Shakesville

"These are some of the people the Trump administration has hired for positions across the federal government."

At ProPublica, Justin Elliott, Derek Kravitz, and Al Shaw have written an extensive piece on the "hundreds of officials Trump has quietly installed across the government."

A Trump campaign aide who argues that Democrats committed "ethnic cleansing" in a plot to "liquidate" the white working class. A former reality show contestant whose study of societal collapse inspired him to invent a bow-and-arrow-cum-survivalist multi-tool. A pair of healthcare industry lobbyists. A lobbyist for defense contractors. An "evangelist" and lobbyist for Palantir, the Silicon Valley company with close ties to intelligence agencies. And a New Hampshire Trump supporter who has only recently graduated from high school.

These are some of the people the Trump administration has hired for positions across the federal government, according to documents received by ProPublica through public-records requests.

While President Trump has not moved to fill many jobs that require Senate confirmation, he has quietly installed hundreds of officials to serve as his eyes and ears at every major federal agency, from the Pentagon to the Department of Interior.

Unlike appointees exposed to the scrutiny of the Senate, members of these so-called "beachhead teams" have operated largely in the shadows, with the White House declining to publicly reveal their identities.

...The list we obtained includes obscure campaign staffers, contributors to Breitbart and others who have embraced conspiracy theories, as well as dozens of Washington insiders who could be reasonably characterized as part of the "swamp" Trump pledged to drain.

...The beachhead team members are temporary employees serving for stints of four to eight months, but many are expected to move into permanent jobs. The Trump administration's model is based on plans developed but never used by the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

"The beachhead teams involve people with considerable authority over the federal government," said Max Stier, the CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that advises presidential candidates on smooth transitions. "We need clarity about what they're doing and what their role is going to be."

There is much more at the link.

And if you imagine that Trump knew about "plans developed but never used by" Romney to assist in getting a coterie of deplorables in through the back door, I've got a bridge to sell you. I can guess who did know about those plans, though. Ahem.

Additionally, ProPublica did a complementary tweetstorm to the piece, at the end of which they invited readers to share information on other names on the list.

Aphra_Behn took them up on their offer. Her tweets, shared with her permission, are below the fold.

Your New EPA Chief

I cannot put it any more bluntly than this: The entire Trump administration doesn't care if people live or die.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"But we don't know that yet. ...We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

...Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, co-chair of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, slammed Pruitt for his comments, calling his views "extreme" and "irresponsible."

"Anyone who denies over a century's worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA. Now more than ever, the Senate needs to stand up to Scott Pruitt and his dangerous views," he said in a statement.

Rising levels of carbon dioxide are bad. Bad for marine life, bad for terra flora and fauna, bad for human beings.

But Pruitt's only concern is that capping carbon dioxide emissions is a minor inconvenience for corporate profiteers.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I will never understand the utter lack of self-preservation that underwrites climate change denialism. Not only do these people not care about other people, or even their own kids and grandkids; they don't even appear to care about their own damn selves.

All the wealth in the world won't matter if the planet is dead.

Nope. No and Also No Way.

[Content Note: Disablism.]

Steven Perlberg and Lissandra Villa at BuzzFeed: President Mike Pence Doesn't Sound Quite So Bad, Some Top Democrats Say.

On the shiny partisan floors of the Capitol Tuesday, no elected Democrat would concede on the record that there is any difference at all between Trump and Pence. "Both are terrible" was a standard response. But ask many members on background and you'll get an emphatic, "Yes, Pence would be 100% better."

"I'd sleep easier with almost any other human being as president than Donald Trump," the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau told BuzzFeed News. "I'm not as worried [Pence] would accidentally start a nuclear war because some Breitbart lunatic floated a conspiracy that got under his skin."

"I never thought I'd be in a world where I'd say this, but I'd much rather have Mike Pence in the Oval Office," said another former senior Obama administration official. "And the reason comes down to one word: crisis. All of the chaos of the last two months in the Trump White House has been self-inflicted."

"I think it's fair to say that every Democrat I know would prefer a President Mike Pence, without hesitation," said a third top Democratic aide. "He would pass some very bad laws, possibly more efficiently than Trump will. But we would not be worried about nuclear war, the end of NATO and an unholy alliance with Russia, the dissolution of basic democratic norms and principles, or the base-level stability and mental health of the world’s most powerful person."

"I know Pence is a much more doctrinaire conservative, but he is not evil and he is not crazy," said one of Bill Clinton's former top White House staffers. "I know that's a pathetically low bar for the most powerful job on earth, but if that's the choice, it is an easy one."

...And up in Silicon Valley, the investor Chris Sacca, a leading liberal voice, said that while he deplores Pence's policies, he would still prefer him to the incumbent.

"Pence's policies would likely be just as bad as Trump's when it comes to the impact on poor and working-class people and draconian toward women, people of color, and our LGBT Americans," he said. "But at least Pence has respect for our democratic institutions. He has no business conflicts of interest, respects the press, doesn't undermine our military and intelligence community leadership, doesn't praise foreign dictators, and is not hell-bent on destroying government agencies that protect our country and the people here."

Emphasis mine.

What all of this tells me is that none of these folks are very familiar with Mike Pence.

It's probably true that Pence is less likely to start a nuclear war over some bullshit, which is no small thing, but Pence is just as likely (and maybe even more so) to start another kind of war over some bullshit. Just like the last Republican president did.

There is absolutely no reason to believe—none—that Pence is any less likely to replicate the strategy that worked so well for George W. Bush, and cook up some garbage rationale for invading another country.

And this idea that Pence "has respect for our democratic institutions," that he is somehow less disposed toward authoritarian rule than Donald Trump, is manifestly and dangerously wrong.

Let me again tell you the story of Glenda Ritz: Glenda Ritz, a Democrat, was elected in 2012 to be Indiana's Superintendent of Public Instruction. She was a huge underdog—but defeated the incumbent because a majority of Hoosiers, both progressive and conservative, supported her willingness to challenge Republican proposals that would destroy public education in Indiana.

Ritz was the first Democrat to serve as Superintendent in 40 years.

Pence was elected during the same election. One of his first acts as governor was to remove Ritz from the union-centered Educational Employment Relations Board. The Republican-controlled House Education Committee then proposed a bill to "strip the superintendent's position as chair of the State Board of Education. …The bill would allow Republican Gov. Mike Pence's 10 appointees to the 11-member board to elect their own chair."

In other words, as soon as a Democrat was elected to an influential state position (with 53% of the vote, higher than Pence received), the Republican governor and legislature set to rendering her office utterly without power and empowering themselves to oust her and prevent the reforms she was elected to champion.

The Republicans claimed their power grab, with Pence leading the charge, was merely intended to "clarify control of education policy."

Which is quite an extraordinary euphemism for seize unilateral control of education policy, in direct contravention of the will of the voters.

This is how Pence does business.

Which is to say nothing of his email problem. Pence recently turned over 13 boxes of emails in an "effort to make sure they are archived as required by law." The fact that he only turned these over after his email became a national news story is indicative of the fact that he wouldn't have complied if he hadn't been caught.

And, as a reminder, Pence continues his campaign to get the Indiana Supreme Court to "stay out of his redacted emails." When I linked that story a week ago, I noted: "Anyone who imagines Pence is less authoritarian or more decent than Trump is sorely mistaken."

Those examples are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, as longtime readers who have followed my coverage of Pence over the years already know.

Pence thrives in a vacuum of inattention and the resulting ignorance of people who never paid attention to him while he was governor of Indiana, and don't pay attention to the people who lived under and wrote about his governance.

[CN: Video may autoplay at link; H/T to Aphra] In a piece for the Indy Star, Matthew Tully shares the perspective of one reader reacting to his suggestion that Pence might be "a health upgrade from the current occupant of the White House."

Mike agreed but emailed to put things in perspective. "It does seem funny," he said. "Less than a year ago folks, including you, were saying Pence was a horrible governor. The odds were probably less than 50/50 that he would have (won reelection). Fast forward and he's now the most popular politician in D.C."

"Well," Mike concluded, "ain't this a conundrum of epic proportions?"

It is. But it's also an entirely avoidable conundrum. If Trump must go because he's a despotic nightmare who has no respect for the rule of law or our democratic institutions, then Pence must go, too. He is as much a part of this chaotic, cruel administration as the man who ran at the top of the ticket.

And if anyone imagines that Pence, who is an experienced politician and knows how to get things done, will somehow be an improvement on Trump wallowing in missteps, I hasten to warn them they have made a terrible miscalculation.

Talk to a progressive who lived in Indiana under Mike Pence's governance, aided by a Republican majority in the state legislature. See how they think it went, instead of basing your opinions on what's been reported by people who have never stepped foot in Indiana.

I am available for all inquiries.

Of Course

If you're just waking up

☑️ House Ways & Means has advanced ACA repeal tax provisions

🔲 House Energy & Commerce markup still continues
— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) March 9, 2017

House panel OKs health bill, industry groups say “no.” https://t.co/FoJmbFZl8K'
— The Associated Press (@AP) March 9, 2017

After an 18-hour session, the House Ways and Means Committee approves the Republicans' health care plan https://t.co/qWvOVyPk6J pic.twitter.com/hIE5GsJk4t
— CNN (@CNN) March 9, 2017

I don't even know what to say, other than: 1. How dare you. 2. Republican Senators are already making noise that their House colleagues are moving too fast. It's not because they want a better bill; it's because they are worried that House Republicans will fuck it up and then, horror of horrors, they might not be able to sign away millions of people's healthcare access.

Rage. Seethe. Boil.

Open Thread

image of a yellow couch

Hosted by a yellow sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker catvoncat: What are your best home remedies for sinus infection, cold, and/or flu?

Aside from as much rest as is possible to get, I swear by the healing power of matzo ball soup.

The Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by gardens.

Recommended Reading:

Flavia: [Content Note: White supremacy] Alt-Feminism and the White Nationalist Women Who Love It

Chauncey: [CN: Nazi reference] New Research Shows How Breitbart and the Broader Right-wing Hate Media Circulated Disinformation to Help Trump Win the White House

Martina: [CN: Fat hatred] 'It's Because You're Fat'—And Other Lies My Doctors Told Me

Ragen: [CN: Fat hatred] Horrific Healthcare for Fat People

Michael: [CN: LGBTQ hatred] Appeals Court Will Hear Case Against North Carolina's Anti-LGBT HB2 Law in May

Yessenia: Senate Moves to Repeal Another Obama-Era Environmental Regulation

Ryan: Scientists Finally Observed Time Crystals—But What the Hell Are They?

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

In Case You Were Wondering Where I Stood on This

[Content Note: Misogyny; abuse.]

I don't give a drip what anyone in this WH says or does on International Women's Day. The president is a serial abuser of women. The end.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 8, 2017

Sean Spicer Can't and Won't Tell the Truth about the GOP Healthcare Proposal

At today's White House Press Briefing, Sean Spicer answered a question about how many people would be covered under the Republican healthcare plan with this ridiculous dodge:

.@PressSec: "How many people are going to be covered?" isn't right question, but "how many people are going to get the care they need?" pic.twitter.com/xJMcJN4TYH
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) March 8, 2017

As I mentioned yesterday, and I can't overstate this, there's a difference between having a card and having care. Being told you have coverage, and not being able to use it, is no good. And that's the thing that I think is really important. It's, it's— When we get asked the question so often "How many people are going to be covered?" it's—that's not the question that should be asked. "How many people are going to get the care they need?" Having coverage with a high deductible, and, in some cases—or not having a plan that allows you to get the coverage you need, or afford it, isn't real coverage. It's a card. And I think that's the big difference in the approach that we're taking here.

Sure. Yes. The issue is healthcare access. But how many people are covered is a rather crucial part of the access question.

So why won't Spicer answer it?

Because he can't. Not honestly, anyway. Because, as Abby Goodnough and Reed Abelson report at the New York Times: Millions Risk Losing Health Insurance in Republican Plan, Analysts Say.

Millions of people who get private health coverage through the Affordable Care Act would be at risk of losing it under the replacement legislation proposed by House Republicans, analysts said Tuesday, with Americans in their 50s and 60s especially likely to find coverage unaffordable.

Starting in 2020, the plan would do away with the current system of providing premium subsidies based on people's income and the cost of insurance where they live. Instead, it would provide tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 per year based on their age.

But the credits would not cover nearly as much of the cost of premiums as the current subsidies do, at least for the type of comprehensive coverage that the Affordable Care Act requires, analysts said. For many people, that could mean the difference between keeping coverage under the new system and having to give it up.

...The Congressional Budget Office has yet to release its official estimates of how many people would lose coverage under the proposal, but a report from Standard & Poor's estimated that two million to four million people would drop out of the individual insurance market, largely because people in their 50s and early 60s — those too young to qualify for Medicare — would face higher costs. Other analysts, including those at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, have estimated larger coverage losses.

That is simply not something Spicer is willing to admit. So he spins fairy tales about better access, to deflect attention from how devastating this proposal really is.

The Radical Act of Liking Women

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

On International Women's Day, here is my advice to anyone—man or woman or genderqueer—who wants to do better by women.

Obviously, the starting point is not engaging in misogyny. But beyond that, the place which is a stumbling block for many people, is making a habit of liking women.

What I Don't Mean by Liking Women: Being sexually attracted to women. Liking women monolithically and treating them as above criticism and/or putting them on a pedestal (which is just as dehumanizing as treating them like shit). Liking them with expectations. Liking them with ulterior motives.

What I Do Mean by Liking Women: Regarding women generally with good faith, and not as a collection of grim stereotypes. Treating women as individuals. Respecting diversity in expressions of womanhood. Never obliging a woman to speak for all women, or treating her as an exception to her gender. Building friendships with women.

And primarily: Thinking of women as likable.

We live in a profoundly misogynist culture. Everyone is taught to hate women. Women are socialized to hate each other (and ourselves), to think of ourselves and one another as less than.

Even most feminist women have to make a habit of liking women, of rewriting that entrainment to reflexively see other women in negative terms, and replacing it with a spirit of sisterhood. A lot of women exceptionalize the women in their lives in the same way men do. My group of female friends having fun at this bar is awesome; that other group of female friends having fun at this bar is a bunch of skanks. That is the way we are all socialized to view women—their individual value determined by proximity and affiliation, rather than merit.

The point is: Everyone has to make a habit of liking women.

All kinds of women. Women whose lived experiences may be very different from your own. Women whose bodies may look very different from your own. Women about whom you might hold stereotypes that are centered around different (but inextricably linked) aspects of their identities than their womanhood—stereotypes that may be deeply tied to narratives about their likability, too.

One of the most basic and insidious and intractable pieces of systemic misogyny is that women are simply unlikeable, as a rule. Difficult. Catty. Competitive. Vain. Bitches be crazy.

And the only way to break that down, and to form a new habit, is to think instead about the things you like about women you've known: Maybe it's wisdom, or kindness, or loyalty, or creativity, or competency, or truthfulness, or empathy. Maybe it's being tough. Maybe it's being vulnerable. Maybe both.

It's taking time to explore, consciously and purposefully, what you have liked about women, what you do like about women, what makes women likable.

It's taking time to explore, consciously and purposefully, what it means that we live in a culture in which Good Guys are THE BEST! and even Bad Guys are roguishly likeable, but Good Girls are pathetic and contemptible, indicting everyone else's imperfections with their intolerable mere existence, and Bad Girls are only good for one thing. Most men are axiomatically afforded the assumption of likability; women have to earn it person by person.

It's taking time to explore, consciously and purposefully, what the difference really is between flippantly saying, "Oh, sure, I like women," and really finding women likeable. There are a lot of men, for example, who can respect women, and still cannot bring themselves to like us.

This isn't an easy subject, because it's hard to write and talk about these sorts of nuances, and because everyone except the most shamelessly vile misogynists fancy themselves a person who doesn't hate women. But there is a difference between not hating women and thinking of them as likable.

I have crossed that bridge. And once you are on the other side, you realize how cavernous the space between the shores really is.

I almost can't count the number of ways that jettisoning bullshit notions about being an Exceptional Woman and embracing vast and varied female friendship has changed me for the better. It has made me a better feminist, it has made me a better friend, and it has changed the way I view myself in life-saving ways: My body image, my self-worth, my capacity to draw boundaries and receive love.

A big part of that is because so much of the practice of not liking women is wrapped up in the culture of judgement, and letting go of the culturally-imposed compulsion to judge allowed me to give myself a fucking break, too.

Operating from a position in which I expect to like women (even though I don't end up liking all of them, of course), instead of a position in which I am primed to judge them, has changed my life.

Thinking of women as likeable in a misogynist culture is truly a radical act.

I invite you to be radical, on this day and every day.

Daily Dose of Cute

image of all three cats of Shakes Manor chilling in the living room

All three cats are in this photo. Can you spy where Olivia is hiding, lol?
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

We Resist: Day 48

a black bar with the word RESIST in white text

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

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

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Here are some things I've read today:

Sheera Frenkel at BuzzFeed: U.S. Intelligence Officials: Latest WikiLeaks Drop "Worse Than Snowden" Docs.

Intelligence officials confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the documents they reviewed appear legitimate, and that they not only put current US cyber operations in danger, but provide a road map for adversaries around the world who want to study US methods and, one day, deploy those methods themselves.

"We already have this deficit in our ability to defend ourselves and now in the release of the tools we use our ability to scoop up info, our ability to attack is compromised," said Eric O'Neill a former counterintelligence officer for the FBI who now works for the cybersecurity firm Carbon Black. "When these tools get out it proliferates among those who want to attack. They will be taken and modified and used by others who want to attack."

...That a US intelligence agency develops programs that allow it to hack into devices across the world is something any person who has ever watched a spy thriller should be able to guess. Rather, the documents' importance comes from the detailed technical information they reveal about how the CIA conducts its cyber ops, throwing open the door on some of the intelligence community's most closely guarded secrets.

"This is, if you look at the big picture, worse than Snowden. What he released led to big headlines and put a few lives in danger. What we have here could potentially put thousands of people in danger in countries around the world. It's like handing our biggest cyber guns over to anyone with an internet connection," said one US intelligence officer, who spoke to BuzzFeed News on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the documents.

There is much more at the link. None of it good.

Like any good intelligence op. Russian know how to deceive on all levels. Another FSB/@wikileaks release to save Trump. Almost laughable https://t.co/oWNAjgfVV0
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) March 8, 2017

Almost.

* * *

[Content Note: Video may autoplay at link] Justin Sink at Bloomberg: Trump Met Russian Ambassador During Campaign at Speech Reception. "Donald Trump met last April with the Russian ambassador at the center of a pair of controversies over engagement between Trump allies and the Kremlin, despite claims by his spokeswoman that he had 'zero' involvement with Russian officials during the campaign. Attention to Trump's encounter with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak resurfaced after revelations last week that at least five members of Trump's campaign team—including Attorney General Jeff Sessions—had contact with Kislyak before Trump took office." Whoooooooops!

Josh Meyer and Kenneth P. Vogel at Politico: Trump Campaign Approved Adviser's Trip to Moscow. "Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski approved foreign policy adviser Carter Page's now-infamous trip to Moscow last summer on the condition that he would not be an official representative of the campaign, according to a former campaign adviser. ...The trip is now a focus of congressional and FBI investigations into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. Lewandowski told POLITICO he did not recall the email exchange with Page, but he did not deny that it occurred."

Something worth remembering as Trump et. al. now try to distance themselves from Page:

When the WaPo asked Trump last March if he could name any of his foreign policy advisors, he named Carter Page. https://t.co/A10ARXLEZU pic.twitter.com/JdaT2tsNTZ
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 7, 2017

Tom Hamburger at the Washington Post: Watchdogs Ask U.S. Attorney to Investigate Trump over Foreign Business Deals. "A trio of watchdog groups has asked the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to investigate whether President Trump has received payments or other benefits from foreign governments through his business interests in violation of an obscure clause in the U.S. Constitution. The request, sent by letter Wednesday morning to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, is a novel strategy by ethics critics who have been pressing Trump to comply with the Constitution's 'emoluments clause,' which prohibits top officials from receiving payments or favors from foreign governments."

[Content Note: Invasive TSA screenings] Hugo Martin at the Chicago Tribune: TSA Quietly Launches New 'Enhanced' Pat-Down Procedure for Air Travelers. "The TSA on Thursday began using a 'universal pat-down' procedure that includes 'enhanced security measures' to replace several pat-down tactics used in the past by TSA screeners that are presumably less invasive. ...TSA officials declined to detail the new universal procedure or the previous pat-down tactics, but the industry is bracing for passenger unhappiness about more invasive searches. An airport trade group has told its members that TSA screeners will be allowed to use the front of their hands, instead of just the backs of hands, to search passengers if a previous screening indicated the presence of explosives, Bloomberg News reported, based on a 'security notice' distributed by the Airports Council International-North America." This stands to make air travel much more difficult for many trans passengers and/or survivors of sexual violence.

Jacob Kastrenakes at the Verge: ACLU and 170 Other Organizations Urge FCC to Preserve Net Neutrality. "The future of net neutrality is in jeopardy again, so advocates are getting back to the fight. In a letter sent today to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, as well as Senators John Thune and Bill Nelson, over 170 groups ask Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to continue to support and protect the net neutrality rules put into place in 2015. ...The letter comes just a day before the Senate Commerce Committee's first oversight hearing of the FCC while Pai is in charge. ...[Today] will be the committee's first chance to grill Pai on the direction he's taking the commission—the future of the FCC's privacy rules is likely to come up. Coincidentally enough, the letter was also sent just hours before Pai was nominated by Trump for another five-year term at the commission."

ACLU: ACLU Comment on Congressional Move to Allow Internet Providers to Sell Consumer Data without Permission. "The Senate introduced a resolution today that would overturn a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires internet service providers to get customers' permission before they sell sensitive consumer data, such as browsing history. Passage of the resolution by Congress would prevent the FCC from issuing similar rules in the future. ACLU legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani issued the following statement: 'With this move, Congress is essentially allowing companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to sell consumers' private information to the highest bidder. Members of Congress should not bow down to industry pressure. Consumers have a right to control how these companies use their sensitive data.'"

Annie Karni at Politico: White House Official Terrorizes Network Green Rooms. "[O]n all three cable news networks, according to more than half a dozen interviews with TV insiders and contributors, [White House official Boris Epshteyn, a combative Trump loyalist tasked with plugging the president's message on television] has earned a reputation as someone who is combative and sometimes difficult to work with, even when he arrives at studios as a guest of a network. He has offended people in green rooms with comments they have interpreted as racially insensitive and demeaning. 'His off-camera behavior was even more distasteful than his on-camera behavior,' said Joy-Ann Reid, a national correspondent for MSNBC, who often sparred with Epshteyn on television during the campaign." A largely unseen front in Trump's war on the press.

[CN: Video may autoplay at link] Susan Page at USA Today: USA TODAY Poll: Tweets and Temperament are Tripping up Trump. "By 2-1, those surveyed disapprove of Trump's temperament, a much more negative rating than he gets for his policy positions. Six in 10, including 40% of Republicans, complain that he tweets too much." The only surprise there is that support for his policy positions isn't swirling the bottom of the bowl, too.

Here's a real headline at the Wall Street Journal today: "Rapport Between Donald Trump, Barack Obama Crumbles." No shit. That tends to happen when someone accuses you of committing a crime, with zero evidence.

MSNBC's Kyle Griffin reports: "The American Medical Association officially comes out against the Republican health plan."

Or as it's known in the Congressional ledger: "H.R. 1275—World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017."

For real. I grabbed a screenshot:

screen cap of Congressional legislation page, showing title of bill as World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017

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

Excellent Points as Always, Misogynists!

So, an independent, feminist, woman-owned bookstore in Cleveland, Ohio, "has made a graphic illustration of the position of female writers by [turning] the spines and covers of books by men to face the wall in the shop's 10,000-title fiction section," thus leaving visible only the spines of books authored by women for Women's History Month.

"In essence [we are] not just highlighting the disparity but bringing more focus to the women's books now, because they're the only ones legible on the shelf," [Harriett Logan, the bookstore's founder and owner said]. She added that although she had conceived the display to make a point, when completed it had an even stronger impact than she had expected.

...Loganberry is a feminist bookshop that retails new, used and rare books with an emphasis on women's history and literature. The move is intended to be a conspicuous illustration of the current representation of women in print.

Sounds very effective!

Naturally, some of the responses to Loganberry's move have been amazing. And by "amazing," I mean "totally predictable and absurd."

However, not all reactions were positive, with complaints that Logan should be running a "men's history month" to balance the promotion, and that the display was not about women's voices, but about "hating men."

Editor and writing coach John Ettorre tweeted: "Simply unbelievable. Promoting women's voices by symbolically silencing men's. By an independent bookstore! Shame on you, Harriett." He added: "Did they settle on this path after deciding burning books by men was just too over the top? I'm stunned."

He's STUNNED!

Obviously, my favorite of these was the call for a "men's history month." Missing the point award.

I Really Hate This Guy

Yesterday, Speaker Paul Ryan said this breathtakingly cruel thing about his party's garbage healthcare proposal:

Paul Ryan on Obamacare: “We are doing an act of mercy by repealing this law” https://t.co/rDUsUajVx6 https://t.co/Xkp0kxRcHe
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 7, 2017

What I want to tell my fellow citizens, as the nightmare of Obamacare is about to end, that we are doing what we said we would do in this campaign, which is repeal and replace this awful law that is crashing. Let me say one more thing: Let's not forget Obamacare is collapsing. Obamacare isn't staying. If we did nothing, the law would collapse and leave everybody without affordable healthcare. We are doing an act of mercy by repealing this law and replacing it with patient-centered healthcare reforms that we as conservatives have been arguing for and fighting for, for years.

Emphasis mine.

First of all, fuck you.

Secondly, Obamacare is not collapsing. And even if it did, it would not leave "everybody" without healthcare, because members of Congress like Paul Ryan will always have healthcare, even after they leave government, for the rest of their lives.

Third:

Imagine being the kind of asshole who can say with a straight face that repealing Obamacare is an "act of mercy."
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 7, 2017

And it's not even b/c he's out of touch. I've seen Ryan at town halls, listening to people tell him they will die w/o ACA. HE DOESN'T CARE.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 7, 2017

He's stood in front of human beings telling him they'll die, and then he steps in front of a camera to say he's offering an "act of mercy."
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 7, 2017

I just cannot relate to that on any level. He is just a terrible, terrible person, leading a terrible, terrible party.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 7, 2017

This is more than a mere policy difference. This is about values, and about the most basic belief that lives are more important than corporate profits.

Paul Ryan does not believe that. Most of his party does not believe that.

They have some nerve calling themselves "pro-life" when they would see countless people die, or have much lower qualities of life than they could have, in order to line the pockets of corporate executives and shareholders.

Party of Moral Values, my big fat ass.

Happy International Women's Day

Today is International Women's Day, which is generally only meaningfully marked by the people who already treat every day as International Women's Day. It is a day on which I am usually pointedly reminded that the business of advocating on behalf of women's equality is still considered woman's work, which tends to give the day a flavor of bitter irony that doesn't want to leave my mouth.

Nonetheless, every year, I feel obliged to try to write something profound for International Women's Day, and every year I fail, and most years I feel more optimistic about the state of women's equality than I do on this day.

This morning I woke up, checked Twitter, and the first thing I saw was a tweet from Donald Trump reading: "I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy."

This may be the biggest lie he's ever told. https://t.co/iAy1MEXqor
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 8, 2017

I'm angry about the state of the world for the women in it, for women in my own country and for women in every country all over the world, Black women, brown women, white women, tall women, short women, women with dwarfism, fat women, thin women, in-betweenie women, trans women, intersex women, disabled women, able-bodied women, neuro-typical women, neuro-atypical women, old women, young women, girls, women with children, childfree women, healthy women, ill women, poor women, rich women, middle class women, employed women, unemployed women, women who do unpaid labor, insured women, uninsured women, immigrant women, migrant women, refugee women, English-speaking women, non-English-speaking women, progressive women, conservative women, women in unions, women in uniforms, women in male-centric careers, women in comas, straight women, lesbian women, bisexual women, asexual women, demisexual women, partnered women, unpartnered women, poly women, aromantic women, powerful women, weak women, vegan woman, vegetarian women, omnivorous women, religious women, atheist women, agnostic women, educated women, uneducated women, women who have survived trauma, women who want my advocacy, women who don't, and/or every other conceivable expression, intersection, and experience of womanhood that exists on the planet.

I am angry at what we are denied on the basis of our womanhood, or the insufficiency of our womanhood, or the unacceptable expression of our womanhood, as arbitrarily defined by people fiercely guarding their privilege.

I am angry that we are denied autonomy, dignity, respect, the right of consent, safety, security, opportunity, access, equality—and many things smaller than those.

That anger threatens every day to engulf me, to hold me like a flame under a jar until, starved of oxygen, I disappear into a wisp of smoke. I search each morning for a way to turn that anger into inspiration, fuel, purpose. Today is a day like all others in that regard.

Today is a day when I am angry, but, also like all other days, it is a day on which I am happy to be a woman among women.

I do not long to be the Exceptional Woman. When I find myself in a space in which I am the only woman, I do not feel satisfied, nor do I feel insecure: I feel contemptuous that there aren't more women there. I do not want to compete with other women in a way that suggests there is only room for one of us. I want to lift up other women, and be lifted up by them, and blaze trails in the hopes that many more will follow behind.

I respect women, and I love them. And when I take stock of all the issues disproportionately affecting women across the globe, what I see is lack of respect and love for women so pervasive and profound that to merely assert to love and respect women yet remains a radical act.

It is at the intersection of my anger at the mistreatment of women and my love and respect for them that I find my motivation every day.

I am an imperfect advocate for women, and I have nothing profound to say on International Women's Day. Again. The truth is, I just want to recommit myself to treating every day as a day in which it is important to fight for international justice for women, and to love and respect them, including myself.

I am a feminist with a teaspoon, and I ain't afraid to use it.

image of me, a fat white middle-aged woman with shoulder-length brown hair with grey streaks, wearing a red t-shirt, sitting at my desk

Wearing red today, for women.

Open Thread

image of a red couch

Hosted by a red sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker FloraFlora: "What is a piece of art (film, song, visual art, fiction...) that never fails to move you deeply and, if you feel like trying to articulate as much, in what way?"

Inspiring Acts of Resistance

image of stormclouds over a field of flowers, to which I've added text reading: RESISTANCE IS FERTILE

Since there is so much to resist every day, here is a thread in which we can talk about the things we're seeing other people doing—or the things we're doing ourselves—as both inspiration, suggestion, and a bulwark against despair.

Share things you have seen that moved you, or actions you are taking. Please also feel welcome and encouraged to share links to Twitter users and/or news sites engaged in resistance that you recommend following.

* * *

Tomorrow is International Women's Day, and, to mark the day, women in more than 50 countries have organized the International Women's Strike to raise awareness around issues facing women who are marginalized. In the U.S., the organizers of the Women's March have encouraged women to participate in A Day Without a Woman, which can include skipping (paid) work, but also could include other actions like wearing red, "avoiding spending money, or buying only from women-owned or minority-owned business."

There has been some criticism of striking, which will potentially cause "the burden of the protest [to] fall too heavily on the poor," who cannot as easily (or at all) skip work as more privileged women.

I will not be skipping work, in solidarity with women who can't, but I will be wearing red!

This Is a Real Thing That Happened at Today's White House Press Briefing

As you may recall, over the weekend, Donald Trump took to Twitter to accuse President Obama of having broken the law by ordering Trump Tower wiretapped during the election.

His exact words were: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

Since then, Trump has provided no evidence to back up his accusation, and his various spokespeople and surrogates have claimed, incredibly, that Trump was just seeking an investigation into the possibility, despite the fact we can all read his words and see he was levying a serious charge.

At today's White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about this untenable bullshit, and his response was expectedly ludicrous.

Surreal exchange here re: Trump's claim Obama wiretapped him: pic.twitter.com/w3aiIa7nOk
— Tom Namako (@TomNamako) March 7, 2017

REPORTER (a young Black woman, whose name I don't know offhand): Two quick questions. So, just to follow up on the follow-up: So does the White House feel that it's appropriate— You say that you want it to be adjudicated by the Congressional committees, but the president made declarative statements on Twitter, so I guess— Is the White House position that the president can make declarative statements about a former president basically committing a crime, and then the Congressional committees should look into that and basically prove it? I mean—

[crosstalk]

SPICER: I take issue with— It's not a question of "prove it." I— As I said now five times to the follow-up to the follow-up, that it's not a question of "prove it." It's that they have the resources and the clearances and the staff to fully and thoroughly and comprehensively investigate this, and then issue a report as to, as to what their findings are.

REPORTER: So, but, but President Trump's Twitter statement shouldn't be taken at face value about what—

SPICER: Sure it should. Of course it— I mean, why—? No. I, I— There's nothing, as I mentioned to Jim, it's not that he's walking anything back or regretting— He's just saying that they have the appropriate venue and capabilities to review this.

So, just to be abundantly clear: The White House position is that Donald Trump has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants to say on his Twitter account, including levying utterly unsubstantiable charges against a former president, and then it's up to Congress to investigate it on the taxpayer dime and write a report determining the veracity (or lack thereof) of whatever random dogshit Trump said.

Sure. Apart from everything else that's wrong with that, that is a position that allows for an incredible abuse of power. JFC.

The GOP's ACA Replacement Plan Is a Total Loser

As I mentioned earlier today, House Republicans dropped their Affordable Care Act replacement proposal today, and it is total garbage. And it is being greeted as the garbage it is from just about everyone!

BREAKING: The new GOP plan is bad politics and, more importantly, bad policy. https://t.co/OJGI8sVC6d pic.twitter.com/5JEuiykJto
— Heritage Action (@Heritage_Action) March 7, 2017

Heritage Action, which is an offshoot of the conservative Heritage Foundation, hates it because it isn't conservative enough: "Rather than accept the flawed premises of Obamacare, congressional Republicans should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to deliver on longstanding campaign promises that create a free market health care system that empowers patients and doctors."

RETWEET: The “age tax” would force Americans age 50-64 to pay thousands of $$$ more for health care. Tell Congress #NoAgeTax! pic.twitter.com/eFUcRZtm22
— AARP Advocates (@AARPadvocates) March 6, 2017

The AARP, which represents people of retirement age, hates it because it shifts higher costs to older people: "What the heck is age rating? Charlie explained it's Washington politician speak for overcharging older Americans for their health insurance while lining the insurance companies' pockets."

And, of course, people who have health insurance through the Affordable Care Act hate it, as do people with a functional sense of decency who understand people will die because of this horrendous plan.

So there's lots of hating this plan going around.

Looks like everyone hates the GOP's ACA replacement plan except for Jason Chaffetz! In good news, no one is tired from all the winning yet.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 7, 2017

Make your calls. Let them know you hate it, too.