[Content Note: Privilege; monolithizing.]
One of the themes of this presidential election (of every presidential election), at least on the left side of the aisle, is which candidate is better for marginalized people.
Bernie is better for black people! Hillary is better for women! Bernie is better for LGBT people! Hillary is better for people with disabilities! Etc ad infinitum.
You'll never hear me make such a blanket claim, for reasons I've already explained, not least of which being that no marginalized group is a monolith with a universal set of interests. And because there are people whose identities straddle multiple axes of marginalization.
But lots of people make those blanket claims, without regard for individual needs and intersecting identities.
And as proof, they submit single votes on individual bills, or single quotes from long-ago speeches. Or, they say, this candidate listens.
Now, don't get me wrong: Listening is great! And I think it was important when, for example, Hillary Clinton said during her address in Harlem this week that white people need to listen to black people about their lives and experiences and believe them—especially because that comes embedded with the promise that she's going to do what she urges other white folks to do. And when she also said, "Hold me accountable," it is an invitation to do precisely that if she fails to listen.
But listening, even if that does indeed result in being a stronger advocate for marginalized people, is what presidents in a representative democracy are supposed to do.
It is my bare minimum expectation that a Democratic candidate for the presidency would listen to every community of color, to women, to LGB people, to trans people, to people with disabilities, to documented immigrants, to undocumented immigrants, to refugees, to people from marginalized religions, to atheists, to young people, to old people, to people who are poor, hungry, homeless. (That is not a complete list, nor are those mutually exclusive categories.)
Because no group is a monolith, different people within those communities are going to have different ideas of what constitutes a trustworthy and effective candidate, but there are common themes and needs, and the more listening one does, the more one hears the harmony, instead of what at first may seem like a cacophony of discordant expectations.
It is the job of a president who cares about justice to find those harmonies.
So listening is necessary. And a willingness to listen, meaningfully and in good faith, is terrific.
But what's getting lost in all the discussion of which candidate is better for what community is the fact that however good they may be is not only because of their own ability to listen, but because of the people who are giving them something to which to listen.
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a white person hectoring one of my black colleagues on Twitter for criticizing Bernie Sanders, shouting at them that they're stupid if they don't realize Sanders is the best candidate for black people, well, I could mount a third-party vanity campaign faster than you can say "Michael Bloomberg."
These white supporters lecture black critics while ignoring that, if Sanders is indeed, in any measure, a good representative for black people, it's because he's listened to and learned from black people.
Which is not a credit to Sanders, since that's what he's supposed to be doing. It's a credit to the people to whom he listened.
Being a marginalized person who endeavors to educate a privileged person on your needs can be a daunting task. And often a waste of fucking time. It means risking that they might not listen, but giving and time and energy to talk to them anyway, on the chance that it will make a difference.
No marginalized person is obliged to provide education to a privileged person (especially not on demand). But it's something we have to do, when we are choosing one person to represent our needs in a national agenda, a person who will serve as both head of government and head of state.
Not everyone wants to do it, or will. Not everyone will have the sort of access that gives them the chance to be heard by a (possibly) future president. But there are people who do get that access, and make use of it. There are people who make criticisms of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, in their own spaces, in the hope they might get heard. Maybe their concerns will be amplified by someone with access they don't have.
People who want presidential candidates to listen to what they have to say about their own lived experiences are brave and tenacious—and an integral part of the electoral process.
After all, what difference does it make if a candidate is willing to listen, if there's no one to listen to?
So, maybe the best way to honor one's candidate, if one has a preferred candidate, is to knock it off with the brazen claims about who will better for what community, and instead show some gratitude and respect toward the people in that community who have put their trust, often precariously at best, in a candidate to listen.
I can't be the only person who is tired of being told that I'm fixing to vote against my own best interests, by people who haven't even bothered to listen long enough to find out what my interests are.
I'm glad we've got candidates who listen, to varying degrees of success. But I'm even more glad for the people to whom they can listen, who are willing and able to raise their voices. Who advocate for their needs and compel better policy.
I endeavor to remain among them, working my teaspoon.
Candidates Who Listen—And to Whom They're Listening
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Carcerality] This piece by Josie Helen on who's responsible for mass incarceration is so, so good: "Here's the reality: if you want to fix mass incarceration, stop talking about Hillary and start talking about your local district attorney. If you want to fix mass incarceration but you don't know the name of your local district attorney—or you don't know when the primary is, or who is opposing them—you are making the biggest mistake you can make as a voter and as a responsible citizen. You cannot improve this problem if you don't know who is prosecuting cases in your county. ...[G]enerally, criminal justice reform lives or dies at your local prosecutor's office. These decisions are made there. That's where prosecutors make the choice to send someone to rehab or jail, where the rules are followed, where the plea deals are made. ...Prosecutors also have a remarkable amount of discretion, meaning that they often get to choose which crimes to charge people with and what sentences to recommend. That power is especially pronounced at the plea bargain stage, where prosecutors are constrained by little more than their whimsy." I urge you to read the entire thing.
[CN: War on agency; misogyny; Christian Supremacy] FUCKING HELL: A pregnant woman who was taken by ambulance to Mercy Health Partners hospital in Muskegon, Michigan, was miscarrying—and a specialist apprised of her situation said the fetus would definitely die, and the woman might, too, if labor was not immediately induced. But hospital staff "would not induce labor for another 10 hours. Instead, they followed a set of directives written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that forbid terminating a pregnancy unless the mother is in grave condition. Doctors decided they would delay until the woman showed signs of sepsis—a life-threatening response to an advanced infection—or the fetal heart stopped on its own. In the end, it was sepsis. When the woman delivered, at 1.41am, doctors had been watching her temperature climb for more than eight hours. Her infant lived for 65 minutes. This story is just one example of how a single Catholic hospital risked the health of five different women in a span of 17 months, according to a new report leaked to the Guardian." Goddammit. This makes me want to smash things.
[CN: Police brutality; racism; death] An enragingly familiar tale of a person of color killed by police and questions about the police version of events: "Just before midnight on January 28, a Tacoma police officer fatally shot Puyallup tribal member Jacqueline Salyers, 33." And although police assert that Salyers "sped toward the officers" in her vehicle, "Associated Press photographs of the car show that it was struck with multiple shots. Bullets struck the driver's side door, shattered the passenger's and driver's side windows, and punched holes in the passenger's side of the windshield. ...Tacoma Police Department spokeswoman Loretta Cool told ICTMN that additional information cannot be released until the department's investigation of the incident is complete." There is much more at the link.
[CN: Flint water crisis] Well, this certainly doesn't seem good enough: "The Michigan House approved $30 million on Thursday to help pay Flint residents' water bills in the aftermath of the city's lead-contamination crisis. The lawmakers unanimously OK'd the measure, which now goes to the Senate, which is expected to approve it and send it to Gov. Rick Snyder for final approval. Residents would have about 65 percent of the drinkable water portion of their bills paid by the state. Residential customers would still have to pay for water used to flush toilets or do laundry."
[CN: Stalking] Y'all know I am not a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand, but I have all the sympathy and anger for her that her stalker of 17 years (!!!) has been acquitted by an Ohio jury, who apparently believed the unmitigated horseshit that he "was a Christian who was writing to Paltrow in an attempt to minister to her," was seeking forgiveness for previous harassment, and was just "lonely [and] wanted to have a penpal." Fuck. That. I hope she is safe, although she understandably doesn't feel like she is, which itself can be terribly traumatic.
[CN: Video may autoplay at link] RIP Big Ang: "Mob Wives star Angela 'Big Ang' Raiola died early Thursday after a difficult battle with throat, lung, and brain cancer. She was 55." Like her or hate her, she was a true character.
"Trump Goes to War with the Pope." Sounds about right.
WANT! "Our favorite sassy squad, the women of The Golden Girls, are officially being turned into Funko Pop! Vinyl figures. The toy company had previously confirmed that the fabulous foursome would be getting the Funko treatment, and now we're getting a look at just how perfect they are." So perfect.
And finally! Pig + sheep + dog = Mangalitsa Pig!
Daily Dose of Cute
"Oh hello. Might I trouble you for a treat, a race around the house,
some ear scratches, a treat, a walk, and a hug? Also a treat?"
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
On That Garbage Holtzclaw Piece
[Content Note: Rape culture; misogynoir.]
Yesterday, the sports site SB Nation published a 12,000-word longform piece on Daniel Holtzclaw, the former Oklahoma City police officer who stood trial on charges that he sexually assaulted 13 black women, was found guilty on 18 of 36 charges, and was sentenced to 263 years.
The piece, which has since been removed, was a lengthy apologia written by a freelance sportswriter who had covered Holtzclaw's college football career. It was a collection of the usual rape culture tropes: Holtzclaw was a great guy; his victims were suspect; he didn't do it, but, if he did, it was because of one of a number of reasons none of which are that he's a gross predator.
After the piece was taken down, the editorial director of SB Nation published a note that admitted: "It was tone-deaf, insensitive to the victims of sexual assault and rape, and wrongheaded in approach and execution. There is no qualification: it was a complete failure." Naturally, he has promised to review "all of our processes in light of this failure."
My friend Jessica Luther, who writes eloquently and passionately and sensitively at the intersection of rape culture and sports, has written a terrific piece about the verbose rubbish published at SB Nation. I highly recommend reading the entire thing, but I was especially struck by this bit:
The thing about assigning a story about sexual assault to a sports writer who is good at writing about athletes is that you get 12,000 words about an athlete without any understanding on his part about how society talks about sexual assault, how journalists cover it, anything about it at all. Arnold's starting point is as a man who watched Holtzclaw's entire college career, who sees Holtzclaw as an athlete first, and who imagines Holtzclaw's story as a tragic arc. The victimized women are simply an anomaly to be explained away in the otherwise successful life of a nice guy who happened to become a convicted rapist.Yes. Because Jeff Arnold wasn't writing a story about sexual assault at all, like most of the sports writers who write about men who harm women. They write stories about Tragic Men.
As Jess notes, the entire framework was "a tragic arc." It is a familiar arc in sports writing: The high-flying athlete who succumbed to injury, or addiction, or impoverishment.
The Tragic Man who had to sell his trophies to a pawn shop. The Tragic Man who had to go to jail after raping women.
It's all the same story. And Holtzclaw's 13 victims are just things that mark his tragic fall from football hero. Jess again:
It's also a failure because it does the worst of what sports writing does when it tries to tackle issues of violence against women, including domestic and/or sexual violence: it centers the athlete and almost completely ignores the victims. In the nearly 12,000 words, I count just under 500 were about the thirteen (13!) women who came forward and testified against Holtzclaw (you can read their stories in their words at BuzzFeed). In telling the story of a man known almost exclusively because he is a convicted rapist, Arnold spent 4% of the many words he was allotted on the people who were harmed by Holtzclaw.Unlike most men, most women don't have the luxury of being able to disregard the ubiquity of sexual violence, to casually cast it aside in order to write an epic tale of a Tragic Man with whom we're meant to sympathize, instead of sympathizing with his victims.
...Also, more than almost any other media, sports media disproportionately has men writing about sexual assault and as the sources in their stories about it. Yet so often this is the group leading the national conversation around this topic. It's not that men cannot or should not write on this topic; certainly men have as much capacity as women to imagine a well-rounded story, to seek out female voices and experts, to recognize that both perpetrators and survivors will always be reading whatever they write, and to remember that the stakes are very high whenever you write on this topic in a society that victim blames and minimizes sexual violence.
But, as the Women Media Center recently found when looking at how men and women report on sexual assault, "Women journalists interviewed alleged victims more often than male journalists, and a higher proportion of women journalists wrote about the impact of the alleged attack on alleged victims." Women bring a different set of cultural experiences to the table, they ask different questions, and they seek out voices often left out. We need more of that or we will end up with more of this.
[Related Reading: On That Salon Piece.]
All Right, I've Had Enough of This
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
Over and over and over, I read variations on this concept: "My criticism of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her sex."
My saying I just have a vague but insistent distrust of her has nothing to do with her sex.
My calling her a liar has nothing to do with her sex.
My holding her to standards to which I wouldn't hold any other candidate has nothing to do with her sex.
My calling her a corporate shill has nothing to do with her sex.
My hatred of her voice has nothing to do with her sex.
My calling her part of a dynasty has nothing to do with her sex.
My shitty comments about her hair and clothes have nothing to do with her sex.
Yes, it does. It all does.
Lots of positive commentary on Hillary Clinton has to do with her sex, too—although that tends to be more frequently viewed through that lens. That Clinton is seen as strong and resilient and capable is largely because she is a woman who has overcome decades of misogynist garbage.
Even when I straightforwardly reference the gendered dynamics in a male candidate being credited for a female candidate's personal and professional growth, I am told that "making this about sex is beyond the pale."
But it's always about Clinton's sex.
I know this not because I am a mind-reader and can see the intentions of the people who are asserting that whatever commentary on Clinton has "nothing to do with her sex."
I know this because I am a woman—and not a single thing I do, not single thing I say, choose, think has "nothing to do with [my] sex."
I am indelibly who I am because I am a woman.
Even when I am not consciously thinking about my behavior and actions within that framework, the fact that I was socialized as a woman in a patriarchal culture, the fact that I am marginalized as a woman, the fact that I am always and unavoidably seen as a woman, with all the stereotypes and assumptions and expectations that entails, means that there is not a single goddamn thing about my life that can ever have nothing to do with my sex.
To suggest that any commentary about any woman could have "nothing to do with her sex" is just another way of asking women to wrench our personhood from our womanhood.
But our womanhood is inextricably tied to our personhood. The fact that we are not even given the right of full personhood is tied to our womanhood.
It's not fair and it's not just and it's not reasonable to suggest that you are ever regarding a woman in a manner that has nothing to do with her sex.
The good things I do are attached to my womanhood. The bad things I do are attached to my womanhood. Whether I want them to be or not.
I can't look at a choice I've made and know whether I would have made the same choice if I weren't a woman.
Even if I could, it's a theoretical construct that has nothing to do with reality, because I am a woman. And it is the patriarchal culture that defines me that way, which doesn't ever, ever, let me "just a person."
So I find it spectacularly objectionable when people argue that they're engaging in commentary on Clinton, or any woman, that has nothing to do with her sex.
Now, that doesn't mean that the commentary is inherently illegitimate, even when it's criticism. But it does mean that it's bullshit to pretend womanhood can somehow be set aside in making it.
I can't set aside my womanhood. Hillary Clinton can't set aside her womanhood. So no one else gets to set our womanhood aside, either.
Again: 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."What it means to treat personhood and womanhood as mutually exclusive concepts, as if any woman can somehow be a person without being a woman, is asserting the fantasy of an egalitarian culture at the expense of the people whose perpetuated inequality means it stubbornly remains a fantasy.
Consider what it means, just for a moment, that we are still meant to regard those as mutually exclusive concepts.
And doing so with the objective of concealing or denying misogyny ultimately serves to more deeply entrench the subjugation of women.
Asking me to stop talking about gender dynamics and make distinctions about Clinton's personhood vs. Clinton's womanhood—or any woman's, including my own—is asking me to participate in my own marginalization.
That is a request I will not accommodate.
Meanwhile, at Blue Nation Review...
...I've got a new piece up: "No, Bernie Didn't Make Hillary a Better Candidate, She Did That Herself."
One of the common narratives of this election is that Bernie Sanders has "pushed Hillary Clinton left" and "made her a better candidate."Head on over to Blue Nation Review to read the rest.
In the sense that competition obliges competitive people to become their best selves, and that criticism urges people to do better and gives them an opportunity to reflect and refine their arguments, it's probably true that a primary challenge has served Hillary well.
But that, of course, is not what the narrative that Bernie has made Hillary a better candidate actually means.
It functions to impugn Hillary's progressive credentials—indeed to imply that they don't exist at all—and, if there are any demonstrable traces of progressivism in her candidacy, they are attributable to Bernie, not her.
I have a problem with that. I have a problem with it because I intensely dislike a narrative that says a man owns the responsibility for all the good things in a woman's campaign, and I have a problem with it because it is simply not true.
Polls: Trump Is Down! Trump Is Up!
[Content Note: Video may autoplay at second link.]
NBC News: "Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has fallen behind Ted Cruz in the national GOP horserace, according to a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In the poll, Cruz is the first choice of 28 percent of Republican primary voters, while Trump gets 26 percent. They're followed by Marco Rubio at 17 percent, John Kasich at 11 percent, Ben Carson at 10 percent and Jeb Bush at 4 percent."
CBS News: "Donald Trump (35 percent) continues to hold a commanding lead over the rest of the field, with a 17 point lead over his closest rival, Texas Senator Ted Cruz (18 percent). John Kasich (11 percent) has now risen to a virtual third-place tie with Marco Rubio (12 percent). Trump leads among nearly every demographic group. ...Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA."
Reuters: "Donald Trump has taken a more than 20-point lead over U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas in the Republican race for the presidential nomination, bolstering his position ahead of the party's primary in South Carolina on Saturday, according to a national Reuters/Ipsos poll. Among Republicans, Trump, a billionaire businessman, drew 40 percent support in the poll conducted from Saturday to Wednesday, compared with 17 percent for Cruz, 11 percent for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, 10 percent for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and 8 percent for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush."
So, Donald Trump has a commanding lead or is now losing to Ted Cruz!
Either way, the Republican primary contest is a nightmare and whoever gets the nomination will be terrible! 100% of respondents in my poll of one me agree!
In related news: With three leading candidates in a maybe (?) tightening race, the Republican convention could be interesting.
Wow
Well, I'd never thought I'd see this happen in my lifetime:
Barack Obama will travel to Cuba in the coming weeks, becoming the first sitting US president to make a state visit to the island in nearly nine decades.Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who are Cuban-American, both said they would not travel to Cuba and then farted. (I'm paraphrasing.)
The White House is planning to make the announcement on Thursday, a senior administration official told the Guardian.
Obama and Cuban president Raúl Castro announced in late 2014 that they would begin normalizing ties. The Obama administration is eager to make rapid progress on building trade and diplomatic ties with Cuba before Obama leaves office. The two nations signed a deal Tuesday restoring commercial air traffic for the first time in five decades.
...President Calvin Coolidge went to Havana in January 1928 to give a speech to the sixth International Conference of American States, according to the State Department historian's office, which records the foreign travel of presidents and secretaries of state.
Question of the Day
If you could take the $10 million President Obama eliminated from the budget and put it toward any other single issue, what would you choose?
(Yes, I know that's not how it works! It's just a conceit to introduce a question about where we'd like to see better funded!)
Wrong Again, Republicans!
On a scale of -3 to 0, how shocked are you that legal scholars say "Republican arguments for next president to choose Antonin Scalia's successor lack legitimacy within constitution and supreme court precedents"?
Republican calls for Barack Obama to refrain from nominating a successor to deceased supreme court justice Antonin Scalia are "odd" and "absurd," according to constitutional scholars and experts.Back to the drawing board at GOP HQ, I guess!
"The arguments that they are making – that this is a matter of principle – are nonsense," said Michael Dorf, professor of constitutional law at Cornell Law School. "It's just that they politically want some different kind of nominee."
Quote of the Day
"Afro-Mexicans in the U.S. need to also be recognized. People do not know enough about us. We exist in Guerrero, but we also exist in the U.S.—they cannot forget about us."—Reynas Salinas, a native of Cuanjinicuilapa, Mexico, and resident of Santa Ana, California, quoted in a terrific article by Walter Thompson-Hernández on the largely unseen lives of Afro-Mexicans in the United States.
Fascinating living history. Definitely a must-read.
Shaker Gourmet
Whatcha been cooking up in your kitchen lately, Shakers?
Share your favorite recipes, solicit good recipes, share recipes you've recently tried, want to try, are trying to perfect, whatever! Whether they're your own creation, or something you found elsewhere, share away.
Also welcome: Recipes you've seen recently that you'd love to try, but haven't yet!
Thank You, Mr. President
[Content Note: War on agency.]
With little fanfare, President Obama has eliminated from his proposed budget for 2017 a $10 million-a-year Department of Health and Human Services grant that funds abstinence-only sex education in public schools:
At the same time, according to a statement by The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S., the President's budget increased funds for comprehensive sex-ed programs that actually do work.We have known for more than a decade that abstinence-only sex ed is both ineffective and typically full of misinformation and outright lies. We also know that it is a real fucker for people who have survived or go on to survive sexual abuse.
SIECUS is grateful for President Obama's leadership in seeking to end abstinence-only-until-marriage funding once and for all. After three decades and nearly $2 billion in federal spending wasted on this failed approach, the President's proposed budget increases support for programs and efforts that seek to equip young people with the skills they need to ensure their lifelong sexual health and well-being....Congress has until October 1st to debate the budget, but hopefully this is something we'll get through.
SIECUS also applauds the President's proposed $4 million increase for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, helping communities implement evidence-informed and innovative strategies to support the sexual health of our nation's youth.
The continued funding for the Division of Adolescent and School Health and request for future Personal Responsibility Education Program funding demonstrates this administration's commitment to secure the right to quality sexuality education for young people.
I couldn't be more delighted that President Obama has eliminated this grant, and I desperately hope that it will survive as the proposed budget makes its way through Congress.
Daily Dose of Cute
Yet another failed attempt to get a decent picture of Olivia, lol.
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: War on agency] Yesterday I mentioned Indiana House Bill 1337, an utterly appalling anti-choice piece of legislation. Today, that bill is being heard in committee, and you can follow coverage on Twitter under the hashtag #HB1337. Please see yesterday's post for ideas on how to take action.
[CN: War on agency] In other anti-choice fuckery: "An Alaska bill introduced last week requires doctors to terminate pregnancies in a way that affords 'the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive' after the procedure, without jeopardizing the woman's life. SB 179 also mandates Alaska physicians to judge if a fetus is viable and outlaws abortion care in those cases. ...In addition, the bill says fetuses that are 'born alive' can be turned over to the state's care under its 'children in need of aid' provision—an unusual requirement in anti-choice legislation." JFC.
[CN: Transphobia] Meanwhile, in transphobic fuckery: "South Dakota lawmakers passed an anti-trans bathroom bill on Tuesday that bans transgender students from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity. House Bill (HB) 1008 passed the state's house of representatives earlier this month and today cleared the senate by a vote of 15-20. If signed by Governor Dennis Daugaard, HB 1008 would be the first statewide bill in the United States to ban transgender students from using bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity." Rage seethe boil.
[CN: Flint water crisis; class warfare] I don't even have words: "Not only did Flint residents drink tap water contaminated with lead and other chemicals throughout 2015, but they were also paying the highest prices in the country to keep that poisoned water flowing through their pipes. A report released by Food & Water Watch on Tuesday confirmed what many residents had long suspected: that their water bills, averaging $140 a month, were the highest in the country."
Apple CEO Tim Cook explains why his company refuses "to help federal investigators unlock encrypted data hidden in a phone used by one of the San Bernardino terror suspects." Shorter Cook: Slippery slope!
[CN: Discussion of institutional racism] This is a great piece by Rembert Browne on Hillary Clinton's speech in Harlem yesterday, and with so much of the coverage of her address focusing on her coughing fit, I particularly lvoed his description of how the audience reacted to it: "It's like watching someone with the hiccups; you don't really know when they're going to end. But herein lies the beauty of the goodwill Hillary had built up in the room—the beauty of black people being an expressive bunch: The room started clapping loudly, almost to mask her coughs until she was done, to get her through this stretch. People were acting like it was church, when some member of the congregation gets up to speak but suddenly gets emotional or nervous. Shouts of 'Take your time, Hill' and 'You're okay' rang from all corners of the room. After a few coughs, Hillary squeaked out, 'I've got too much to say,' which was met with laughter. When some of the coughing halted, Hillary softly said a few sentences with her voice at about 10 percent strength, and after every few sentences, people cheered her on. There were even some 'HILLARY, HILLARY' chants. I couldn't believe it. This was followed by a second wave of coughs, more cheers and supportive messages from the crowd, which ended with Hillary saying, 'Thank you, you're a great amen chorus.' And a few minutes later, her voice was at full strength again. She was back."
[CN: Video may autoplay at link] In other presidential news: Clinton and Sanders are separated by just one point in the new CNN/ORC Poll. "Overall, 48% of likely caucus attendees say they support Clinton, 47% Sanders. Both candidates carry their demographic strong points from prior states into Nevada, with Clinton holding an edge among women, while Sanders tops the former secretary of state among voters under age 55."
President Obama says Donald Trump will never be president. ""I continue to believe that Mr Trump will not be president. And the reason is because I have a lot of faith in the American people. ...They recognise that being president is a serious job. It's not hosting a talk show or a reality show, it's not promotion, it's not marketing, it's hard. It's not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day." From your lips to Maude's ears, Mr. President!
Jeb Bush is the worst presidential candidate ever:
Video Description: Jeb Bush stands onstage at a campaign event, where he was being endorsed by Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham asks: "How many of you are Democrats?" No one in the crowd raises their hand. Jeb Bush looks around, then raises his hand, obviously trying to be funny, and then, when no one responds to his hilarious joke, he puts his hand down and looks around, awkwardly grinning.Oof.
[CN: Misogynoir] Perfection: An "anti-Beyoncé protest" (sure) scheduled in NYC yesterday was attended by, uh, no one. Except: "A bunch of pro-Beyonce people came out, and they joined up with some Black Lives Matter organizers, and the whole thing turned into a pro-Beyonce, pro-BLM, anti-police-violence demonstration. AMAZING."
[CN: Scat; sedition; racism] What the actual fuck: "The FBI said it has found a trench of human feces and a road excavated on or next to a sensitive cultural site with artifacts at the Oregon wildlife refuge where armed men staged a standoff with authorities, according to court records filed on Tuesday. ...U.S. Attorney Billy Williams of Oregon wrote in the filing that investigators found 'significant amounts of human feces' in a trench at an outdoor camping area that was either on or next to a 'sensitive cultural site.'"
[CN: Displacement] Y'all know I love space exploration as much as the next nerd, but I really loathe shit like this: "China is to relocate more than 9,000 people before the unveiling of the world's largest radio telescope later this year." Note that it's never, ever, white people who are displaced for the purposes of giant telescopes.
RIP George Gaynes. "Gaynes, who portrayed an irritable foster parent on the '80s sitcom 'Punky Brewster,' the bewildered commandant in seven 'Police Academy' films, and a soap opera star with a crush on Dorothy Michaels, whom he doesn't know is Dustin Hoffman's character in drag, in the hit feature comedy 'Tootsie,' died on Monday in North Bend, Wash. He was 98."
And finally! "Keepers at Taronga Western Plains Zoo are delighted to announce the birth of a Przewalski's Horse foal, born on January 20. The female foal has been named Bukhara after a reserve in Uzbekistan, Mongolia, where the population of this Critically Endangered species is regaining a foothold after being declared Extinct in the wild. ...'There are now almost 2,000 Przewalski's Horses in human care and in the wild today, which is a huge step for this species that was once Extinct in the wild,' said [Unit Supervisor Pascale Benoit]." ♥
An Observation
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
I've noticed something interesting, ahem, regarding the reactions to people who say they are supporting Hillary Clinton in part because they are very keen to see a female president soon.
Men who say they are supporting Hillary Clinton in part because they have daughters and they want their daughters to have the experience of seeing a woman in the White House and the validation that accompanies it are THE CUTEST THE BEST OMG WHAT A GREAT DAD.
Women who say they are supporting Hillary Clinton in part because they are women and they want to have the experience of seeing a woman in the White House and the validation that accompanies it are THE WORST SUCH SEXISTS OMG WHAT A DISGUSTING BITCHCUNT.
Huh. I wonder what on earth could account for this strange disparity.
What Is the Sanders Campaign Even Doing?
[Content Note: Misogyny; racism.]
The Sanders campaign had a bad day yesterday.
First, Hillary Clinton gave an address in Harlem on racial inequalities in the US. Unfortunately, I can't find a complete transcript of the address, but I live-tweeted it, and I've compiled those tweets in a Storify.
During the speech, Hillary Clinton's twitter feed was tweeting quotes from the address. At one point, came this tweet: "Anyone asking for your vote has a responsibility to grapple with reality—to see things as they actually are, not just as we want them to be."
At which point, Bernie Sanders' twitter feed (via Rob Flaherty) quoted that tweet and added its own commentary:
The tweet was subsequently deleted.
And no wonder—since Clinton was saying that presidential candidates have a responsibility to see racism against black people as it actually is, urging white people to listen to and believe black people when they talk about their lives and experiences, which makes that Bobby Kennedy rejoinder highly inappropriate. To put it politely.
Later in the day, rapper Killer Mike, who has been campaigning with and for Sanders, said during a Sanders rally that a "uterus doesn't qualify you to be president."
He later said he was merely quoting what a woman said to him. But a woman saying it doesn't make it any less offensive; doesn't make it any less misogynistic or ciscentric.
The habitual rhetoric of reductively representing female candidates—and female voters—to body parts, whether we are said to consider a uterus a qualification to be be voting with our vaginas, is contemptible. Women are more than our body parts. Not all women even have uteri and/or vaginas.
What Killer Mike said was indefensible, though that hasn't, of course, stopped people from trying to defend it. By, naturally, accusing critics who object of "being in the bag" for Clinton and "playing the gender card."
Also yesterday, "Ralston Live" posted interviews with Clinton and Sanders. You can view the video of both interviews here; Sanders' interview starts halfway through.
It begins with host Jon Ralston mentioning the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and asking Sanders if he believes President Obama should put forth a nominee. Sanders says he should and rightly criticizes Republicans for being obstructionist wankers. And then comes this exchange:
Ralston: I'm sure that the Republicans are thinking of having a President Bernie Sanders nominate someone—that's why they wanna wait, but serious question— [laughs]Welp.
Sanders: [jokingly] You think that's the reason?!
Ralston: I think that's the reason.
Sanders: Maybe, maybe.
Ralston: The serious question— This comes up, of course now, is what would a Bernie Sanders Supreme Court nominee look like? Will there be litmus tests, for instance?
Sanders: Well, a Bernie Sanders nominee will be somebody who understands the real world, understands obviously the Constitution and the legal history of America, but also understands the struggle of working families and the middle class. You ask me this question about a litmus test: I'm not a great fan of litmus tests, but I will tell you that I do have a litmus test. And that is: No nominee of mine will be nominated to the US Supreme Court unless that individual is crystal clear that he, or she, will vote to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. And I say this, Jon, because that particular decision, five to four decision, is so destructive to American democracy; it is so undermining what our country stands for, that in my view that has got to be overturned. So that is one aspect of my litmus test.
Ralston: Would that be the only one?
Sanders: Yeah. I mean, in general, I'm gonna want somebody who understands the world exists beyond country clubs and beyond the one percent. But the one litmus test I do have is that nominee will vote to overturn Citizens United.
Listen, I agree with Bernie Sanders that the Citizens United decision was ruinous. The day the decision came down, I wrote: "It is not hyperbole to say this decision is paving the way for America to become a fully-fledged corporatocracy, which, depending on your perspective, is a sibling to fascism or a version of it. ...This decision further diminishes any voice that isn't backed with a fuckload of money. Someday, we may look back on this day and realize it was the day our democracy died."
So I'm certainly not disagreeing with the importance of overturning the Citizens United decision. That said, I'm keenly aware of how the Supreme Court actually works, and there has to be a specific challenge to that case before the Supreme Court can even consider overturning it. Which is a lot less likely than many other pressing issues of urgent concern.
Like abortion. Like voting rights. Like affirmative action. Like queer housing and employment rights. Like immigration. Like the death penalty. Like criminal justice. Like environmental regulation.
Abortion is so consistently under attack that Roe is the perennial litmus test for progressives.
But Sanders doesn't even mention it. Not even when Ralston gives him a second bite at the apple. "Would that be the only one?" And Sanders replies by saying yes, he wants "somebody who understands the world exists beyond country clubs and the one percent."
Which is rather ironic, frankly, because I'm beginning to question whether he understands that problems in the world exist beyond country clubs and the one percent, and that necessary solutions exist beyond railing against country clubs and the one percent.
The erosion of abortion access started well before Citizens United.
One of the things I noted about Hillary Clinton's address yesterday was that I liked she stuck right in its middle the observation that President Obama is subjected to racism from the Republican opposition. I likd it because she called that shit out, and I liked it because it underlines the point that racism transcends class.
Not every issue can be solved by addressing wealth inequality. Not every issue will be solved, or even meaningfully affected, by rolling back Citizens United.
As I've said before: The more I see of Bernie Sanders, the more I realize how little there is. He is a one-issue candidate who believes that one issue is the root of all ills. I disagree. Which doesn't leave us much common ground.
Jeb's America
[Content Note: Guns. Image of handgun at first link.]
Jeb Bush continues to be an unmitigated disaster.
Yesterday, he tweeted a photo of a handgun which had been engraved with "Gov. Jeb Bush" and captioned it, simply, "America."
I don't know what he was going for with that shit, but it certainly read less celebratory than menacing to me.
I was definitely not alone in that assessment. Possibly because lots of us are less likely to own and wield a gun than we are to be (or to have already been) threatened by one.
I don't even know where to begin with this guy. Suffice it to say, if his vision of "America" is an engraved gun, our visions of the US are vastly different.
