Today in Rampaging Authoritarianism

Donald Trump has "joked" (that is, projected precisely what he intends to do under the auspices of "humor" in order to accuse anyone who expresses alarm of being humorless and overreacting) on multiple occasions about staying in office longer than the two terms to which U.S. presidents are limited by law.

Yesterday, he did it once again.

Felicia Sonmez at the Washington Post reports:

[Donald] Trump on Sunday floated the possibility of staying in office longer than two terms, suggesting in a morning tweet that his supporters might "demand that I stay longer."

The president, who will kick off his reelection campaign on Tuesday with an event in Orlando, has previously joked about serving more than two terms, including at an event in April, when he told a crowd that he might remain in the Oval Office "at least for 10 or 14 years."

...Trump last month floated the notion of being given two bonus years as president to make up for the time former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III spent on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. The president shared a tweet in which Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. declared, "Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup."

Last year, Trump also joked about doing away with term limits in a speech to Republican donors at his Mar-a-Lago estate in which he praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for doing so.

"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said, according to CNN. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."

This latest "joke" about not leaving office also comes on the heels of Trump saying, "I don't leave."

As I wrote on Twitter: "Note that in every one of Trump's 'jokes' about staying in office beyond two terms is the implicit certitude that he will be reelected to a second term."

The thing is: "When not if" is a pretty standard linguistic approach by incumbents. But most of them aren't using that trick within the context of suggesting that they will ignore term limits, nor against the backdrop of having colluded with a foreign government to win in the first place.

Relatedly, there was a major story in the New York Times this weekend about the U.S. attacking Russia's power grid, and I'll set aside for now the entire fuckery of the Times publishing that information, because, as Ryan Goodman noted on Twitter, there's a "blockbuster story" buried within the piece:

Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants" — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid.

Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.

So, the intelligence community is running the country, or at least part of it, without even telling Donald Trump.

Over two years ago, I warned that Trump's war on the intelligence community was leading to what is effectively dueling coups between the Trump administration and the national security bureaucrats — and that, if Trump fights back, it's going to get extremely ugly.

We must understand that Trump's comments about staying in office are situated within the context of a bureaucratic apparatus that is undermining his presidency. His "jokes" about not leaving office may well be shots across the bow at the intelligence community's threat to the Republican consolidation of power behind Trump.

And that is the best case scenario. A worse possibility is that the intelligence community is happy to let Trump go on being a figurehead while they run the show, because they've decided they have no use for democracy, either.

In any case, our democracy is in critical peril. And many of the people who swore oaths to protect it are the ones now endeavoring, for their own various ends, to destroy it.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote of the Day

"I just ask you to go out and make sure all of your people vote. Because if they don't — it's Nov. 6 — if they don't vote we're going to have a miserable two years and we're going to have, frankly, a very hard period of time because then it just gets to be one election — you're one election away from losing everything you've got." — Donald Trump, speaking to a group of about 100 evangelical ministers in the White House State Dining Room last night.

Just to be clear: That's the president suggesting that if Democrats win back a Congressional majority and the presidency, they'll take away "everything" that conservatives have. The same president behind whom the Republican Party is consolidating power so that they can literally strip rights, liberties, autonomy, agency, dignity, and consent from marginalized people.

As I noted on Twitter: We know that Trump routinely speaks in obvious projection. Reading this through that lens is chilling. It should, however, hardly be surprising at this point.

NB: This is also Trump setting the stage for explaining unexpected wins in the midterms. He told evangelical leaders to get out the vote and they delivered! Pay no attention to the foreign interference behind the curtain.

I remain very concerned about the integrity of the midterm election.

[H/T to Eastsidekate.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Trump Suggests the Midterms Will Be Compromised

On the night of the 2016 election, when the horrendous result became clear, one of the friends who was at my house that night sighed heavily and said, "Well, we'll just have to win back the House and Senate in 2018." To which I replied, "If we still have free and fair elections in 2018."

Her face dropped; she had not even contemplated that possibility. "Do you think that's possible?!" she exclaimed. I told her it could be; that after a year and a half of covering Donald Trump, I believed him to be a dangerous authoritarian who would not cede power easily — and whose power grab would be abetted by Congressional Republicans.

What I didn't tell her is that I did not just think it was possible; I thought it was likely.

Now, it is a virtual certainty that we will not have free and fair midterm elections. There is no doubt, except that which has been manufactured by disloyal scoundrels, that Russia interfered in the 2016 election — and, having suffered no consequences for that act of war on our democracy, they will absolutely interfere again.

At the same time, the Republican Party has continued to fight against any effort to undercut their attempts at gerrymandering and voter suppression, has refused to ensure election accountability with paper receipts, and has ignored calls for serious audits of electronic voting machines to ensure that they have not been compromised.

This morning, Donald Trump's morning tweetshitz contained this doozy:

The 13 Angry Democrats (plus people who worked 8 years for Obama) working on the rigged Russia Witch Hunt, will be MEDDLING with the mid-term elections, especially now that Republicans (stay tough!) are taking the lead in Polls. There was no Collusion, except by the Democrats!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2018

It's widely acknowledged that Trump speaks in projection. We should all be very concerned that he's telegraphing what his party is inviting during the midterm elections: "MEDDLING." Which should be obvious enough, anyway, by his failure to address meddling in the last election. https://t.co/7WVtdqy9tA

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 29, 2018

Let me be perfectly clear: I am categorically not saying that voting doesn't matter anymore. To the absolute contrary, I am saying that it is more important than ever — that progressives have to turn out the vote so overwhelmingly that it would be absurd to imagine that the Republicans could have won.

The best hope we have of overcoming the imminent attacks on the midterm elections is to make sure that even remotely winnable races aren't even close. We have to make every race a blowout.

That isn't going to be easy, but there isn't going to be a "blue tsunami" without an ocean of voters to overwhelm the attempts to defeat us outside the ballot box.

Get ready to get out the vote. The president has signaled his intent to cheat. We had better steel ourselves for the hard work it's going to take this fall to thwart him and the forces with whom he'll be colluding. Again.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Trump Calls Democrats "Treasonous" for Not Applauding Him at SOTU

At a speech today in Ohio, where he was supposed to be promoting his tax bill, Donald Trump went on an extended riff about how the Democrats were insufficiently enthusiastic during his State of the Union address, which he found "un-American" and "treasonous."

President Trump mocked some Democrats for their reactions to his State of the Union speech, calling their responses "treasonous" and "un-American" https://t.co/7WVoKZhXFd pic.twitter.com/n2tofYzQC2

— CNN (@CNN) February 5, 2018

So that means they would rather see Trump do badly, okay, than our country do well. That's what it means. It's very selfish. And it got to a point where I really didn't even wanna look too much during the speech over to that side, 'cause, honestly, it was bad energy. No, it was bad energy! You're up there; you've got half the room going totally crazy wild; they love everything; they wanna do something great for our country — and you have the other side, even on positive news, really positive news, like that, they were like death. And un-American. Un-American. Somebody said "treasonous." I mean, yeah! [makes a goofy face and shrugs] I guess, why not? [crowd laughs] Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much. But you look at that and it's — it's really very, very sad.

Three observations:

1. It's important to remember that Donald Trump is an inveterate projectionist who always accuses other people of doing whatever he's doing.

2. Note the jocular tone he uses to call his ideological opponents "treasonous" for failing to applaud him. That tone is not an accident. It serves to preemptively deflect any inevitable criticism by asserting he was "joking" (and his critics are humorless and over-reacting), while simultaneously diminishing the inherent seriousness of treason, should he ever be charged with it. "Treason" will have become just another incendiary insult that politicians throw at each other, like the president did at Democrats for their lack of clapping. It's not like it means anything. Incredibly sinister stuff.

3. Lest we fall directly into that trap, let us pause to seriously contemplate the gravity of what happened today: The United States president called members of the opposition party "treasonous" — and, even more specifically, members of the Black Caucus, whom his base excoriated for their "disrespect" — because they they did not publicly demonstrate their enthusistic fealty to his satisfaction.

Chilling. And also just another day in the Era of Trump.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Is Class Warfare

One of the most common rhetorical fallacies in U.S. politics is that raising taxes on wealthy people to help fund social programs for people in need is "class warfare." That is not class warfare. That is a basic economic necessity to maintain anything resembling a functional capitalist society.

We hear an awful lot about how taxation of the wealthy constitutes "a war on the rich" and is part of a "wealth redistribution" scheme to give away rich folks' hard-earned money to layabouts who refuse to provide for themselves with an honest day's work.

That is a lie. It is also a perfect projection of the reality of conservative economic policy — which is entirely dedicated to giving working people as little compensation as possible and then taking even more in taxation, to subsidize and reward the lazy lifestyles of a class comprised of investors, heirs, and people who themselves might have worked very hard once upon a time but now spend their days guarding piles of gold coins like insatiable dragons.

"Class warfare" is economic policy that is designed to plunder wealth from the lower classes and redistribute it upwards to create ever higher concentrates among the already-wealthy.

The Republicans' tax plan is class warfare. It isn't going to help anyone but people who already have more than they could ever need and whose only objective is collecting even more.

Here are a few things to read about their execrable scam today:

Catherine Rampell at the Washington Post: Why Are Republicans in Such a Rush to Pass Tax Reform? To Outrun the Truth. "[Republican Senators' priority is] jamming through their plutocratic, sloppy tax overhaul as quickly as possible. By 'as quickly as possible,' I mean as soon as this week, which would be a mere month after the first draft of the GOP tax bill was introduced in the House. For comparison, the last time such a major overhaul happened — during the Reagan administration — the process took more than two years. And it included dozens of hearings and consultations with voters, tax practitioners, and experts."

Paul Krugman at the New York Times: The Biggest Tax Scam in History. "The bill Republican leaders are trying to ram through this week without hearings, without time for even a basic analysis of its likely economic impact, is the biggest tax scam in history. It's such a big scam that it's not even clear who's being scammed — middle-class taxpayers, people who care about budget deficits, or both. One thing is clear, however: One way or another, the bill would hurt most Americans. The only big winners would be the wealthy — especially those who mainly collect income from their assets rather than working for a living — plus tax lawyers and accountants who would have a field day exploiting the many loopholes the legislation creates."

Caitlin Owens at Axios: Report: Tax Reform Might Not Produce That Much Growth. "The GOP tax bill will not produce enough economic growth to pay for itself, which will add to the federal deficit, according to a report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The report analyzes a series of estimates by both right- and left-leaning groups." #NoShit

Perry Bacon Jr. at FiveThirtyEight: 10 Senate Republicans Who Could Tank the Tax Bill. "The vote count in the Senate seems fairly simple at this point. Fourteen Republicans already voted for the legislation when it was considered by the Senate Finance Committee, and 28 other members have either praised the bill or not yet publicly indicated any kind of serious disagreement. That leaves 10 Republicans to watch, with Republicans needing to get support from at least eight of them."

Damian Paletta at the Washington Post: Trump Could Personally Benefit from Last-Minute Change to Senate Tax Bill.

Last-minute changes to the Senate tax bill could personally benefit [Donald] Trump, who has investment stakes in roughly 500 entities that could be affected by the planned adjustments.

Republicans are seriously considering expanding a new tax credit that these types of entities use to lower their taxable income in a way that benefits most people tied to these firms. Trump and other senior administration officials have been in personal contact with lawmakers about the changes.

The changes focus on "pass-through" entities, companies that direct income through the individual income tax code and not the corporate tax code. There are millions of these entities, and they are most often sole proprietorships, limited liability companies or partnerships. Trump's stakes in these entities include many large and small ventures, including the Trump Organization.

Trump's 2005 tax return showed that he had more than $109 million in income from businesses, partnerships, and pass-through entities, although he has not released updated figures, so the precise impact is not known.

Of course.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

We Resist: Day 271

One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.

So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Here are some things in the news today:

Earlier today by me: Weinstein Made Us Pay Attention. What Next?

[Content Note: War on agency] AP/USNWR: Bill Bars UW Employees from Working at Planned Parenthood. "University of Wisconsin employees would no longer be allowed to work part-time at Planned Parenthood under a bill supported by anti-abortion advocates that's up for a public hearing. ...The measure would prohibit UW employees from performing abortions or providing training at facilities where abortions are performed, other than hospitals. It targets an arrangement between Planned Parenthood and UW in which faculty members work part-time at the organization's Madison clinic."

As Eastsidekate, who sent me this item, said (which I'm sharing with her permission): "They're specifically trying to prevent med students and young doctors from obtaining training on reproductive health. There was a bill this Spring prohibiting UW from teaching abortion, this is meant to close the loop."

This is another part of the "chip away at Roe" strategy: Anti-choicers don't need the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade if they render it an empty statute by eroding abortion access the nation. And what better way to erode access to abortion than to make sure no doctors are trained to terminate pregnancies?

This puts me in the mood to tell you a story.

Once upon a time, a hundred million years ago during the Bush Era, there was a movement on the feminist blogs to teach women how to perform abortions. And a bunch of people (progressive dudes) were all WHAT A BUNCH OF HYSTERICAL ALARMISTS ALSO YOU ARE TERRIBLE ABORTIONS SHOULD BE DONE BY PROFESSIONALS YOU CREEPS, and we were all, uh, yeah, we agree, but what about when that's not an option? We're planning for that. And people (progressive dudes) were like SHUT UP THIS IS WHY WE HATE FEMINISTS. The end.

Now I'm just an ancient feminist harpy who doesn't know how politics work and you should definitely never listen to me, but I think this is a very compelling case study in how often the most intransigent barriers to feminist work aren't conservatives but progressive men.

It wasn't right-wingers who were raising hell about feminists trying to disseminate information about how to perform abortions. To them, it was just like, of course that's what feminists are doing because they love abortion and are demons.

It was the progressive bros who were SLIPPERYSLOPE!-ing us and telling us that we were the problem with the left and all the usual horseshit, silencing us under the auspices that we were going to "hurt the movement" with our alarmism and extremism, instead of listening to us and understanding that we were sounding alarms with good fucking reason.

Instead of taking us seriously and allying with us, they pushed back against us, doing the work of our opponents. And now here we are. Again.

Way back when, a hundred million years ago, Shakesville used a different commenting system, which is now defunct, and that is sad, because I wish I could link to a thread that reached 500+ comments and was about disseminating abortion instructions and followed this exact dynamic. Aphra_Behn and I were just recalling how TERRIFIC that thread was; some of you longterm readers may remember it, too — as a libertarian dude now famous for his Hillary hatred was a prominent participant.

I literally had progressive dudes screaming at me that I was the reason Bush was reelected because I supported sharing information about how to perform abortions, in the event access was completely eroded in some or all parts of the country.

And now here we are. It turns out that we were not the worst threat to the progressive movement, but ahead of the fucking curve. Again. And the people shouting at us that we were the worst threat to the progressive movement misdirected their energies. Again. And conservatives just marched right on to enact the agenda we were trying to tell you was their agenda in the vacuum of inattention caused by the progressive dudes who are convinced that feminists are their worst enemy. Again.

Whoops.

* * *

Here is a clip of Donald Trump just boasting about his malice (specifically, destroying the Affordable Care Act):

President Trump: "Obamacare is a disgrace to our nation and we are solving the problem of Obamacare" https://t.co/f5WfjWKgFA

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 17, 2017

At best you could say it's in its final legs. The premiums are going through the roof; the deductibles are so high that people don't get to use it.

Obamacare is a disgrace to our nation. And we are solving the problem of Obamacare, okay?

Thank you all very much. Thank you.

"Obamacare is a disgrace to our nation" may be the ultimate statement of projection.

* * *

Matt Shuham at TPM: Trump: I've Called 'Virtually' All Gold Star Families. "Donald Trump on Tuesday said he had called 'virtually' every family of service members who have died during his presidency. The White House did not answer TPM's questions about whether 'virtually everybody' included the families of the four Green Berets who were killed in Niger on Oct. 4. On Monday, Trump acknowledged in an impromptu press conference that he had not yet contacted the families, 12 days and counting after the ambush that left their loved ones dead. ...Trump also baselessly accused former President Barack Obama and other former presidents of not calling the loved ones of fallen service members, an accusation that multiple former Obama administration officials swiftly denied." This fucking guy.

Rachel West, Katherine Gallagher Robbins, and Melissa Boteach at the Center for American Progress: This Is How Much Average Americans Will Pay for Trump's Tax Cuts for the 1 Percent. "According to analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, under Trump's plan, the average household in the bottom 99 percent would see its taxes decrease $343 in 2027, the final year of the conventional 10-year budget analysis. Meanwhile, the average household in the top 1 percent would see a tax cut of $207,060 — more than 600 times larger. And while ultrawealthy households would reap huge benefits, by 2027, 1 in 4 households would actually see their taxes increase under Trump's plan."

Jason Zengerle at the New York Times: Rex Tillerson and the Unraveling of the State Department. This whole thing is quite a read, but woo this shit right here:

But building a good rapport with the head of state of his own country has, so far, proved to be beyond Tillerson's formidable abilities. According to some people who are close to Trump, his disappointment with Tillerson is as much personal as it is professional. "Trump originally thought he could have a relationship with Tillerson that's almost social," says one Trump adviser, "the way his relationships are with Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin."

But unlike Trump's commerce and treasury secretaries — plutocrats who, like Trump, are on their third, younger wives — Tillerson, who is 65 and has been married to the same woman for 31 years, has shown little interest in being the president's running buddy; instead of Saturday-night dinners with Trump at his Washington hotel, Tillerson favors trips home to Texas to see his grandchildren or to Colorado to visit his nonagenarian parents.

(The White House, provided a detailed list of questions relating to Tillerson and his relationship with Trump as described in this article, responded with the following official statement: "The president has assembled the most talented cabinet in history and everyone continues to be dedicated towards advancing the president's America First agenda. Anything to the contrary is simply false and comes from unnamed sources who are either out of the loop or unwilling to turn the country around.")

I love (ahem) how that authoritarian garbage is just a parenthetical in the story. The normalization is extraordinary.

Speaking of which, this is such a good observation:

Notable: Trump's defenders demand from his critics a much higher standard of intelligence, consistency & decency than they ever do from him.

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) October 17, 2017

[Content Note: White supremacy] Lois Beckett at the Guardian: Florida Governor Declares State of Emergency Before White Nationalist's Speech. "Governor Rick Scott of Florida has declared a state of emergency ahead of a speech by a white nationalist leader this week at the University of Florida, in order to free up resources to prepare for possible violence. Richard Spencer's speech on Thursday in Gainesville is part of a national campaign to use outrage over racist events on university campuses to draw attention to white nationalist ideas. The tour is also designed keep fringe provocateurs like Spencer in the media spotlight." But one million thinkpieces on how progressive snowflakes are ruining college campuses.

Craig Silverman at BuzzFeed: Outbrain Is Investigating Whether Russian Trolls Used Its Platform for Election Propaganda. "The content recommendation ad network Outbrain, whose clicky content sprawls across the web, is investigating whether Russian ads or other forms of election tampering took place on its service during the 2016 election. Outbrain claims to reach more than 550 million visitors per month via content recommendation modules it places on websites of publishers such as CNN, People, and ESPN. Outbrain is 'currently conducting a thorough investigation specific to election tampering and continue[s] to monitor our index,' the company said in a statement to BuzzFeed News."

I'd argue that, at this point, any content network shouldn't be asking "if" Russia used its platform for election influence, but "how."

What have you been reading that we need to resist today?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Trump's "Tax Reform" Speech Is Another Dumpster Fire

[Image via Igor Volsky.]
Earlier today, I noted that Donald Trump would be delivering a speech in Springfield, Missouri, introducing his tax reform before a captive audience of employees of Springfield's largest manufacturer. He just gave that speech, and it was exactly as terrible as you'd expect.

Offering no details & having never released his tax returns, Trump says of his tax reform plan "I'm speaking against myself when I do this."

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

Trump now applauded after saying his tax reform would personally hurt him financially but it's the "right thing"

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) August 30, 2017

Trump has never done a selfless thing in his life. If he says it will personally hurt him, what he really means is: It will hurt YOU. https://t.co/QwP9my2pKp

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

"They are taking us, frankly, to the cleaners," @POTUS says of #China and others. "We must lower our taxes." pic.twitter.com/npsvF4QguA

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) August 30, 2017

Tax cuts for the rich solve everything! https://t.co/HZZyRQeJUM

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

Pres. Trump says "I'm speaking against myself when I do this" as he outlines tax reform approach. "It's crazy." https://t.co/NuKFdqrb3M pic.twitter.com/8aCjvzeak0

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) August 30, 2017

This is why tax reform must dramatically simplify the tax code. Eliminate special interest loopholes. And I'm speaking against myself when I do this, I have to tell you. And I might be speaking against Mr. Cook [of the Loren Cook Company, where Trump was speaking] and we're both okay with it, is that right? It's crazy. We're speaking— Maybe we shouldn't be doing this, you know? But we're doing the right thing.

This is a lie wrapped in projection. It won't hurt him; it will hurt the people to whom he's speaking. (Employees at a manufacturer in MO.) https://t.co/6NN3qwyrvp

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

Trump is now attacking Dems, telling voters to oust McCaskill if she doesn't support his plan.

This is an official WH event. Not campaign.

— S.V. Dáte (@svdate) August 30, 2017

Trump says "Mexico is not happy" about his threats to terminate NAFTA. Says this even as Mexico is offering assistance to the US re: Harvey.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

Speaking right to his insecure base: "We have totally surrendered our competitive edge to other countries. We are not surrendering anymore."

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

"We will lower taxes for middle-income American," says @POTUS, adding they'll go out & spend money & "it'll be a beautiful thing to watch." pic.twitter.com/nvyJeGLEZJ

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) August 30, 2017

1. That will not be the plan. 2. If it were, many people would not spend, but pay off credit cards & student loans, then start saving. https://t.co/m3RiHv6IiI

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

Earlier today, I said Trump's speech would be "a bunch of dishonest populist rhetoric about his wealth redistribution upwards plan." It is.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

"just like it says on that beautiful red hat..." - Pres. Trump plugs #MAGA hats at Springfield, MO tax remarks

— Jared Rizzi (@JaredRizzi) August 30, 2017

"Let's put, or try to put, the partisan posturing behind us" sez Trump, after just taking a swipe at Democratic MO Senator Claire McCaskill.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

"Instead of exporting our jobs, we will export our goods." Trump continues to avoid talking about automation. https://t.co/PYHKm3mU3G

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) August 30, 2017

"What could possibly be more bipartisan than allowing families to keep more of what they earn?" Pres. Trump says, as floods worsen in Texas. pic.twitter.com/2mqiXkoADU

— CBS News (@CBSNews) August 30, 2017

As Trump wrapped up his speech, Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted: "@POTUS is absolutely right. America's tax code is way too complicated. Congress is committed to working w/ the @WhiteHouse to simplify it."

And meanwhile:

House Republicans looking at cutting almost $1 billion from disaster accounts to help finance Trump border wall: https://t.co/Rko4wJaJSu

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) August 30, 2017

Situation Normal: All Fucked Up.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Trump's Reuters Interview Is a Pile of (Telling) Lies

Virtually everything Donald Trump says is a lie. More specifically, it is dishonest in a way that reveals the truth. Often it is the lie of projection — in which he attributes a characteristic to someone else that is actually his own quality. Other times, it is the lie of opposites — the transparent attempt of an insecure man to convey that something is great (when it's grim) or dire (when it's fine).

In that context, the excerpts from Trump's interview with Reuters are extremely telling.

Let's start with an easy one — the mood in the White House. Says Trump: "The mood in the White House is fantastic. ...The White House is functioning beautifully. ...Energy is doing levels that we've never done before. ...There's not a thing that we're not doing well in. The White House is functioning beautifully, despite the hoax made up by the Democrats."

"The Democrats" haven't said bupkis about the mood in the White House. That would be anonymous sources in the White House, disclosing to the press on almost continual basis that the mood in the White House is terrible, that the dynamic is deeply dysfunctional, that Trump has no stamina, and that staff morale is in the shitter.

And because virtually everything Trump says is a lie, by insisting that the mood around the White House is "fantastic," he's confirming reports that his White House is a nightmare shitshow.

So now let's look at what else Trump had to say.

He didn't know Don Jr. was taking that meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya: "No. That I didn't know. Until a couple of days ago, when I heard about this. No I didn't know about that." Trump knew.

This is his answer to a question about whether his attorneys are defending him effectively: "The problem is, I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything. This isn't a question of defense. I didn't do anything. I had no relationship to Russia. So I said, what can the legal team do?" He did something.

He definitely thought he would win and totally wants to be president: "I actually always thought I'd win, to be honest with you, because I've been winning my whole life, to be honest with you, but we started a campaign as a non-politician, and many people were skeptical. Some weren't, some people who know me weren't...but many were skeptical." He can't believe he's president and hates every minute of it.

This is his answer to a question about whether he trusts Vladimir Putin: "Do I feel I can trust anybody, okay? I'm a very suspicious person. I am not a person that goes around trusting lots of people. But he's the leader of Russia. It is the second most powerful nuclear power on earth. I am the leader of the United States. I love my country. He loves his country. He's for Russia." Trump is disloyal as fuck and is Putin's puppet.

More on Putin: "I was very tough with President Putin." He wasn't.

And yet more, this time on election meddling: "First question — first 20, 25 minutes — I said, 'Did you do it?' He said, 'No, I did not, absolutely not.' I then asked him a second time, in a totally different way. He said, 'Absolutely not.' Somebody did say if he did do it, you wouldn't have found out about it. Which is a very interesting point." Trump thinks he's more clever than Putin, and can catch him out by detective work he learned watching Law & Order re-runs. (You're no Lennie Briscoe, Trump.) He also finds useful a rationale that suggests his own willful ignorance, stupidity, and/or dishonesty are proof that Putin doesn't fully own him.

And finally, on whether he colluded with Russia: "There was zero coordination. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There's no coordination, this was a hoax, this was made up by the Democrats." It's true. He colluded. "This is the greatest con job in history, where a party sits down the day after they got their ass kicked, and they say, 'Huh, what's our excuse?'" He is running the greatest con job in history. "It just continues and continues, and honestly it's a disgrace, and it's very bad for our country. And the Russians must be laughing, because this narrative is so bad for us as a country." He is a disgrace and is very bad for our country. The Russians are laughing at him, and he knows it.

There's more where that came from. It's quite a scary interview, put through the Trump translator. The overall feeling is that this is a profoundly corrupt man, in deep over his head. He's scared, he's desperate, and he's stuck in a place of fearful misery with no idea how to escape or change his circumstances.

Which would frankly be a suitable fate for the braggadocious and reckless Trump, were it not for the fact that the fate of the entire nation is now inextricably tied to his.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

More Bad News for Flynn (and Trump)

Adam Goldman, Matt Apuzzo, and Michael S. Schmidt at the New York Times: F.B.I. Interviewed Flynn in Trump's First Days in Office, Officials Say. (Emphasis mine.)

F.B.I. agents interviewed Michael T. Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, current and former officials said on Tuesday.

The interview raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job. If he was not entirely honest with the F.B.I., it could expose Mr. Flynn to a felony charge. President Trump asked for Mr. Flynn's resignation on Monday night.

While it is not clear what he said in his F.B.I. interview, Mr. Flynn maintained publicly for more than a week that his conversations with the ambassador were innocuous and did not involve Russian sanctions, something now known to be false.

Shortly after the F.B.I. interview, on Jan. 26, the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, told the White House that Mr. Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of inconsistencies between what he had said publicly and what intelligence officials knew to be true.

Sally Yates, as you may recall, was fired soon thereafter.

Presumably, Flynn was under oath when he spoke to the FBI; if he lied to them, he could face perjury charges. And Flynn doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who goes down without taking people down with him.

That makes him dangerous—and it certainly makes the White House nervous, which is dangerous, because this lot clearly don't make good decisions under the best of circumstances.

[H/T to Aphra_Behn for the NYT article.]

* * *

Earlier today, I wrote about how angry I am (and will always be, forever and ever amen) about how Hillary Clinton's preparedness and competence were treated with contempt during the campaign.

Given this latest news about Flynn, I also want to call back how, during the campaign, Donald Trump criticized U.S. military generals over and over, and constantly shouted about how he would have the BEST generals.

Trump was going to have the BEST generals, remember? Now a general is the first casualty of his cabinet, for gross incompetence (at best).

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) February 14, 2017

And then, there is this—General Michael Flynn's appearance at the Republican National Convention:

FLYNN: We do not need a reckless president who believes she is above the law! [The crowd cheers and applauds; they chant "Lock her up! Lock her up!"] Lock her up! That's right. Yeah, that's right—lock her up! I'm gonna tell ya what—it's unbelievable. It's unbelievable. [The crowd continues to chant, as Flynn nods approvingly.] Yeah, I use—I use hashtag Never Hillary. That's what I use.

I have called on Hillary Clinton— I have called on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race, because she—she—put our nation's security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private email server. [Audience cheers and chants.] Lock her up! Lock her up! You guys are good. Damn right. Exactly right. There's nothing wrong with that.

And you know why? And you know why? You know why we're saying that? We're saying that because if I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth—a tenth!—of what she did, I would be in jail today.

So, so: Crooked Hillary Clinton, leave this race now. [Audience cheers and chants.] She needs to go.

Well, sir: Hillary Clinton did not do anything criminal. At all. I daresay that you have done well more than "a tenth" of what Clinton did.

This is the campaign they ran against her. It was always a campaign of projection by the crookedest, most reckless vandals who have ever petitioned to lead this nation.

Which should be abundantly clear by this point, if it weren't already.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

You're Goddamn Right I'm a Snowflake

[Content Note: Harassment; privilege.]

You may have heard, possibly because you have been on the receiving end of it, that Trump supporters refer to progressives as snowflakes.

If "cuck" is the insult of choice for the alt-right to lump together and dismiss establishment conservatives, "snowflake" has become the go-to for enemies on the left. There is not a single political point a liberal can make on the Internet for which "You triggered, snowflake?" cannot be the comeback. It's purpose is dismissing liberalism as something effeminate, and also infantile, an outgrowth of the lessons you were taught in kindergarten. "Sharing is caring"? Communism. "Feelings are good"? Facts over feelings. "Everyone is special and unique"? Shut up, snowflake.

Snowflake is basically the new "Social Justice Warrior" (or SJW), which we were also supposed to consider an insult, despite the fact that it was an "insult" many of us wore proudly.

I have been called a snowflake countless times on Twitter and in my inbox, by the most pathetic projectionists who are aggrieved at my mere existence, but accuse me without a trace of irony of being intolerant and oversensitive.

There is, perhaps, nothing more perfectly indicative of the grim intersection of their aggressive arrogance, comprehensive rejection of self-reflection, and pitiable lack of imagination than wielding "snowflake" as a pejorative.

Snowflakes are fucking beautiful, each one a unique creation that melds fragility with the ferocity of survival on a planet that generally does not support its existence.

As snowflakes move through the environment, encountering different temperatures and pressures, their complex and individual shapes emerge. And once they fall to the ground, accumulating with other snowflakes, they undergo a metamorphosis and coalesce into a snowpack, which itself becomes stronger—and more resistant to being moved—than any individual snowflake.

This does not sound like an insult. This sounds like a pretty solid description of a vibrant and diverse resistance.

At protests, there are increasingly signs carried by "snowflakes" which contain some variation on: "Damn right we're snowflakes, and winter is coming."

Fucking right it is.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Projection. Always Projection.

[Content Note: Bigotry.]

I've got a new piece at BNR about Donald Trump's penchant for projection:

Someone once said that if you ever want to know what conservatives are doing, just listen to what they're accusing progressives of doing. This is projection — and Donald Trump is a master of it.

As I've written many times before, once you realize everything Trump says is projection, it all makes so much more sense. What he says about other people – particularly when he is accusing them of something – is a confession about himself.

Trump overtly talks and talks and talks about himself – and when he talks about other people, he's still talking about himself. It's just that he's projecting his own flaws and failures onto them.

Head on over to read the whole thing.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

No, Donald Trump, the Election Is Not Rigged

GOOD GRIEF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY HAD TO SAY THIS YESTERDAY.

Obama pushes back on Trump's comments: "Of course the elections will not be rigged. What does that mean?" https://t.co/z9v1h6howF

— NBC News (@NBCNews) August 4, 2016

Of course the elections will not be rigged! What does that mean?! The federal government doesn't run the election process. States and cities and communities all across the country—they're the ones who set up the voting systems and the voting booths, and, if Mr. Trump is suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory that is being propagated across the country, including in places like Texas, where typically it's not Democrats who are in charge of voting booths, that's ridiculous. That doesn't make any sense. And I don't think anybody would take that seriously.

President Obama added that, naturally, the federal government takes seriously "our responsibilities to monitor and preserve the integrity of the voting process," and responds when there are indications that voting machines are vulnerable to hacking, or when jurisdictions are disenfranchising voters. But that's the extent of the federal government's involvement in elections. Which Donald Trump doesn't appear to know. Like everything else about how government works.

President Obama also added: "I think all of us at some point in our life have played sports, or maybe just played in a schoolyard or a sand box, and sometimes folks, if they lose, they start complaining they got cheated. But I have never heard of someone complaining of cheating before the score is tallied. My suggestion would be, you know, go out there and try to win the election." OH SNAP!

Snarky POTUS is my favorite POTUS.

Meanwhile, as LOLGOP reminds us at Electablog, "Republicans were trying to steal this election and the courts stopped them" with, as Ari Berman details, "six major decisions against GOP-backed voting restrictions in five different states" in the last ten days.

Like I keep saying: Once you realize everything Donald Trump says is projection, it all makes so much more sense! It's his party that was trying to rig the election, by disenfranchising people who disproportionately vote for Democrats. And the GOP's shitty shenanigans were, thankfully, denied.

But of course all Trump can do to try to explain why he's currently losing and will definitely lose on Election Day, by possibly historic margins, is promulgate some conspiracy bullshit about rigged elections.

Because he can't imagine any other reason he could be losing. Not when he's got cheering crowds everywhere he goes! The polls must be rigged! The election will be rigged! How else could he be losing when he's got TREMENDOUS CROWDS?

For someone who's weirdly obsessed with Bernie Sanders, you'd think he'd have noticed that large crowds don't necessarily translate into electoral victory.

Then again, he thinks it was "rigged" against Bernie, too. And also: Trump doesn't seem big on learning lessons, even the most obvious ones.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Welp

[Content Note: Disablist language.]

Once you understand that basically everything he disgorges from his trash-mouth is projection, it all starts to make a lot more sense.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

You First

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

A long while ago now, I changed the bio on my Twitter profile to, simply: "I am the very model of a modern major misandrist." Naturally, this is not because I am a misandrist, but because I am routinely called one by misogynist dudes.

Some time later, I changed by profile pic to an image of me sipping from a mug labeled "Male Tears." I can't even recall now which disgorgement of misogynist dude aggrievement prompted me to take and post the picture—possibly another chapter in the epic uproar over how an all-female Ghostbusters was going to retroactively ruin their childhoods.

Every so often, a new MRA-type discovers my bio and/or profile pic and a new round of dipshits, of the sort that necessitated my sardonic attempts to deal with their incessant harassment in the first place, piles into my TL to shout at me about how I am a man-hating monster.

That happened again today, which is perfectly timely, given that I just posted this piece in the blogaround yesterday.

Here's the deal: I will stop referring to myself as a misandrist when misogynist men stop calling me one in response to my advocating on behalf of my own humanity. And I will stop making jokes about male tears when men stop routinely making women cry with their vile misogyny.

That's a promise.

Ball's in your court, dudes.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Meanwhile, in Minneapolis...

[Content Note: Police brutality; racism; violence.]

A day after masked gunmen opened fire on protesters rallying for justice after the police killing of Jamar Clark, more information is coming out about how police responded to that shooting, which happened right outside a police precinct:

"This is what you guys wanted," police told protesters after five demonstrators were shot and injured by masked men at a continuing protest in Minneapolis on Monday night, witnesses told the Guardian.

Protesters trying to tend to the wounded were also maced.

...Having shot five people, the attackers escaped in what looked like a black Toyota SUV, according to Nimo Omar, who was also at the protest.

After the shots, everything was "very chaotic," Omar said. Several people, including Sumaya Moallin and Oluchi Omeoga, ran back to the precinct to ask the police for help.

Moallin said they needed a squad car and an ambulance. "He looked at me and he said: 'Call 911,'" she told the Guardian. "I said: 'I thought you were 911.' Then he looked at me directly and said: 'This is what you guys wanted.'"

"Six [officers] were outside [the precinct building]," she continued. "They all just shuffled back into the door. They were not making eye contact ... I pleaded a good amount of time."

She said she felt "like I had the wind knocked out of me. We're here to protest against what they're doing wrong; we don't not want cops, we just want them to serve and protect. I fell to the ground and started crying."

...A "chaotic" 15 or 20 minutes passed, [Rachel Bean] said, with the crowd's anger at the police's refusal to offer aid growing. "I felt powerless," Omeoga said. "But the whole reason me and Jie [Wronski-Riley] were chasing around was to de-escalate." Another witness, Moallin, said that it was more like 10 minutes.

Then the police arrived at the scene in force, in full riot gear. Bean was still tending to Martin's brother's stomach wound when they released mace into people's faces, she told the Guardian. "I said, 'I called the EMS, you don't have to mace everyone,'" she said. "The officer said 'fuck you' or 'shut the fuck up' or something like that."

She said that attitude was representative of the behavior of other officers she interacted with after the attack. "The idea that you would mace a group of people that just had bullets fired at them – that's the opposite of responsible."

Rage. Seethe. Boil.

The sort of thinking that imagines protesters desire to be shot by anti-black gunmen is not just despicable; it's projection. It's the sort of thinking that comes from people who want to pretend that they're under siege, in order to justify their wanton murder of people over whom they have power, and then hold up as heroic martyrs a couple of fucking assholes who shot themselves.

I don't even know how these cops can spend a moment wondering why the fuck they're being protested, when they mace people trying to provide medical assistance to comrades who have been shot.

That shit right there is why you're being protested. Because you are aggressively hostile to black existence and survival.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Thought Police

[Content Note: Emotional auditing; projection.]

Over the past month or so, I've read so many retreads of familiar handwringing about "thought police" and "political correctness" and how what amounts to asking people to be kinder is having a "chilling" effect on freedom of expression.

This garbage is cyclical. It's grim predictions about how trigger warnings will ruin the world for three months, and then it's grim predictions about how affirmative action will ruin the world for three months, and then it's the thought police, and then it's something else, and then it's back to trigger warnings again, as though the same debate, such as it was, didn't just happen the year previous.

So we're in a "thought police" moment. Or, if you prefer, a "political correctness gone wild" moment.

And so, as a person who expects more, and thus is accused of being the thought police, let me just say once again: I am not the thought police.

Setting a higher standard and encouraging someone to reach for it, urging them not to settle into the well-tread grooves of their socialization but instead interrogate the vast and varied prejudices and myths with which they've been indoctrinated, isn't thought policing.

Asking someone to consider that maybe, just maybe, it isn't marginalized people who are too sensitive, but privileged people who are simply not sensitive enough, isn't thought policing.

Challenging someone to think about things in a way in which they may have never thought about them before isn't thought policing.

The entire rest of the world, with its privileging of men and straight people and cisgender people and thin (but not too thin!) and tall (but not too tall!) and able and healthy white bodies and religious people and people who have sex and people who can and want to be parents and the wealthy and the educated, and all the ways in which the rest of the world facilitates and upholds that privilege, and all the ways in which the rest of the world marginalizes and demeans and treats as less than all the people who deviate from those privileged "norms," and all the ways the rest of the world indoctrinates you into that system of privilege, and socializes you to believe it's the natural and right and immutable state of the world, and all the shills for the kyriarchy who fill the ether with self-reinforcing rubbish on a constant loop so you swim in a sea so thick with the detritus of Othering that you don't even notice it on a conscious level anymore, and all the bullies who manifest to kick you back in line if you do, if you have the temerity to question the message, and all the other bits and bobs of the brainwashing to which we are all subjected since the day we're born as part of scheme, nearly incomprehensible in scope, to ensure that challengers to these traditions are never made, and, if they're born, are squashed with the weight of mountainous tidal waves of blowback in the other direction…? The purveyors of that shit are the goddamn thought police.

And you know what one of the biggest lies they tell you is?

That it's the other way around.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Homophobia.]

"In fact, this President intends to get as many American children into the funnel of the sexual revolution as possible and make sure there's no possible escape—none whatsoever. He intends to close off every avenue from parents committed to biblical morality. We cannot stand by and allow the President to force his radical sexual agenda on our children."—Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, in a fundraising letter to his fans, caterwauling the usual despicable nonsense in response to President Obama's stated opposition to "conversion" or "reparative" or "ex-gay" therapy for queer kids.

Mocking the dipshits of the Family Research Council is low-hanging fruit, I know, but I'm not posting this to mock Perkins for being a ridiculous shitlord whose retofuck beliefs are so antiquated they whiff of dinosaur scat and so rotten they belong at the bottom of a filthy dumpster even rats refuse to patronize.

I'm posting this to make two serious points:

1. The idea that legalized same-sex marriage was the end-all be-all of gay rights is dangerously naive and wrong. Here's a perfect example: There are still kids across this country who need the state to intervene on their behalf just so they can be allowed to be queer without being subjected to "therapies" that are nothing more than rank abuse.

2. This is also a perfect example of conservative projection: Perkins accuses President Obama (and, by extension, anyone who advocates against these heinous "therapies") of "forc[ing] his radical sexual agenda" on children and trying to "make sure there's no possible escape—none whatsoever" from the "sexual revolution."

But who is it, exactly, who is trying to force a radical sexual agenda on children and provide them no escape whatsoever from their rigid definitions of sexuality? It is really the guy who says stop subjecting queer kids to abusive mistreatment under the auspices of "curing" them, or is it the guy who says stop queer kids from existing?

That is, of course, rhetorical.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Transphobia in Texas

[Content Note: Transphobia.]

Last month, I wrote about a transphobic bill introduced in the Florida state legislature that seeks to prohibit trans* people from using public bathrooms corresponding to their gender. Similar legislation has passed in the Kentucky state senate.

And now the Texas state legislature is following suit and doubling quadrupling down, with four pieces of transphobic legislation introduced in the past few weeks.

HB 1747 "amends the definition of 'disorderly conduct' to make it a crime for transgender Texans who have not been fortunate enough to correct their official gender markers to use public gender-segregated space appropriate to their gender identity or expression."

HB 1748 "creates two new offenses: making it a state jail felony for most business owners if they repeatedly allow a person who has at least one 'Y' chromosome to enter a space designated for women, or a person with no 'Y' chromosome to enter a space designated for men; and making it a Class 'A' misdemeanor for a person with at least one 'Y' chromosome to enter a space designated for women or a person without a 'Y' chromosome to enter a space designated for men."

HB 2802 is an update of HB 1748, which expands this chromosome requirement to educational spaces.

And HB 2801 "declares that schools must 'adopt a policy providing that only persons of the same biological sex may be present at the same time in any bathroom, locker room, or shower facility.'"

Introduced yesterday by Republican Texas Rep. Gilbert Peña, HB 2801 "does not define how a student's 'biological sex' would be determined or verified." But it does nonetheless encourage other students to hunt and report on their fellow students they believe or know to be transgender:

The bill does, however, make the school liable to any cisgender (nontrans) student who "encounters a person not of the student's biological sex" in a bathroom, locker room, or shower. Every student who successfully proves the school violated this would-be law "shall be awarded … exemplary damages in the amount of $2,000." That sum does not include the "actual damages," which the bill notes includes "damages for mental anguish even if an injury other than mental anguish is not shown."

In other words, the bill sets up a standard where cisgender students can not only complain about sharing facilities with a student they believe to be transgender, but if they can prove that student was in the "wrong" restroom, will also be awarded $2,000, in addition to whatever amount a judge deems is sufficient compensation for the "mental anguish" presumably caused by sharing space with a trans person.

Emphasis mine.

As I have pointed out before, and will keep pointing out until these bigoted fuckos stop targeting trans* people and endorsing state-sactioned terrorism against them, this is projection. It is not cisgender people who need to be kept safe from transgender people; it is transgender people who need to be kept safe from cisgender people.

Case in point: This fucking legislation.

All of these hateful stains purport to be concerned about preventing violence, with zero regard for the fact that trans* people are at much greater risk for violence because they are trans*. It's a damnable, indefensible lie that this sort of legislation will protect anyone; it only makes trans* people less safe.

[H/T to Eastsidekate and Marti Abernathy.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Fu@#ing Guy

[Content Note: Trans* hatred; gender policing; bathroom panic; rape culture.]

Another Republican lawmaker has introduced yet another shitty transphobic bill, based on bullshit narratives about trans* predators:

Florida state Rep. Frank Artiles is not worried a bill he introduced last week will create problems for transgender people, he told BuzzFeed News, because using the restroom is a choice.

The Miami Republican's bill would restrict single-sex public facilities — including restrooms in restaurants, theaters, workplaces, and schools — to people of the corresponding "biological sex, either male or female, at birth." Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail.

Asked if such a rule would create problems for transgender women required to use the men's room, Artiles told BuzzFeed News, "People are not forced to go the restroom. They choose to go to the restroom."

For someone who purports to be an expert on biology, he sure is confused about the human waste disposal system.

Naturally, Artiles has given this a lot of thought, and thus has super-smart (super-terrible) things to say about people's "plumbing" how "anatomy is going to dictate where they go to the bathroom." Because genitals define gender, and intersex people don't exist. And he gets an A+ for being able to regurgitate nasty stereotypes about trans* women being sexual predators:

Artiles countered his wish is "not to attack transgender people or make their lives difficult." However, he said several times, the bill was a direct response to local laws in Florida that ban discrimination against transgender people. Specifically, he said, a law passed in December in Miami-Dade County, which encompasses Artiles' district, "gives the cover of law for people who use this as a loophole for voyeurism and other criminal activity. While I understand the good intention, it is overly broad."

"You have sexual predators — you have people who are going to use these local ordinances as cover," said Artiles. "I want uniformity across the board, and not laws subjective to the way people feel."

The bathroom panic meme is comprehensive garbage. I cannot state that more emphatically. It is hateful, mendacious trash.

And, like every other conservative legislator peddling this reprehensible codswallop, Artiles does not have a legislative record that indicates he has any meaningful interest in sexual assault prevention, but suddenly cares deeply about it when it comes to justifying discrimination against trans* people. He can't provide a single example of a sexual predator exploiting inclusive bathroom ordinances, but he's sure this is a much bigger problem than, say, cis men raping women. Including trans* women.

Like, for example, trans* women who are forced to use men's bathrooms. Artiles purports to be concerned about preventing violence, but he is eminently willing to send trans* people into situations where they are at greater risk for violence.

Every single one of Artiles' attempts to rationalize this bill is pathetic. He claims to "want uniformity" in who is using which bathroom, but naturally "people who identify as women use the women's restroom and people who identity as men use the men's restroom" isn't sufficient "uniformity" to satisfy him.

"While I understand there are transgender people who want to use bathrooms however they want to feel, that is irrelevant to me," Artiles explained.

While I understand that there are cis people who want to legislate which bathrooms trans* people can safely and legally use because of how they feel about trans* people, that is irrelevant to me.

"I have read the blogs that say I am against transgender people, but I am not at all," Artiles said. Asked if he believes a transgender woman is a woman, Artiles said, "I am not going to get into that. I have not spent much time thinking about that."

If there is a more perfect quote illustrating the arrogance of privilege, I haven't seen it.

This cis man has written legislation banning women from women's bathrooms, but hasn't spent much time thinking about that fact.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that it doesn't fucking matter if Artiles "believes a transgender woman is a woman." Cis people auditing trans* people's gender, and believing they have the right to deny trans* people authority on their own selves, is what underwrites this sort of bigoted legislation in the first place.

Rage. Seethe. Boil.

I am a cis woman, and a survivor of sexual violence. I am exactly the type of person that Artiles and all his contemptible colleagues invoke as needing protection from trans* predators. AND I WANT THEM TO STOP. I don't need their protection. They do not have my permission to pretend that they're "saving" me by endangering trans* people.

Do not use me as your justification for transphobic hatred.

I am not in danger from sharing a bathroom with trans* women. But trans* women could very well be in danger from not being allowed to share a bathroom with me.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Rapists Lie

[Content Note: Rape culture.]

You know how I keep banging on about how rapists are also liars? Yeah, well: "Rapists use social media to cover their tracks, police warned."

Rapists are increasingly exploiting social media to cover their tracks and mislead investigators, a joint conference by police and prosecutors on rape was told on Wednesday .

At the police and the Crown Prosecution Service’s first joint initiative on rape, prosecutors said they had established an emerging pattern of behaviour where rapists constructed "false narratives" after the crime. One technique described involved rapists contacting victims the next day, sometimes by text or social media, thanking them for a sexual encounter. Defendants can try to rely on such messages should there be a trial.

Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, told the event of the potential for social media to be used to "set up the scene" and warned that false messages could be used to set up a defence.

Note that this, too, is evidence of the projection that underwrites narratives used to discredit survivors: We are all familiar with the trope of the woman who "changes her mind" or "feels guilty" after a consensual sexual encounter so (inexplicably) decides to accuse a man of rape.

The reality is that it is rapists who will try anything they can to rewrite what really happened.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!