Billy Joel: "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me"
Sanders Has a Big Problem: His Supporters
[Content Note: Misogyny; racism; harassment.]
The Sanders Stans are awful, and the media is starting to take notice.
Last night, I read this at the BBC: "Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online."
And this morning, I read this at Mashable: "The bros who love Bernie Sanders have become a sexist mob."
Sexist, and racist, and ageist. And I've seen plenty of LGB and/or trans people who criticize Sanders being 'splained at that they're ignorant or stupid or in some other way wrongity-wrong for their insufficient support of Sanders, too.
Naturally, people will say this isn't Bernie Sanders' fault!
And, sure, he's absolutely not explicitly directing his supporters to harass people who criticize him and/or support Hillary Clinton.
But when the central premise of his campaign is an aversion to "identity politics," and his primary line of attack on his female opponent is inherently misogynist, and his response to criticisms of playing into misogynist narratives is to accuse Clinton of looking for things to get mad about, and he reacts to criticism of his careless comments about major women's health and queer rights organizations by gaslighting critics and putting targets on their backs, and all he can muster in response to his campaign manager's gross misogyny is that the comments were "inappropriate," and when he's asked to center Black Lives Matter activism and deflects by talking about "all groups," and and and...
Well, maybe Sanders has earned some of the responsibility for how many of his fervent supporters are behaving. This shit isn't happening in a vacuum.
[NOTE: If you're fixing to respond by going in on Clinton supporters, save it. I have been doing this a long time, and I'm well aware every candidate has some supporters who behave in terrible ways. And because I criticize Clinton, too, I get my share of shit from Clinton diehards. But nothing, nothing, in all the years I have covered presidential politics has even come close to the garbage I get and have seen directed at others by Sanders Stans.]
Daily Dose of Cute
Zelda and Duckie.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Racism; police misconduct] The U.S. Department of Justice and Ferguson, Missouri, officials have reached an agreement that is poised to overhaul the city's entire justice system. [January 27] marked the end of negotiations sparked by the Justice Department's 2015 investigation, which concluded that the city's policing methods violated the rights of its Black citizens on the streets and in the courtrooms, all in the interest of filling the city's coffers. St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the agreement, called a consent decree, will go through three rounds of public hearings before the city council votes on its adoption on February 9. If it rejects the agreement, the Justice Department will move forward with a suit against the city. Key points of the 131-page agreement include: Community policing and engagement, policies and training, eliminating bias, stop and search procedure, first Amendment activity, force, and municipal code reform."
[CN: War on agency] "Ohio's GOP-held state senate voted this week for the second time on a bill that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood. This time state senators were met with protesters offering testimonies, wearing patient smocks, and asking where the GOP lawmakers expected them to access health care." The protesters are so brave and amazing, but fuck if I'm not angry they are obliged to do this.
Potentially good news for marriage equality advocates in Australia: "Support for marriage equality in Australia's parliament has reached critical mass in both houses for the first time ever, according to the Sydney Morning Herald: 'According to the key lobby group leading the charge for a broadened definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, Australian Marriage Equality, there is now a slim majority of pro-change MPs in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate.'"
Taiwan has elected its first female president: "In a landslide victory, the leader of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Tsai Ing-wen won the country's presidential election, becoming the first woman in Taiwan's history to hold the position. ...A scholar with advanced degrees in law from Cornell University and the London School of Economics, Tsai served previously as chairwoman of the Mainland Affairs Office, a government office that mediates interactions between Taiwan and Beijing. In 2004, Tsai joined the DPP, stepping in as the party's chairwoman just four years later. Despite a failed presidential bid in 2012, Tsai persevered, guiding her party to victories in regional elections. Tsai also emerged as a vocal advocate of women's and LGBT rights, advocating publicly for equal employment opportunities for women and marriage equality, respectively."
(If there are less flattering things to be said about Tsai or her platform, I'm not deliberately concealing them; I'm just not super familiar with Taiwanese politics.)
"The US economy grew at an annualised rate of 0.7% in the fourth quarter of 2015 compared with the same quarter a year ago, official figures show. The rate of growth marks a sharp slowdown from the 2% growth recorded in the previous quarter. The US Commerce department said one reason for the slower growth was a slowdown in consumer spending." Here's an idea: Let's pay people livable wages and then see if they have more money to spend!
Okay! "Friday marks seven years since President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, the first bill he signed, aimed at helping women combat the gender wage gap by giving them more time to bring lawsuits. But in that time, the gender wage gap—which means that American women working full-time, year round make 79 percent of what men make, a gap that's much larger for women of color—has only narrowed by two cents, not a statistically significant change. So to mark the anniversary, Obama will announce executive action on Friday to institute a new requirement that companies with 100 or more employees report what workers are paid broken down by gender, race, and ethnicity to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)."
Octavia Butler's personal journal is everything. Wow.
"Octopuses are social animals that change colors to resolve disputes and even throw debris at each other, video footage of a group of the feisty sea creatures in Jervis Bay has shown." They are forever fascinating creatures.
[CN: Fat stigma; disordered eating] Oprah Winfrey, who recently bought a huge stake in Weight Watchers and has been doing the most dreadful commercials for them, said in an interview, "I actually was traveling the other day and opened a 5 oz. bag of crinkle cut, black pepper potato chips and I counted out 10 chips. And I ate the 10 and I savored every one. And I put the bag away. Of all the accomplishments that [I] made in the world, all the red carpets, and the awards and those things that I've done. The fact that I could close the bag and not take another chip—it's major for me." I understand that Winfrey is dealing with disordered eating, but her stated goal is explicitly thinness. And the fact that she regards not eating chips as one of her major accomplishments is just fucking depressing as hell.
And finally! Baby hummingbirds! Squeeeeee!
An Observation
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
I can't remember the last time good faith engagement with a dude online on the subject of misogyny resulted in anything but a huge waste of my time.
It's happened. But not anytime recently.
Today in Fat Hatred
[Content Note: Fat hatred; bullying; body policing.]
Here is a cool headline: "Obese women experience much more negative social stigma than previously thought, study finds." Previously thought by whom, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure that fat women have long been aware of how much "negative social stigma" we get.
Women who are obese experience many more incidents of stigmatization because of their weight — an average of three incidents a day — than previous research has reported, according to a study published in the Feb. issue of the Journal of Health Psychology.LOL! It's kind of incredible to me that anyone could actually believe that, if you even have any meaningful interaction with fat people. Or even just look at how fat public figures are treated and the enormous amounts of ridicule to which they're subjected.
Past research has tended to suggest that people who are overweight or obese experience negative weight-related stigmatization only a few times during their entire lives.
But: "Those studies relied, however, on asking people to recall any past experiences with weight-related stigmatization. This new study had women keep contemporaneous diaries." Which suggests how unfathomably normalized fat hatred is for fat people. We are obliged to navigate a world so full of fat hatred that to ignore or deny an enormous amout of it is a crucial survival strategy.
It also suggests to me how pernicious fat stigma is: There are undoubtedly a lot of people who are ashamed to report incidents of fat hatred, because we tend to internalize that it reflects badly on us, rather than the people who bully and shame us.
As background information in the current study explains, the stigmatization of overweight people has increased significantly over the past two decades. These negative attitudes have disproportionally been aimed at women, even though the rates of obesity are similar for both men and women.Sure. Because men's bodies aren't considered public property and men aren't regarded as a sex class who are expected to conform their bodies to the sexual expectations of every random woman on the planet.
Weight-related stigmatization can take many forms, such as interpersonal (being ridiculed or shamed for your size), institutional (not getting a job or promotion because of your size), or physical barriers (not being able to find clothes that fit or chairs in theaters or restaurants that can accommodate your body).And "interpersonal" fat hatred is not merely just "weight-related stigmatization," if and when it's delivered by someone close to you. The article notes: "The most frequent sources of the nasty comments, by the way, were spouses, friends, and family members." A stranger harassing you is also classified as "interpersonal," but when a spouse or partner or friend or family member does it, that's not just fat hatred, but emotional abuse.
Which is something this study, like most studies of fat stigma, doesn't address. Emotional abuse is further damaging, and fat stigma is on its own damaging in myriad ways:
Such stigmatization has been linked to low self-esteem and increased rates of depression, but it can also have physical and health consequences. People who report weight-related stigmatization are more likely, for example, to become binge eaters and to avoid exercise and other healthful habits.This, of course, is something I have been saying for years: I have been a fat person who hates her body, and let me put this as bluntly as I can: There is no incentive to take care of a body you hate. No one has ever gotten healthier, in any way, by being constantly treated like garbage. And no one has ever gotten bullied into feeling better about themselves.
This study is hardly the first to find fat stigma to be harmful. And it's not like there haven't been outspoken fat people saying that very thing for a very long time—not that most people, especially fat haters, care to listen to us and regard us as authorities on our own lives and experiences.
And most of the people who engage in fat hatred under the auspices of "helping" have to know that it doesn't work—which ultimately reveals that its true intent isn't to help but to harm. To punish fat people for having the unmitigated temerity to be fat in their presence.
At this point, we don't need more studies saying that fat stigma is prevalent and destructive. What we need is a culture that agrees and decides to start disincentivizing the harassment of fat people.
[Related Reading: Today in Things Fat People Have Been Telling You.]
Round Seven Wrap-Up
Last night was the seventh (!!!) Republican debate, sans High Quality Person Donald Trump, who is TOO CLASSY to participate in such a low caliber event. I did not watch it, because I've already watched fully one kerblillion hours of these dirtbags saying awful things, and I needed a break. My apologies to anyone who follows my usual splendid commentary on debate nights.
Anyway!
The Washington Post has a complete transcript of the debate, and here is just a perfect clip of Ted Cruz that encapsulates the tenor of the latest debacle in this endless parade of bozofuckery:
Ted Cruz, standing at a podium onstage with several of his fellow candidates: —the last four questions have been 'Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted.' [audience boos] Let me just say this—GOOD FUCKING GRIEF.
Moderator Chris Wallace: It is a debate, sir.
Cruz: Well, no—no, a debate actually is a policy issue, but I will say this: Gosh, if you guys say—ask one more mean question, I may have to leave the stage.
[A mixture of laughter, cheers, and boos, as no one seems to be sure if Cruz is seriously threatening to leave or just making fun of Donald Trump. In my estimation, he was trying to make fun of Trump, but failing royally in his delivery.]
Cruz: The most important determination any voter is going to make in this election is who's best prepared to be commander-in-chief. Who has the experience, who has the knowledge, who has the judgment, who has the clarity of vision and strength of resolve to keep this country safe. That is what this debate is all about, and I would suggest let's stay focused on those issues, rather than just attacks directed at each other.
Wallace: I—I think the questions were about issues, but Senator Rubio—
You know who lacks the experience, the judgment, the clarity of vision, and the strength of resolve to be President of the United States? Anyone who throws a goddamn tantrum about being questioned during a debate.
Even if you're legitimately being "attacked." Especially then. Just ask President Obama if being subjected to unfair attacks is part of the job.
This shouldn't be a mystery to Senator Ted Cruz, since unfair attacks on the President is his speciality.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker DesertRose: "What food(s) do you wish you liked but hate no matter how many times and/or preparations you try?"
Eggs.
Meet Cutes
Yesterday, I read a thing where real-life couples shared the stories of their unusual meetings. Their "meet cutes," if you will. It was all straight couples, though, and it was all about romantic meetings, even though I've heard (and experienced!) some terrific stories of unusual meetings that resulted in non-romantic long-term relationships. Friendships, working relationships, etc.
Anyway! I thought it might be fun to have a Meet Cute thread in which anyone who wanted to share a story of an unusual meeting, whether it be a spouse, a long-term romantic partner, a one-night stand, a friend, a boss, a business partner, whatever, could share that story.
The circumstances don't even have to be all that unusual! Just feel free to share what made the meeting special to you.
The Inherent Misogyny of Sanders' Antiestablishmentarianism
[Content Note: Racism; misogyny.]
So, for awhile, Bernie Sanders' "establishment" line of attack on Hillary Clinton, and the organizations and people who support her, has been bothering me, for reasons on which I couldn't quite put my finger. I've written about some specific instances, but something about the overarching approach was itching at the back of my brain.
This morning, while reading this terrific Storify (which I highly recommend reading in full) by @docrocktex26, I came across this article (which had been highlighted by @eclecticbrotha) that begins thus:
The Sanders campaign is finalizing plans for its alternative route to the Democratic nomination, a classic insurgent strategy that is heavily reliant on the limited number of states holding caucuses.Emphases mine.
The idea is to take advantage of the caucus format, which tends to reward campaigns with the most dedicated partisans. The caucuses play to Sanders' strength in another important way—they are largely held in states that are heavily white, which helps Sanders neutralize Clinton's edge with minority voters.
With a dozen such contests coming before the end of March—and Clinton expected to perform well on March 1, the first big multi-state primary day—the caucuses are emerging as an integral part of Sanders' long-shot plan.
"Caucuses are very good for Bernie Sanders," explained chief Sanders strategist Tad Devine, likening the 2016 strategy to the one he deployed as Mike Dukakis' field director in 1988. "Caucuses tend to be in the much-lower turnout universe, and having people who intensely support you in events like that makes a huge difference."
The Democratic primary system is about as establishment as it gets. White supremacy and segregation are about as establishment as it gets. And Bernie Sanders' campaign is unabashed about saying they are exploiting the caucuses, and the primary schedule, which puts early caucuses in disproportionately white states, in order to try to win the primary.
In order for Sanders to win the office of the President of the United States of America. Which is about as establishment as it gets.
Which is reflected by the fact that, despite rumors of former presidents who weren't quite straight or weren't quite white, the first 43 of the nation's presidents were publicly viewed as straight white men.
President Barack Obama broke into that straight white boys' club. And while many of his policies uphold "the establishment," as it's defined by Sanders—enough that Sanders suggested that President Obama should be primaried in 2012—the establishment represented by the US presidency is not defined exclusively by economic privilege. It's also been long defined by the privileged identities of the people who held it.
The men who have held it.
Like Obama, Hillary Clinton supports a number of policies that uphold "the establishment." But also like Obama, Clinton would be more than a mere "symbol" for people who share her identity if elected.
This little black boy touching the President's hair and discovering it feels like his is more than a symbol.
This little black girl losing! her! shit! in the most adorable way about getting to shake the hand of a President (then candidate) who looks like her is more than a symbol.
The fact that there are children old enough to understand the basics of a presidential election who have never known anything but a black First Family is more than a symbol.
These images challenge the white supremacy inherent to the establishment.
Inherent to it, and a key tool in facilitating and upholding it.
These images, and the very existence of a black president, convey a possibility to young nonwhite people with a concreteness that can serve as the foundation of an achievable dream.
Paths littered with obstacles are always easier to traverse if someone has tread them before.
In this way, President Obama's presidency has changed the establishment forever.
A Hillary Clinton presidency would change the establishment forever, too.
Certainly I'm not saying that policy doesn't matter. Nor am I suggesting that there are not legitimate reasons to oppose Clinton's candidacy. There are. And no one should feel obliged to support her just because she's a woman—although no one should be shamed if they're supporting her for that reason, either.
But her presidency would be more than symbolic, just as President Obama's has been. And her presidency would be a challenge to the establishment, sheerly by virtue of her gender. And the gender of literally all of her predecessors.
In this country, we tell little girls, at least the decent among us do, that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up, but there are still so many spaces which women have never inhabited. And the most visible of them all is the presidency.
Because of an "establishment" that keeps us out.
And this is what bothers me, this is the thing that has been itching at the back of my brain, about Sanders using this particular line of attack against Hillary Clinton. To continually assert that she is representative of "the establishment," into the highest echelons of which women aren't even allowed, is a neat way of obfuscating the fact that she is, in her very personhood, a challenge to the establishment.
Let me say that again, plainly: Sanders calls Clinton emblematic of an establishment that has never even allowed a woman to be seated at the head of the table.
And the only way that argument works is by saying that Clinton's gender doesn't matter. Which is always, always, an inherently misogynist and dehumanizing line of attack. During the 2008 campaign, I wrote, in response to a commenter saying he wanted to "punch Clinton the person, not Clinton the woman":
Hillary Clinton can't escape the context of womanhood by wishing it away, and you can't wish it away, either. She can't wave a magic wand and erase it to her benefit, and you can't declare it irrelevant while discussing how you want to pummel her. She doesn't get to say, "I'm not running for president as a woman; I'm running for president as a person," because being a woman still matters in this culture; womanhood still precludes full personhood. You don't get to pretend that's not the reality in which we live to declare you're punching "Hillary Clinton the person," not "Hillary Clinton the woman."Earlier today, on Twitter, I was recalling when I went to see Clinton speak at a local union hall in '08, and the man who introduced her said she had "testicular fortitude." When she took the mic, she said that both women and men could have fortitude of their own—and she has it! That got lots of applause, especially from women. Because Clinton wasn't just defending herself against misogyny masquerading as a compliment, but every woman in the room who was hit with the rhetorical buckshot.
Consider what it means, just for a moment, that we are still meant to regard those as mutually exclusive concepts.
I will never forget having to see a female president start her campaign event by addressing misogyny, intended as a "compliment."
I will never not understand that Hillary Clinton is not allowed to forget her womanhood for a moment, even if she wanted to, while she is running for president, and what it means that Bernie Sanders' primary line of attack against her depends on treating her womanhood like it doesn't matter.
This, of course, is indicative of Sanders' entire campaign, where gender, or any identity, isn't what's important; the issues are. And no wonder: If Sanders actually embraced an intersectional approach that detailed how marginalized people are disproportionately and differently affected by economic, social, and political injustice, it might become abundantly clear how absurd it is to continually suggest that a woman is representative of the establishment.
And oh how absurd it is, truly, when one takes a long gaze at the uninterrogated misogyny that is being lobbed at Clinton, even by ostensible progressives. (That link shared with Erica's permission.) If gender really didn't matter, then it wouldn't matter to Clinton's opponents, either.
But it does. Clinton's womanhood matters. Her clothes matter. Her hair matters. Her voice matters. Her tone matters. Her likeability matters. Her emotions matter. Her "murderous cackle" matters.
The thing about "the establishment" is that it's impervious to such demeanment.
It sets the rules by which Hillary Clinton is judged ever wanting, by virtue of metrics that are inextricably tied to womanhood.
There is a person in this Democratic primary who can be visibly angry, who can shout, who can use any tone and show any emotion, who can show up to campaign events looking like they just rolled out of bed after a bender. Who can coast by on the double-standard defined and enforced by the establishment.
It is not Hillary Clinton.
All the things I am admonished to admire about Bernie Sanders, that he is passionate, that he is unpolished, that he is impolitic, that he doesn't give a fuck, are things that the very establishment he allegedly wants to dismantle do not afford his female competitor.
And it would be possible, eminently so, for Sanders to make the case for economic justice that didn't rely on calling Hillary Clinton the face of the establishment. But he has chosen a different path.
Thus have I.
And I hope, I genuinely do, that Sanders supporters will hear what I'm saying and reconsider replicating this line of attack. It is not helpful. It is not even neutral. It is harmful.
One might reasonably ask if I imagine that Hillary Clinton, with all her privilege, is really some sort of definitive challenge to the establishment. No. That is not what I imagine. What I imagine is that her being a woman matters.
Because paths littered with obstacles are always easier to traverse if someone has tread them before.
What I imagine is a future in which there are so many women with influence, multiple female presidents with ideas more radical than Hillary Clinton can even conjure, that to suggest a woman is representative of the establishment might be more than a mirthless punchline regarded as fact by people who think gender is irrelevant.
[Related Reading: Ha Ha But Seriously Who Cares If You're a Woman.]
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism; death] "The microphone equipment for the dashboard camera in the cruiser in which Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was riding on the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald had been 'intentionally destroyed,' according to maintenance documents first acquired by DNAinfo. The records, which include service requests on hundreds of Chicago police vehicles, show that officers have routinely been involved in the intentional destruction and sabotage of body-worn microphones that sync with dashboard camera video." Rage seethe boil.
[CN: Police brutality; racism; death] In related news from Chicago: "The Chicago police officer accused of killing 19-year-old Quintonio LeGrier just after Christmas says he intends to file a lawsuit against the dead teenager's estate, alleging that LeGrier assaulted the officer and caused him emotional distress. Officer Robert Rialmo claims he shot LeGrier seven times because the teenager swung a bat at him. Rialmo also accidentally shot an elderly neighbor, Bettie Jones, in the chest and killed her." I don't even have fucking words.
[CN: Contaminated water] "Senate Democrats said Thursday they would request $600 million in emergency federal aid to help Michigan attack the contaminated water emergency in the city of Flint, the most far-reaching financial solution proposed so far to manage the crisis. Under the proposed legislation, the federal government would provide $600 million in federal emergency aid to the state, with as much as $400 million designated for drinking water infrastructure improvements and $200 million to deal with the health fallout from the lead exposure. ...Democrats said the federal government has a responsibility to help Flint, where the drinking water was found to have elevated levels of lead. As of last month, the state had identified 43 people with elevated toxic lead levels in their blood. 'We all know this was literally a man-made crisis,' said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, who attended a town-hall meeting in Flint on Wednesday. 'It is so heartbreaking to talk to moms and dads and kids who are so afraid of what's going to happen,' she said."
[CN: Insurrection] The FBI is negotiating with the remaining insurrectionists at Malheur. While some remain inside the refuge, others are surrendering. "The FBI took three additional militants into custody Wednesday, as occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge began to trickle away from the site they have held for 26 days, and as the militants arrested Tuesday faced indictment in federal court."
Another big endorsement in the Democratic primary: "The Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) political action committee CAPA21 formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for president today, citing her track record on AAPI community issues and staff appointments. CAPA21 is the first major AAPI political action committee to make an endorsement in the 2016 presidential race. 'CAPA21's endorsement of Secretary Clinton is a recognition of her attention to AAPIs and AAPI issues in her campaign,' Glen S. Fukushima, CAPA21 co-founder and chair, told NBC News. 'A major rally dedicated to AAPIs, her AAPI Leadership Council, her vision statement on AAPI prosperity, and her appointment of AAPIs to key campaign positions demonstrate that she values AAPI voters.'"
[CN: Misogynoir; slut-shaming; reproductive policing] Kanye West went on an unbelievable Twitter rant yesterday, which included some vicious slut-shaming against his ex Amber Rose. Damon Young has the play-by-play with lots of amazing commentary, at turns hilarious and serious.
[CN: Fat stigma] "Barbie, the iconic plastic toy doll model, is getting three new body types this year. The US company behind the famous toy, Mattel, is adding 'tall, curvy, and petite' body shapes to its line-up of the fashion dolls. Several skin tones, eye colours and hair styles will also be added to the collection, the company said." But no fat Barbies, because we wouldn't want to tell fat girls that their bodies are okay, too. Fates forfend.
Wow: A New Jersey family's "one-of-a-kind geothermal/solar snow-melt system" had them out from under Storm Jonas' heaps of snow in no time!
And finally! "This Baby Polar Bear Hitched a Ride on Its Mom's Butt." As advertised.
Thanks, Bernie! Congratulations, Hillary!
[Content note: Gun violence]
A few days ago Mother Jones published an excellent article about Bernie Sanders and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which granted sweeping immunity to gun manufacturers against lawsuits. Written by Pema Levy, the article put that vote and the Act into important historical context: lawsuits were beginning to be a very valuable tool in the fight against gun manufacturers who flagrantly ignored violations of the law by gun sellers. I wrote about my profound sadness about his vote when put in that context, when considering what a very different country the United States might be if that law had not passed. Bernie Sanders is not solely responsible for the epidemic of gun violence the United States is facing--far from it. but being someone with liberal ideas and aspirations, I expressed my wish that he would listen and hear the valuable criticism he's been receiving about that vote, and about his probelmatic history with gun control issues. As recently as Monday night, he was still defending his vote.
Today, I was very pleased to learn that Sanders has aparently heard his critics on this issue and reversed his support for the PLCAA.
Text of Tweet from Dan Merica: "Tad Devine, Sander's top strategist, confirms that Sanders has agreed to be a co-sponsor of the PLCAA repeal bill."
Thank you, Senator Sanders. And congratulations, Secretary Clinton, for helping to move Sanders to the left.
That's not snark. (Okay, maybe there is a hint of snark.) From the moment Sanders entered the primary, many pundits and bloggers have trumpted the notion that Sanders would "move Clinton to the left," seldom acknowledging that there are issues where her record has more consistently championed progressive issues than he has. Or that there are issues where his "lefty-er" cred is actually about equal with hers. Or that there are issues where they both need to move, and pretty damn fast, if you ask me.
I think Sanders deserves credit for keeping economic justice and the influence of corporate money in US politics at front and center. I also think Clinton deserves credit for talking about women's issues, children's issues, and the way she has tied those issues to gun violence frequently and consistently. So thanks, Bernie and Hillary. Because you know who really wins when politicians listen to good faith criticism, from each other, from activists, from voters?
We all do, that's who.
Daily Dose of Cute
"Whatever you have, I would like some."
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Headline of the Day
"Coyotes High on Mushrooms Possibly to Blame for Strange Incidents on Highway." Possibly!
[H/T to Eastsidekate.]
Nope
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
This shit demonstrates complete ignorance of why intersectionality matters. You can't talk about income inequality, as but one of a million examples, and say gender doesn't matter, when the means by which income equality is enacted against women is different than how it is enacted against men.
And how it is enacted against women of color is different than how it is enacted against white women. And how it is enacted against trans women is different than how it is enacted against cis women. And black trans women vs. white trans women. And all the other identities that overlap with womanhood: Queer women, women with disabilities, fat women, etc.
Each of these groups are economically marginalized in very specific (and demonstrable) ways, explicitly on the basis of our particular identities.
And I will observe yet again that when control over our reproduction, or lack thereof, is one of the most important factors in determining women's (and trans men's) economic security, no one should be saying that gender isn't crucial to "the issues."
Saying that "gender is not what's important," as if gender is somehow separate from the issues about which Sanders is focusing, is antifeminist garbage that only serves to uphold kyriarchal privilege.
Sanders says he wants a revolution, but his campaign is tailoring a message to appeal to privilege. And you know what I think about that: If your revolution doesn't implicitly and explicitly include a rejection of misogyny and other intersectional marginalizations, then you're not staging a revolution—you're staging a change in management.
Trickle-down economics doesn't work, and neither does trickle-down social justice.
Challenger: 30 Years
[Content Note: Death.]
Thirty years ago today, the space shuttle Challenger took off as much of the world watched, and then exploded 73 seconds after liftoff, due to a failed engine booster.
Many US children were watching that day, because, on board with the six NASA astronauts was Christa McAuliffe, who was a school teacher meant to be "the first teacher in space." Lots of classrooms were tuned into the launch.
It's one of those moments in US history, like the assassination of JFK or 9/11, where people who were alive at the time tend to remember where they were when they saw or heard the news.
I was in 6th grade. My math teacher had brought in her own little TV, and it was sitting on a chair at the front of the classroom. We were watching it live, like most of the other students in the building, and I remember how all of us looked at the teacher when it happened, and she ran to the TV and grasped its edges in her hands, staring at the screen, like maybe she would somehow be able to stop it.
The Challenger astronauts are not the only brave explorers who have lost their lives in the history of the US space program, but January 28 is NASA's Annual Day of Remembrance, and today the 30th anniversary of the Challenger explosion looms large, even as they recommit to ever more ambitious space exploration:
Wreath-laying ceremonies were planned for Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida as NASA commemorated the seven lives lost on January 28, 1986, as well as other deadly space disasters over the years.Today we especially remember Greg Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Ron McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Dick Scobee, and Mike Smith—the crew of the Challenger, who died reaching for the stars.
"Space exploration is one of the most difficult endeavors we undertake, and from Apollo 1 to Challenger to Columbia, brave Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in our quest to push new boundaries, and explore new frontiers," President Barack Obama said in a statement marking NASA's annual Day of Remembrance.
"Yet, despite the dangers, we continue to reach for the stars," he added.
"From new partnerships with private industry to the development of groundbreaking inventions that Americans will take with them into the Solar System and eventually to Mars, we will continue our journey of discovery."
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker iwillbedamned: "An oldie but goodie: When did you first realize you were a feminist?"
Or, as the case may be, a womanist. Or a feminist ally. Or however you personally identify.
