Egg or chicken?

Aug 15th, 2018 9:42 am | By

Greg Sargent at the Post notes that in primaries, Republicans who are critical of Trump lose to Republicans who passionately defend whatever he does, in particular his bragging about grabbing women by the pussy.

The big news in Tuesday night’s elections is the defeat of GOP establishment pick Tim Pawlenty in the Minnesota GOP gubernatorial primary, at the hands of a full-blown Trump loyalist. This makes a Democratic victory in the state more likely, and crucially, it probably makes it easier for Democrats to hold a couple of House seats they are defending in the state, which is key to Democrats’ hopes of taking back the lower chamber this fall.

Beyond this, Pawlenty’s loss provides a useful way to try to understand what is happening in the GOP of the Trump era. After it happened, Pawlenty told reporters:

“The Republican Party has shifted. It is the era of Trump and I’m just not a Trump-like politician.”

The phrase “Trump-like politician,” it turns out, is basically a euphemism for a “politician who is willing to defend President Trump at his most reprehensible moments.” The man who decisively defeated Pawlenty, local commissioner Jeff Johnson, actually ran an ad that blasted Pawlenty for failing to stand by Trump after the news broke of the “Access Hollywood” video, which featured Trump boasting in extremely lewd fashion about his ability to carry out sexual assaults with impunity.

He goes on to say it’s a pattern, and gives other examples, all centering on the pussy grabber tape.

In most of these cases, the offending act was not merely a personal betrayal of Trump. More precisely, the offending act was to display weakness — in the face of widespread moral condemnation of Trump’s reprehensible misogynistic boasting over his dalliances into sexual abuse and assault — when the stakes were high enough to demand fortitude in response to that condemnation.

In both ads cited above, the disloyal Republican was condemned for going weak-kneed when the Supreme Court (and with it, long-term conservative priorities) were “on the line.” As the ad from Johnson (who won in Minnesota) noted, it was a mark of him being a true “conservative” that he did not “panic when it matters most.”

What I wonder though is which part really weighs the most heavily. Is it really about the Supreme Court, with the pussy grabbing being just a painful hurdle to jump? Or is it the other way around? Is it really the sacred right of men to talk about women with hostile contempt, with the Supreme Court as just a nice bonus?

Or to put it less strongly, sure, it’s about the Court, but it’s silly to pretend the pussy grabbing is a big problem for them, something they have to struggle to tolerate in order to get forced-pregnancy judges onto the Court. They don’t mind the pussy grabbing because they share Trump’s hostile contempt for women. That’s part of why they want the forced-pregnancy judges on the Court, after all.



Their placards excluded men

Aug 14th, 2018 4:46 pm | By

There was a Dyke March in Vancouver. You’ll never guess what happened. Danielle Cormier was there:

Having chosen “lesbian heroes” as our theme for this year’s March, we carried homemade signs that featured lesbians we admire — our lesbian heroes — pioneers who have made significant contributions to lesbian culture or allies in the ongoing struggle for lesbian sexual autonomy.

Many of these women are on the ever-growing list of lesbians considered enemies and “bigots” due to their views on gender, female space, or our right to gather separate from males, among peers, and to determine for ourselves who those peers are.

The roster of lesbians whose names have become taboo, forbidden, and synonymous with hatred is notable. Lesbian feminist historian, Max Dashu, has been smeared as a “TERF” (trans-exclusionary feminist) and a bigot, no-platformed from the Witches Confluence in San Francisco after participating in the San Francisco Dyke March, along with allied lesbians, who carried signs reading “Proud to be Lesbian” and “Lesbian Visibility.” The works of women like Julie Bindel, Sheila Jeffreys, Janice Raymond, and Mary Daly are expunged from bookshelves, gender studies departments, and reading lists of LGBTQ centres. This makes them inaccessible to young lesbians wanting to know about their history. Protests are organized against spaces that carry the writings and stories of these lesbians — literal erasure (pun intended). Their crime? Analyzing how gender identity ideologies affect the material lives of women and women’s sex-based rights.

If women – lesbian and straight – can’t talk about what we mean by “gender identities” and how the ideas about them play out in real life, then how can feminism exist at all? Gender identity is the prison feminism has always wanted to tear down, not embrace while saying we can all pick our own.

Our group — The Lesbians Collective — wanted to honour and make visible our lesbian heritage by featuring some of the lesbians that have been erased from our history. We made many placards featuring our lesbian heros and included a quote from each one. Many of these quotes spoke to these women’s own experiences with the gender constraints imposed on all of us. One sign, for example, read, “When I was little, I told everybody I was a boy. I didn’t want a boy body, I just wanted the things boys have,” paraphrasing lesbian YouTuber, Peachyoghurt. Another paraphrases lesbian journalist Julie Bindel, and read, “I have lost count of all the times men have asked me how do lesbians manage to have sex without a penis.”

While we were gathering near McSpadden Park, where the march was to begin, we were approached by two members of the Vancouver Dyke March board. They told us that our T-shirts and placards excluded transwomen and since this was an “inclusive march” we would have to remove them if we wanted to participate. We were additionally told that if any of our signs, banners, or t-shirts included the venus symbol — representing  “woman” — (the two interlocked venus symbols have always meant lesbian) or “XX,” symbolizing the female sex chromosome, we would also have remove them.

Think about that. Think about it and then think about it again. It’s a Dyke March, and the dykes are being told they can’t carry signs quoting other dykes because they “exclude” men who identify as trans women. It’s a Dyke March, and the dykes are being told they have to be “inclusive” of men.

They respectfully declined to get rid of their signs and T-shirts, and joined the march, and so they were mobbed.

During the march, board members, organizers, volunteers, and their supporters — male and female — surrounded us, yelled “TERF bigots;” pointed a megaphone at us, chanting, “Tranwomen are women,” “This is an inclusive march,” and, “There is no room for hate at the Dyke March.” One particularly aggressive trans-identified male ran through our group repeatedly, yelling “Get your ‘Fuck TERFs’ pin!” in the faces of individual women in our group, and trying to hand out said pins, which we refused. Others formed a human barricade in front of us, separating us from the rest of the march, which had the effect of insulating us within the crowd of people who were harassing us, and shielding the rest of the march from witnessing this harassment.

The March board put out a statement afterwards. It’s not pleasant reading.

Thank you to everyone who came out yesterday, those who could not make it and sent their love and support, all the folks who donated to make this march possible, and especially our volunteers!

Unfortunately, a hate group showed up at the beginning of the Vancouver Dyke March. About thirty people, who we will identify as TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists), came to the March in an organized group behind the school at McSpadden Park.

Before the March, we took steps to improve safety and inclusivity at the event, which included volunteer training focused on anti-oppression, de-escalation, and non-violent conflict intervention strategies, obtaining radios for our volunteer marshaling team and peacebearers, placing additional marshals at points where folks may be intentionally made to feel unsafe, and reaching out to other organizations for volunteers and added support during the March.

As soon as we were notified of TERF presence at the March, we took the action based on our de-escalation strategy, which was created in consultation with folks from the community, including:

– At the beginning of our gathering at McSpadden Park, we were advised that rocks, and papers wrapped around rocks, with hateful and trans-exclusionary messages written on them had been scattered at the park and placed in the children’s playground. Our teams of volunteers and board members worked to find and remove these messages, while keeping their eyes out for further concerns.

– Our March radioed our Festival at Grandview Park for extra support, and volunteers were sent to act as additional marshaling support.

– Once the location of the hate group was identified, two board members spoke to this group. The group was informed that the Vancouver Dyke March is a trans-inclusive event, that we are working hard to create a safer and more inclusive space, and they were asked not to bring trans-exclusionary signs into the March, or wear trans-exclusionary shirts. They were advised of our participant code of conduct and that a coordinated effort to discriminate on the basis of gender identity is contrary to our code of conduct. They were advised of our safety ground rules, including that there would be no physical contact with other March participants. About two members of the group chose to take a physical copy of our code of conduct, the others refused.

– When the group refused to remove their signs and shirts, they were asked to leave. They walked away from our board members but refused to leave the area.

They shouldn’t have been asked to remove their signs and shirts, and they shouldn’t have been asked to leave.

– When the March began, we had marshals and peacebearers placed around the perimeter of the March. Our volunteer rainbow teams, which are teams of multiple volunteers working in groups with inclusive signs and positive messages, as well as our peace bearers, and additional marshals escorted the hate group. These teams used a megaphone to encourage inclusive chants to drown out exclusionary messages and raised trans flags to counter hate signs.

– The hate group continued past the festival. Their exit from the festival grounds was supervised by our rainbow team and peace bearers. Additional marshals were placed at entrances across Grandview Park to ensure they did not attempt to access the festival.

The Vancouver Dyke March is upset, angry, and disappointed by the actions of those people who sought to reject and exclude valued members of our communities, including trans folks.

The Dyke March is upset that some Dykes don’t agree that men can be lesbians – so upset that they tried to exclude them from the march and then bullied them throughout the march.

Back to Cormier:

The lesbians who originally began these marches out of a desire to celebrate lesbians and to have a space of their own, separate from men, would no longer be welcome in LGTBQ spaces or events today — even the Dyke March itself. In  2018, the Dyke March has become an event where lesbians who refuse to accept males either as peers and/or sexual partners are told they are not welcome, branded a hate group, and harassed and threatened if they defiantly and peacefully participate anyway. All under the dubious rubric of inclusivity. One must ask how “inclusive” it is to ban lesbians from the Dyke March?

Zero. It is zero inclusive. It’s also bullying, stupid, hostile, politically suicidal, and generally fucked up.

Lesbians are being told to accept males as female, and therefore to accept men as “lesbians.” Those of us who reject the notion that a man can be a lesbian and continue to maintain our sexual boundaries are labelled hateful bigots on account of being “trans-exclusive.” But there is no such thing as a “trans-inclusive” lesbian — lesbians are, by definition, adult females exclusively attracted to other adult females. If a female is attracted to male-bodied persons, she is heterosexual. If she is attracted to both males and females, she is bisexual. These are perfectly fine things to be, but do not make a woman a “lesbian.”

Similarly, there is no such thing as a male lesbian, as, again, a lesbian is an adult female attracted to other adult females. This has always been true. We did not just invent that definition — it has always excluded males. Eons before trans-identified males and the trans movement, lesbians were exclusively attracted to females. Lesbians have always and will continue to exist. This has always made men angry and continues to today.

Yes but now they have found the perfect way to force lesbians to put them first and at the same time to shit on all lesbians who won’t comply.

In trans activist and social justice circles online and in the real world, it is commonly and openly agreed that using the word female or female specific language is “exclusionary” and proof someone is a bigot — an oppressor. There is now a concerted campaign to make the word female and all female language forbidden. This is the literal erasure of women.

As with Planned Parenthood talking about “people” having abortions.

But it doesn’t stop there. Being branded a “TERF” forever guarantees a “shoot now, ask questions never” approach tied to a “you asked for it” attitude where, increasingly, any and all retaliatory behaviours are considered justified. A fundraiser for Baltimore Pride was held this year, called QueerQrush. The event description read:

“#QueerQrush is an ALL INCLUSIVE dance party that’s welcome and open to everyone that wants to come! That does NOT include you if you participate in racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, misogyny, sexism, bigotry, or general creepiness. This is NOT a safe space for abusers and any of the above behaviours will NOT be tolerated…

…TERFs will be hung by their necks.”

TERFs will be murdered by lynching. You couldn’t make it up. How did we get here? How did we get to a place where women who don’t agree that men are women are told they will be lynched?

You will notice that self-identified “transmen” (who are born female) are not campaigning to bully gay men into dating them or sleeping with them. Transmen have not invented a term like the “cotton ceiling” to refer to the “problem” of gay men who refuse someone of the opposite sex as a sexual partner.

Because girls and women are never allowed to develop a sense of entitlement that colossal, while apparently men are. It’s amazing, isn’t it?



Foreplay is supposed to hurt, yeah?

Aug 14th, 2018 3:24 pm | By

Guess what: porn has a bad effect on teenage boys’ ideas about sex.

High school rapists are so influenced by pornography and so lacking in sex education, they think their victims’ tears are “part of foreplay,” says Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism campaign.

Bates shared this shocking finding at the Edinburgh Book Festival, as she warned of an epidemic of sexual assault in British schoolyards — where a rape a day occurs during term time. In the three years to 2015, 600 rapes in U.K. schools were reported to police, according to the Times of London.

Due to schools’ lack of sufficient policies for dealing with the problem, victims of assault are then being returned to classrooms with their attackers. The ongoing absence of mandated sex and relationship lessons — which Bates thinks should begin before students reach their older teen years — also means there are no correctives for the “misogynistic and dehumanizing” nature of pornography that can be easily accessed online. And with schools using guidance formulated 20 years ago, “for all these people experiencing online porn and sexting there is absolutely no advice at all,” Bates said.

“I went to a school recently where they had a rape case involving a 14-year-old boy and a teacher had said to him, ‘Why didn’t you stop when she was crying?’ and he looked straight back at her, quite bewildered, and said, ‘Because it is normal for girls to cry during sex,’” Bates recalled.

Well, it’s normal for girls to cry if you stab them or pinch them hard or yank their hair out, too, but is that a reason to keep doing it? I’m having a hard time understanding the thinking here. If she’s crying she’s not happy; that’s not “during sex” it’s “while I’m hurting her.” If she’s crying, how about stop whatever you’re doing and ask her why? How about treat her like a person not an orgasm-dispenser?

What is the matter with people? (Porn, is clearly one answer, but there’s still the problem of thinking “that other person who isn’t me is crying, good-oh, I’ll keep doing more of the same.”)

“I go into schools and talk to children around that age all the time who think that crying is part of foreplay because they have seen so much online porn that normalises violence and treats women in a way that is incredibly misogynistic and dehumanising.”

I guess it’s just hopelessly naïve to think sex should be erotic rather than dehumanizing.



The most taboo word of all

Aug 14th, 2018 11:52 am | By

Planned Parenthood on Facebook:

Image may contain: text

It’s common to have a wide range of feelings after an abortion. Some people may feel anger, regret, guilt, or sadness, but many ultimately feel relief. And the truth is that most people who have an abortion don’t regret it.

Women. The word is womenWomen have abortions. Men do not. Generic “people” do not. Women do. This refusal to say the word “women” has got to stop.

That guy to the left of the purple caption? That’s a guy. He didn’t have an abortion, so he can’t regret his abortion, because he didn’t have one. He’s not part of the class of people who can need abortions, because he’s not part of the class of people who can get pregnant. There’s no reason to be “inclusive” of that guy.



Wormleighton St Mary

Aug 14th, 2018 11:24 am | By

By way of refreshment:



The raging dumpster fire

Aug 14th, 2018 11:08 am | By

Trump is in full garbage mode.

Please. He has every hateful epithet in his vocabulary. He’s a mean narcissistic bully, and he loves publicly insulting people.

A dog. The guy who claims he doesn’t have “nigger” in his vocabulary calls a black woman a dog.

And this is the president of the United States. This is the president of the United States calling people stupid and lowlife and low IQ and dogs on Twitter.

God I wish this nightmare would end.

Animals. But remember, folks, he doesn’t have the word “nigger” in his vocabulary.

The Times editorial board on the nightmare:

President Trump’s spat with Omarosa Manigault Newman, the White House adviser who was fired in December for “serious integrity issues,” is another of those particularly Trumpian innovations in public life — the raging dumpster fire that continues to yield new trash.

In her juicy new tell-all, aptly titled “Unhinged,” Ms. Manigault Newman paints an unflattering portrait of the president, whom she has known since appearing as a contestant on his reality TV show “The Apprentice” in 2004. She characterizes Mr. Trump as a racist, misogynistic narcissist with poor impulse control, severe attention-deficit issues and signs of creeping mental decline, who “loves the hate,” “thrives on criticism and insults” and “delights in chaos and confusion.”

We know all that just from painfully watching him over the last two years (longer than that for people who were paying attention before he won the nomination).

On both sides, the spat is vintage Trump: tawdry, cruel, vindictive and highly personal. That said, this is about more than a petty feud with a former aide who famously shares Mr. Trump’s love of chaos, confusion and high drama. It is also a glaring reminder of one of this president’s central failings as a leader: his disastrous judgment when choosing people with whom to surround himself.

Like Manafort for instance.

The laundry list of reckless, venal and quite possibly felonious behavior in which Mr. Manafort engaged has been on vivid display this month in federal court, where he is facing 18 counts of tax evasion and bank fraud. As ethically suspect characters go, Mr. Manafort ranks right up there with, well, with Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and longtime fixer, who is currently under criminal investigation for his own suspect business dealings. Mr. Cohen had worked with Mr. Trump for years. Even so, when it came to light that Mr. Cohen had secretly recorded some of their conversations, the president took to Twitter to rage, “What kind of a lawyer would tape a client?”

Answer: Precisely the kind whose primary client would be Donald J. Trump.

The kind you like to hire, bro.



Joe Awesome and Jane Unicorn

Aug 13th, 2018 5:54 pm | By

Kate Long read some T shirts.

What did she find?

T shirts in the boys’ section (and those things are always labeled, so it’s not as if all kids can just grab unisex T shirts just because hey they are T SHIRTS) with

LIKE A BOSS

LEGEND

FEARLESS

BREAK THE RULES

TOTALLY AWESOME

NO RULES

EPIC SUPER

30% DUDE 20% EPIC

And in the girls’ section

DANCE DANCE DANCE

SPARKLE

sparkle always smile often dream big

SELFIES WIFI UNICORNS SPARKLE

STYLE BE WHO YOU WANT TO BE NEW YORK LONDON MILAN PARIS

MAKE TODAY BEAUTIFUL

make your dreams happen

FASHION ICON

love love love

shimmer

little LOVE

HAPPY

[a cartoon unicorn]

YOU ARE SO BEAUTIFUL

DREAMING OF Y♥U

Now it’s possible that there was a lot of other stuff that broke the pattern, but frankly I doubt it.

Marketers think of girls as fluffy morons and boys as bombastic egomaniacs.

Talk about “gender”…



The daily pun

Aug 13th, 2018 5:14 pm | By

Speaking of mammoths…

The Far Corner Cafe

Mammoth undertaking.



She says GREAT things about Him

Aug 13th, 2018 4:23 pm | By

Trump this morning:

Philip Bump at the Post sums up:

“Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time,” he wrote on Twitter. “She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard really bad things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work.”

“When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems,” he continued. “I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me — until she got fired!”

Trump’s argument is Manigault Newman:

  • Was only hired because she begged for a job, and he acquiesced.
  • Was not smart.
  • Was broadly disliked and mean to people.
  • Constantly missed meetings and skipped work.
  • Struck Kelly so negatively he suggested she be fired, and, perhaps most damningly.
  • Was of such questionable quality as an employee that she failed to win his reality show three times.

But she kept her job, even after Kelly complained — Kelly, whose job was to guide Trump’s White House staff. Why? What is the one quality Manigault Newman possessed that was sufficient for Trump to argue she keep her job?

She praised Trump.

There you have it. She was as bad and worthless as an employee can be without actually killing people, but Trump hired her and kept her for some time because “she only said GREAT things about” the gilded monster. That’s his dedication to the job and to our welfare – he’d hand us all over to a hungry giant cannibal if the hungry giant cannibal said nice things about his combover.

This is not surprising, of course. It is clear Trump’s brand of loyalty is both unidirectional and predicated on enthusiasm; it is a lesson people on Capitol Hill learned quickly. It is just sort of stunning the president would explicitly argue the reason he wanted Manigault Newman to continue earning her $179,700 annual salary — despite being nasty to her colleagues and not doing any work — was she said nice things about him.

It certainly got my attention when I read it this morning – my attention and a snarl of disgust.

Naturally this leads to an administration full of shits who are careful to flatter The Big Shit. No talent required, just lick Donald’s bum.

It extends beyond Washington. When Trump talks about China and Saudi Arabia, he offers praise that often includes mentions of how he was treated when he visited each country: the celebrations that greeted his arrival in Riyadh and the dinner that was thrown in his honor in Beijing. Foreign leaders have learned flattery can be an effective way to manage Trump (see: Putin, Vladimir), and those who offer criticism can find themselves ostracized or, at least, bearing the brunt of Trump’s anger.

I hope tonight is the night he chokes on the second scoop of ice cream.



Guest post: The biggest blow patriarchy has dealt to women

Aug 13th, 2018 11:18 am | By

Guest post by Josh Slocum.

The biggest blow patriarchy has dealt to women has been successfully convincing women that the domains of reason, logic, and analysis are oppression. That these are not faculties of women. That they are not reliable ways of navigating the world.

This is how patriarchy—as a system with women as active collaborators along with men—has stolen power from women in recent history. Removing from women the natural, objective ability to see the truth, speak it, and to be treated as one who has spoken the truth.

Many women take it and run, retreating into mysticism and renouncing the notions of logic, cause and effect, and objectivity as “male violence” imposed from the outside. Many speak of “my truth” instead of “the truth.” Why? Because the idea is that there is no such thing as truth. That the way to power is to have “your truth,” (your personal, only-you, point of view) “respected.”

What do we remove from someone when we remove the ability to rely on reason and logic?

–We remove the power of the rule of law; nothing can be adjudicated

–We remove the power of careful observation; it’s only what you think appeared to happen, so no action can be taken

–We remove the ability to accurately assess danger, and retrain the mind to consider danger tells as “bigotry” or a lack of “personal growth and security.”

Tell me how this is good for women, or anyone in an oppressed position?



And why wouldn’t we?

Aug 13th, 2018 10:46 am | By

The Post on Trump’s NDAs.

When you make a reality TV star the president, you’re going to get a reality show White House. And when that reality TV star is Donald Trump, the reality show will have a particular character, one in which amid all the chaos and backstabbing is a cult of personality that takes precedence over any conception of public service or public good.

It’s too bad it’s that reality show, too. If it had been a cooking show we could have had Lidia Bastianich as Secretary of State.

But about this Omarosa book.

While much of the attention is focused on all the interpersonal nastiness and allegations of things such as the president being on tape using the n-word (would anyone be surprised?), I’d like to focus on one thing Omarosa has brought to light that isn’t in dispute.

Among her charges are that she was asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement and offered a $15,000-a-month “job” after she left the White House in order to keep her in line. As she said yesterday on NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” “In fact, there are several former employees from the White House who actually signed this agreement, who are all being paid $15,000 for their silence.”

Of our money, presumably.

So far, the White House has not denied this claim. In fact, on ABC News’s “This Week,” Kellyanne Conway said, “We have confidentiality agreements in the West Wing, absolutely we do. And — and why wouldn’t we?”

Oh my. Because you’re supposed to be accountable to the people, that’s why. This isn’t a contest where you won (by cheating) the right to scam us and keep us in the dark as much as you possibly could. This is the damn government.

There are a number of reasons, but the question that needs to be answered is what exactly those confidentiality agreements entail. Because they are absolutely not standard practice in the White House. Employees who deal with classified information may have to sign an agreement pledging not to reveal that information, but it sounds as though the White House is requiring broader agreements from its employees, which would put us in new territory. One critical question is whether the agreements signed by White House staff include non-disparagement clauses, which would be not just unprecedented but also shocking.

If anybody in the world needs disparagement it’s Donald Trump.

Remember: Throughout his career, Trump required his employees to sign nondisclosure agreements that not only stopped them from revealing what they had seen but also forbade them from ever saying anything uncomplimentary about Trump, his family, his company or his products. This then carried over into his presidential campaign, which required even volunteers to pledge not to disparage Trump for the rest of their lives.

Trump is horrible, his family is awful, his company sucks, his products are shit. Ah, freedom.

The document Omarosa made public (which is an agreement not with the government but with the Trump reelection campaign) contained this clause, using almost identical language as the document people on the campaign signed:

During the term of your service, and at all times thereafter, you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly, in any form or through any medium, the Campaign, Mr. Trump, Mr. Pence, any Trump or Pence Company, any Trump or Pence Family Member, or any Trump or Pence Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts.

We don’t know whether the Trump White House NDAs include such a clause, but if they do, it’s quite frankly appalling.

But not surprising. Trump has a psychopathic-level immunity to shame.

So what does this tell us about the Trump presidency? It’s important to understand that even though the president hires and fires White House employees, they don’t work for the president; they work for the United States of America. Yet it’s clear that when you work for Trump, you’re expected to hold the aggrandizement of Trump as your highest and most important goal.

It’s a little known fact that the entire universe came into existence solely to produce Donald Trump.



Punch until dead :D

Aug 13th, 2018 10:12 am | By

This is nice.



Tiny soot now healthy

Aug 13th, 2018 9:40 am | By

The Trump administration has a fabulous new plan for making the air more healthy to breathe: it’s done by redefining what is unhealthy.

A story published Monday in environmental policy outlet E&E News details the evidence. “After decades of increasingly strong assertions that there is no known safe level of fine particle exposure for the American public, [the] EPA under the Trump administration is now considering taking a new position,” reporter Niina Heikkinen wrote. “The agency is floating the idea of changing its rulemaking process and setting a threshold level of fine particles that it would consider safe.” (She’s referring to particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, small enough to penetrate deep into the circulatory system and potentially infiltrate the central nervous system. PM2.5 is the main component of soot.)

Under these changes, which are being considered by EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler, PM 2.5 would no longer be considered a“non-threshold pollutant”—one that causes harm at any level of exposure. Instead, it would become a “threshold pollutant,” or one that causes harm only above a certain exposure level. Wheeler is considering this change most likely because it would help him to legally justify repealing the Clean Power Plan, a set of Obama-era climate regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants.

It’s easy to see the advantages. Just changing the words is way cheaper, easier, and quicker than reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants.

Wheeler must prove that Obama’s policy would do more harm than good. Obama’s EPA had argued that the Clean Power Plan would reduce PM2.5 pollution, thus creating from $13 billion to $30.3 billion in public health benefits. This figure made up about half of the Clean Power Plan’s stated benefits. If Wheeler changes the official designation of PM2.5, the EPA’s position would be that breathing in small amounts of soot has the same impact as breathing in none. Thus, many of Obama’s predicted benefits would be erased.

But the to-do list would be thrown in the trash.

The scientific community is pushing back against the agency’s so-called secret science policy. On Tuesday, the entirety of Harvard University—its law school, medical school, school of public health, and all its teaching hospitals—wrote in an extensive letter that the “rule will wreak havoc on public health, medical, and scientific research and undermine the protection of public health and safety.” The school warned that the EPA’s rule could disqualify high-quality science that supports some of the EPA’s strongest regulations on lead, arsenic, hormone-disrupting chemicals, and—of course—air pollution.

Wheeler hasn’t yet decided whether the EPA will change its position on PM2.5. If he does, air pollution denial will become U.S. policy for the first time.

It will be good for the cough drop industry.



Bad nephew

Aug 13th, 2018 7:31 am | By

Stephen Miller has an uncle who is not proud of his nephew. Brendan Smialowski tells a story of a Jewish family that left a shtetl in Belarus to escape pogroms and conscription in the Czar’s army, and went to you guessed it the USofA in 1903. One branch settled in the Pennsylvania coal country.

The Glosser family quickly progressed from selling goods from a horse and wagon to owning a haberdashery in Johnstown run by Nathan and Wolf-Leib to a chain of supermarkets and discount department stores run by my grandfather, Sam, and the next generation of Glossers, including my dad, Izzy. It was big enough to be listed on the AMEX stock exchange and employed thousands of people over time. In the span of some 80 years and five decades [??], this family emerged from poverty in a hostile country to become a prosperous, educated clan of merchants, scholars, professionals, and, most important, American citizens.

You know what’s coming because I told you already.

What does this classically American tale have to do with Stephen Miller? Well, Izzy Glosser is his maternal grandfather, and Stephen’s mother, Miriam, is my sister.

Of course. It’s the pulling the ladder up after you’ve climbed it routine.

I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, who is an educated man and well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country.

I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses— the travel ban, the radical decrease in refugees, the separation of children from their parents, and even talk of limiting citizenship for legal immigrants— been in effect when Wolf-Leib made his desperate bid for freedom. The Glossers came to the U.S. just a few years before the fear and prejudice of the “America First” nativists of the day closed U.S. borders to Jewish refugees. Had Wolf-Leib waited, his family would likely have been murdered by the Nazis along with all but seven of the 2,000 Jews who remained in Antopol. I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him.

My guess is that he knows that and just doesn’t care. “Lucky for me that they came here and prospered but that was then and this is now; the rules have changed; too bad if you don’t like it.”

President Trump wants to make us believe that these desperate migrants are an existential threat to the United States; the most powerful nation in world history and a nation made strong by immigrants. Trump and my nephew both know their immigrant and refugee roots. Yet, they repeat the insults and false accusations of earlier generations against these refugees to make them seem less than human. Trump publicly parades the grieving families of people hurt or killed by migrants, just as the early Nazis dredged up Jewish criminals to frighten and enrage their political base to justify persecution of all Jews. Almost every American family has an immigration story of its own based on flight from war, poverty, famine, persecution, fear or hopelessness. These immigrants became the workers, entrepreneurs, scientists and soldiers of America.

Our ancestors didn’t all get here via a first-class passage on a luxurious steam ship; most got here the hard way. It’s not becoming in us to demonize and persecute immigrants.



Chatting with white supremacists isn’t the way to “inform the American public”

Aug 12th, 2018 4:58 pm | By

Karen Attiah on why it’s not a brilliant plan for NPR to invite professional racists on to make their pitch.

Ahead of the one-year anniversary of Charlottesville, NPR decided to give an on-air lesson on the proper care and feeding of white nationalists and neo-Nazi ideology.

On Friday’s Morning Edition, NPR’s Noel King interviewed Jason Kessler, the organizer of Sunday’s Unite the Right 2 rally in Washington. There were a lot of troubling spots in the soft-focus mess of interview, but perhaps the most stunning was when King asked Kessler what he believes about the differences between races. Kessler proceeded to literally rank various races on the basis of debunked bell-curve myths about intelligence differences between groups on national public media. Spoiler alert: Black people ranked last on the odious list. I almost wondered if Kessler would bring out a craniometer and do a phrenology demonstration in the interview.

Because people are people, some of those who listened will have taken that nonsense seriously – like for instance people who turned on the interview after the intro and so didn’t know who Kessler was. Does NPR think people scrupulously listen only if they’ve heard the full intro? Of course not, they know better, they know it’s the nature of radio that people can tune in in the middle of things, so how stupid of them to do that interview anyway.

In a statement, NPR defended the interview: “Interviewing the people in the news is part of NPR’s mission to inform the American public,” Isabel Lara, NPR’s senior director of media relations, said. “Our job is to present the facts and the voices that provide context on the day’s events, not to protect our audience from views that might offend them,” she continued.

Yeah but the issue isn’t “views that might offend them”; it’s views that might get them killed. Honestly, what a rude and condescending thing to say. Avowed racists telling us how stupid black people are on NPR are not just something that “offends” us. It’s a little bit more bloody than that.

NPR didn’t do its job on Friday. When it comes to handling racist and white-supremacist subjects, the job of a responsible media outlet does not end at simply letting figures like Kessler speak unchallenged, in the name of neutrality and balance. It’s not that such people and views should absolutely, under no circumstances, ever be interrogated. Rather, what audiences deserve and have the right to demand is for national platforms to use their space responsibly, which means aggressively countering racist lies and propaganda with facts and truth.

Kessler started out the interview by stating that he believes he is a “civil and human rights advocate” for the “underrepresented Caucasian demographic” (ironic, considering that he is a white man being interviewed on national media, which has an overwhelmingly white workforce). Instead of refuting this lie by presenting facts about the domination of white people in almost all realms of American power and influence, King simply asks, “In what ways are white people in America underrepresented?”

There are hardly any of them in chicken processing plants, or in prison for life on drug charges.

Uncritical mainstreaming is exactly what the alt-right and white nationalists are looking for. In an Atlantic essay aptly titled “The White Nationalists are Winning,” Adam Serwer notes that a year after Charlottesville, “the white nationalists’ ideological goals remain a core part of the Trump agenda. As long as that agenda finds a home in one of the two major American political parties, a significant portion of the country will fervently support it. And as an ideological vanguard, the alt-right fulfilled its own purpose in pulling the Republican Party in its direction.” Indeed, we have seen this administration successfully push through a ban on travel from several majority-Muslim countries and the labeling of black activists as “black identity extremists,” with a president who blasts people from “shithole countries” while longing for Norwegian immigrants.

History has shown that white supremacy and white-nationalist ideologies, when carried out to their logical conclusions and adopted by state institutions, represent violence, marginalization and death for many people of color and minorities. Mainstream media must treat them like the societal threats that they are, instead of odd little curiosities.

Do better, NPR.



As many as two dozen racists

Aug 12th, 2018 4:29 pm | By

Aw yeah – white nationalists threw a rally and nobody showed up.

Almost nobody. It was a pathetic dud.

A year after the race-fueled violence in Charlottesville, Va., a small group of white nationalists marched through downtown Washington on Sunday on their way to a rally in front of the White House.

It was over almost as soon as it began.

The white supremacists were met along their march route and at the rally site by thousands of counterdemonstrators denouncing racism and white supremacy. The white nationalists, who numbered about two dozen, stayed in Lafayette Square, a park just north of the White House, for a short time and left before 6 p.m.

They had been scheduled to hold a two-hour rally in the square beginning at 5:30. A spokesman for the National Park Service confirmed that the white nationalists had ended their event by that time.

Let me guess – out of sheer scorching sweat-inducing embarrassment. It’s pretty damn hard to hold a two hour rally in Lafayette Square with 24 people. You look stupid. You can hang out with your 23 friends for two hours, sure, but you can’t hold a rally, because then you look like a damn fool. They looked like damn fools! Best possible outcome.

Before they made their exit, the white nationalists were separated from the counterprotesters by metal fences and dozens of law enforcement officers guarding against any outbreaks of violence.

But it turned out there was no danger of that because the racists were so damn pathetic.

After marching from a neighborhood just west of the White House, the handful of supremacists settled in a pocket of Lafayette Square, tucked underneath trees. Many of them carried American flags, and several wore President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign hats.

The group’s organizer, Jason Kessler, stood on a platform with a microphone, addressing attendees who arrived before the event was scheduled to begin. He blamed a harsh law enforcement response after last year’s Charlottesville rally for his group’s meager showing.

What, are the big bad tough guys scared of a few cops? Aren’t the cops their friends?

Could it be that his group just turns out to be tragically teeny-tiny itty-bitty small small SMALL?

On Saturday, President Trump issued a general call for unity, denouncing “all types of racism,” but not specifically condemning white supremacism.

On both sides, on both sides.

White supremacists marched toward Lafayette Square on Sunday in Washington.

CreditAl Drago for The New York Times



350 centuries ago

Aug 12th, 2018 1:09 pm | By

Zowie.

Archaeologist Ticia Verveer on Facebook:

This beautiful tiny woolly mammoth figure, measuring just 3.7 cm long and weighing a mere 7.5 grams, was skilfully carved with a flint tool ca. 35,000 years ago. It was found at the site of the Vogelherd Cave in southwestern Germany.

Image may contain: night

Thirty five THOUSAND years ago.



Difficulty naming

Aug 12th, 2018 1:03 pm | By

Oh now look, this is just unfair to poor Mr Trump.

Kellyanne Conway, the chief counselor to President Donald Trump, had difficulty on Sunday naming the top black aide working in the White House following the firing of former “Apprentice” contestant Omarosa Manigault Newman late last year.

Conway, asked on ABC’s “This Week” who would now rank as the highest-level black among personnel stationed in the West Wing, initially faulted host John Karl for not focusing on Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson. “The president works with the secretary every day,” she said.

The former renowned neurosurgeon, however, does not physically work or advise the president from an office in the White House.

Working in the West Wing isn’t the same thing as working in the administration. The question was about the West Wing.

Conway then went on to give the first name of a staffer who focuses on criminal justice issues and works at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is adjacent to the White House. Conway never provided his full name.

“Uhh…Joe…Ben…Sambo…whatever his name is.”

But the EEOB is still not the West Wing.

Karl pressed the matter, asking her, “What does that say to have not a single senior adviser in the West Wing who’s African-American.”

“I didn’t say that there wasn’t,” Conway replied.

But she offered no specifics and urged Karl to “look at the fact that we have a number of different minorities. And the fact is that this president is doing well for all Americans.”

Ok but look, as I say, this is just unfair. Trump doesn’t like black people. You can’t expect him to work up close and personal with them when he doesn’t like them, can you? Of course you can’t. That would be just mean.



Try ploughing the fields in a niqab

Aug 12th, 2018 11:52 am | By

Iram Ramzan has a piece in the Sunday Times reminding us that criticizing the niqab is something a great many Muslims do, so we’re not automatically being More Virtuous by defending it as A Woman’s Choice.

I was surprised at the furore last week when Boris Johnson wrote that Muslim women who wear the face veil “look like letter boxes” and compared them to bank robbers. Quite rightly, he doesn’t think we should ban the niqab in all public places, as Denmark has done, but described them as “absolutely ridiculous”.

There are many Muslims — including many of my relatives — who hate the niqab and what it stands for, and will use much worse language than “letter box” about them: words like “ninja” and “bin bags” come to mind.

Of course, context matters, and context includes who is saying it as well as when and where. Outsiders do need to be careful not to come across as Trumpian assholes, but that doesn’t mean we have to stay silent, much less that we should endorse the erasure of women as a Choice.

In Kashmir, where my grandparents came from in the 1950s, the veiling of the face is an alien concept. Instead, women drape a loose scarf on their head, which forms a part of their colourful garments. Try ploughing the fields and milking the buffaloes while wearing heavy black robes.

When I went trekking with a group last year in northern Pakistan, we saw a woman dressed in a black niqab. One of our porters, native to the region, asked us: “What is this monstrosity? Why do they dress like that?”

The rise of this garment is partly down to Saudi Arabia spreading the austere Wahhabi interpretation of Islam through donations to schools and mosques. You will rarely see the niqab in rural areas in the subcontinent but more often in the cities where Islamist satellite channels hold sway.

Saudi Arabia, where domestic servants imported from the Philippines and Sri Lanka are treated like dirt and women are treated like infants. We don’t want to be getting our customs and way of thinking from them, thank you, and by “we” I mean everyone.

Feminists, politicians and lobbyists will talk about the discrimination women face in the workplace, the gender pay gap and the need to break the glass ceiling. Yet many are shamefully silent when it comes to the presence of a piece of clothing that really is a threat to women’s freedom.

The face veil is not a mere item of clothing, but a symbol of subjugation. It is based on the idea that women are such dangerously alluring creatures they must be fully covered in the presence of adult males, an argument that is as offensive to men, who are portrayed as ravenous beasts, as it is to the women it affects.

It’s as offensive to men, but it’s physically hobbling and uncomfortable to women only.

It is even more important that we challenge the preaching of modesty codes for women. But how do we do that if the debate is constantly shut down? Too often, valid concerns about the veil have been written off as “racist” or “dog-whistle politics”.

It’s not easy, but it must be done.



Reasons for becoming “non-binary”

Aug 12th, 2018 10:47 am | By

Oh look at that now. Remember Gregor Murray? The Dundee councillor who “identifies as gender non-binary”? And had to apologize last month for calling some women “utter cunts”?

Not the first time he’s had to apologize. Pink News back in May 2014:

The former chair of the Scottish National Party’s LGBT group has attacked First Minister Alex Salmond’s plan for a 40% female quota in boardrooms.

SNP Councillor Gregor Murray, the deputy convener of education on Dundee City Council, was previously convener of the SNP’s LGBT group, Out for Independence, when it was still an unofficial organisation within the SNP.

The Herald reports Cllr Murray wrote on Facebook that the quota was “the biggest load of piss I have ever seen in my life”.

He went on to call it “fucking stupid.”

Although females make up 52% of the population, only 36% of public board members and just 21% of board chairs in Scotland are held by women.

Scottish Labour equalities spokeswoman Jackie Baillie said: “When even senior nationalists are admitting that Alex Salmond’s recent conversion to gender equality in his cabinet is tokenism, you know that he is fooling no-one and most women will see the SNP’s clumsy attempts to woo them for what they are.”

An SNP spokesman said: “Women now make up 40% of the Scottish Government Cabinet, and ensuring that women make up at least 40% of the boards of our public bodies will help to drive that change forward – something that the SNP takes extremely ­seriously, even if Labour clearly does not.”

Cllr Murray has since sought to apologise for his use of language.

He really dislikes women – but now that he’s “non-binary” that’s okay.