On Hillary's Emails

[Content Note: Video may autoplay at second link.]

Although I'm supposed to be taking today off (lol), there's a big news story today: FBI director James Comey made a statement on the completion of the FBI's more than year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails.

The key point: The FBI found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and is not recommending charges to prosecutors at the Justice Department.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
By way of reminder, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has already said "that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

I have much more at BNR: "A Dark Day for Hillary's Opponents: FBI Says 'NO CHARGES' on Her Emails."
Hillary said herself that her vicious detractors, whose hopes for her fall have been hung on this investigation, would be deeply disappointed; that their "fondest wishes will not be fulfilled." At the same time, she admitted that she made mistakes with her email server and that she regretted doing it.

...The FBI announced, after its more than year-long investigation, that no criminal charges were appropriate in this case. At the same time, they also confirmed that the mistakes Hillary conceded were indeed worthy of her regrets.

We have repeatedly warned Hillary's ideological opponents – and competitors of all descriptions – that staking their reputations on a devastating outcome of this investigation, necessarily predicated on the idea that she acted in a way that was anything less than honest and ethical, was a foolhardy proposition.

Now, like the legions of discredited attackers who have tried and failed to destroy her over the last three decades, their reputations are crashing against the shores of her integrity.

This is what happens – it's what always happens – when people can't see past their own hatred of Hillary to understand who she really is.
The haters will console themselves by attributing her exoneration to her Machiavellian control over a rigged system, because an elaborate conspiracy theory is somehow easier for them to believe than the reality: That after an exhaustive investigation, she was found to have done nothing wrong—besides making an error in judgment (which itself only looks like a unique error in judgment if you erase the standards of practice of her predecessors).

And by embracing this approach, they will prove that they've learned nothing, relying on the same ridiculous conspiracies upon which their rotten expectations were based in the first place.

As I've said before, the most reasonable expectation to have of Clinton at this point is that, having learned from this entire thing, she'd make sure the electronic security in a Clinton administration would be the best the nation's ever known.

In any case, aside from the spin, the emails are now in the rearview mirror. Onward to Election Day.

UPDATE: And here's one more related piece I wrote, published at BNR: "America Just Took One Huge Step Closer to a Woman President."
The facts are simply not on the side of her detractors, and so all they've got is the same thing they've always got: Spin and insinuation and smears.

That strategy hasn't worked to stop Hillary for three decades. It's not going to work now.

...President Obama will join her on the campaign trail; she will continue to speak directly to voters about breaking down the barriers that keep us from fulfilling our maximum potential; and she will stand as a competent and esteemed statesperson in stark contrast to her Republican opponent.

She will continue to be the best candidate. None of the noise about her emails can undercut that.

We are one step closer to electing our first woman president. And I, for one, could not be more pleased.

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open (+ Programming Note)

image of a pub Photoshopped to be named 'The Shakesville Arms'
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]

TFIF, Shakers!

Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!

We'll be off next Monday and Tuesday, for the 4th and because I need a bit of a break, as I'm feeling super burned out. I hope everyone has a nice weekend, and I'll see you back here on Wednesday!

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



New Kids on the Block: "Step by Step"

This week's TMNS brought to you by "new" artists.

Open Wide...

The Friday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by fuzzballs.

Recommended Reading:

Do you want to read the draft of the Democratic Platform? Well, if you do, here you go!

Alyssa: [Content Note: Misogyny; racism] The Sexism of Brexit

Fannie: [CN: Misogyny] On the Fundamental Issue

Taryn: [CN: Misogyny; illness] Study Reveals That Women Are Literally Working Themselves to Death

Jen: [CN: Fat bias] 3 Things Plus Size Pregnant Women Should Know

Charline: Bust Ghosts at NYC Madame Tussauds' Ghostbusters VR Experience

Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Matilda the Fuzzy Sealpoint Cat sitting on the arm of the couch with her front paws crossed, looking pissy
OVER IT.

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

You may remember in March I mentioned that one of the things that had been revealed in Hillary Clinton's State email dump was that a trans woman from Illinois was able to start her own construction business because of the passport rule, and she wrote Clinton a letter about it and Clinton wrote her back personally. Well, there is much more about that story in this Politico article, which is at turns soooo great and so infuriating. And, for the record, Clinton has indeed bragged about that passport rule. Just enough, in my opinion, so that the people who care will know, and the people who would have tried to make trouble for trans people won't. Frankly, if there's someone who would have a higher opinion of Clinton if they knew, and they're all bent out of joint that they didn't, that's not on Clinton. That's on the people who don't care enough about trans rights to know about a major trans rights milestone.

In other Hillary Clinton news: She writes a note to The Toast, on their last day. Blub. (And OMG her author profile!!!)

[Content Note: Murder; racism; video may autoplay at link] "A Baltimore judge on Thursday ordered a new trial for Adnan Syed, adding a new chapter to a two-decade-old murder case propelled to international attention by the popular podcast 'Serial.' Syed, now 35, has been serving a life sentence since 2000, when he was convicted of killing ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee the year before. ...Retired Judge Martin Welch, who had denied Syed's previous request for a new trial, vacated Syed's conviction Thursday and said questions about cellphone tower evidence should have been raised by his trial team. The ruling came four months after a hearing that included testimony from an alibi witness who had been featured in 'Serial.'" At ThinkProgress, Judd Legum explains why there will nonetheless probably not be a new trial. (Previously on Serial: Part One and Part Two.)

[CN: Transphobia] I mentioned yesterday that some of the new guidelines on trans troops seemed problematic to me. In today's Guardian, Chelsea Manning raises those concerns, too, as well as noting that the revised guidelines make no mention of trans military personnel who are incarcerated.

[CN: War on agency] GOOD: "Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction against [several provisions of Indiana's omnibus anti-abortion] law's final disposition and sex, race, and genetic anomalies ban on Thursday, just a day before the law was to take effect. ...Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky worked with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana to file a lawsuit and request an injunction in April, according to a local ABC affiliate. Under the provisions halted by the injunction, pregnant persons across the state would have been banned from aborting a fetus based on an abnormality or race or gender-related reasons, among others."

[CN: Racism] "In the aftermath of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' board pledged to restructure its governance and increase its internal diversity. It took a major step in that direction with yesterday's (June 29) announcement of its 2016 class of new members. ...The incoming class of 683 members—the Academy's largest ever—is 46 percent female and 41 percent people of color, and represents 60 countries." That sounds like a promising start, especially given that the new class "includes several notable performers and creators of color who have vocally criticized Hollywood's erasure of people of color and structural racism before, during and after the #OscarsSoWhite outrage." Fingers crossed!

[CN: Misogyny; racism] WOWWWWW this video of Jessica Williams confronting Sanders supporters who say they'll vote for Trump. Wow.

"Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet." Of course he did.

OMG this may be the best Facebook status ever posted: R. Eric Thomas, commenting on a picture of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and US President Barack Obama walking down a hallway together, writes: "Whoever took this photo deserves a GD Pulitzer Prize. We may be two minutes from doomsday but thank the Lordt we still live in a universe where three world leaders can strut into a room like they're the new interracial male cast of Sex and the City. Like I have ALREADY prepurchased tickets to this film. Out here in these streets looking like Career Day Ken. Looking like Destiny's DILF." And it just gets better from there! CRYING.

And finally! "That is Quizno. This is his beach." LOL foreverrrrrrr.

Open Wide...

Please


Because I swear to the fates if I have to see one more headline about how President Obama is going to inject some enthusiasm into her campaign or have to read one more goddamn thinkpiece about how she needs to take a lesson from angry Trump and Sanders voters, I am going to lose my everloving shit.

Open Wide...

Good Grief, This Guy

[Content Note: War on agency.]

So, I'm reading this article by Molly Redden in the Guardian about how the Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt has opened the door for pro-choice advocates to mount challenges to similar laws in at least eight states (yayayayay!), and I come to this amazing paragraph about Donald Trump's delayed reaction to the decision:

Speaking to conservative radio host Mike Gallagher, Trump echoed a promise to appoint supreme court justices who oppose abortion rights. "If we had Scalia was living or Scalia had been replaced by me, you wouldn't have had that, OK?" he said. The decision was 5-3, suggesting the outcome would have been the same with Scalia's vote or a conservative replacement.
LOLOLOL! Excellent work, Molly Redden! That may be the most beautifully constructed euphemism for "Trump is stupid and uninformed and btw can't even do math" that I have ever seen!

And Trump thinks the media is mean to him! Please, sir. That was devastatingly polite.

Meanwhile, in less commendable journalism, Politico pitched Trump's day-late-and-math-skillz-short response to the Supreme Court's decision with: "Trump breaks his silence on Supreme Court abortion ruling."

Never has the phrase "breaks his silence" been more inappropriately utilized.

Open Wide...

Bernie, What Are You Even Doing? Today's Edition.

Yesterday afternoon, NPR's Rachel Martin tweeted that Vice President Joe Biden had told her that Bernie Sanders was soon to endorse Hillary Clinton.


Big news! Except, if you know anything about Joe Biden, you know that: 1. He's got a big mouth; and 2. Sometimes he uses his reputation for having a big mouth to pressure other politicians into doing what he thinks they should do. See: Same-sex marriage.

So I didn't really expect Sanders to endorse Clinton during his interview with Chris Hayes last night. Instead, I expected Sanders to not endorse Clinton and to rattle off a list of demands. Oh—spoiler warning.

Hayes: We have this tweet from, uh, Rachel Martin at NPR, who said in an interview conducted with Vice President Biden, he just said, "I've talked to Bernie. Bernie is going to endorse her." Her being Hillary Clinton. Is this true?

Sanders: [smiling and laughing] I talked to Joe—I think it was three weeks ago! Uh, look, on that issue, we are trying to work with Secretary Clinton's campaign, uh, on areas that we can agree on, where the people who supported me—we got about twelve, thirteen million votes. And what they want to see, whether it is on making—moving toward—making public colleges and universities tuition free, or moving very aggressively in terms of healthcare, and moving us toward a universal healthcare system, significantly expanding primary healthcare. Those are the issues that we're working with, uh, Secretary Clinton on now, and I hope we can be successful.
I. Fucking. Can't.

Open Wide...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh godddddddd.

Washington Post: "Gingrich, Christie are the leading candidates to be Trump's running mate."

NBC News: "Indiana's Mike Pence 'In Play' as Possible Trump VP Pick."

Newt Gingrich. Nope.

Chris Christie. No thank you.

Mike Pence. Hell to the no.

Look, there are a lot—a lot—of disqualifying reasons that these guys shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, even in the role of the understudy.

But the most disqualifying reason of them all is their willingness to be on a ticket with Donald Trump in the first place.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a Dairy Queen Dilly Bar

Hosted by a Dilly Bar.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker Ruby: "What 'bad' movie do you like and why?"

LOL all of them?! I am so much more likely to enjoy a garbage movie than I am a movie that wins the Oscar (EVEN WHEN IT HAS TOM HARDY IN IT) (I'm looking at you, The Revenant).

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

[Content Note: There are some flickery lights in this video.]



Olivia Newton John: "Xanadu"

Open Wide...

Photo of the Day

image of a little black girl peering over a US flag at a Hillary rally; she is wearing a headband that reads 'Hillary 2016'
[Photo: Michael Davidson for Hillary for America]

This picture is getting me right in the feels, y'all. RIGHT IN THE FEELS!

[Related Reading: Hillary + Girls.]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Sophie the Torbie Cat and Olivia the White Farm Cat napping in a blue chair together
Détente!

Sophie and Olivia usually get along just fine, but typically, it's a fight over who gets the blue chair, lol.

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

[Content Note: Rape culture; sexual assault; racism] Rage seethe boil: "The embattled judge in the Stanford sexual assault trial is presiding over a similar case in which a Latino man is facing a much harsher sentence than Brock Turner, raising questions about how the former student may have benefited from his privileged background. Raul Ramirez, a 32-year-old immigrant from El Salvador who admitted to sexually assaulting his female roommate in a case that has similarities with the Stanford case, will be sentenced to three years in state prison under a deal overseen by judge Aaron Persky, according to records obtained by the Guardian. The three-year-prison sentence, part of a plea agreement signed in March, provides a sharp contrast to the outcome for Turner, a white 20-year-old former Stanford swimmer who Persky sentenced to probation and six months in county jail after he was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. The parallel cases, which include similar felony charges of sexual assault, could lend weight to what critics of Persky allege are biases in his courtroom." They sure could!

[CN: Video may autoplay at link] "Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama will campaign together for the first time in 2016 when they meet in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Tuesday, Clinton's campaign said. ...'In Charlotte, President Obama and Hillary Clinton will discuss building on the progress we've made and their vision for an America that is stronger together,' the Clinton campaign said in its announcement on Wednesday." Do you know how excited I am?! YOU KNOW HOW EXCITED I AM!

[CN: War on agency] This is a must-read essay by Madeline Gomez: "The Burden Is Undue: What I Have Learned and Unlearned About Abortion."

[CN: Misogyny; rape joke] This Jimmy Kimmel video is going around today, for good reason. People are interviewed about how dishonest Hillary Clinton is, while straight-up lying about having seen news stories about her that don't exist. There is, however, a really awful rape joke in it, so I'm recommending it with that significant caveat.

There is difficulty, for a number of reasons, calculating what percentage of the population is transgender, but "a new study from the Williams Institute estimates that there are approximately 1.4 million [trans people in the US]—twice as many as were previously estimated." On the one hand, it doesn't matter how many trans people there are in total, in the sense that trans rights and accommodations are necessary out of basic decency because trans people, irrespective of the number, exist. On the other hand, demographic numbers have always had, and will no doubt continue to have, relevance to public policy, so the more accurate the number, the better—especially if the number of trans people has previously been underestimated.

[CN: Misogyny] This is a very frank and sad essay by sportswriter Bill Plaschke: "I regret marginalizing Pat Summitt's greatness: [T]o marginalize greatness because you don't think many people are watching is embarrassing, even shameful. Summitt's life showed that, when it comes to women's sports, if you follow the ratings, you miss the point."

[CN: Racism; misogyny; guns] Of course: "The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), which USA Today describes as a 'conservative-leaning ethics watchdog group,' was not pleased with House Democrats' sit-in last week. On Monday (June 27), the group filed a complaint with the House of Representative's Office of Congressional Ethics. USA Today reports that the complaint alleges that some of the legislators who sat on the floor of the House in an attempt to force a vote on gun control violated the body's ethics rules." Naturally, the women and/or people of color who led the sit-in appear to be primary targets of the complaint.

[CN: Trans policing] This seems problematic: "Transgender troops 'will be able to use the bathrooms, housing, uniforms, and fitness standards of their preferred [sic] gender only after they have legally transitioned to that identity,' according to guidelines emerging in a report from the AP ahead of a rumored announcement that the U.S. military ban will be lifted. Troops undergoing the process of gender transition would not be able to dress as their preferred gender while on-duty." Aside from the issue of general decency, it seems to me that this could present problems for trans people trying to transition, who may be required by healthcare providers to live as their correct gender as a prerequisite for legal transitioning. Are military healthcare personnel going to be advised to use different guidelines? I hope these "emerging" guidelines are submitted to trans consultants for review and edit before they are finalized, because they seem pretty clueless at the moment.

[CN: Climate change; video ad may autoplay at link] Damn: "Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) have survived in Antarctica for nearly 45,000 years, adapting to glacial expansions and sea ice fluctuations driven by millennia of climatic changes. The penguins remained resilient through these changes, but new research from the University of Delaware suggests that unique 21st-century climates may pose an existential threat to many of the colonies on the Antarctic continent. Published Wednesday in Scientific Reports, the study, led by oceanographer Megan Cimino, found that up to 60 percent of the current Adélie penguin habitat in Antarctica could be unfit to host colonies by the end of the century."

And finally! WeRateDogs is one of the most delightful accounts on Twitter, and this tweet made me laugh foreverrrrr.

Open Wide...

Today in Terrible Trumpery

[Content Note: Invasions of privacy; plagiarism; fraud; descriptions of sexual assault.]

This is not a complete list, because who has the time, but here are five stories about the horror show that is Donald Trump that you need to see today:

1. Buzzfeed: "Sources: Donald Trump Listened in on Phone Lines at Mar-A-Lago."

At Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach resort he runs as a club for paying guests and celebrities, Donald Trump had a telephone console installed in his bedroom that acted like a switchboard, connecting to every phone extension on the estate, according to six former workers. Several of them said he used that console to eavesdrop on calls involving staff.

Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to written questions with one sentence: "This is totally and completely untrue."

...BuzzFeed News spoke with six former employees familiar with the phone system at the estate.

Four of them — speaking on condition of anonymity because they signed nondisclosure agreements — said that Trump listened in on phone calls at the club during the mid-2000s. They did not know if he eavesdropped more recently.

They said he listened in on calls between club employees or, in some cases, between staff and guests. None of them knew of Trump eavesdropping on guests or members talking on private calls with people who were not employees of Mar-a-Lago. They also said that Trump could eavesdrop only on calls made on the club's landlines and not on calls made from guests' cell phones.

Each of these four sources said they personally saw the telephone console, which some referred to as a switchboard, in Trump's bedroom.
2. New York Times: "Trump Institute Offered Get-Rich Schemes with Plagiarized Lessons."
Mr. Trump also lent his name, and his credibility, to a seminar business he did not own, which was branded the Trump Institute. Its operators rented out hotel ballrooms across the country and invited people to pay up to $2,000 to come hear Mr. Trump's "wealth-creating secrets and strategies."

And its customers had ample reason to ask whether they, too, had been deceived.

As with Trump University, the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump did little, interviews show, besides appear in an infomercial — one that promised customers access to his vast accumulated knowledge. "I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into our seminar," he said in the 2005 video, adding, "I'm teaching what I've learned."

Reality fell far short. In fact, the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and had been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades. Similar complaints soon emerged about the Trump Institute.

Yet there was an even more fundamental deceit to the business, unreported until now: Extensive portions of the materials that students received after paying their seminar fees, supposedly containing Mr. Trump's special wisdom, had been plagiarized from an obscure real estate manual published a decade earlier.
3. Cracked: "The Laziest Lie of Donald Trump's Entire Campaign (So Far)."
For the past few weeks I've been running a small Twitter project called @DebunkTrump that's focused on picking apart the stuff he says because I was sick of doing that on my own Twitter account but couldn't stop the actual research part because I'm obsessive and broken please help. Only a few days in, I've already learned something more interesting than any individual lie I could debunk: the Trump Twitter account is making up supporters out of thin air.

...Look, if you search through Trump's twitter history, you'll find that it's not at all uncommon for Trump to quote accounts that are not only not real, but obviously not real.
4. NBC News: "After Saying He Forgave Loans to Campaign, Trump Won't Release Proof."
When Donald Trump said last Thursday he was forgiving over $45 million in personal loans he made to his campaign, the announcement drew plenty of coverage. Many even reported Trump's statement as if the deal was done.

But it's not.

A week later, NBC News has learned the FEC has posted no record of Trump converting his loans to donations. The Trump Campaign has also declined requests to share the legal paperwork required to execute the transaction, though they suggest it has been submitted.

...The delay could matter, because until Trump formally forgives the loans, he maintains the legal option to use new donations to reimburse himself. (He can do so until August, under federal law.)

...Even the remote possibility that Trump could tap new donations to pay himself fed skepticism among GOP donors, who wanted assurances that money intended for the election would not end up in Trump's own pockets.
5. Huffington Post: "Why the New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored." (Although I have not excerpted any details of the alleged assaults here, please note that there are descriptions at the link.)
Given all this, and based on the record thus far, Jane Doe's claims appear credible. Mr. Epstein's own sexual crimes and parties with underage girls are well documented, as is Mr. Trump's relationship with him two decades ago in New York City. Mr. Trump told a reporter a few years ago: "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitness to all aspects of her claim, a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity.

...Jane Doe's claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump's life of misogyny, are consistent with prior sexual misconduct claims, are backed up by an eyewitness, and thus should be taken seriously. Her claims merit sober consideration and investigation.

We live in a world where wealthy, powerful men often use and abuse women and girls. While these allegations may shock some, as a lawyer who represents women in sexual abuse cases every day, I can tell you that sadly, they are common, as is an accuser's desire to remain anonymous, and her terror in coming forward.

What do you call a nation that refuses to even look at sexual assault claims against a man seeking to lead the free world?

Rape culture.
This is one day in the campaign of Donald Trump. And not even a complete list of stories today alone about his vast history of fraud and abuse. He is really just a deeply unethical and harmful human being. It's that simple.

I've got a piece at BNR about some of this latest dirt on Donald: "Donald's chief qualification for the presidency, by his own admission, is that he's a wealthy guy who made lots and lots of money and knows how business works. But the way he made that money is by scamming people. And his knowledge about 'how business works' seems unusually centered on how to exploit business law to defraud and abuse people and avoid accountability for it. He's the very sort of business leader that is worst for both American workers and American consumers." Much more at the link.

Open Wide...

So Transparent

[Content Note: Bigotry.]

I've got a new piece up at BNR about this garbage interview that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did in which he made plain how shallow the Republicans' definition of "credibility" really is:

McConnell is uniquely concerned with Donald's presentation. He's a great showman, but he's got to tone it down to be taken seriously.

Donald's credibility with Republican elites isn't predicated on ditching policies like building a border wall, banning Muslims, or punishing abortion doctors. It's predicated only on using a Teleprompter.

Which frankly says as much about their credibility as it does about his.
Head on over the read the rest!

It's almost like what I've been saying for the last year is true: That Donald Trump is not, in fact, an outlier from mainstream Republican policy, and that the GOP elite don't actually give a hot damn about his supposedly outrageous policies, but only care that he is shamelessly frank about saying exactly what they are.

Open Wide...

I Own the Charge Proudly

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

One of my abundant critics' favorite charges during this election cycle is that I'm writing "love letters" to Hillary Clinton. Or some variation thereof.

The gist is always that I am either an unserious fangirl who's never done any critical analysis of Clinton, or a conniving operative performing a manufactured enthusiasm because I'm being paid.

Often: Both. Simultaneously. Because I'm MAGIC.

I've kind of said this before, but it's worth saying again: There are countless people who are willing—and eager—to write critical pieces about Clinton. None of them are asked to apologize for it. And I'm not going to apologize for predominantly sharing my positive feelings about her.

Yes, I write "love letters" to Hillary Clinton. And I own the charge proudly. She is someone I respect; she is someone I admire; she is someone to whom I am grateful; she is someone who I believe would make an excellent president.

And you know what? It feels good to write about women I like. It is one of the most joyful things I do. I feel lucky that there is a woman I like about whom I have cause to write so many enthusiastic things.

In this most horrible of elections, there is that. There is the opportunity for me, every single day, to write something about a woman I like.

That makes me pretty happy. And you're damn right I'm going to make the most of that opportunity.

And if I can, in my own small way, help her get elected, well, so much the better!

I know, oh how I know, that there are people who are lying in wait, who will, on the day that President Hillary Clinton makes a mistake or enacts some policy with which I disagree, show up to bray at me how stupid I must feel for helping her get elected.

I can promise you that I will own my fervent support of her on that day, too. Because the choice is not between Hillary Clinton and some theoretical perfect candidate who manages to meet the conflicting expectations of the entire progressive movement.

The choice is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And her presidency will not exist in a vacuum. It will exist in a context in which the only other person who could have made the decision was Trump. And Clinton on her worst day will still be better than Trump on his best.

I won't regret vociferously and exuberantly supporting Hillary Clinton. What I would regret is failing to do exactly what I'm doing.

#ImWithHer

Open Wide...

Donald Trump and the Validity Prism

[Content Note: Privilege.]

I just finished watching the latest of the rambling monologues that Donald Trump calls speeches. (Hey, somebody has to do it.) He was off-Teleprompter, so it was the usual impenetrable amalgam of insults, garbage words, and waving his arms around like he's a windmill fashioned from gummi worms.

There was nothing new to report, really—unless you believe that his saying one thing ("I'm all for free trade!") and then immediately saying the diametrical opposite ("Our trade policies are killing us!") is newsworthy. Which I guess it might be if you haven't been paying attention at all for the last year.

As I was listening to the same word salad as usual, I noted once again how often he spins yarns about the many, many people who have told him many, many different things about how tremendous his campaign is; how impressive his crowds are; how he's the most popular, the best, the greatest, the smartest, the only one who is saying this thing and the only one who has the intelligence or strength or bravery to do that thing.

It is well-observed that his superlative-laden tales are evidence of a man who is, in truth, deeply insecure. Not widely noted, however, is that fact that his being allowed to get away with this self-serving and unsubstantiable arglebargle in his every turn at the podium is a function of his male privilege.

He is held to a completely different standard from that to which women are held. I don't just mean Hillary Clinton; I mean all women.

Reports of our lived experiences are treated as something on which any man can be an arbiter; upon hearing the details of our lives, men are invited by their privilege to scrutinize those details through the prism of their own experiences. If it fails to perfectly align with their perception of the world, then we are denied our claim.

Trump, on the other hand, gets to say whatever he wants—about the world, and the news, and the media who produce the news—and, as long as he couches it in "people have told me" or "many people say," he gets away with it. Even with the entire world watching.

And, at this point, we're so inured to his vainglorious braggadocio framed as the observations of unidentified strangers, no one even bothers to call it out. He isn't called a liar, or a serial exaggerator, or a candidate with a dubious relationship to the truth. Not regarding his recitations of compliments, anyway. Sure, he's called a braggart, but he's not called dishonest.

No one ever makes a serious attempt to hold him accountable for these fairy tales. No one ever asks: "Who said that, exactly? Can you give us one name of the many, many people who told you that thing?"

The self-aggrandizing anecdotes with which he peppers his speeches are manifestly absurd on their face, and most of them are completely unverifiable. The standard of evidence is nil.

If, however, I tweet something about my own lived experiences as a woman, it is immediately subjected to rigorous evaluation by people whose identities give them no possible insight into my personal experiences of the world. I am denied the right to be an authority on my own life. I am asked to provide evidence of my own perception. I am asked for scientific studies that verify my claims.

This dynamic is so routine that when I coined a term for it—validity prism—most women (and other marginalized people) who saw it reflexively understood precisely what I meant. After all, we've all spent our lives being audited by people whose privilege we don't share, who find our perceptions of the world wanting.

But Trump. Well. Trump gets to say whatever he pleases about his perception of the world—and his place in it—without his integrity being questioned. If he proclaims that many people have told him that he's the most popular Republican presidential candidate ever, there is no clamoring demand for proof of these "many people."

To the contrary, if someone happens to have the temerity to suggest that maybe he's just making up a bunch of self-flattering crap and attributing it to other people, the reflexive pushback is: Well, someone probably told him that.

His outrageous claims are never in question. He is always given the benefit of the doubt.

This is invisible gender bias. He benefits from this good will, despite having done absolutely nothing to deserve it, in a way that no woman—including and perhaps especially Hillary Clinton—ever would.

It's dismissed as "Trump just being Trump," but it's more than that. It's Trump being the beneficiary of a privilege that is denied to half the population, who is instead asked to provide scientific evidence to justify our own observations about our own lives.

Open Wide...