She's basically just an attitude problem covered in fuzz.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Daily Dose of Cute
She's basically just an attitude problem covered in fuzz.
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: Terrorism] The latest from Brussels: "Belgian police captured a suspect carrying what a broadcaster said was a suitcase full of explosives on Friday, after shooting him in the leg during a major police operation following Tuesday's suicide bombings in Brussels. The federal prosecutor's office said the arrest was one of three in Brussels on Friday linked to the arrest in Paris the previous day of an Islamist convicted in Belgium last year and suspected of plotting a new attack. Nine people in total were arrested since Thursday in Belgium and two in Germany, as European authorities have swooped on militants they link both to the Brussels attacks that killed 31 people and to attacks in Paris last November that killed 130. Heavily armed police and troops with trucks cordoned off an area around a major intersection in the northern Brussels borough of Schaerbeek. Three blasts could be heard, which the local mayor Bernard Clerfayt said were controlled explosions."
So, the biggest US political news story today is that the National Inquirer is reporting Ted Cruz has had extramarital affairs with five women. Despite the fact that the National Inquirer is a tabloid, it has a truly remarkable track record for getting right stories about politicians' sex scandals. Many people will focus on the obvious hypocrisy of conservative Christian Ted "traditional marriage" Cruz cheating on his wife, so I want to point out that there's potentially a serious professional ethics violation here, as some of women with whom he allegedly cheated are said to be campaign staffers. In any case, it's neat how, if this story is indeed true, it still makes Ted Cruz only the second most objectionable candidate in terms of his attitude and behavior toward women. A+ party you've got there, Republicans!
[CN: Islamophobia] Meanwhile, in case anyone was still under the misapprehension that Ted Cruz's policy was somehow less terrible, bigoted, and dangerous than Donald Trump's: "Ted Cruz's presidential campaign is drawing extreme anti-Muslim propagandists into the mainstream of US politics, academics and Muslim civil rights groups are warning. ...[Trump's] proposal to close the borders to Muslims, among several of his other controversial policies, has prompted establishment GOP figures to swing behind Cruz as the 'stop-Trump' candidate. Yet by rushing to Cruz's aid, the Republican leadership is in danger of embracing a candidate who is even more extreme in his Islamophobic posturing than the current frontrunner. Cruz's foreign policy team includes people who have called for all mosques to be shut down across America, claimed the country is being subverted by the Muslim Brotherhood and decried all followers of the Islamic faith as jihadists. 'This is more than worrying, it is terrifying,' said Nathan Lean, a specialist in Islamophobia at Georgetown University's Bridge Institute."
[CN: War on agency next two paragraphs] "Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed a controversial abortion bill Thursday that, among other things, would ban the procedure if it is sought because the fetus was diagnosed with a disability or defect such as Down syndrome. Shortly before his deadline to act on the sweeping measure, Pence called the law 'a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life,' according to the Associated Press. The law, which was passed by the legislature earlier this month, would make Indiana the second state in the nation, after North Dakota, to ban abortion in cases where a fetal anomaly is detected. It also would bar the procedure in instances where the decision is based on the sex or race of the fetus. And it could make Indiana the first state in the country to require that fetal remains be buried or cremated, rather than treated like medical waste."
There is so much to unpack with everything that's wrong with this legislation. [CN: Disability] On the subject of denying abortion on the basis of a disability like Down syndrome, I will refer you (again) to this piece by David Perry, the father of a boy with Down syndrome and a journalist on disability issues, on the false binaries in decisions regarding aborting fetuses with Down syndrome. He makes clear that we need better support for people with disabilities, and for parents of children with disabilities—and I'm sure you'll be just SHOCKED to hear that Indiana is absolutely terrible at providing that support.
[CN: Water contamination] The Flint Water Advisory, an independent task force commissioned by Republican Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to review the Flint Water Crisis and its causes, has concluded that the crisis is a "story of government failure" and commends "the citizens who forced the nation to reckon with this environmental justice issue."
[CN: Misogyny; sexual harassment and assault] Just go read this whole thing by Franklin Foer: "Donald Trump Hates Women."
A new poll finds "women would overwhelmingly favor Hillary in a contest with Trump." Huh!
[CN: Send-up of misogyny] Y'all know I'm not a huge fan of Jimmy Kimmel, but this segment in which he mansplains at Hillary Clinton everything she's doing wrong is amazing. Especially when Clinton gets the ultimate punchline.
"Sanders campaign keeps lawsuit against the DNC alive." Of course it does.
RIP Garry Shandling: "Comedian, actor, writer, and producer Garry Shandling, known for It's Garry Shandling's Show and The Larry Sanders Show, died Thursday, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed. He was 66." My condolences to his family, friends, colleagues, and fans.
[CN: Video may autoplay at link] And finally! Do you want to see a panda taking a bath? Well, here you go!
LOL FOREVERRRRRR
Donald Trump has devised a cool new attack on Hillary Clinton:
Donald Trump appears to be adding a new line to his collection of signature insults, a list that includes "Low-energy Jeb Bush," "Lyin' Ted Cruz" and "Little Marco Rubio."Hahahahahahaha! Donald Trump thinks he's much smarter and much more competent than Hillary Clinton. Hahahahahahaha!
Within the past 24 hours, Trump has unveiled a new moniker, this time aimed at the Democratic front-runner: Hillary Clinton is incompetent.
..."I think people will see I'm much more competent than she is," Trump told Bloomberg Politics' "With All Due Respect" in an interview conducted Tuesday but broadcast Wednesday. "I think I'm much smarter than she is. I think I'm much more competent than she is."
Trump used the same phrase during his appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" late Tuesday. "Incompetent Hillary doesn't know what she's talking about," he told host Sean Hannity in a phone interview. "She doesn't have a clue. She's made such bad decisions."
Yeah, that's a real keeper, Trump. You go ahead and make this election about who's more competent—you or Hillary Clinton. We'll see how that works out for ya.
I mean, really just go for it. Frankly, the very idea that you want to make competency the centerpiece of this campaign is indicative of how competent you truly are.
Bring it on, Competent Donald! Take the competency game straight to Incompetent Hillary's face!
Because you are, FOR SURE, much smarter and much more competent than former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I really couldn't approve more of this strategy.
In conclusion:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
White Men Prefer Trump's Overt Misogyny to Clinton's Failure to Center Them Every Moment
[Content Note: Misogyny; white supremacy.]
Recently, there was an article in the New York Times about Hillary Clinton's failure to win white male voters. When asked about why they are failing to support Clinton in larger numbers, the men interviewed responded that they didn't feel as though she was centering them enough in her campaign:
Many said they did not trust her to overhaul the economy because of her wealth and her ties to Wall Street. Some said her use of private email as secretary of state indicated she had something to hide. A few said they did not think a woman should be commander in chief. But most said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them.Clinton's winning all other demographics besides white men is still routinely discussed as a failure in the corporate media (which is a neat commentary on the outsized value placed on white men), despite the fact that policies tailored to the needs of the most vulnerable people in a society will inevitably benefit the people who have more privilege. Trickle-down social justice doesn't work, but bottom-up social justice does.
"She's talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that's a mistake," said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. "She could have a broader message. We would have listened."
…[Forrest Giffin, 23, a Democrat in Sumter, S.C.], a mall supervisor and assistant manager at a gas station, added, "I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party."
…[Dick Lucarell, 73, who voted for Mrs. Clinton in 2008 and again on Tuesday] said that Mrs. Clinton was the target of unfair Republican attacks, and that she and her husband would be "a strong team." But he also said she had yet to give white men compelling reasons to stay in the party.
"If I'm a woman, I probably vote for Hillary. If I'm Hispanic, I vote for Hillary. Blacks will vote for Hillary," Mr. Lucarell said. "But white people, especially white men — she has a big problem there."
It isn't anything Clinton is doing wrong that's alienating white men; it's the reaction of white men who feel that they aren't being "cared about" at all if they are not visibly centered.
Which is why Donald Trump's campaign is so appealing to so many disaffected white men. Trump makes no bones about the fact that he is centering the needs, the fears, the anger of white men in his campaign. As white men's unearned privileges and power wane in an increasingly multicultural society, many of them are reacting with violent resentment.
Having long confused "privilege" with "rights," they are now convinced that their "rights" are being eroded, rather than losing some of the privilege they must yield if meaningful racial and gender justice is ever to be achieved.
In yesterday's Washington Post, Greg Sargent explored a new national Washington Post/ABC News poll which finds that a significant plurality of Republican respondents believe that "whites losing out because of preferences for blacks and Hispanics" is a "bigger problem" in the US than "blacks and Hispanics losing out because of preferences for whites."
Writes Sargent: "A majority of Trump supporters—54 percent—believe the bigger problem is whites are losing out. Meanwhile, 37 percent of Trump's supporters believe this strongly, again higher than among any other candidate's supporters."
He also points to a piece by Molly Ball in The Atlantic, for which she spoke to a number of Trump supporters, and found resounding sympathy for "the idea that they, the others, enjoy privileges, resources, and status to which we are denied access."
Trump exploits these resentments—and, further, he routinely unleashes racism and sexism that appeals specifically to white men who treat rights as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers, and who are gravely concerned about Clinton talking to and about people who are not white men.
And that's all she's doing—she's making explicit appeals to marginalized people. She's not saying terrible things about white men; her alleged sin is, in fact, not saying anything about them at all.
Imagine, for a moment, if Hillary spoke about white men the way Trump speaks about women. Imagine if she called them dogs and pigs, said they were ugly, said: "You've gotta treat 'em like shit."
If she did, white men might have a valid complaint. But a failure to center white men is not the same as being attacked, and it is not the same thing as being hated.
If you want to know what it might look like if Clinton actually did attack and hate men, all you need to do is look at how Trump talks about and to women.
White men desperately need to learn the difference between being attacked and simply not being catered to.
And yet somehow, this is still supposed to be Clinton's fault. She is expected to magically find a way to uplift people who are not white men, while still centering white men. That is simply not possible.
Meanwhile, Trump just keeps actively being terrible to women. And when someone in the corporate media even bothers to ask him about it, he simply declares, unjustifiably, "Women love me! No one respects women more than I do!"
And on we go, pretending that Trump's misogyny doesn't matter, and that Clinton has to do more for men.
"You Say You Want a Revolution, Well, You Know We All Want to Change the World..."
[Content Note: Privilege; bigotry.]
I've got a new piece up at Blue Nation Review on how "revolution" means different things to different Democratic voters, and why incrementalism isn't incompatible with the notion of revolution:
On the Democratic side of the aisle, there is a particular disagreement about "revolution"—how it's defined and how it's best enacted—that has come to be framed as those who want revolution (generally Sanders supporters) and those who don't want revolution (generally Clinton supporters).This piece was a long time in the
But that is a false dichotomy, one that unnecessarily segments progressive voters in ways that could be detrimental to our common interests; a misleading division born of and facilitated by a profound misunderstanding of why some Democratic voters, eager for change, may quite reasonably embrace a more measured and incrementalist approach.
...The prospect of revolution, and the notions of monumental, sudden, chaotic change it conjures, can be utterly unappealing to people desperately longing for comfort and stability.
This is an idea with roots in black anti-poverty activism, whose activists have detailed that, for many people living on the precipice, the idea of revolution can be nothing short of terrifying. People struggling to find money to keep themselves fed may be justifiably wary of the consequences of economic tumult for those already in financially precarious circumstances. People whose communities are under constant assault from police, corporations, and gentrifiers may be justifiably anxious about the prospect of further civil turmoil.
Like black communities, other marginalized communities may have members who regard the specter of revolution with fear and suspicion. And with good reason: Revolution is not always kind to vulnerable people.
At least not the kind of tumultuous, upending revolution being proposed by people who don't view Clinton's incrementalist, within-the-system approach as deserving of being called a revolution at all.
But how we view revolution often has a lot of do with from where we come.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker particolored: "What is your favorite random factoid/bit of trivia that no one else knows?"
That Kevin Breznahan played Roy in Alive. *wink!*
Clinton's Leadership on Trans Rights
[Content Note: Ciscentrism.]
Eastsidekate emails (which I'm sharing with her permission):
This is a nice piece from Samantha Allen on how the e-mail dump revealed that Hillary is a total monster.When this rule was first enacted, Eastsidekate wrote about it here: "Since We're Such Good Friends."
(tl;dr A trans woman in Illinois was able to start her own business as a result of the passport rule, and she wrote a letter of thanks to head of IL's office of Civil Rights. Eventually, it was forwarded to Clinton, who signaled her intent to respond in person, because that's the sort of bullshit she does.)
The passport rule doesn't get a lot of attention, despite being a big deal for the trans community, because most cis people don't understand what a big deal it actually is.
Allen's piece does a good job of explaining exactly why it matters so much.
[H/T the Clinton campaign.]
Paul Ryan: Still the Worst
[Content Note: Disablism.]
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan says he's giving up "anxiety" for Lent:
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released a video this morning detailing what he gave up for Lent, the Christian season around Easter where people sacrifice certain luxuries from their lives as a form of penitence for 40 days. His rather obtuse choice this year? Anxiety.I've had to navigate severe anxiety for years, and I can't even begin to put into words how angry this bullshit makes me, so please accept this artist's rendering of MY FACE RIGHT NOW.
"I used to give up beer, or ice cream, or pop," he said in the video. "But I've given up so many things over the years, food-wise, that I've decided to switch my Lenten vows to character deficiencies or problems I've had."
Here's a wakeup call to Ryan and anyone else who still thinks so narrow-mindedly: Anxiety is not a "character deficiency."
Anyway. I would like to give up anxiety permanently, so I hope Paul Ryan will help me achieve this goal by immediately resigning along with every one of his Republican colleagues across the entire nation.
I don't think that will cure my chronic anxiety, but it would be a HUGE help.
[H/T to Shaker KatherineSpins.]
Daily Dose of Cute
I've said before that Sophie is the only cat I've ever known who loves to be pet everywhere—her belly, her paws, her tail. Just as long as you're petting her! Here's a video of Sophs being super adorbz last night while I give her the full cuddle treatment:
Video Description: Video, set to tinkly music, of Sophie lying on her back on the back of the couch, with my arm stretching into the frame as I reach out to pet her belly (which she loves THE MOST), her paws, her head, her chin, her toes, while she curls around and purrs and is basically the cutest little monster ever.
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 crimes] "Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has been convicted of genocide and war crimes during the 1992-95 war, and sentenced to 40 years in jail. UN judges in The Hague found him guilty of 10 of 11 charges, including genocide over the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Karadzic, 70, is the most senior political figure to face judgement over the violent collapse of Yugoslavia. His case is being seen as one of the most important war crimes trials since World War Two."
[CN: War on agency] Jessica Mason Pieklo again has a must-read piece on the latest from Zubik v. Burwell at the Supreme Court: "Oral Arguments in the Birth Control Benefit Case Show a Court Concerned with Appearances over Facts: As we've seen time and time again, for the conservatives on the Roberts Court, women's autonomy is, at most, an afterthought."
[CN: Human rights violations] Jamil Smith on why President Obama needed to go to Cuba: "The reason Obama's visit ends up mattering is visibility. Having our lens trained not just on Cuba but on its people may be the true tipping point that helps further a human-rights campaign there, a process no one pretends a three-day presidential visit will solve. ...[T]he idea that Obama's visit there alone legitimizes the Castro regime seems overblown, especially in lieu of any better alternatives. A presidential visit is less a gesture than a diplomatic tool; the applause heard throughout Cuba wherever Obama went is a sign that it was well received by the people. And besides, the U.S. cannot limit its diplomatic sorties to countries that abuse human rights but also have things we need (like oil). The American public and the next administration should continue progressing in relations with Cuba well after Obama's presidency is over, but due to both his symbolic and tangible powers as president, we needed Obama to get this process started. It isn't a historic moment if he's not there, and without that moment, Cuban citizens and their struggles for liberty aren't back in the spotlight."
[CN: Homophobia] Fuck fuck FUCK: "Nebraska lawmakers yesterday voted 26-18 to shelve a bill (LB586) that would ban workplace discrimination against LGBT employees. The devastating blow for gay rights in Nebraska happened on Wednesday, the same day the North Carolina Senate voted to ban all cities in the state from enacting LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances. The NC ban also voids all current LGBT rights ordinances on the books in North Carolina, such as the recently passed measure in Charlotte. Nebraska Senator Adam Morfeld (above), who introduced the bill, has said that although his measure also lacked enough support to pass last year, he will continue to introduce it as long as he is in office."
[CN: War on agency; harassment] Rage seethe boil: "The federal investigation into the unfounded claim that Planned Parenthood profits off of fetal tissue donations has taken an even darker turn. A House committee led by anti-abortion Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is on the verge of issuing 17 subpoenas to medical companies to gather the names of medical researchers, graduate students, laboratory technicians, and administrative staff who are in any way involved in fetal tissue research. ...This new focus—that many say threaten the lives and livelihood of anyone involved in research that uses fetal tissue—openly exhibits the GOP's wild mission to find someone to hold accountable for a baseless accusation made in a few discredited attack videos. The attack has spiraled so far into broad areas of the medical industry, it's almost hard to remember it's solely rooted in lawmaker's beliefs about abortion. The researchers and technicians in question fear this attack could effectively halt critical research that depends on fetal tissue samples—including researching cures for the Zika virus, Parkinson's disease, HIV, and many other fatal conditions. Of course, many also fear that making the researchers' names public could seriously endanger their lives." Pro-life my fat fucking ass.
Neat! "The bright spots of Ceres continue to be a source of fascination for astronomers, professional and amateur alike. Now, NASA has provided the most detailed images yet of the strange structures."
[CN: Descriptions of violence, racism, and misogynist exploitation] This review of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is incredible. I can't wait to never watch that film!
This will probably be my favorite thing I read all day: "No buts about it, the butthole is one of the finest innovations in the past
540 million years of animal evolution." A+
And finally! "Hospital Starts Using Therapy Dogs to Help Stressed Staff." Awwww. Good dog.
Jian Ghomeshi Acquitted
[Content Note: Rape, assault, rape apologia, gaslighting, victim blaming. This post contains descriptions of assault.]
As reported by CBC, Jian Ghomeshi has been acquitted of sexual assault and of overcoming resistance by choking. And the judge's statements, as Tweeted by journalist Laura Fraser, are a stinking bag of victim-blaming bullshit:
While case law says that the judge also cannot hold post-assault conduct against the complainants, the judge says that, in this case, their behaviour seems "out of harmony" with their statements in court."The twists and turns of the complainants' evidence in this trial illustrates the need to be vigilant" in order not fall into the assumption "that sexual assault complainants are always truthful," the judge said.
"The extreme dedication to bringing down Ghomeshi is evidenced vividly" in the correspondence between the complainant and [actor and co-complainant Lucy] DeCoutere, the judge said. The vitriol in those 5,000 messages should make the court proceed with caution, Horkins said, as it became clear the two women were a team.
...The judge describes the witness's testimony, in which the witness tries to describe what happened to her. She struggles to say whether she was choked with one hand or two, whether Ghomeshi bit her at the time, and for exactly how long he would have had his hand -- or hands -- around her throat, revealed in the testimony the judge reads to the court in his decision.
...The judge also said that while it's normal for victims of violence to become involved with advocacy work, Horkins said the way in which she embraced this role may also have been because of the publicity it garnered her.
"I have to consider whether as a member of this team, Ms. DeCoutere felt she had invested so much in being a heroine for the cause that this may have been additional motivation to suppress any information that might in her mind, might be [accepted] negatively."
To sum: Survivors don't always lie! But unless they act like the imaginary Perfect Victim, they are lying. If they support each other, they are lying. If they are angry about their assault and say they would like to see their alleged assailant punished, they are lying. If they have imperfect memories of traumatic events that occurred some time ago, they are lying. And if they embrace advocacy, it's not because they have a platform and would like to help others, it's because they are attention hungry bitches who are most DEFINITELY lying.
Fuck. That. Shit.
I am so incredibly angry at this. Yes, it was always a long shot that justice would be done after so many years, but dammit, I so hoped there would be some legal recourse for what Ghomeshi put these women through. I offer my deep sympathy to Lucy DeCoutere, to the other complainants, and to every survivor out there who is in pain, not only because of the rulings, but because of the bigoted and sonorous misogynist assfarts that this judge has issued in place of any real legal reasoning. You are not alone, and you are not invisible. I see you, and I take up space in solidarity with you.
Very Presidential
[Content Note: Misogyny; objectification.]
I've got a new piece up at Blue Nation Review on Donald Trump's horrendous objectification of his wife, Melania Trump, and Heidi Cruz, who is married to Ted Cruz, in his continuing public game of "my wife is hotter than yours."
Essentially, he is just saying, "my property is better than your property." He might as well have compared photos of their houses or cars. It's blatantly objectifying—and treating women as possessions is one of the most basic forms of misogyny.Read the rest here.
Lest you imagine that I'm attributing to Trump an attitude he does not hold, in his 2007 book Trump 101: The Way to Success, he wrote: "Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art is not just superficial or something pretty to see."
Trump treats women, including his own wife, as a currency—the ownership of which confers status upon men. We are not our own people, valuable in our own right, but mere trinkets to be possessed by men, and used in their chauvinistic games of one-upmanship. I can't even with this guy.
Heinous Anti-LGBT Bill Passed in North Carolina
[Content Note: Homophobia; transphobia.]
Yesterday, Republican leaders of the North Carolina General Assembly passed an utterly reprehensible anti-LGBT bill, in order to override a nondiscrimination ordinance passed in Charlotte. It was introduced and passed within 10 hours, and Republican Governor Pat McCrory signed the bill hours after it was passed.
Via Eastsidekate, here is the full of text of the bill, which details the appalling scope of what was passed into law.
The Republican Party didn't give the people of their state any time to respond to the legislation, any time to protest, or any time to petition. They just rammed through some of the most indecent legislation to be passed in any state.
State lawmakers pushed the measure in response to a nondiscrimination ordinance adopted in the city of Charlotte that, among other things, allowed people to use the bathroom that matched with their gender identity. Legislators said immediate action was necessary to protect children and women from sexual predators who might pose as transgender to gain access to women's restrooms.McCrory justified his quick signing of the legislation by saying: "The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte. [The Charlotte ordinance] defies common sense and basic community norms by allowing, for example, a man to use a woman's bathroom, shower, or locker room."
But gay rights groups called the measure blatantly discriminatory and condemned it as the most extreme bill of its kind in the nation.
"Legislators have gone out of their way to stigmatize and marginalize transgender North Carolinians by pushing ugly and fundamentally untrue stereotypes that are based on fear and ignorance and not supported by the experiences of more than 200 cities with these protections," Sarah Preston, acting executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, said in a statement.
I have previously written about the despicable "trans predator" narrative used to justify "bathroom bills," and about how I do not want to be used to justify discriminatory legislation against the LGBT community.
I am enraged that this gross legislation was passed, and done so under the auspices of protecting people like me.
And I am enraged by the profoundly anti-democratic process by which this legislation was enacted. The Republicans can sit on their asses doing fuck-all for the country, refusing to do their jobs, until they have a chance to pass some discriminatory, hateful bullshit, and then suddenly they're ALL ACTION.
I take up space in solidarity with the LGBTQI people of North Carolina, who are now left with no option but to pursue recourse through the courts. And, in the meantime, will be unsafe, because the people elected to represent them cynically and cruelly misrepresent them as the threat.
The real threat is the Republican caucus of the North Carolina General Assembly.
This Is Getting Real Old, Sanders
Yesterday, Bernie Sanders sat down for an interview with The Young Turks, and once again proved my point that he's running against the Democrats as a Democrat. Following are just two clips from the interview; more are available here.
First up, Sanders responds to a question about whether he'd put Hillary Clinton in his cabinet:
Interviewer Cenk Uygur: If you win, is Hillary Clinton liberal enough to be in your cabinet?What I love (ahem) about this response is how it functions as two jabs in one: One at Clinton for not being good enough for his cabinet, and one at Obama for thinking she was good enough to serve in his cabinet.
Senator Bernie Sanders: Oh stop. Stop getting me in trouble here! [Uyger laughs] There are other people that I would probably go to before Hillary—people like Elizabeth Warren, for example.
Next up, Sanders responds to a question about whether Sanders will ask his supporters to support Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee:
Uygur: Now, a lot of people in the—in the movement have decided that you are their leader, partly because you're running for president, but, you know, you look at some recent polls of millennials, ah, they have you as by far the most popular politician, but they actually have you as more popular as a person they'd like to meet above Beyoncé, okay? [Sanders belly-laughs] Now that's a hell of a thing, right?A couple of quick thoughts:
Sanders: Yes!
Uyger: But! You have convinced them that Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate. If you were to lose, and the Democratic Party comes to you and says, "Okay, now take this movement, that is full of energy and is against the establishment, and make sure they vote for the establishment candidate," what do you say?
Sanders: Well, you know, what I say— Number One, I'm not big into [air quotes] being a leader. You know, I much prefer to see a lot of leaders, a lot of grassroots activism. Number Two, what we do is together, as a nation, as a growing movement, is we say, "All right, if we don't win"—and, by the way, we are in this thing to win; please understand that—"what is the Democratic establishment gonna do for us?"
Uyger: Oh, that's interesting.
Sanders: All right, for example: Right now, you have a Democratic establishment which has written off half the states in this country, you know that?
Uyger: Mm-hmm.
Sanders: And they've given up on the slate in the South, the Rocky Mountain area—are they gonna create a 50-state party? Are they gonna welcome into the Democratic Party the working class of this country and young people, or is it gonna be a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors? Which to a significant degree it is right now. You know, I've talked to Democratic Party leaders and said, "You know what? Instead of going around and raising all kinds of money from wealthy people, why don'tcha meet in some football stadium and bring out fifty, a hundred thousand people; bring the damn Senate in there, Senate Democrats, and start talking to people—ask them what they want you to do. How about that?" Better? Radical? So, in other words, if I can't make it, and we're gonna try as hard as we can 'til the last vote is cast, we wanna completely revitalize the Democratic Party, and make it a party of the people, rather than just one of large campaign contributors.
1. "I'm not big into being a leader" is a very curious thing for someone to say who is running to be President of the United States, a position often referred to as "leader of the free world," and further an executive position that requires an enormous amount of skilled leadership.
2. After running a campaign centered on demonizing the Democratic establishment, and coronating Hillary Clinton as its evil queen—with either no understanding or no concern about how important the Democratic Party is to lots of marginalized people in red states—now Sanders wants to know what they'll do for him and his supporters to make them feel welcome. That is fucking incredible.
3. Sanders accuses the Democratic Party of having "written off half the states in this country," even though his campaign has explicitly delineated a strategy of writing off those precise states—and has done so on multiple occasions.
I have certainly, over the years, made criticisms of the Democratic Party's failure to invest equitably across the nation, but I am super pissed that Sanders casually elides how hard state-level Democrats often work for their constituents. Like, as but one example, when Indiana Democrats left the state in order to deny the Republican majority the quorum they needed to pass anti-union legislation. Something that Democrats also did in Wisconsin and Texas.
The Democratic establishment includes the entire national party. And crapping all over the people who are often the only ones standing between Republican state majorities and the complete annihilation of marginalized people's basic rights is not endearing Sanders to me.
You know who else is part of the Democratic establishment that Sanders feels isn't doing enough for him? Wendy Davis. Know who else? Leticia Van de Putte. Know who else? Gabby Giffords. Know who else? Tammy Duckworth. Know who else? Bonnie Watson Coleman and Robin Kelly and Yvette D. Clarke.
Are they not doing enough for you and your supporters, Senator Sanders? Are these ladies not being sufficiently welcoming to you?
I guess they're just too busy dancing the night away at cocktail parties.
I'm so fucking done.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Alison Rose: "This comes from an old Judy Blume book, Just As Long As We're Together (probably my fave of hers): Fill in the blank and elaborate if you wish: I used to be _____, but I'm not anymore."
Unlikeable
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
If I never again had to hear anyone discussing whether Hillary Clinton is likeable, that would be amazing. That would make my whole life.
I loathe listening to people pontificating about Clinton's likeability—with special shimmering gems of contempt for an all-male panel of pundits disgorging totally trenchant nuggets of wisdom about how she could make herself likeable, after taking as read that she isn't.
I hate it for a lot of reasons, starting with the fact that assessing likeability—even when it isn't filtered through a magnificently distortive prism of uninterrogated misogyny—is an entirely subjective endeavor.
But, if I'm honest, the reason I hate it the most, the reason that I feel something hot and electric behind my eyes when I'm obliged to witness another of these likeability debates, is because I know that I am unlikeable.
I don't mean that no one likes me. There are people in my life who like me, and even love me, despite having seen me at my absolute worst. Who know my flaws and failures, who have seen me in moments of pettiness, anger, grief, insecurity, profound and demonstrable vulnerability. And who like me all the same.
What I mean is that, were I held to the same standards as Hillary Clinton, the same unreasonable, impossible, can't-fucking-win standards to which she is held, I would not fare any better than she. I would almost certainly fare worse.
I would be unlikeable.
I would be, by turns, aloof and overfamiliar; prudish and vulgar; too progressive and too conservative. I would be too loud, and my sibilant S-es would be annoying to delicate ears. I would be too wonkish, and yet too naive. Too serious, and yet too silly. My voice would be all wrong, and my tone, and my facial expressions. I would be unfashionable, and have the wrong hair, and be far too fat and ugly to take up space in public view.
I would be catastrophically imperfect. And if I tried to change myself, if I tried to modulate and temperize and adjust to fit the expectations, I would be a phony, too. An opportunist. Untrustworthy. Inauthentic.
Even more unlikeable than I was before.
It wouldn't matter if legions of people liked me. All that would matter is that the people who are given access to the most visible platforms in the country didn't like me. People who get paid to sit around a cheap, shiny table on a cheap, shiny set in a TV studio in some important city, dissecting why I'm unlikeable to fill airtime between rambling speeches filled with objectionable policies delivered by men whose likeability is never in question.
I know this because I watch how Hillary Clinton is treated, and because I already experience these things on an exponentially smaller scale.
I am unlikeable, for reasons I cannot control, to people who think it's more important to be able to like someone than to be able to respect them.
And I am keenly aware how the entire frame functions to diminish women.
Not just the woman who is deemed unlikeable, but the women who do like her. Unlikeable by association.
If our existence is even acknowledged at all.
I don't care that I'm unlikeable. What I care about is that the assessment is used to marginalize me, to marginalize all the unlikeable women in the world. That it is continually wielded against Hillary Clinton like a weapon, to destroy her.
I daresay Hillary Clinton doesn't give a single fuck whether anyone likes her, either. I suspect all she wants is a fair hearing.
She doesn't need people to like her.
But I do.
I am an unlikable woman, and I like Hillary Clinton. A lot.
