The GOP is digging itself deeper. The Atlantic had this to say - Mueller Wants the FBI to Look at a Scheme to Discredit Him: The special counsel says a woman was offered money to fabricate sexual-harassment claims. First it accuses legitimate victims of lies and perjury in the case of Blasey-Ford (among others), then goes and does that very thing (fraud) very unsuccessfully - tries to put a woman up to falsely smearing Muller for $20,000 and her exact amount of credit card debt. Yes, that's creepy. Now two women with similar information Wohl/Burkman attempts to put up to false accusations are Lorraine Parsons and Jennifer Taub. I list these women so as to not get confused with the fake witness who was promised at a presser but of course couldn't show up at the spectacle due to the fact of very probably not existing. But I suppose that's why we get all the accusations of crisis acting and paid protesters - because the GOP doesn't know how to do democracy, only buy votes and humans. They accuse Democrats of what they are actually doing. And this should be a lesson on false rape allegations. Women's reputations matter. We women do realize the implications and ramifications of a false testimony and do not do this lightly. There are far more assaults that go unreported than there have ever been false reports. The woman (who exists) was offered $20,000+. It wasn't true, so of course she didn't take it. Saying women are prone to false allegations or acting as though we women have nothing to lose by ruining a man's (that you would like to presume to be innocent in your omniscient beneficence) reputation devalues a woman to lower than a child or a dog. This is why we say #believe women. Not because we are asking you to believe only women or believe women over someone else. We say this because when a guy says, "I was mugged," most people outside a jury are going to believe him and sympathize, not ask what he was wearing or why was he walking there or state emphatically that they don't believe anyone unless they see some extensive beyond a reasonable doubt forensic evidence. Women are the only victims held to this standard of proof even outside a court. Here is the presser, if you dare. It could be comedy gold. I don't know whether to laugh or cry these days. Carolyn or Carolyne was the fake woman's name who didn't show up because of the whole not existing thing, not to be confused with the real women they tried and failed to put up to this. One of the many highlights besides lots of sweating and yelling was that his fake company's phone number redirects to his mother's voicemail... Jacob Wohl’s Press Conference Was the Laugh We Needed Today https://www.themarysue.com/jacob-wohl-press-conference-mueller/ Who's to blame? You saw this coming. NPR says the disbelief runs more along party lines than gender: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662178315/on-metoo-americans-more-divided-by-party-than-gender ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Check out these two episodes. They're sort of related. I listened to these around the time of these news stories, Dylan Marron's podcast called Conversations With People Who Hate Me. It's a great premise: asking trolls why they wrote something mean and then finding out you don't hate each other. A lesson in valuing human existence. So in this episode, a young guy reads news coverage of a rape and decides to declare publicly his belief that she is a liar and her experience has failed to convince him the guy did anything wrong. Episode 17: You are a Liar: https://beta.prx.org/stories/246924 And in this one, the "you are a liar" guy is messaged by a similarly traumatized woman after listening to his episode in which he thickly stands by his belief that she is lying after listening to details of the assault because she has failed to produce evidence satisfactory to him. He may have grown a little in the intervening time. You can be the judge. Episode 25: I Hope You're Eaten Alive: https://beta.prx.org/stories/256861
This is a source I trust on this - see Democracy Now below. I've been seeing so many news outlets that just kind of give some times that he went into the consulate for documents needed to get married, time a Saudi jet left allegedly carrying his body parts or assassination team. There are reports he or someone caught his torture on an apple watch too. Aaand Trump's response was he's not a citizen is he? They told him he was a permanent resident (living in Virginia because he criticised MBS). Trump then responded we don't like it. ??? We don't like it, but we aren't going to stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill Yemenis.
New Zealand activists wrote an open letter to the singer Lorde when she was planning to come to Israel to do a concert. Many entertainers adopt a policy that they see as inclusive, though it seems more capitalist and greedy to sell more tickets, in my opinion. They, however, believe they are combating evil censorship of their music and that their message will transcend all borders.
Allowing life to go on as usual in an apartheid state, being complicit in that, rightly makes some uncomfortable enough to speak out, like Roger Waters and Brian Eno. Some choose to learn about the area they visit and agree to a moral code that was adopted in the time of apartheid South Africa to pressure the ruling minority to end their brutal subjugation, like Lorde and Lana Del Rey.
Trump team's insane rant of lies that Medicare for all will bankrupt us and that Democrats want open borders socialism - look at Venezuela - aaaahhhh! brown people stealing your jobs! close the borders, lock them up, and build a wall:
Belated fact checking after leaving SCROTUS's lies out for everyone to adopt into their reasons to vote for the party of racist sexist bullies (and occasionally pedophiles too).
What with Trump's threat/assertion that he could shoot someone in the street and not lose supporters, I thought he may have tried to assassinate someone, honestly - or have it ordered. His opponents can be lambasted for their husband's sexual impropriety and urban legends people can't sort out from actual facts and our president got elected saying he can shoot someone in the street and offers to pay peoples' way if they beat up protesters. And people are talking about angry mobs and civility?
Mrs. Clinton, before her 2016 turn as a stateswoman and grandmother, staked her 2008 bid on evincing a toughness that could match any man’s.
First, WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE??? Grandmother? They're challenging her toughness and describing her as a grandmother. No wonder women have a hard time in politics. They are undermined at every turn my everyone.
Have you ever heard a man in politics referred to in print or on stage as grandfather in the first two words, in place of professional qualifications? Is Trump ever just described as an avid golfer or grandfather or x kids in articles? Avid gofer Trump will try to strike a racist enough tone to woo conservative voters today in his rally. . .
And then we have to watch Avenatti do a Trump style trial run at politics. If that's what people want, I have no hope left for this shithole country. I can say that. The President said it. We need to get the bottom feeders out, not just elect a liberal-ish version. What even are his positions? Attacking Trump? That's all I've heard. That's not a platform.
And Clinton wants to restore civility when Democrats win. That's a disappointing angle too. Republicans vote as a solid bloc, there is no civility. They really came together as a racist bloc against Obama, but it's always been there. Civility and bipartisanship is a joke. Democrats restore "order" and play by some odd set of overly decorous standards by maybe rolling back the nuclear option and thereby denying themselves some appointments and committing to bipartisan legislation. So Democrats get bills promoting peace, healthcare, education, anti-discrimination and other things citizens need watered down severely. Republicans come into power as they did during Obama's presidency and currently and shove unqualified sexual abusers through to SCOTUS, defund women's healthcare, defund domestic violence programs, reduce education funding for poverty stricken nations, put immigrant kids in cages and every racist humanitarian nightmare imaginable. All without an ounce of shame - even sometimes yelling about how the powerful, rich white man shouldn't be silenced while doing it. They support rapists and pedophiles and call it family values because they picket abortion clinics and torment women coming for cancer screenings. Civility and compromise with these hateful vile policies is the death of civility. Tolerance of intolerance will not bring tolerance but the opposite.
And Biden is trying again. He was great in the Obama sidekick memes, but really he should hang it up. I appreciate that he thinks about the working class and stands up to Trump, albeit with those odd behind the gym images. He's a gaffe machine and lacks real vision to move us forward and lift everyone up together. I have no doubt he'll be good for rich white guys, but so are Republicans.
Elizabeth Warren has been great on social media with her primers on economics, wealth gap and the tax bills that have come through Congress. Maybe better, though, would be Kamala Harris, if people can't get over the Democratic Socialist label. Or if we still can't feel comfortable with a woman, maybe Cory Booker could get the men's vote out. I still think men would sooner vote for a black man than a woman of any color. And we're back to that description of Hillary Clinton as a grandmother rather than a Secretary of State. We've broken some barriers, but we've got a long way to go.
I wouldn't have read it except that 1. I subscribe to Harpers and 2. I heard on NPR someone interviewing a victim of Hockenberry's one night early last week really late at night and it was a great discussion about his racism, sexism and bullying and how a white guy became the face of a show trying to express diversity and I couldn't find it online.
Hockenberry starts out by reminding us "HEY, I'M FAMOUS!" and also "I'm in a wheelchair" before explaining that he's already said he's sorry, what else do these people want. He then marches on listing all of his awards (which are in storage because #metoo destroyed him, does he need to remind you?) and success with The Takeaway - a show, which in my understanding, was supposed to be one to highlight diversity and minority voices. . . Next, he goes on to show a bit of remorse, not about this actions, but about how he used to be recognized as an author and advocate for disability rights and now he wants to hide from passersby who might believe the falsehoods that are repeated without challenge -- UNTIL NOW. He's here to set you straight.
One of the more annoying bits is when he says he's tortured by the names of women he's hurt running through his head. I'm thinking, this could be the start of remorse and growth. But then he gets angry about the anger of his colleagues who are working through pain he obviously caused and castigates them for giving him the cold shoulder or silent treatment. He doesn't get to control their reaction to his misconduct, yet that is exactly what he expects.
He predictably launches into the "but at least I'm not a serial rapist" routine, as though not falling into the most extreme violation of women exonerates him of any wrongdoing. He's beyond indignant that what he calls "awkward attempts at courtship" are equated in any way with sexual misconduct and rape. Both are crossing the line and violating bodily autonomy. They involve abuse, bullying, power imbalance in varying degrees. He admits to a bit of bad judgment (again, are we going to get some remorse now?), but mainly places the blame on America's contradictory values of puritanism and social progressivism. So basically what he's saying is that men aren't to blame, it's these contradictions getting in the way of gender and racial equality.
He claims this doesn't let him off the hook, then explains that he should be off the hook because his marriage was falling apart and he was really stressed out. We then get the pointed denials of his being a racist bully - he claims he treated everyone equally as awful because he was stressed out. Then he attacks Suki Kim and says she misconstrued his oh so innocent "friendly" emails and how can he help that anyway? Again he says he takes responsibility for his actions but uses stress and his disability to wiggle out of it.
And now after all that "context" (read: flat out denial), he wants to start a conversation! What a guy! He's got the answer to the question absolutely no one is asking. Wonderful. Romance and courtship were destroyed, thrown out in the 21st century. That's our big problem, he thinks. Sexual harassment and white male privilege is not an issue. So he launches into this ridiculous "it's not my fault!" narrative while simultaneously claiming the brave position of speaking truth to power for poor little rich, powerful accused white men. How brave indeed.
He's a pariah. He can't get work. He's shunned, unemployable (in the line of work he desires and believes he deserves without question). He throws out the suggestion of a greeter at Wal-Mart and says he can't get a meeting except by sympathy. Boo hoo. My first issue is when the rest of us lose a job, we have to work at Wal-Mart, bag groceries, be a waiter. We go back to school or learn a new trade. Many people I know are working in fields totally unrelated to their degrees. My second issue is that BEING FAMOUS IS NOT THEIR RIGHT. These guys are comfortable in this position, they enjoy being beloved and creating programming people love and that's fine, but they are not entitled to this pedestal they become accustomed to. Marketing yourself may seem like a great idea when things are going well and your skeletons are securely locked in that closet and you're making money hand over fist. When the product is you and you have a pattern of behavior people dislike, you just can't serve in that capacity anymore, nor to you deserve it in any way. Find another job. It seems like the most entitled, privileged position to say that the people owe you the fame you once had or that it's others who need to change rather than you that needs to adapt to a situation you brought on by your own bad decisions and actions.
He's entirely misguided in what relationships and sexuality are today. He talks about what he views as the current drunken hook ups and avoiding STDs replacing the misguided flirty romance of his past. And instead of taking responsibility in any way, he again says sure maybe I did things but it's really not my fault and is erasing me from my profession going to bring gender equality? How long must he suffer this exile before he can return as though nothing at all happened.
And he brings up Lolita and says Nabokov would've been jailed - and juxtaposes Our Bodies, Ourselves and his learning of vulvas and and clitorises and admiration for Andrea Dworkin.
Next he practically shouts his point that HE'S JUST MISUNDERSTOOD. Again with the hook up culture and saying his romantic ideas are way better than hooking up. So HE WON'T BE QUIET! I'm reminded of Lindsey Graham during the Kavanaugh sexual assault hearings here. . . He laments that sending a woman a Lord Byron poem -if she understood it, mind you - might get you in trouble. So he's insulting women as he's complaining about not being able to harass them. Classy.
And super upsetting to him in his exile is all the anger and having to think about gender and equality and what women think, so he weaponizes his disability trying to shame women for candid talk about sex because he doesn't need or can't have it. Then he shames them and misses the point, saying that they are substituting scientific sex talk for actual romance. In his misunderstanding, he even gives a nod to Louis CK. He uses his misunderstanding of romance today with all the sciencey talk (which isn't really a substitute for romance, btw) to say that it's so confusing these days what with hooking up, who can consent really - you can't actually blame me. It's not my fault! ME ME ME! Open season on ME. What am I to tell my KIDS?
He does talk about looking back on every encounter he had with women and I was fooled into thinking this was when he'd be decent and reflect and show some respect and remorse. But no. He's thinking about books. Of course! Lolita again. I'm cringing. He sees this book as a celebration of arousal and how a man is powerless to resist his urges. Ugh. I always took the work as art because Nabokov humanized a very unlikable fellow, not because it was a great romance novel. He even brings a favorite book of mine, Reading Lolita In Tehran, into it. He praises the women in the book for their intellectual freedom, but rebukes his accusers and other sexual assault survivors as the Iranian morality police. This is infuriating and insulting to all women. Unforgivable.
And to top off this misappropriation, he identifies with Lolita. Lolita! Him? He had an incident at a theater where a man grabbed at his zipper and erection in the movie Psycho when he was in 8th grade. He didn't call this sexual assault because he ran away and it was part of navigating discovery of sex - for him. He's saying see? it happened to me and it was no big deal. What he's missing is the power imbalance. The women are at a disadvantage in status and in the way we are taught to be polite and not to make waves and to please men no matter the cost. I'm sorry he had that experience, but he could run and wasn't pressured by a professional or cultural situation to accept abuse rather than upset someone.
He falls back into the refrain of not having a job for a year and contrasts this with taking piano and having a recital among children. Rather than feeling shame (he begs for congratulations again), he connected to the music and learned that Brahms and the Romantic composers also had familiar problems with "tolerance of women or clarity of relationships." So that makes it all better, doesn't it? We shouldn't be expected to evolve and work for a more equal society, should we? And then he kind of uses his wheelchair in that slimy way to draw attention away from the issues at hand - his abuses of power - to say I don't know if they recognized me for sexual harassment or the usual gawking at the wheelchair. He tries to blame these composers as well as the Zorba role from a high school play for his bad choices and abuses and still has not taken responsibility for his actions.
And now we come to Dworkin, who he dismissed as a radical feminist earlier, but now he connects, reading her description of the mechanics of sex where she exclaims "can he get out alive?" It must be so tough to be a white guy.
As we near the end, he finally says it: he believes #metoo is the presumption of rape, meaning you shouldn't believe women. Again he misses the point. #metoo is solidarity. Me too is like Black Lives Matter in that currently black lives are treated as though they don't matter and women aren't believed and we want these things to change. Those movements aren't about hating men or hating white people, but he reduces #metoo to a trumpian "witch hunt." He finally argues for sweeping #metoo under the rug because - c'mon, it's romance! And the last bit is about what this moment in history means to him and his family. He's very proud of himself, he really wants us to know. It's funny how much about him this whole thing is; not really anything like a self-examination or as he claims, context.
What I can't get over is the deflection and also how he seems to believe being famous is his RIGHT. It's privilege in the extreme. It's no tragedy for him to go back to school or get a local job in a shop or editing from home or something. The way he talks about his year long exile as something he has a right to emerge from like nothing happened shows he doesn't understand what he needs to do to change or to even feel remorse.
I was taught to aim low. I wanted to be an architect. My mom told me she wasn't good at math. I had to work at it, so I adopted the same attitude, that I wasn't good at math. No one told me that you can study and get better at it. My dad made me say it. He asked me if I thought I was good at math and the answer I was supposed to give was no, so that was that. Being an architect takes math and I don't have it.
I wanted to be a veterinarian in high school. The vet I worked for told me I couldn't be a vet unless I could restrain cats. I had let one go while restraining it while she was examining it. The office manager told me that if the vet is injured, they lose money and I don't want to be responsible for that. I can't be a vet without being able to restrain cats and obviously I failed. In college, my adviser sealed the deal by telling me Bs wouldn't cut it. I'd need all A's for vet school, I should give that up. People never said you can do it, they only said oh my, that sounds hard.
The idea that these men believe they deserve fame and deserve to continue in the limelight after abuse comes to light is insane to me. Fame seems fleeting and completely based on luck, who deserves it? Who can dictate what people like and make popular? Yet these powerful white men want to be able to stay famous, make a victorious comeback and want everyone to forget about their abusive behavior as though they deserve a privileged spot above everyone else.
A few posts and reactions from the Kavanaugh garbage: https://theintercept.com/2018/10/03/raging-bullshit-the-injustice-of-brett-kavanaugh-and-his-enablers/ https://theintercept.com/2018/10/05/from-nation-state-to-empire-state-a-radical-history-of-how-we-got-to-trump/ +++ I feel like those protesters in the elevator, like a vote for him is a big middle finger to women and me personally. I've not even had a physical assault and I feel this as viscerally as a trump's election. I can relate to going up against power and losing every time in a rigged game. When I attended church, I went against the elders two times, each time with a formal-ish meeting (2 elders and another guy) like they were taking me seriously. I was sticking up for these two honest and earnest brothers in kind of an elders word against theirs. The issue isn't important now. I came in wanting to know the elders' side of the story because it appeared one was lying and they'd said we could come to them to clear the air in a spirit of openness. I didn't want to be led by these men who claimed to be instruments of god who made fun of people and lied about it, among other things. I was ready to leave. I was ~20-25 and they proceeded to manipulate things so that they were demanding answers from ME. And then they told me that if I left the congregation, people might follow and that would be my fault for leading people astray. I just cried and promised to stay. I wish I'd recognized my power and leverage in that moment and just left right then. I guess I feel that hopeless now with the whole recognition of Ford as credible buuut we have to go with Kavanaugh because the party "values" are more important and there was no actual evidence to convict criminally, soooo... We're taking our chances with the beer soaked red faced hysterical ranter who turned uncomfortable questions about blacking out onto the questioner, who happened to be a woman, a Senator, whose father abused alcohol. +++
It's been said by more than a few folks that I post too much. I get it. I'm angry with the status quo. You'd rather see my lunch and pithy self help mantras. No one's listening to me. That's ok. I'm used to it. But you know what happened when I didn't post or say as much about my deeply held belief in equality and civil rights? I was dismissed.
The only thing I haven't done is grow a penis. Now doesn't that sound silly? Welcome to being a woman.
This one is so good. The microagressions we laugh off and accept because that's just the way things are are the things that create that environment for the larger metoo moments. Of course front and center is Silicon Valley. But this is one all women will relate to.
This episode fits really well with the vote today. The lie. I believed it. It's evident in these moments - truly no one cares.
Also in this episode, a survivor asks her friends, her mom and herself about their impulse to protect her attacker, also their friend, rather than care for her.
Quote from podcast:
Kate Manne: It's so common. I mean this is what really shocks me. This is what got me interested in all of this stuff, in a way, is that you're told this lie as a woman, that if something awful happens to you people will care. And the reality is, if it’s a white guy and, you know, or a golden boy, someone who people like, and it's not an occasion for opportunistic racism, say, they won’t do a fucking thing. Doesn't surprise me in the least.
This Trump administration has been one disaster after another. The pussy grabber in chief - SURPRISE- is enacting policies and choosing people with the same black hole where their integrity should be.
I know it's said that we shouldn't let politics get in the way of family relationships and friendships. Be the bigger person and overlook the differences! Take the high road! That assumes politics are something apart from life, however. Not everyone has that luxury. My medical care is "political" and decided by a group of mostly men. It's everyone's business, apparently, and out of my hands. Will they decree abortions illegal? Will they determine birth control is against their religious freedom and theirs to control?
If you worry more about a man being hassled while getting a promotion more than the woman he attacked, I cannot trust you. You've shown your cards. It's not a choice. If you don't value my existence, I can't come to you if I'm in trouble. That affects personal relationships. If I can't trust you, I can't have much of a relationship with you. If you speak ill of immigrants and other marginalized groups, I as a woman am wondering - so will I get a pass because you know me? Will I be the exception in your ideology because you like me personally or we share DNA?
I would like to be one who "doesn't talk politics" but I guess I'm at a loss for understanding how that happens in a climate where one "side" thinks racism, misogyny and bullying are just personality quirks for people to "just get over."
There was a tweet going around - how do women not die of rage aneurysms every day. Seems especially apt today.
Since we voted (or not voted, in most cases) a serial sexual assaulter to the office of president to now when an apathetic to enthusiastic GOP is trying to cram Kavanaugh down our throats, the political is personal.
I haven't suffered monumental sexual trauma but only the run of the mill sexual harassment, sexism and rape culture. What a phrase that is, run of the mill sexual harassment. I am absolutely in solidarity with survivors whenever, wherever and however they report. I can't imagine what this is putting them through. Every single time.
I've walked with my keys between my fingers, I worry about dark parking lots, I worry about places with few people, I worry about places with too many people. I thought I wasn't good at math. I worry about running alone. I cross the street to avoid squeezing by men on a sidewalk. I've been talked over and had my answers repeated by boys who take credit. I've laughed off sexist "jokes" and comments to get out of the situation. I've told myself stray hands where I didn't want them were an accident. I listen for footsteps behind me and use my car window for a mirror as I unlock the car. I accepted advances I didn't want so I wouldn't be stranded. I know who I would and wouldn't tell about sexual assault.
I grew up with an ideology that taught me not to handle big decisions on my own, not to usurp the authority of a man and not to cause one to stumble spiritually because of what I chose to wear or how I moved. No one ever said explicitly that my safety was not intended by God to be a priority, but when you tell a teenager that you can only be released from marriage for death or infidelity, what on earth is one to gather from that?
We can do better. I want to have faith in humanity that common decency might prevail consistently one day.
But Twitler is in office and Troy (thanks, Boom Lawyered for the levity) will be a Justice soon. So *can* we do better?
So there has been some push back on the 'believe women' mantra across the board from conservative Christians* to well meaning liberals. Some say slow down! We can't assume guilt and the only appropriate response is that we don't know/ maybe we should look into it. Or they believe "truth" or "facts" (which is funny if any of those support the GOP but i digress ...) rather than exclusively women.
*As far as the conservative Christians, I read a post by Jen Hatmaker, which I can generally get on board with. I support religious people thinking in a humane way about equality and the common good. Her Christianity is against kids in cages and men who rape women and I think it's important for Christians to speak out when they differ with the GOP theocratic patriarchal abuse.
This strikes the same tone deaf note as Black Lives Matter opposition where people intentionally disregard context so they can feel some self righteous indignation. Neither of these statements are happening in a vacuum or a state of anything approaching equality. BLM is not saying no other lives matter, it's drawing attention to the fact that our society doesn't value black lives, there is still discrimination and racism (readily apparent in the criminal justice system and murders of unarmed black people by police among other areas) and we're fed up.
In the same manner, 'believe women' is the shorthand that says NOT that only women always tell the truth on everything or any other nonsense, but that women are historically and statistically not being valued or believed (especially in sexual assault, DV, among other life threatening situations) compared to men and it's LITERALLY KILLING US.
In a perfect world and free of the weight of history we could treat his denial and her accusation as equally plausible. But given our current world, knowing he has everything to gain and she is getting death threats for coming forward, I'm going to #believewomen .
#believewomen
#cancelKavanaugh
#bluewave
#womensrightsarehumanrights
*the comments section of the Jen Hatmaker post/article:
If you are not a rapist or have not tried to rape someone, you DO NOT have to worry. If you have assaulted a woman, I hope your life is hell and that you are consumed with worry - or actual punishment - that'd be novel.
Even when these men are facing "punishment," they are just losing a freaking job (and then are reinstated if you're famous). That's NOTHING compared to the damage their violation inflicted on these women.
Quote:
If anything, he went on, it was time for the men of the world to draw a line: “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried. We can all be accused of something.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The implication behind "boys will be boys" is chilling: girls will suffer. The Truth About 'Boys Will Be Boys' - Huffington - Post Opinion
All men can be accused of SOMETHING? All men have tried to RAPE a woman? Is that where we are now? Are you kidding me with that crap? I know this was meant to generate empathy for the abuser over the victim, but this is a horrifying prospect. When you say boys will be boys or all men have done it, so we should be okay with that, you need to think about the implications there. You are saying women are garbage or liars and do not matter.
Quote:
On the contrary: “If anything, it’s the opposite,” the lawyer told the reporter Burgess Everett, suggesting that the White House has been, actually, galvanized by the allegations against its nominee. “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried. We can all be accused of something.”
This classmate, Mike Judge, won't testify. However, he has already told the world quite a bit about our SCOTUS nominee.
Facetiously, I could say you shouldn't write a book called Wasted detailing crimes and misdeeds if you or your buddies have SCOTUS or political aspirations. . .
But honestly, this is disgusting. A middle ground in consent where a man has to prove himself? ? No. Unless you mean asking permission. Which he doesn't. Degenerates, both.
“Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Every national tragedy we think of where we were. I was 22. On 9/11/01, I was working at Duke and had been at work for a half hour getting started on whatever sciencey thing I was doing that day. People have music or maybe NPR or throughout the labs and so we heard about it as it was happening or as it was reported. One event, then another, then another. And another. Stunned silence. Dread. The other dread. Numb the rest of the day. Wondering if or when there'd be another. Is this war? How many attacks will there be? In how many cities? How big is this? And then WHO. Soon it was apparent. I wanted it to be anyone but who it was. Let them be wrong this time. My boyfriend and I were talking marriage. He's Palestinian, so a target for anything white people were going to be dishing out. (It turns out we were lucky based on the experiences of so many Arab Americans, but I didn't know that then.) And future kids, how would this affect them? Should we even have kids? His dad's a citizen, but would that be respected? Will we be able to fly? Will we be followed? What about hate crimes? What kind of lists will we be on and how will that affect job prospects and life in general? So "who" brought on a whole other set of questions. We remember the lives lost. So many all at once, senselessly. But what is a sensible death? I guess being taken in tragedy, too soon, it might seem, heightens the grief. That wasn't nature and we couldn't prevent it. Our response and the deaths that resulted, we could have controlled. We could have stopped those deaths. But we didn't. Our president said "bring it on." Every year I recall how the victims of our tragedy were used by the powerful to generate support for more killing. Instead of healing and peace, we got war cries and insidious persistent hatred disguised as patriotism and unblinking "respect" for barely elected incompetent leaders.
I have this demoralizing memory of overwhelming hopelessness and disgust with the reaction of fellow Americans: attitudes, flag waving, narrow definitions of patriotism, hatred, warmongering. The policies and perceptions driven by the same bigotry remain today with the Muslim ban, kids in cages, hatemongers wearing red hats and racists in the White House.
I knew in the pit of my stomach things were going to get bad. Overt hatred of Muslims and Arab Americans was going to be in fashion. I knew that. And the way things went, I thought internment camps weren't off the table with that guy, W. Instead, we got the Patriot Act, jailing innocent people and a slew of laws aimed at getting rid of and spying on our Muslim brothers and sisters. Not a whole lot better.
Flags came out in support of war and killing innocent people and I was devastated. Dissent was quashed in the name of patriotism and God. Not even journalists were questioning this rush to war and patriotic fever for such a long time. Americans didn't care that war would only be revenge and not a real solution. All Muslims and brown people were the enemy. Pacific Islanders? Same thing! Can't be bothered with facts! (See, it's always been that way. ) It was all- War! Enlist! Fight! Don't be a pussy! Country!
Peace was laughed at, even among Christians who I thought at the time would see war as tragedy and value life. To me peace is honorable and strong and I trusted that others saw that as well. I was wrong on the last bit. At various times I sat through sermons on how Islam was evil and murderous. (What happened to God is love?) Peace was for the weak, you know, women! (What happened to blessed are the peacemakers?) Real men want to fight to protect you. .. from this tragedy that already happened. .. Nothing made sense. Values I'd learned from the time I was a child were failing to help me comprehend the world now. It caused me heart-wrenching dissonance. Could I be a... a liberal? Say it isn't so!
It became clear to me that war doesn't protect anyone and it isn't brave or just, it just slaughters and sends people to the slaughter- one side we imagine a force of evil, the other we make into heroes. They all died preventable deaths if only we could get over this exceptionalism, greed and hyper masculine gun worship.
Remember the victims. ...of the day... just as much as of the invasions. In the style, if not exact words, of my middle school social studies teacher: War is stupid. War is bloody. War is ugly.
Work for peace instead.
As Kurt said - "Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
Today I had a coke float. Maybe not the best choice on an empty stomach. Or was it? I'm conflicted. One thing I realized is that I probably don't like these as much as I once did. Another thing is that I went through a range of feelings besides a stomachache.
Taste aside, it made me equal parts really happy and deeply sad. It made me think about childhood summers and grandparents who are no longer with us. The boundless joy and endless possibility of freedom form school, nostalgia for childhood when we were filled with potential as opposed to knowing now that so many of those doors have closed, and the beauty of not having to think about mortality or deal with the reality of people you love not being around forever.
I remember drinking these on occasion with my cousin on my grandparents' back patio in Ohio in the summer when I was maybe eight or nine. It always seemed to be the hottest part of summer, so this time of year makes me crave them even now that I've confirmed that I don't particularly like them anymore. I don't know what the attraction was. Was it the beauty or not having to choose between something to drink and dearly loved ice cream? Was it a dessert my mom didn't serve, but my grandma would? Was it just the relief from playing outside as a kid, losing yourself completely in the way kids do, and then having something cold on your tongue?
I do remember other things, though – watching the birds in the birdbath; the windmill spin out by the neat, house-like shed; the hum of the air conditioner beside us; being right outside the sliding door of the house and watching my grandpa's barber shop customers go in next door, ten feet away; hearing the conversation and laughter of the old guys remembering the old days; the contrast of the cool, covered humidity free concrete porch with the blazing sun on the other side of the railing. And the mugs or cups with which to contain the prized treat – not special by an outsiders standards of beauty by any means, but we had favorites. One was tall and yellow with not the most ergonomic handle with an alligator on the front who was, of course, wearing clothes. Another was a tall, white cup with a red handle with the old Disney characters all around it - goofy and the other dog, Mickey and someone else. Both were from the 70s or before - old and worn, but we loved them. Was there fighting over them amongst my sisters and cousins? Almost certainly, but I can't remember that part.
Would I drink another? Probably.
I don't even know if I'm remembering it correctly. Was it MaMa or PaPa who made it? Exactly what month was it? Was it a treat or consolation prize? Memory is a funny thing. Maybe in all my stories about my childhood, both of my sisters would tell an entirely different tale. The above is just my account. I suppose every memory is like that.
While McCain's death is being mourned as the death of political civility and remembered as everyone's favorite middle of the road maverick, I'm struck by a bit of deafening dissonance. I get that by lavishing praise on a guy you disagreed with a lot seems like a credit to your own vast open mindedness in the era of Trump, where encouraging the beating of protesters is normal, executive toilet time includes degrading people you disagree with via Twitter, and voting as a block is more important than who is president because white supremacy and the patriarchy are in danger. Now, I respect his time suffering a POW (and lasting effects) and his willingness to sometimes not vote Republican, but as for everything else, you might want to consider another hero... An incident that sums up McCain's life and philosophy could be that time in 2008, when his bigot supporter stood up, stating she didn't trust Obama because he's an Arab. He corrected one fact, but did so at the expense of revealing his true dangerous, far right of center beliefs: No, ma'am, he's not an Arab. He's a decent family man. He was widely praised for this half response/half insult in every corner of the US as brave, courageous, civil and polite. He was never seriously questioned on what most believed a harmless slip of the tongue. His public statements and policy positions on war, the Middle East, immigration, and adjacent issues support the harmless slip being intentional. At least one was talking about it: Arab or Decent? --from 2008 https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/arab_or_decent.php So as we read the eulogies and feel some warm fuzzies, remember what was - as well as what wasn't. He had some good qualities or moments, but his politics were still pretty terrible run of the mill GOP white supremacist sexist fare. We were able to forget about all of Bush's incompetence, lies, warmongering, prisoner abuse and other atrocities because he made a silly with his rain poncho that one time. Maybe this will be the same. Respect people by all means, but that doesn't mean giving them a political face transplant and sweeping bigotry and destructive policies under the rug. Despite what the press says, John McCain has a long record of horribleness -- from July 2017 Not so mavericky: voted with Trump 90.7% of the time, hawk, Reagan republican, ran on tax cuts and trying to block MLK Day, supports Israeli massacres.
As FAIR.org media analyst Adam Johnson has observed, we have been fed a “childlike narrative of McCain as brave truth-teller, rather than predictable champion of war and empire who occasionally makes toothless references to human rights for the purposes of image curation.”
And that last pattern has been typical of McCain’s entire public career. Shoot off his mouth, make big noises about being tough and honest, and then crawl back quietly shortly afterward, having achieved nothing but adding a notch to the reputation he relishes as a maverick.
There were quite a few from 2008 when he was running for president because I guess that was the only time it was okay to challenge him on the whole most moral, most civil, most bipartisan guy thing.
I'm not a superfan or anything, though I did watch as a kid and I admire the fact that he seemed to be the same on and off screen and fought not for his own fame, but for solid children's programming that was educational and beneficial.
It's been interesting in the wake of his death and the several documentaries that have come out to see liberals champion and quote him (citing look for the helpers and his sharing a pool with Officer Clemmons in 1969) and Republicans consequently revile him as weak or one who'd give a trophy to everyone. Yet he was in fact a Republican. And a Christian, yet he chose to live and promote kindness instead of yell about abortion and gay marriage bans and how the poor are moochers. They didn't mention political affiliation in this doc. They may go into that in Won't You Be My Neighbor.
Starting off broadly, I'd say Mr Rogers and Me as a film, I don't know if it was great but I did get to thinking about Mr. Rogers and kindness. I want to see the new one, won't you be my neighbor. This one was more about exploring this guy's connection to Mr. Rogers through the media work he does and how he hopes to be like him, which is fine. He interviews "neighbors " of Mr. Rogers, people who met him and weren't disappointed in the way we usually are when we find our beloved TV personality isn't who we thought they were because he actually is that well-intentioned. He does interview Bo Lozoff, who did some good work, wrote some books Mr. Rogers read and then was caught in sexual misconduct against the people hes was trying to help. Probably it was questionable judgement to interview a guy like this, but I don't know the timeline for the allegations and the making of the movie. Or maybe he felt obligated because Mr. Rogers quoted him and gave out his books. But there was also Susan Stamburg and Linda Ellerbee and other good ones.
The thing that brought the tears was they had him in front of the camera when he was quite a bit older, talking to people who grew up watching him, saying how he's going to tell us something he told us when we were younger: that he likes us just the way we are. I felt a little manipulated by the documentarian, but who doesn't need to hear that.
His respect for silence is familiar to me. I don't remember connecting with it as a child, but as an adult it's refreshing to hear him talk about taking time to think and about silence being something positive. As a child, I hadn't yet experienced the years of relentless jokes and general impatience with my way of being. The documentary highlighted how he'd pause on screen carefully choosing his words. The kinder descriptions of my personality have included that quirk in me as well. This feels entirely unheard of. It's usually a criticism. Everyone rushes to fill the space and entertain on air as well as just in everyday life in an endless stream of noise and chatter. People incomprehensibly describe silence as awkward or uncomfortable instead of how I experience it - as a respite or where creativity is born.
The movie wasn't sad, but it left me with a sad feeling. It feels like the last good person died with him. It just stands in stark contrast to everything: the cruelty of 45, the cruelty of the religion I grew up in - not sparing the rod, tough love, the culture being taken in by that cruelty being love instead of actual love, republican theocrats putting that cruel version of the Bible into law that hates the poor and women and people of color and uses religious freedom to trample everyone else's.
I want to have his care for people. I've always tried I think I do, but sometimes I lose hope.
I wonder how he dealt with sexism or if he just didn't because he didn't have to. He did deal with race and it was good. I wonder if there were people who were just too mean, people he couldn't or didn't want to engage with. I wonder if there were any exceptions to his all people have value and he likes them just the way they are. I can't remember if it was a clip of him or someone who knew him who said people say i like you but you need a hair cut or but you need to lose 20 lb etc - he likes people just the way they are.
If you like a cruel person or sexist person just the way they are, aren't you telling them its okay to treat you like that? Isn't it different to demand empathy and fairness than to demand they look a certain way? Or did he just believe in the good in people that much, however much or little was in a person? Was he able to focus only on that part that's sociable despite cruel politics or church or sexism? Was it his view that that good part isn't fake, but rather a glimmer of who they really might be? Did he think that that other stuff like politics and religious beliefs are the fake stuff, that it could be just some kind if a crutch for keeping feelings at bay rather than proof of their tendency to hurt and demean?
I wonder what he'd say about writing people off because of 45, the Defendant in Chief. I mean, in a way that's like the rather heartless church policy of disfellowshipping/excommunication/shunning. Adherents advertise it as love -- the desire to produce Godly sorrow in someone to make them return to the church. Shunning Trumpers is more a way to avoid pain and trauma than to teach them a lesson, though, so it isn't the same.
I guess should we all be like Mr. Rogers. Maybe? I don't know. Or could he simply afford to be that way because he was a white man and would come out on top regardless? He was bullied as a kid for being overweight, though. Interestingly, he took from that the need to be kind, not the opposite, as some might. But he obviously didn't have to deal with that all his life. . . so maybe he can afford to be cheery about it?
I don't know.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
If you want to cry again, read the part about when Diane Rehm asks Mr. Rogers what he does when he's sad... It's heartbreaking.
