 2017

He is not a legitimate president, for a multitude of reasons. But the one that bothers him the most is that, even given huge assists from Vladimir Putin, James Comey, and a corporate media that gave him billions of dollars of free advertising, he still lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly three million votes.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Content Note: Privilege.]

White guys are under siege and searching for themselves on television this fall. https://t.co/GFUtt0RNyO

— New York Times Arts (@nytimesarts) September 13, 2016

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE WHITE GUYS?!

Haha don't worry—this article is really about how television networks are definitely thinking about the white guys, after their long, horrible exile from the center of the universe:

For a while now, the energy in cable and streaming-TV comedy has been about diversity, inclusion and change: the female president of "Veep," the transgender matriarch in "Transparent," the melting pot of "Master of None." Comedy built around women has been especially vibrant, including "Broad City," "Lady Dynamite" and HBO's coming "Insecure," from Issa Rae of the "Awkward Black Girl" online series.

But on new fall sitcoms like CBS's "Man With a Plan," "The Great Indoors" and "Kevin Can Wait," the male leads are adjusting to new roles or reduced circumstances. Fox's "Son of Zorn" renders the idea of the throwback man as an actual cartoon.

I mean, everything about this article and the content it's covering is obviously terrific, cough, but I think my favorite part is listing Issa Rae's upcoming project which hasn't even begun to air yet as part of the unassailable evidence that television has "for a while now" been about something other than white dudes. Amazing.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Is Real

[Content Note: Incitement.]

From the BNR Team: "EXCLUSIVE: Big Media Mentioned Hillary's Emails EVERY DAY of 2016."

In fact, I can tell you, since I was involved in the research on this project, that the media has mentioned Hillary Clinton's emails every. single. day. for more than a year, back to August 1, 2015. And probably longer, though that's where we stopped.

Peter Daou writes: "It is an unfathomable reality: Donald Trump, who bashes the media with unrestrained aggression, gets a day or two of tepid coverage for profoundly reckless and dangerous statements. Meanwhile Hillary cannot spend a single day campaigning without having the public reminded about a situation for which she apologized and was found by the FBI to have committed no intentional wrongdoing."

Today marks exactly one week since Trump called for the "Second Amendment people" to find a solution for Clinton getting to nominate Supreme Court justices. And I found only three mentions of it in major media today:

1. At CNN: "Yitzhak Rabin's son: 'Words do kill'."

2. At USA Today: "Yuval Rabin: My father was killed at a moment like this."

3. At the Boston Globe: "Donald Trump lays out plan to fight ISIS."

That's it. One week after Trump tacitly incited the assassination of Clinton, there are three articles about it in major media, two of which are because Yuval Rabin is speaking out about it.

Meanwhile, we have had daily mentions of Clinton's email usage for more than a year.

Our media is broken. Profoundly broken.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I Mean.

Donald Trump and Mike Pence did a joint interview with 60 Minutes last night, and naturally they were sitting in twin gilded chairs, because what better way to make themselves relatable to the average person?

Worst episode of Game of Thrones ever. 0/10
I didn't watch the whole thing, but I've seen a few clips (this one is terrific!) and, basically, as long as you've seen this picture, you've gotten the gist.

A+ Republicans. As always.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This is a real thing in the world.

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

This is just a real thing that is currently running at the pile of garbage known as the New York Post:

1. Fuck this.

2. The headline: She is referred to as "Hillary," while he is referred to as "Obama."

3. The pictures: President Obama is pictured looking as what I can only refer to as "sleepy," or maybe "confused," while Hillary Clinton is pictured screaming, which is, of course, par for the course.

4. The source for this story is a man who authored a book titled Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary. He seems trustworthy.

5. Let's say there's even a shred of truth to the report that Clinton asked the President to fix the email investigation, or to close the leaks in his office, or whatever she's alleged to have done: Then that is something that is potentially newsworthy, in the sense that it is indicative of further resistance to transparency. But any conceivable value in terms of critiquing Clinton's position on transparency is instead buried behind an avalanche of misogynist horseshit.

6. As Aphra_Behn observed when we were discussing this via email (and I'm sharing this with her permission), it's interesting, ahem, that Clinton is routinely referred to as unlikable in the media, which is incredibly behaving as this book has even a modicum of credibility, while former President George Bush was constantly celebrated as the guy with whom we'd all love to have a beer, despite the fact that he nicknamed his best bud "Turd Blossom." See also: War crimes.

7. Fuck this.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

OMG LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Content Note: Misogyny; gender essentialism.]

This is just a real thing in the world: "Women Are Not Capable of Understanding Goodfellas."

Here is an actual thing that an actual adult human being named Kyle Smith wrote in this actual column:

[Goodfellas] takes place in a world guys dream about. Way down deep in the reptile brain, Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), Jimmy the Gent (Robert De Niro) and Tommy (Joe Pesci) are exactly what guys want to be: lazy but powerful, deadly but funny, tough, unsentimental and devoted above all to their brothers — a small group of guys who will always have your back. Women sense that they are irrelevant to this fantasy, and it bothers them.

OMG STOPPPPPPPPPPPP LOLOLOLOLOLOL. What are you even writing in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and fifteen, fool?

But the real reason women are not capable of understanding Goodfellas is because women just don't appreciate all the ball-busting. And there is SO MUCH BALL-BUSTING, according to Kyle Smith:

The wiseguys never have to work...which frees them up to spend the days and nights doing what guys love above all else: sitting around with the gang, busting each other's balls.

Ball-busting means cheerfully insulting one another, preferably in the presence of lots of drinks and cigars and card games.

...Women (except silent floozies) cannot be present for ball-busting because women are the sensitivity police...

...What [guys hanging out together would] much rather do than discuss problems and "be supportive" is to keep the laughs coming — to endlessly bust each other's balls.

At its core, "GoodFellas" is a story of ball-busting etiquette...

...Henry saves the day by returning the ball-busting: "Get the f - - k outta here."

...Billy Batts...breaks ball-busting etiquette in two ways. One, he's not really one of the guys (he belongs to another crime family), and two, in the guise of breaking Tommy's balls, he brings up something serious...

...Later, Morrie, the wig merchant, must also die for improper ball-busting.

Even Karen's (Lorraine Bracco) relationship with, and eventual marriage to, Henry is based on ball-busting.

...Karen doesn't realize it, but she has successfully broken Henry's balls.

"Hey, Kyle, can you please fit the words 'balls,' 'busting,' and 'ball-busting' into this piece at least 100 more times?"—No one.

Remember how just earlier today, I was saying that men tend to dismiss female critics by saying they don't understand something, instead of accepting that maybe those female critics simply came to a different conclusion?

Yeah.

Like what you like, bros. If I don't share your opinion, it doesn't mean that I don't understand it. (Would that I could navigate the world without proficient fluency in the dominant white hetero cis male culture!) Sometimes it just means I think it's crap.

As it happens, I actually enjoy the movie Goodfellas. I don't, however, view it as aspirational tale of peak humanity.

I understand why a lot of dudes do, though.

I stay away from those dudes. As much as possible. Which is a mutually beneficial policy. Women are irrelevant to this fantasy, after all.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This is a real thing in the world.

You know that dipshit Peter Schweizer who wrote Clinton Cash, the book that alleges the Clintons conspired with foreign governments to something something money something something foreign policy—allegations which, thus far, have not passed basic scrutiny?

Well, I knew he was a Republican operative who had published other flimsy conservative tomes, but I only just saw that this is the actual cover of one of his actual books which was actually published with this actual title:

Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less...and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals.

Yes, it's real.

It seems to me that Makers and Takers: Why Liberals Are Garbage People Who Belong in a Dumpster would have been more catchy, but what do I know?

I guess I'll have to wait for Schweizer's follow-up Why Liberals Are Totally Definitely Certainly Absolutely Without a Doubt Catastrophically Wrong About How Super Cool and Terrific and Amazing and Wonderful and Fantastic and Awesome Really, Really, Really Long Book Titles Are.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This is a real thing in the world.

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

Actual Headline: "Do Dems have a women problem?"

Actual Subhead: "Powerful figures like Clinton and Pelosi may be scaring off good male candidates."

Actual Paragraphs from this Actual Piece of Shit Actually Published by USA Today:

...Democrats do have a gender problem — but it's not in the electorate, but at the party leadership level where two women have assumed dominant positions and have scared off serious male challengers.

Take Hillary Clinton and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Both are towering and intimidating figures, who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they dominate.

...The one candidate who generates any enthusiasm at all as a challenger to Clinton, is another woman, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has repeatedly disavowed any interest in running.

...But that's a problem for Democrats. True, they have successfully promoted the candidacies of women, championed issues that appealed to women, and generally been rewarded with their support. But the very elevation of these extraordinary women has placed male Democrats in the position of being unwilling to challenge them.

...The advancement and championing of women has been a source of justifiable pride for Democrats since they put Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate in 1984. But their very success raises the question of whether it has saddled them with the burdens of political deference to women in leadership positions.

Wow.

I could spend the rest of my day deconstructing this heap of garbage, but instead I'll just say this: No, powerful women are not scaring off good male candidates—because any man scared by strong women isn't a good candidate.

[H/T to Tom Watson.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

News from the Conservative Legislation Lab

This is a real thing in the world:

[Republican Indiana] Gov. Mike Pence is starting a state-run taxpayer-funded news outlet that will make pre-written news stories available to Indiana media, as well as sometimes break news about his administration, according to documents obtained by The Indianapolis Star.

Pence is planning in late February to launch "Just IN," a website and news outlet that will feature stories and news releases written by state press secretaries and is being overseen by a former Indianapolis Star reporter, Bill McCleery.

"At times, Just IN will break news — publishing information ahead of any other news outlet. Strategies for determining how and when to give priority to such 'exclusive' coverage remain under discussion," according to a question-and-answer sheet distributed last week to communications directors for state agencies.

The Pence news outlet will take stories written by state communications directors and publish them on its website. Stories will "range from straightforward news to lighter features, including personality profiles."

The endeavor will come at some taxpayer cost, but precisely how much is unclear. The news service has two dedicated employees, whose combined salary is nearly $100,000, according to a search of state employee salary data.

Emphases mine. A state-run news outlet, also known as propaganda, which will be funded by taxpayers to the tune of at least $100k, in a state where 1 out of 6 people rely on food pantries and meal service programs, because they don't have enough to eat.

This is absurd. Though, of course, not unprecedented: A decade ago, he Bush administration was sending out pre-packaged news segments for local news to air without disclosing their origins. It's a fine Republican tradition.

Gross then; gross now.

Pence says he plans to "clarify" what Just IN will be. Can't wait.

[H/T to Jordan.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Seen

This weekend at a salvage yard in Baltimore, which I was browsing with Deeks:



Wow!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

What in Harvey Keitel Hell Is This?

[Content Note: Police misconduct; violence; privilege.]

Actual Headline: "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me."

Actual Subhead: "It's not the police, but the people they stop, who can prevent a detention from turning into a tragedy."

Actual Opening Paragraphs:

A teenager is fatally shot by a police officer; the police are accused of being bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers; riots erupt. This, we are led to believe, is the way of things in America.

It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed. And while they're unlikely to defend it quite as loudly during a time of national angst like this one, people who work in law enforcement know they are legally vested with the authority to detain suspects — an authority that must sometimes be enforced. Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.

Working the street, I can't even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.

Substitute "authority" to "boundaries," and that's a sentence that pretty much any marginalized person in the United States could say, too.

And, if you're from certain marginalized communities, you can count primary among the violators of your boundaries the police.

Actual Paragraph So Terrific the WaPo Made It an All-Caps Pull-Quote:

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don't argue with me, don't call me names, don't tell me that I can't stop you, don't say I'm a racist pig, don't threaten that you'll sue me and take away my badge. Don't scream at me that you pay my salary, and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

Consider that advice in the wake of a series of police shootings of black men in which the men were either holding their hands up, prostrate on the ground, or not even given enough time to comply.

Every single thing about this article is terrible—and highlights everything that's wrong with the current dominant police culture in the US.

Note that the author of the piece, Sunil Dutta, is "a professor of homeland security at Colorado Tech University" and "has been an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department for 17 years," where he has "worked as an internal affairs investigator."

Yeah. No wonder we've got a problem.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This is a real thing in the world.

[Content Note: Misogyny; rape culture; patriarchal tropes.]

This article (DoNotLink used) is a few days old, but I only just saw it this morning, care of Dan Solomon. Its actual, for real, not satirical headline is: "18 Things Females Seem to Not Understand (Because, Female Privilege)."

LOL FOREVER.

Right from the title, it's terrific. "Females," as if we are livestock, or wild animals being observed in our natural habits on a nature documentary.

And "female privilege," because sure. That definitely exists.

Which, of course, is not to say that no woman, anywhere, ever, has any privilege. Most of us have some situational and/or relative privilege. But that does not constitute something amounting to "female privilege."

Which is something that becomes pretty obvious when you read the author's list of 18 alleged examples of "female privilege" and find absolutely zero of them being evidence of anything but patriarchal tropes, misogyny, and a deflection of accountability for personal behavior.

I could spend the next ten years of my life writing a detailed rebuttal to every one of these 18 assertions, but, as it happens, I've spent the last ten years of my life writing this blog, which is pretty much a detailed rebuttal to every one of these 18 assertions. So I'll just quickly make three observations:

1. If you are a man who cannot approach a woman without being called "creepy" or engage in sexual activities without being accused of rape, the problem is you, not "female privilege." There are plenty of men who navigate relationships with women without getting called creepy or accused of rape. These men, however, respect women as their fully human equals; they don't write embarrassing pieces sneering about women "arrogantly believing that sexism only applies to women."

2. "Female privilege is not having to take your career seriously because you can depend on marrying someone who makes more money than you do." Congratulations. You are precisely as sophisticated in your thinking as Phyllis Schlafly, who is one of the most irrelevant, discredited, retrofuck commentators in modern culture.

3. As I've written many times before: It ain't women who are the primary gatekeepers of bullshit like King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond. It's other men. About the last place on earth you'll find active feminists is in the executive offices of mainstream studios. If you are a man who has a problem with how men are portrayed in pop culture, take it up with the men who shape it. This is but one example of the many places for which the pouting purveyors of "female privilege" fairytales should redirect their ire in the direction of the patriarchy.

Have at it in comments.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!