We Resist: Day 105

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.

* * *

The news today is overwhelmingly about the "healthcare reform" legislation, and whether it will pass the House. That's taking up a lot of my attention, too, so this will be a shorter compilation than usual.

On that subject, I want to take a moment to address that THIS IS NOT NORMAL. This entire process. The way the legislation has been proposed, the way it's being rammed through Congress, the way it's being covered, the way constituents are being ignored—none of it is normal.

If you, like me, are feeling particularly despondent in this moment, it's probably in no small part because of this stark divergence from normalcy. Not only is this bill utterly vile, but the process by which it (appears it) will be passed is obscene.

That is the thing that's making the most significant negative difference for me right now. This isn't normal. It's seriously fucked up. And if Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are successful with this "healthcare" package, this way, it will set a precedent for the annihilation of the entire welfare state, such as it is in the US.

In a private conversation, Eastsidekate said (which I am sharing with her permission):

I keep checking the websites of CNN and the big 3 networks, and the coverage is disorienting. It's mostly about the excitement of who can get the win. Zero sense of what hangs in the balance.

Like, aside from 20 M+ people losing coverage, it totally rewrites the laws covering a massive chunk of the economy. They're acting like it's a Jets game.

We are (potentially, likely) witnessing a history being made that will have far-reaching ramifications, even beyond the already massive number of people whose health and very lives will be sacrificed upon this altar of greed and gamesmanship.

I am really struggling to process that. It will change the face of our resistance, and it will change the nature of our political process, and it will change this nation.

Even in a time of extraordinary political upheaval, this feels colossal. I feel something beyond fear. I feel panic.

I still hope, by some miracle, the GOP House caucus doesn't have the votes. I still hope the GOP Senate caucus will do the right thing, if it passes the House.

I don't have any reassuring words to offer, but these: You are not alone.

* * *

A couple of things to read are below:

[Content Note: War on agency] Laura Bassett at the Huffington Post: Pence: Trump 'Has Literally Filled This White House' with Anti-Abortion Leaders. "Vice President Mike Pence declared victory for the anti-abortion movement Wednesday night, boasting that [Donald[ Trump has 'literally filled' his administration with politicians who oppose reproductive rights. 'Life is winning in America,' Pence said at a gala for the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List."

[CN: War on agency] Christina Cauterucci at Slate: Trump Will Tap Woman Who Thinks Birth Control Doesn't Work to Lead U.S. Birth Control Program. "Teresa Manning will be named the Department of Health and Human Services' deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, putting her in charge of more than $286 million in Title X family-planning grants. Manning has a history of spreading lies about reproductive science and advocating against women's access to health care. Like another one of Trump's HHS picks, Charmaine Yoest, Manning insists against established medical fact that abortion causes breast cancer. ...Manning has called abortion 'legalized crime' and family planning 'something that occurs between a husband and a wife and God' that 'doesn't really involve the federal government.' At a stop on her book tour in 2003, she told WBUR that 'contraception doesn't work' because 'its efficacy is very low,' so sexually active women who use a birth control method might still get pregnant."

[CN: Transphobia; disablism; dehumanization] Teddy Wilson at Rewire: Trump's HHS Spokesperson Had a Blog Full of Transphobic Slurs. "Charmaine Yoest, the anti-choice activist recently appointed to a top government agency post by [Donald] Trump, has made a career out of disparaging and smearing transgender people and the LGBTQ community. Blog posts published on a website co-authored by Charmaine Yoest and her husband Jack Yoest, a business and economics professor at the Catholic University of America, include transphobic language and referred to transgender people as 'crazy,' labeled transgender people 'creatures,' and referred to medical care for transgender people as 'a joke.' ...Yoest, who will serve as the assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was among Trump's most loyal supporters during the 2016 presidential campaign and was named to Trump's 'pro-life advisory council' designed to woo anti-choice hardliners."

[CN: Homophobia] Mike Cason at Alabama.com: Bill Allowing Adoption Agencies to Turn Away Gay Couples Signed into Law. Gov. Kay Ivey today signed into law a bill allowing adoption agencies in Alabama to follow faith-based policies, such as not placing children with gay couples. 'The elected legislature of this state overwhelmingly approved House Bill 24. Having served as President of the Senate for more than six years, I appreciate the work of the legislature, and I agree with it on the importance of protecting religious liberty in Alabama,' Ivey said." Fuck you.

[CN: Misogyny] Jamiles Lartey at the Guardian: Woman Who Laughed at Jeff Sessions Hearing Convicted for Being 'Disorderly'. "A jury in Washington has convicted a woman who was arrested after laughing during a confirmation hearing for the attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Desiree Fairooz, an activist with the leftwing NGO Code Pink, was found guilty of engaging in 'disorderly or disruptive conduct' with the intent to disrupt congressional proceedings, as well as 'parading, demonstrating, or picketing.' The charges stem from the hearing on 10 January, when Sessions' then colleague, fellow Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby, said Sessions' record of 'treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.' Fairooz laughed out loud twice at this claim."

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

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Discussion Thread: How Are You?

I'm feeling pretty damn ragged. Which is really saying something, given that I've been writing about and protesting Republican indecency for 13 years. But this is just a whole new level of fuckery. How are you doing?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Trump to Sign EO Laxing Political Activity Rules for Churches

John Wagner, Abby Phillip, and Julie Zauzmer at the Washington Post: Trump to Sign Executive Order Making It Easier for Churches to Support Political Candidates.

Trump on Thursday plans to relax enforcement of rules barring tax-exempt churches from participating in politics as part of a much-anticipated executive order on religious liberties, according to senior White House officials.

The order will also offer unspecified "regulatory relief" for religious objectors to an Obama administration mandate — already scaled back by the courts — that required contraception services as part of health plans, the officials said.

...In addition to the two policy changes, the order will also provide a blanket statement that "it is the policy of the administration to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty."

As a candidate and shortly after taking office, Trump declared he would "totally destroy" what's known as the Johnson Amendment, a six-decade-old ban on churches and other tax-exempt organizations supporting political candidates.

The provision is written in the tax code and would require an act of Congress to repeal fully.

A White House official said Trump would instead direct the Internal Revenue Service to "exercise maximum enforcement discretion of the prohibition." Such a direction could be subject to legal challenge and would not necessarily extend beyond a Trump presidency.

Irrespective of whether Trump's erosion of the Johnson Amendment would survive a court challenge, his message is abundantly clear: This administration will do everything it can to enable social conservative Christians to legally discriminate against people they don't like, and everything it can to uphold Christian Supremacy.

What a perfect message on the "National Day of Prayer."

UPDATE: He signed it, following disgusting remarks by him and Pence.

The "religious liberty" EO Trump just signed allows employers not to cover birth control, so another blow to healthcare.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 4, 2017

And the contraceptive part is only the most explicit piece of it. This will still be used to justify all manner of discrimination.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 4, 2017

Pence learned in Indiana how to craft language to make it as hard to challenge in court as possible, while doing maximum amount of damage.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 4, 2017

Which is what I said would happen literally just yesterday.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Healthcare Repeal Day: KEEP CALLING

The Republicans are saying they now have the votes in the House to pass the latest iteration of their "healthcare reform" bill, which is heinous in the extreme.

It would allow preexisting condition exclusions; it would gut employer-sponsored plans; it would consider domestic violence, sexual assault, C-sections, and postpartum depression as preexisting conditions; it would cut billions of dollars in funding for children with special needs; it would steal coverage from tens of millions of people; and the list of horrors goes on.

They are allocating 40 minutes for debate before the vote, despite the fact that many members of Congress have not yet read the text of the bill and there's no score from the Congressional Budget Office.

KEEP CALLING. RESIST WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT.

Don't rely on "repeal will die in the Senate." Senate GOP want a win @ this point too. Remember: They all got on the Trump train eventually.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 4, 2017

Never let people's lives depend on the decency of the Republican caucus. Their only consistent principle is winning at all costs. #resist

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 4, 2017

We must do everything we can to stop this in the House.

I am extraordinarily anxious, stressed, and fearful about this vote. I imagine lots of you are, too. I am incandescently angry that, in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, we are spending our time fretting about this and calling our representatives to beg them not to kill us via avarice and neglect.

Virtual hugs on offer, for anyone who needs them.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

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

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker RachelB: "What is your six-word autobiography?"

She came, she saw, she wrote.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by broccoli.

Recommended Reading:

Sarah Lerner: [Content Note: Misogyny] Will the Media Ever Stop Admonishing Hillary Clinton?

Fannie Wolfe: Trump Supporters Still Chant "Lock Her Up"

Breanna Edwards: April Ryan Named 2017 NABJ Journalist of the Year

Your Fat Friend: [CN: Fat hatred] What Happens When One Fat Patient Sees a Doctor

Kasandra Brabaw: Cecile Richards on Mansplaining and What You Can Do for Women [and Everyone Who Needs Access to Reproductive Healthcare]

Ragen Chastain: [CN: Fat hatred] Pink's IG Picture Is Not Body Positive

Rae Paoletta: [CN: Moving GIF at link] Chill Out to This Galaxy-Sized Wave of Hot Gas Swirling Through the Void

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

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

On Who Gets Credit for "Telling It Like It Is"

During the 2016 election, there were two candidates—one of whom went on to win the presidency—who were beloved for "telling it like it is," or some variation thereof. Straight talk. Uncensored. Telling the truth. Saying what we're all thinking.

Donald Trump, an inveterate liar, was the beneficiary of countless stories during the Republican primary and the general election detailing how his supporters valued his willingness to tell what they perceived as the unvarnished truth.

One focus group convened by Republican pollster Frank Luntz found people offering enthusiastic endorsements like this one: "Trump's the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody's been saying all along. When he talks, deep down somewhere you're going, 'Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.'"

Trump, of course, was not truth-telling, but reflecting back to his supporters their own perceptions about the world, and validating their bigotry by conjuring a "reality" that does not actually exist. Crime is not going up. Terrorists are not sneaking in as refugees. Mexican immigrants are not raping citizens en masse. And so forth.

Bernie Sanders was also widely and often credited by his supporters—and some members of the political press—for his brash delivery of hard truths. Just yesterday, Bill Maher told CNN's Jake Tapper that he wants to see Sanders run for president again, "to keep everybody else honest in the race, because he just says it the way it is."

Sanders is not an inveterate liar like Trump. He does, however, in rejecting meaningful intersectional policy analysis, telegraph a particular perception of the world that excludes and precludes the perspectives and reality for a great number of marginalized people.

Still, both of these straight, white, wealthy, cis men in their 70s are widely credited with being objective observers and straight-talking commentators on How It Is.

Also yesterday, Hillary Clinton said during an interview at the Women for Women International conference that she lost, in part, because of James Comey, Wikileaks, Russian interference, and misogyny. That, by all accounts, is "telling it like it is." FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver published a big piece today looking at the numbers and concluding that Comey "probably cost Clinton the election." Investigations into Russian interference are still ongoing, but there is no question that they interfered to derail her. Misogyny, I hear (ahem), is difficult to quantify (cough), but "research suggests she might be right."

But the political press erupted with snide resentments about how Clinton was only raising these issues to blame everyone else for her loss (she was not), rather than granting her the label, and attendant respect, of being someone who speaks the truth.

[Photo: Barbara Kinney for Hillary for America.]
Clinton was never granted such awed deference for being consistently right in her grim warnings about Trump. She has been ridiculed for decades for publicly acknowledging the existence of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," despite the fact that she was right, and about 15 years ahead of everyone else. And, as I have previously observed: "Right now, millions of Americans are working in jobs that will succumb to that same obsolescence, sooner rather than later. When Hillary Clinton acknowledged this reality, saying that coal mining jobs would have to be replaced with jobs in the renewable energy industry, she was attacked and obliged to apologize. For telling the truth."

That was one of many occasions during the campaign on which Clinton told a hard truth that her opponents were not willing to tell, and was castigated for it, because so many people prefer to listen to men who tell them what they want to hear than a woman who tells them the truth.

And the "fundamentally honest and trustworthy" Clinton did indeed tell us the truth.

She was rated by Politifact as the most honest of all the 2016 candidates:

In a little over a month during the primary, March through early May, Clinton received 8 Pinocchios from the Washington Post's Fact Checker, while, in the same timeframe, Sanders got nearly three times as many: 23 Pinocchios. None of Clinton's were 4-Pinocchio lies (the worst possible), while three of Sanders' were.

Clinton told the truth relentlessly throughout the campaign, even when she knew that it would not be as popular as an easy lie, or a simplification of policy so extreme that it might as well have been a lie.

Following one of her debates with Sanders, I wrote: "At her debate with Bernie Sanders in New York, she stood at her podium and held her ground, refusing to make promises she could not keep, hammering away at the details and sticking to her nuanced positions—even though she is keenly aware of narratives that voters aren't enthusiastic for her, that if she'd just relent, if she'd just match Bernie's sweeping promises and abandon her insistence on being practical, she would get more applause."

Her rigorous honesty came at a cost—and the reason that cost exists is because who we regard as "telling it like it is," and why, and who we don't.

I've no desire to relitigate the primary: These things are only relevant because Sanders is now being elevated to a position of national leadership, while Clinton is being cast aside, and because I am obliged to defend her right to speak and be visible and exist now. That the same dynamics from the primary continue to infiltrate these conversations is, suffice it to say, not my preference.

And I'm certainly not suggesting that Hillary Clinton has never gotten something wrong, mistakenly or intentionally, nor that she does not have blindspots in her perception of the world. Of course she has, and of course she does.

The point is: She's not alone in that.

But she is alone, among herself and Sanders and Trump, in failing to bear the reputation of being someone who "tells it like it is." Even though, by every estimation, she has "told it like it is" more often than either of them have.

Faced with this inconvenient fact, many people push back with some version of the old authenticity canard, mixed with some good, old-fashioned tone policing. Sure, she might be telling the truth, but the way the says it makes me not trust her. She's fake. She's too rehearsed. She's a robot. She doesn't mean it.

Which, apart from being a collection of tropes dredged from the most ancient anti-feminist sewer, is actually a concession that facts don't matter.

That what "telling it like it is" really means is: Telling me what I want to hear.

And that is not, and will never be, the same thing as telling the truth.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

New Reporting about Jane Sanders and the FBI Investigation

Last week, I reported on two news stories coming from VTdigger and Seven Days, two independent Vermont news media organizations. The stories indicated that there has been an ongoing federal investigation into the collapse of Burlington College. The Seven Days story indicated that specifically, the investigation is focused on Jane Sanders and the bank loan she negotiated for the college under potentially fraudulent and/or potentially improper circumstances. This week, the story has been picked up by Vermont Public Radio and the Burlington Free Press, two much larger—but still Vermont-specific—news organizations. And Paul Heintz at Seven Days has a new story with more information.

Heintz tracked down a college donor in Florida who says the FBI contacted him about a gift he made to the college:

The semiretired orthopedic surgeon had moved from Vermont to Florida five years earlier, but his association with the shuttered liberal arts college — and the wife of a United States senator who served as its president — had followed him to the Sunshine State. When he returned home to his gated community later that afternoon, Leavitt found two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents waiting for him with plenty of questions about a $30,000 donation he had made to the school.

"It was a little strange," he said of the unexpected visit.

…Neither the FBI nor the U.S. attorney for the District of Vermont would comment on the matter. But according to Carol Moore, who served as the college's final president until it closed last May, an FBI agent who contacted her "three or four weeks ago" called it "an ongoing investigation."

Moore said the focus of the feds' questions was clear: "Was there any collusion between Jane Sanders and the bank?" Moore said, quoting the FBI agent. "Did she falsify records in order to get the loan from the bank?" Moore said the focus of the feds' questions was clear: Did [Jane O'Meara Sanders] falsify records in order to get the loan from the bank? click to tweet

Heintz further notes that spokespeople for the diocese, the bank, and for former board of trustees, among others, declined to comment on the investigation.

Jane Sanders, however, made comment via Jeff Weaver:

But in an unusual statement issued Monday through the digital services firm Revolution Messaging, former Sanders presidential campaign manager Jeff Weaver noted that Republican operatives were behind the request for an investigation.

"Jane has not been contacted by the FBI or any other authority and only knows as much as news reports indicate," Weaver said in the statement, which noted that he was "speaking for the Sanders family."

In an emailed statement to the Burlington Free Press, Weaver had a slightly different message.

"In the middle of Bernie's presidential campaign, the vice-chair of the Vermont Republican Party asked for a federal investigation of Burlington College," Weaver wrote, referring to Toensing's letter. "Jane has not been contacted by the FBI or any other authority and only knows as much as news reports indicate. Jane served as president of the college from 2004 to 2011. In the five years following her departure, the college experienced major turnovers in leadership, staff and its Board of Trustees."

This statement much more strongly suggests that Sanders is laying the blame for the college’s problems on Carol Moore, who succeeded her as president. Moore has previously placed the blame for the college’s demise on the bank loan that Sanders acquired. In a September letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Moore wrote:

BC’s fate was set when its former board members hired an inexperienced president and, six years later, approved the imprudent purchase of a $10 million piece of property for campus expansion. Enrollment that year was about 195 and the budget just over $4 million, less than half of this ill-advised investment. What were they thinking? Where was the Finance Committee when these decisions were being made?

More interestingly, what bank lends a small, private, unendowed college of that size and financial status an amount that so obviously outweighs its ability to repay? People’s United Bank of Vermont. And the collateral? One planned gift of a revocable trust, payable upon the death of the donor, and the “promise” of another million-dollar gift. But, alas, no written record of such a “promise” could be found, anywhere in Burlington College’s records.

Who is to blame for this appallingly inappropriate business deal? Perhaps a board that steered clear of the tough questions which needed to be asked. Or a bank in the state of an influential senator — a senator, as it turned out, with bigger ambitions?

While not directly connecting Bernie Sanders to the loan, Moore certainly suggested in her last line that Jane’s relationship to him may have influenced the bank to give the college what, in retrospect, looks like an appallingly irresponsible amount.

I provide the material about Moore as context for Jeff Weavers’ statement, and the not–terribly-subtle finger pointing back at Moore, who had been left trying to attract the new students that Jane Sanders had promised the college could recruit in order to help pay back the loan. Moore is also one of the main sources for the quotes suggesting that the FBI questioning was focused on Sanders. The other is Coralee Holm, Burlington College's former dean of operations and advancement.

Obviously there is a lot of blame-shifting going on here. I don’t have any special insight into who did what, but the search for guilty parties in the college’s closure is much more serious with the feds involved, and with possible criminal charges on the table.

Thus far, the national media still has not picked up the story in any serious fashion. (I note in passing how unlikely that would be for any political figure with the last name Clinton.) But the reporting from larger Vermont outlets, and the release of a statement, suggests that Jane knows how explosive this may be, and is aware she can't totally ignore the story. Not only is Bernie himself up for re-election in Vermont in 2018, they now lead a movement. There is a nation-wide constituency depending on them to be trustworthy spokespeople for a message of economic populism.

And there is cause for concern in regards to Bernie Sanders’ claim that he can attract Trump voters with his economics-focused message.

Because there is one type of media outlet that was all over this story at the weekend — right wing blogs. I’m not going to link to any of that trash, but Gateway Pundit, David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag, the Daily Caller, Red State, Heat St and a slew of other smaller sites have been reporting and commenting on this, screaming that it proves Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite, a crook and so forth, and most especially that it somehow proves his socialism is a sham.

Clearly, that’s a bunch of bigoted garbage, heavily flavored with anti-Semitism. None of these claims make sense. But it really doesn’t matter to the people who consume this propaganda. What is does mean is that Sanders’ imagined credibility with the right is currently under assault from the usual suspects. As far as I can tell, this hasn’t climbed up the ladder to the biggest outlets like Fox, Breitbart, or (Maude forbid) Info Wars. It may only be a matter of time, and who knows what the story will look like once its run through that mangle.

Again, Bernie and Jane need to get their ducks in a row. It doesn’t look like this story is going to go away any time soon. And more than their personal reputations are riding on them being able to credibly refute the garbage the right is getting ready to toss their way.

For one, Sanders’ claims about his attractiveness to right-leaning voters will need some re-examining if this story ends up (however unfairly) staining him as just another “establishment” hypocrite, cozy with banks. But of even more concern is how it may affect the wider progressive movement he says he is leading, and the candidates he is supporting as the Democrats attempt to increase their congressional delegation in 2018.

It’s not just about you, Bernie and Jane. Get ready for this, for all of our sakes.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Daily Dose of Cute

More Matilda and her ribbon obsession, 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...

Shut Up!

We Resist: Day 104

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 in the news today:

I covered Trump's planned executive order on "religious liberty" here.

The White House: Readout of [Donald] Trump's Call with President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. "[Donald] Trump of the United States and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation spoke today regarding Syria. [Donald] Trump and President Putin agreed that the suffering in Syria has gone on for far too long and that all parties must do all they can to end the violence. The conversation was a very good one, and included the discussion of safe, or de-escalation, zones to achieve lasting peace for humanitarian and many other reasons. The United States will be sending a representative to the cease-fire talks in Astana, Kazakhstan on May 3-4. They also discussed at length working together to eradicate terrorism throughout the Middle East. Finally, they spoke about how best to resolve the very dangerous situation in North Korea."

I'm sure these two great humanitarians will solve all the problems of the world together in no time. (Sob.)

Andy Towle at Towleroad: FBI Director Comey: It Makes Me 'Nauseous' That We Might Have Influenced the Election. Well, you did influence the election, and it makes the rest of us nauseous, too. Anyway.

FBI Director James Comey was grilled by Senator Dianne Feinstein about why he chose to announce, 11 days before the election, that the FBI was opening an investigation into a new set of Hillary Clinton emails (for which they had not even yet secured a warrant).

"Why wouldn't you just do the investigation as you would normally," Feinstein asked, "with no public announcement?"

Said Comey: "This was terrible. It makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election …Even in hindsight I would have made the same decision. I sat there that morning and I could not see a door labeled 'no action here.' I could see two doors, they were both actions. One was labeled 'speak' and the other was labeled 'conceal.'"

Added Feinstein: "You took an enormous gamble: the gamble was that there was something there that would invalidate her candidacy. And there wasn't."

Andy's got video at the link.

Comey's "speak vs. conceal" statement is garbage all on its own, but, using his own terrible frame, he had the same choice regarding the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign's possible collusion with a foreign government, and he chose "conceal" in that case, so.

Further to that:

Real choice was not conceal or speak. Comey spoke about Clinton & concealed Trump invest. Real choice was to abide by DOJ policy or violate.

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 3, 2017

The Senate hearing continues. It is infuriating to watch.

Comey is a shameful wreck. The GOP cannot be trusted to investigate. And that is all I'm going to say about this hearing.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

Tierney Sneed at TPM: GOP Obamacare Repeal Defector Throws Hail Mary Pass to Bring Moderates Back On. "The idea is being floated by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), a former Energy and Commerce chair who has worked on the health care legislation in the past and came out against the latest iteration of the repeal bill due to its weakening of pre-existing-condition protections. He is seeking an additional $8 billion over five years for the bill's 'Patient and State Stability Fund,' which offers states funding to set up high-risk pools or other market stabilization programs. According to the Axios report, the funding would specifically be for consumers with pre-existing conditions who see their insurance premiums jacked up for not maintaining continuous coverage, as could be possible under the Republican plan." High-risk pools aren't sufficient. This is still garbage. KEEP CALLING KEEP CALLING KEEP CALLING!!!

[Content Note: Transphobia] Christine Grimaldi at Rewire: Trump Administration Reverses Course on Obamacare's Civil Rights Protections. "The Trump administration plans to roll back sweeping federal nondiscrimination provisions enacted under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that protect transgender people and pregnant people. ...'The Section 1557 regulation has been literally life-saving for transgender people all across the country, who are routinely turned away from emergency rooms and doctors' offices and refused coverage for critical medical care. Now, the Trump administration is going after transgender people yet again and trying to take away these basic protections,' National Center for Transgender Equality Executive Director Mara Keisling said in a statement. 'The administration is rejecting the views of every major medical associations, most courts, and most Americans, who believe that people should not be denied health care because of who they are. That's not just bad science and bad law—it's a dangerous attack on transgender people's ability to survive.'"

Graham Kates at CBS News: Trump "Directly Involved" in Post-Inauguration Hunt for Rogue Tweeter. "Donald Trump was 'directly involved' in the search for the person who, using the official National Park Service account, retweeted side-by-side comparisons of the crowds at Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration ceremony and former President Barack Obama's 2009 ceremony, CBS News has confirmed. The retweet was deleted soon after it was posted and the Twitter accounts of the National Park Service and other U.S. Interior Department agencies were briefly shut down. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told CBS News two days later in an email that the White House neither demanded the retweet be taken down, nor ordered the Interior Department accounts to be suspended. But emails released by the National Park Service in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the new president was 'concerned' about the retweet. ...A White House spokesperson did not return a request for comment about Cash's depiction of Trump's involvement."

[CN: Police brutality; racism; death] AP: Jordan Edwards Shooting: Texas Officer Who Killed 15-Year-Old Fired. "The Balch Springs, Texas, officer, identified as Roy Oliver, was terminated for violating department policies in the shooting death of Jordan Edwards, police chief Jonathan Haber said. ...Haber said Oliver, who joined the department in 2011, had committed 'several' violations of policy but would not say what they were because Oliver is entitled to appeal his firing. The Dallas County district attorney and the Dallas County sheriff's office are investigating the case." That's a start. The bare minimum. Edwards' death has been ruled a homicide. Oliver should also face charges.

[CN: Police brutality; racism; death] Ashley Cusick and Matt Zapotosky at the Washington Post: Justice Department to Formally Reveal Decision Not to Charge Officers in Alton Sterling Case. "Justice Department officials have scheduled a news conference for Wednesday afternoon to formally reveal their decision not to bring charges in the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling—an announcement that some fear might cause unrest in a city that was gripped by tense protests after Sterling's death last summer." Unrest. Meaning valid and necessary protests in response to official indifference to state-sanctioned violence. (My original report on the killing of Alton Sterling is here.)

Stephanie Parkinson at NBC News: Flint Puts 8,000 People on Notice for Tax Liens for Unpaid Water Bills. "Thousands of people in Flint are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure if they don't pay up on their water bills. After recently putting out shut-off notices the city is now back to threatening tax liens on people's homes. 'I got scared, for probably the first time since this all started this actually scared me,' said Melissa Mays, who is a mother and water activist who lives in Flint. Mays received the notice in the mail Friday stating that she must pay nearly $900 by May 19 to avoid a lien being placed on her property." Yeah. The same Flint which has not had drinkable water for three fucking years.

Brad Reed at Raw Story: Ben Carson: Homeless Shelters Shouldn't Be 'Comfortable Settings' or Else People Might 'Just Stay' in Them. "Ben Carson, the secretary of the Housing and Urban Development, is reportedly obsessed with making sure low-income residents living in government-sponsored housing aren't enjoying themselves too much. A new report from the New York Times reveals that Carson this week visited a homeless shelter in Ohio and was 'plainly happy' after he saw that it had 'stacked dozens of bunk beds inside' and 'purposefully did not provide televisions' so that residents there wouldn't get too comfortable. Elsewhere, Carson expressed consternation that an apartment complex for veterans was so well heeled, as he remarked that it lacked 'only pool tables.'"

[CN: White supremacy] J. Lester Feder and Edgar Mannheimer at BuzzFeed: How Sweden Became "The Most Alt-Right" Country in Europe. "The white nationalist Richard Spencer is partnering with two Swedish outfits to create a company they hope will become a media giant and keep race at the center of the new right wing. It is envisioned, one co-creator said, as a 'more ideological Breitbart.' Called the AltRight Corporation, it links Spencer with Arktos Media, a publishing house begun in Sweden to print English-language editions of esoteric nationalist books from many countries. The other Swedish partner is Red Ice, a video and podcast platform featuring white nationalists from around the globe."

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

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Nancy Pelosi, What Are You Even Doing?

[Content Note: War on agency.]

Karen Tumulty at the Washington Post: Pelosi: Democratic Candidates Should Not Be Forced to Toe Party Line on Abortion.

The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

"This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

"I grew up Nancy D'Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic," she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. "Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I'm kicking them out of the Democratic Party?"

...Pelosi expressed doubt whether any hard-line antiabortion candidate could win a Democratic presidential primary. She also noted that the debate over abortion no longer boils down to whether a candidate is for or against the basic right to the procedure, but rather over whether and what types of limits should be imposed.

As a result, "within the Democrats, I don't think that you'll see too many candidates going out there and saying, 'I'm running as a pro-life candidate,'" she said. "It's how far are you willing to go on the issue — but let's not spend too much time" on the subject.

"It's kind of fading as an issue," she said. "It really is."

Pelosi pointed to Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) as a case study in how the Democrats tolerate diverse views. Casey describes himself as personally opposed to abortion, but he has also fought alongside other Democrats against efforts to withdraw federal funds from Planned Parenthood.

"Bob Casey — you know Bob Casey — would you like him not to be in our party?" Pelosi said.

Wow. Okay. There is a lot to unpack here.

First of all, Pelosi is conflating a couple of different issues in a way that I find rather dishonest.

1. Rank-and-file Democrats are not the same thing as Democrats who are running for or holding office. Of course no one is suggesting that rank-and-file Democrats be "kicked out" of the Democratic Party if they are anti-choice. The issue is Democratic office-holders, who are empowered to affect the laws governing reproductive rights.

2. Democratic office-holders or -seekers who are personally anti-choice but would neither sponsor nor vote for anti-choice measures, like Bob Casey (or Tim Kaine, or Joe Biden, et. al.) are not the same thing as Democratic office-holders or -seekers who would sponsor and/or vote for anti-choice measures, like Heath Mello, whose candidacy started this latest round of garbage about whether Democrats need to be pro-choice.

The implication that this is about a litmus test on the personal beliefs of Democratic voters is bullshit. It's a straw-argument. And I expect more from Pelosi.

Further, I don't know for whom Pelosi imagines abortion is "kind of fading as an issue," but it sure isn't any of the Democratic women I know. Abortion access is a crucial issue, a key economic issue for women, especially in red states where abortion access has been significantly eroded over the last decade.

Donald Trump just nominated a Supreme Court justice, subsequently confirmed, who could be the deciding vote on any case that threatens Roe v. Wade, and Pelosi thinks that abortion is "kind of fading as an issue"? Is she serious?

It's not fading for anti-choicers, and it certainly isn't fading for those of us on the frontlines fighting to retain access every day.

I find it incredible that the Democratic Party believes that abortion is a loser issue for them, after the Democratic nominee who was most outspoken about and most progressive on reproductive rights just won the popular vote by 3 million votes.

This is a revolting display of cowardice and abandonment of principle. Hillary Clinton stood up for reproductive rights, and the Democratic Party should be standing beside her. Instead, they're running away from her and toward a model in which abortion is negotiable.

I have a major problem with that.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

An Observation

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

I think it's positively adorable (ahem) that misogynist haters of Hillary Clinton think we can't tell the difference between someone who dislikes her policies and someone who hates her for who she is.

Guess what, fuckers? We can.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Trump's Next Executive Order: "Religious Liberty"

[Content Note: Homophobia; transphobia; Christian supremacy.]

The Loser President needs a win, so naturally the executive order on "religious liberty" is back on the docket.

Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long-awaited—and highly controversial—executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.

Two senior administration officials confirmed the plan, though one cautioned that it hasn't yet been finalized, and noted that lawyers are currently reviewing and fine-tuning the draft language. Thursday is the National Day of Prayer, and the White House was already planning to celebrate the occasion with faith leaders.

The signing would represent a major triumph for Vice President Mike Pence—whose push for religious-freedom legislation backfired mightily when he served as governor of Indiana—and his allies in the conservative movement.

After the original draft was leaked, immediately meeting with widespread criticism, "Pence and a small team of conservative allies quickly began working behind the scenes to revise the language, and in recent weeks have ratcheted up the pressure on Trump to sign it."

Two things:

1. Every "religious liberty" bill/order is designed with the express purpose of giving socially conservative Christians the legal right to discriminate against people they don't like.

2. We won't know how far-reaching this particular iteration is until we see the actual text. Some are worse than others. Indiana's bill, under Pence's governorship, was appalling. He has certainly learned in the interim how to craft a bill with language that will accomplish the same objective with more careful language. Not good.

Because this is coming in the form of an executive order, rather that a piece of legislation, it's difficult to mobilize effective resistance ahead of the signing.

We're going to have to wait until the text is released and then hope that there is language which can be used to mount a court challenge.

This is sickening. I hate every moment of this presidency with every molecule of my being.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Media's Actions Had Consequences, and They Refuse to Own Them

At the Washington Post, Dave Weigel writes "This One Clinton Quote Shows Why Her Supporters Hate the Media," in which he deconstructs the process by which something Hillary Clinton said gets twisted into something detached from all meaning and reattached to existing sinister narratives about her.

In a riff on how to create jobs, Clinton made the fairly ordinary point that "if you don't have access to high-speed affordable broadband, which large parts of America do not," large employers will overlook your town. She continued:

If you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get cell coverage for miles. And so, even in towns — so, the president was in Harrisburg. I was in Harrisburg during the campaign, and I met with people afterward. One of the things they said to me is that there are places in central Pennsylvania where we don't have access to affordable high-speed Internet.

Clearly, Clinton was expressing concern for people who are left without reliable cell phone and internet access in an age in which we have become dependent on these things.

But, as Weigel details, members of the political press selectively quoted it to make it appear as though Clinton was an out-of-touch elite complaining that she couldn't get cell service in places that didn't vote for her.

"You cannot get cell coverage for mile," Clinton says of the places that voted against her.

— Phil Elliott (@Philip_Elliott) May 2, 2017

See how that works? And then other members of the press ran with that framing, and, soon, the established narrative was that Clinton was blaming lack of cell phone coverage for losing the election.

When what she had actually been doing was expressing compassion for people in those areas and amplifying their concerns.

This is emblematic of a pattern we saw over and over throughout the election. It is one example, but it is representative of countless iterations of this dynamic.

It is infuriating—and it is a heartbreaking illustration of how media plays a major role in denying people help they need.

That is part of your responsibility here. Your mendacious framing has consequences. It had big consequences in the election. Own up to that.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

I supported HRC as a candidate b/c her policies would have helped people in meaningful ways. And I'm angry that you MISREPRESENTED THAT.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

And now you act like it's NBD. So not a big deal that you're STILL DOING IT. But it was a big deal. People's lives hang in the balance.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

Ask any single person whose life or safety depends on the very meaningful differences you elided between HRC and Trump, b/c "both sides."

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

The problem with the media isn't that many of you observably hate HRC. It's that you allowed that hate to doom people across this nation.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

Get your shit together. You have earned every ounce of the anger directed at you for what you did during this election.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 3, 2017

I want to stress this point: The problem is not that many members of the political press hate Hillary Clinton. It's that they allowed that hatred to doom people across this nation.

It's not great when members of the media who are tasked with accurately reporting on candidates observably hate one of the candidates. But the issue was not the hatred itself: It was people who hated her giving themselves permission to abandon any and all pretense of accuracy and fairness.

And then justifying it on the basis that she was "objectively unlikeable." (Unlike the entertaining Donald Trump, of course.)

One of the primary criticisms of Trump's presidency so far is that he continually prioritizes his own bigotry over what's best for the country. That is a good criticism. It deserves to be made over and over.

I have even seen some members of the political press effectively make that point.

And yet. Some of the same people who can make that point about Trump exhibit precisely the same prioritization of their own bigotry, their misogyny, over what's best for the country, when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps it's no wonder that they had a preference for him. They are more like him than they would prefer to believe.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

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

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

What dish, no matter how many times you try elevated preparations of it, will you always crave and prefer the "lowbrow" version, whether that's a simple family recipe, or a version from a box or a can?

Chicken and dumplings. Just give me the simplest, lowest of lowbrowiest, canned chicken and dumplings you can find!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Your Best Photograph

If you're a photographer, even if a very amateur one (like myself), and you've got a photo or photos you'd like to share, here's your thread for that!

It doesn't really have to be your best photograph—just one you like!

Please be sure if your photo contains people other than yourself, that you have the explicit consent of the people in the photos before posting them.

* * *

Here's one I took last night while I was sitting on the deck in an ominous wind, as a storm rolled in. Warm air cut with cool breeze. The smell of imminent rain. My favorite weather.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Meanwhile, on Twitter...

A number of members of the press have been taking issue with Hillary Clinton saying that she bears accountability for losing the election, but not exclusively. I had a few thoughts about that.

She literally said "I take absolute personal responsibility." Here's a takeaway—This shit is what media STILL won't take responsibility for. pic.twitter.com/BOHYIdaK0a

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

Imagine being someone who will straight. up. lie. about what Clinton said re: her own responsibility, while refusing to examine their own.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

The political press has searched for explanations for why she lost under every rock and in every crevice, but refuse to look in a mirror.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

How many times have I written about coverage that's about humiliating Hillary & capturing her pain on camera? (Lots) https://t.co/Gg8XWRFVAd pic.twitter.com/uqGiRWyJYe

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

The expectation that Hillary flagellate herself for our satisfied consumption is not new. It is a defining feature of coverage of her.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

And what I can tell you is this: There is no responsibility she could take, no apology she could offer, that will satisfy this lust.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

She must be punished for her assertion that she has a right to take up space. To speak and be heard. To lead.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

But they refuse to acknowledge the part they have played and are playing in doing that very thing to *this* woman. To Hillary Clinton.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

When the history of this time is written, they'll be remembered as just another collection of villains who sought to punish an uppity woman.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) May 2, 2017

I just can't even articulate the emotion I'm having right now watching the media do exactly the thing they did to Hillary Clinton through the entire election (and her entire career) over the specific issue of her taking responsibility for losing.

It's like a Escher mezzotint of endless fuckery.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

An Observation

It constantly infuriates me that the election of Donald Trump has fundamentally changed the conversations we having about this country.

Specifically, we talk about things that simply aren't true as though they are.

The political media is seemingly convinced that Trump is legitimately representing some version of the United States they don't see, trapped in their little bubbles, and they're giving credence to his "American carnage" portrait based on nothing but his word and the fact that lots of people outside urban media centers voted for him.

But Trump has simply invented a version of the U.S. that is drawn from bigots' fever dreams about what the U.S. will become if a strongman doesn't take charge of shit.

And I've not seen anyone in the political press meaningfully try to tease that out, at all—the treating of conservatives' dystopian nightmares as an accurate representation of the country, or parts of it, now. It's all just presented as "different perspectives."

This is wrong. There is reality, and there are lies based on fear.

And no one should treat the latter as the former.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!