;)
The Commentariat -- June 16, 2015
Internal links removed.
Afternoon Update:
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "The F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors are investigating whether front-office officials for the St. Louis Cardinals, one of the most successful teams in baseball over the past two decades, hacked into internal networks of a rival team to steal closely guarded information about player personnel. Investigators have uncovered evidence that Cardinals officials broke into a network of the Houston Astros that housed special databases the team had built, according to law enforcement officials. Internal discussions about trades, proprietary statistics and scouting reports were compromised, the officials said."
Matthew Daly & Steven Ohlemacher of the AP: Hillary Clinton confidant "Sidney Blumenthal, testified in a closed session before the House Benghazi committee Tuesday morning about frequent emails on Libya he sent to Clinton when she served as secretary of state."
Alexander Burns of the New York Times: "Donald J. Trump, the garrulous real estate developer whose name has adorned apartment buildings, hotels, Trump-brand neckties and Trump-brand steaks, announced on Tuesday his entry into the 2016 presidential race, brandishing his wealth and fame as chief qualifications in an improbable quest for the Republican nomination."
*****
Michelle Boorstein, et al., of the Washington Post: "A draft of a major environmental document by Pope Francis says 'the bulk of global warming' is caused by human activity -- a perspective aligned with most climate scientists but still highly controversial to some Americans. In the draft, portions of which were translated by The Washington Post, the pope takes climate change deniers to task and calls on 'humanity' to take steps -- including changing manufacturing and consumption trends -- to turn back the clock on global warming. He backs the science behind climate change, citing 'a very considerable consensus that points out we are now facing a worrisome warming of the climate.'" (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... CW: This is bad news for "I Am Not A Scientist" Roman Catholic GOPers. Should be fun to watch Marco finesse this one. ...
... Emma Green of the Atlantic: "The official copy of the encyclical doesn't come out until Thursday, but on Monday, the Italian magazine L'Espresso leaked an Italian version, which Church officials are calling a 'draft.'... [His Holiness was not amused.] Considering that Latin America and Africa are Francis's two biggest 'constituencies,' it's no wonder that the environment is a point of pressing concern for the global Church: Climate change affects those who are poor and live in developing countries much more intensely than those who live in the developed world. Francis is coming out against climate change, yes. But he's mostly continuing the focus of his entire papacy: speaking for the world's poor."
Good News for Women & Families. Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from North Carolina officials seeking to revive a state law that had required doctors to perform ultrasounds, display the resulting sonograms and describe the fetuses to women seeking abortions. The Supreme Court's one-sentence order, as is the custom, gave no reasons. Justice Antonin Scalia noted a dissent, also without saying why. 'The state cannot commandeer the doctor-patient relationship to compel a physician to express its preference to the patient,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in December for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. 'This compelled speech, even though it is a regulation of the medical profession, is ideological in intent and in kind.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Lydia Wheeler of the Hill: "While delivering the decision in the immigration case Kerry v. Din on Monday, [Justice] Scalia listed the justices who dissented from the opinion and, instead of saying 'Ginsburg,' said 'Goldberg.'" CW: Well, there was a Justice Goldberg -- back in 1965 -- & he very well might have joined the dissent. So Goldberg, Ginsburg? Meh. All those liberals are the same.
Mark Berman of the Washington Post: "The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a business can fire an employee for using medical marijuana even if the employee is off-duty at the time, a decision that could have far-reaching ramifications in a state that has decriminalized most marijuana use." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Here's the Denver Post story, by Alicia Wallace & Jordan Steffen.
Paul Kane & David Nakamura of the Washington Post: "After successful Democratic efforts to block the president's trade package, [President] Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke by phone and consulted their respective top lieutenants as they tried to find a path to success, according to senior aides.... No one is declaring the trade agenda dead, but as long as [Hillary] Clinton and [Nancy] Pelosi -- two of the most influential voices with the party's base -- decline to help the president secure the votes, its prospects are pretty dim." ...
... Here's the New York Times story, by Carl Hulse & Gardiner Harris. ...
... CW: Turns out I wasn't fair to Larry Summers yesterday, as further down his column, "Summers also provided a series of reasons to be skeptical of the [TPP] treaty, however...." (Translations of Summersese by John Cassidy of the New Yorker.) ...
... Robert Reich: If the TPP is dead, it's because "most Americans no longer support free trade.... In recent years the biggest gains from trade have gone to investors and executives, while the burdens have fallen disproportionately on those in the middle and below who have lost good-paying jobs.... The American economy looks increasingly arbitrary, as CEOs of big firms now rake in 300 times more than the wages of average workers, while two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck." Reich (& others) have repeated experiments that demonstrate that "When a game seems arbitrary, people are often willing to sacrifice gains for themselves in order to prevent others from walking away with far more -- a result that strikes them as inherently wrong." Increasingly, that how Americans view trade deals: their own gains are too small to justify giving the wealthy an ever bigger piece of the pie. ...
... In a (Loosely) Related Social Science Experiment ...
... Occupy, Capuchin-Style. Re: a discussion we had in the Comments section yesterday, contributor Whyte Owen adds this scientific study, interpreted by Frans de Waal, of natural reactions to perceived inequality:
... As Akhilleus points out, there's one big difference between the Capuchin & Occupy experiences: the lab patrol does not storm the lab in riot gear to pepper-spray & arrest the cuke-tossing Capuchin protester.
Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times: A judicial ruling in favor of AIG could cause the government not to bail out too-big-to-fail institutions in the future. "Maurice Greenberg, the company's former chief executive and one of its largest shareholders..., sued the government on behalf of shareholders, contending its takeover was illegal and unfair to investors. The judge largely sided with Mr. Greenberg, confounding many legal experts who considered the case a long shot.... He determined that the takeover of A.I.G. was orchestrated to 'maximize the benefits to the government and to the taxpaying public.'... Still, the judge did not award any monetary damages to Mr. Greenberg, making it a moral victory, but not an economic one."
Rachel Abrams of the New York Times: "A group of community and labor organizations is accusing Walmart of inappropriately using the nonprofit Walmart Foundation to help reduce local opposition to its expansion efforts in some urban areas.... The group argued in a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service dated Monday that the Walmart Foundation violated terms of its tax-exempt status.... The Walmart Foundation's contributions in some cities rose steadily as Walmart tried to curry local support and gain access in those markets, according to the complaint. The foundation donated just over $200,000 to organizations in Los Angeles in 2008 and 2009, the complaint said, but raised that amount to $1.4 million in 2011, just as plans to open a store were getting underway. In 2013, the year that store opened, donations dropped to about $230,000."
Richard Perez-Pena of the New York Times: "In her first interview since being accused of misrepresenting her racial background and stepping down as an N.A.A.C.P. official, Rachel A. Dolezal did not back down on Tuesday, stating 'I identify as black,' although she comes from a white family. When Matt Lauer of NBC's 'Today' show asked, 'When did you start deceiving people?' Ms. Dolezal would not concede that she had done so." ...
... Richard Perez-Pena: Rachel Dolezal, "the head of the N.A.A.C.P. chapter in Spokane, subjected to national scrutiny and ridicule after it appeared she lied about her own racial background, announced Monday that she was quitting that post." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
** Daniel Sharstein in the New York Times Magazine on the history of American whites passing for black & Dolezal's somewhat anachronistic choice to do so. ...
... Jelani Cobb of the New Yorker: "Rachel Dolezal is not black — by lineage or lifelong experience — yet I find her deceptions less troubling than the vexed criteria being used to exclude her." ...
... Adolph Reed, in Common Dreams, takes a similarly nuanced view of Dolezal's racial identity. He is mighty put out by the identity police. ...
... The Shallow Prejudice of Charles Pierce. CW: A reminder, in case it has slipped your notice, that Charles Pierce doesn't care about women -- in general. Pierce is a superb wordsmith who raises snark to an art form, but his sexism is largely unmitigated. When he uses it to belittle women, the result should discomfit the reader. ...
... The Smoking Gun: "The NAACP official who today resigned in the face of evidence that she masqueraded as black once sued Howard University for denying her teaching posts and a scholarship because she was a white woman, The Smoking Gun has learned. Rachel Dolezal, 37, who headed the NAACP's Spokane, Washington chapter, sued Howard for discrimination in 2002, the year she graduated from the historically black college with a Master of Fine Arts degree."
Paul Waldman explains mainstream media bias to Republicans: "Mainstream outlets are frequently biased, but mostly toward sensationalism."
... Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Best Retraction Ever. Ahiza Garcia of TPM: "The Athens[, Georgia,] Banner-Herald on Monday was forced to post a retraction to its website saying, 'the sun has not exploded' after mistakenly announcing 'the sun just exploded.' The website of the Athens, Ga. newspaper, OnlineAthens.com, said an 'unauthorized updated news item' was posted after the site was the 'victim of an online miscue.' The paper said that the incident was being investigated."
Presidential Race
Patricia Mazzei & Amy Sherman of the Miami Herald: "Jeb Bush took the stage Monday at the nation's largest and most diverse university, the embodiment of working-class Miami's aspirations, and declared himself the best presidential candidate to help all Americans build a better life for themselves and their families." ...
... Nate Cohn of the New York Times: Jeb Bush "has not won the invisible primary, the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that often decides the nomination, and he has not even emerged as a favorite of the party's large block of more moderate voters. He starts in a weaker position than not only his brother in 1999 or his father in 1987, but also Mitt Romney in 2011.... Perhaps most important, it's surprisingly hard to find prominent elites who support Mr. Bush.... Much of the Republican elite has serious reservations about whether Mr. Bush is the best candidate to face Mrs. Clinton.... His favorability ratings and standing against her are dismal." ...
... Catherine Ho of the Washington Post: Jeb Bush peppered his campaign announcement with criticisms of Washington insiders & lobbyists, but "Several of Bush's financial backers and supporters are Washington veterans and his deep ties to K Street will likely boost the former Florida governor's ability to raise big money and allow him to tap into a well of veteran policy advisers for his campaign. His list of allies in the influence world include the heads of big lobby shops, Republican lawmakers-turned-lobbyists and longtime advisers to the Bush family." ...
... Dana Milbank: Jeb! runs away from Bush. ...
... Charles Pierce: "Honest to god, if you listened to the speech, which was written very well and delivered with the kind of smug WASP brio that so often eluded that chap who Jeb (!) bumped into back in the Aughts, you would believe that history began in January of 2009. He did make a little wink and a nod to the 'first president I met on the day I was born, and the second one I met on the day I came home.' But, beyond that, you'd have thought he was found in a basket in the bullrushes along the banks of the Kennebec River." ...
... Grumpy Not Happy with Doc, Dopey & Sleazy, et al. McKay Coppins of BuzzFeed is on to something here: "From the beginning, [Jeb] Bush has insisted his decision about whether to undertake a presidential run in 2016 would depend on his answer to one question: 'Can I do it joyfully?' But now, as he officially launches his campaign at a Monday afternoon rally in Miami, Bush's pursuit of the presidency seems destined to be a grinding, grumpy ordeal -- permeated with disdain for the trivial demands of campaign pageantry, and rooted in a sense of duty to save the GOP from a field of candidates he seems to regard as unprepared or unserious. Joylessness wafts off Bush wherever he goes, from the photo ops on his just-completed tour of Europe to the grip-and-grins on the campaign trail in New Hampshire." ...
... Steve M.: "Jeb Bush is officially in the presidential race -- and the reviews from his own party are abysmal.... What is Jeb talking about that makes Republican voters want to stand up and cheer? McCain and Romney identified the hottest of hot-button issues. Jeb hasn't -- and what's more, he doesn't seem to want to. He's in trouble."
Dr. Sigmund Frist Mitt Romney, Millionaire Psychiatrist Examines Hillary from Afar. Nick Gass of Politico: "'Well, I thought the text touched the various places she needs to touch to try and keep her base intact. Somehow when you see her on a stage or when she comes into a room full of people, she's smiling with her mouth but her eyes are saying, "Where's my latte?" It just doesn't suggest that she believes everything she's saying,' Romney said on Monday on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' speaking via satellite from Salt Lake City. He also expressed skepticism that Clinton will be able to sell her populist message 'when she makes in one hour a multiple of what an average American will make in a year.'" CW: That's at least 47 percent rich, Mitt. ...
... Steve M.: "And yes, just to be clear, Mitt Romney is accusing someone else of flip-flopping, insincerity, and saying stuff just to mollify base voters in a political party." ...
... Laura Clawson of Daily Kos: "For some reason, Mitt Romney thinks he has the public affection and trust to be an effective attack dog against Hillary Clinton. Instead, he's a hilarious attack dog."
... Without reference to the above video, Elias Isquith of Salon comments on the upsides & perils of Clinton's "fighter" meme. CW: What Isquith doesn't mention is that that are plenty of "values" on which the majority of Americans agree: they just don't agree on how best to optimize the environment for furthering these American "values." As long as Hillary sticks to portraying herself as a fighter for well-accepted "values" -- like the Four Freedoms she emphasized -- I think her strategy will be effective. ...
... Anne Gearan & David Nakamura of the Washington Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton further distanced herself Monday from a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal that she helped shepherd as secretary of state, opening a rift between the Democratic front-runner and the Democratic president she hopes to succeed. 'I will judge what's in the final agreement, but I hope that it can be made better,' Clinton said during a news conference with reporters here.... She twice avoided answering whether she still supports the 'fast track' negotiating authority Obama seeks or will want the same powers if she becomes president." ...
... Michael Schmidt, Hillary Clinton's Official New York Times Attack Dog: "Emails that a longtime confidant to Hillary Rodham Clinton recently handed over to the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, raise new questions about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have complied with a series of requests from the panel. The emails, provided by Sidney Blumenthal, a close adviser to Mrs. Clinton, include information about weapons that were circulating in Libya and about the security situation in Benghazi in the year and a half before the attacks. The committee has asked the State Department and Mrs. Clinton several times in the past year for emails from her and other department officials about 'weapons located or found in' Libya and about the decision to open and maintain a diplomatic mission in Benghazi.... State Department officials said that they had complied only with requests and subpoenas related directly to the attacks because the committee's demands were too broad." ...
... Rebecca Traister of the New Republic on "the new, old Hillary": "Most striking is Clinton's willingness to showcase an older iteration of her professional persona: the one that was so unpalatable when she debuted it nationally, 25 years ago.... America didn't like the woman who admired Saul Alinsky very much. So in an attempt to gain power, she changed. But it's also on us, and our longstanding lack of appetite for women who threaten or trouble us." ...
... Sabrina Siddiqui of the Guardian: "The feud between Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the news media escalated on Monday, when the reporter designated by the traveling press to cover Clinton's events [in New Hampshire] was denied access. David Martosko, the US political editor at The Daily Mail, was scheduled as the so-called 'pool' reporter for Clinton's visit through New Hampshire. But when he arrived at the gathering spot for the traveling press corps on Monday morning, Martosko was turned away by a Clinton staffer who said the reporter was no longer the approved pooler for the day's events." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Karoli of Crooks & Liars: "David Martosko's 'professional' background is colorful, to say the least. Before Martosko was exiled to The Daily Mail, he was the editor of Tucker Carlson's hack site, the Daily Caller. He set about the work of ratfcking with a purpose there, lying about Senator Robert Menendez and hookers in order to try and knock Menendez out of contention." ...
... Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones (March 2015): "Before Daily Caller Editor in Chief Tucker Carlson hired him in 2011 -- a controversial choice given Martosko's previous arrests and lack of experience in journalism -- Martosko spent a decade working for Richard Berman, a longtime PR operative behind a number of industry-backed campaigns." ...
... Digby: "If you are wondering why people think the news media is boring and useless, this would be why. I understand why reporters would be miffed over this sort of thing. But they really should stop and think about whether anybody else in the country could possibly give a damn about it." ...
... CW: Hard to understand why digby isn't as concerned about Freeeedom of the Press as is Dylan Byers: "The Hillary Clinton campaign denied access to the print pool reporter on Monday, reigniting reporters' longstanding concerns about the campaign's commitment to running an open and transparent campaign."
CW: Love the latest letter from Bernie (no link), which begins,
One of the biggest mistakes President Obama made once he was in office was, after mobilizing millions of Americans during his brilliant 2008 campaign, to basically tell those supporters, 'Thank you, I'm going to sit down with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and take it from here.' I will not make that mistake.
CW: To my great surprise, it turns out that the Trump for President tease is really all about self-promotion & braggadocio. Robert Costa & Matea Gold of the Washington Post: "Donald J. Trump, the billionaire real-estate mogul, on Tuesday will release a summary of assets that total about $9 billion as part of his likely entry into the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to people familiar with his plans.... Trump's declared assets are more than double the estimate of his net worth by Forbes, which currently pegs his net holdings at $4.1 billion. That figure would make him the wealthiest Republican contender." Note: Trump isn't necessarily lying about his assets. He could have something in the neighborhood of $5BB in liabilities.
Beyond the Beltway
Presenting the Bobby & Grover Budget Comedy Act. Jonathan Weismann of Slate: "... [Louisana Gov. Bobby] Jindal created a fake fee for students, and a fake tax credit to balance it out, which ultimately leads to no money changing hands, but apparently satisfies whatever agreement Jindal struck with [tax nazi Grover] Norquist to preserve the illusion that he didn't raise taxes. 'It's an embarrassing bill to vote for,' one Republican state representative told the New York Times, demonstrating the sort of candor that only becomes possible once your own party's governor has alienated the vast majority of his state and abandoned all pretense of rational policymaking in pursuit of an inevitable also-ran performance in the GOP primary." CW: As for me, I'm not letting Bobby & his sidekick Grover appear in Kate Madison's Amazing Clown Carnival (see yesterday's Comments), no matter how side-splitting their routine.
Mark Gethfred & Mitch Smith of the New York Times: "The Roman Catholic archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis and a deputy bishop resigned on Monday after prosecutors recently charged the archdiocese with having failed to protect youths from abuse by pedophile priests. In statements released Monday morning, the archbishop, John C. Nienstedt, and an auxiliary bishop, Lee A. Piché, said they were resigning to help the archdiocese heal." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
News Ledes
Guardian: "An Egyptian court has upheld a death sentence against the ousted president Mohamed Morsi in a trial stemming from his escape from prison during the 2011 uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak from power. Tuesday's ruling reaffirms an initial decision in the case in May, in which Morsi and more than 100 others were sentenced to death."
Washington Post: "The Islamic State was routed Monday from one of its key strongholds on Syria's border with Turkey after its defenses crumbled and its fighters either defected or fled, raising new questions about the group's vaunted military capabilities. The fall of the town of Tal Abyad to a Kurdish-Syrian rebel force backed by U.S. airstrikes came after just two days of fighting...."
Share Article
Reader Comments (25)
".. CW: A reminder, in case it has slipped your notice, that Charles Pierce doesn't care about women -- in general. ..."
It certainly slipped my notice. If true then he fits right into the same mindset of so many of the dorks he disses.
RE: his short bit about Dolezal where he mentions not overloading your mind with "stuff" that isn't really very important since there are so many matters that are. I tend to agree, although this story, as bizarre as it may be, has fostered some interesting discussions (and amusing–-Jon Stewart had fun with it last night) and like the Jenner story it says something about our culture at this time.
At the end of the day Charlie appears not to have a Missus or Mr. to come home to. Perhaps if he did he wouldn't need to guzzle so much of that anti-freeze. Just a thought.
PD re: Pierce.
"Charles Pierce lives in metro Boston with at least some of his three children all of the time, a malfunctioning Toro lawnmower, a somewhat more reliable snowblower, and his extremely long-suffering wife, who stockpiles shear pins like Mitt Romney stockpiles dried corn." per his website.
Apropos of TPP: http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of-origin-labels-on-meat-sold-in-u-s-1433990294. If the leaders in government don't want to inform consumers of country of origin on food, will pharmaceuticals and many other things be far behind?
If government inspections of seafood are an indication, you are much more likely to eat government inspected foods produced in the US than from overseas. (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/fda-barely-inspects-imported-seafood). Know your farmer.
@Unwashed: Thank you––when I looked him up on wiki there is no mention of "the long suffering wife" or all those kiddies. I'm glad to know he's loved.
Just finished reading Jelano Cobb's piece on the Dolezal matter––excellent discussion on why this is an important conversation.
Trying to keep down my breakfast after reading about the Rat whining that Hillary Clinton is an out of touch, insincere Richie Rich. Are we really going to have to hear from this loser asshole for the next 18 months? You lost Willard. Go away now, like a good boy. Do something constructive for a change. Get Tagg some psychiatric help, buy your wife a new horse, go to the Caymans and count the money you hide there so you can avoid paying taxes in the United States.
Don't you just love hearing Romney and Trump opine on the dire straits of the poor and the middle class? Almost like....like....they care!
I said almost.
Juanito Agonistes.
Oh, the tragedy of it all!
So many layers to peel back, so much bullshit to ponder, such a pile of post-post moderate Confederate detritus to deconstruct.
Jebbers, who, in some other time and place, and forgetting all about that Terry Schiavo business where he butted his fat face into the personal anguish of a private family matter in order to demonstrate to the droolers that he could be just as much of a religio-fucker as the rest of them, and also ignoring the underhanded way he destroyed education in Florida, which is somehow touted as a great triumph (Pickett's Charge was a victory, right?), might have been considered a formidable candidate but is now forced to confront the type of hatred and victimization he has been stoking and taking advantage of for years as a hard line Confederate.
Now he wants to run for president like Poppy and The Decider. But hold on a minute there, Hoss. All those people you've been courting as a far-righty type are not going to like your new "moderate" look which includes not tying all immigrants to logs and setting them adrift in shark infested waters.
Instead, upstart Young Turks like Scott Walker and Ted Cruz who couldn't spell "moderate" if it were written on their palms (like Sarah Palin likes to do when she has to remember big words and phrases like "constitooshun-l" and "drunken brawl") are crabbing his act. These are the jamokes who grew like weeds in the shit people like Juanito have been shoveling for the last decade or more.
But now that's all in the past, right? Bygones be bygones and all that good shit? Now it's time to be adults and address serious concerns like serious people. In'it?
HAAAAA-ha-ha-ha. Ho-ho-ho. Tee-hee.
Not fucking likely. And it doesn't matter how many piles of filthy lucre he erected when he was collecting money illegally by not-really-sort-of-maybe-sometimes campaigning.
The jamokes have their torches lit and it's gonna be Bund rallies from here on out. Moderation will see neither the light of day nor the light of brownshirt bonfires. And the spectacle will be even more deliciously schadenfreudian if he plods through the next year and a half like Grumpy with a five martini hangover until that sad day when he strikes his colors and realizes he's just another stooge. Another beaten-up, raggedy-ass puppet in the Confederate Punch n' Judy Show. I'd say "reap what ye sow", but that's probably not necessary.
And thank Hera because we sure as shit couldn't take another shrub. The last one was poisonous.
@PD Pepe: Like many people, you probably don't see Pierce's sexism because it is usually subtle &/or other-directed. For instance, his oft-repeated nom for George Stephanopoulos: "Clinton Guy Shocked by Blow Jobs." The "joke" is directed at Stephanopoulos, but it is dependent upon dismissing "the most powerful man in the world'"s abuse of a young, unstable intern. Pierce either has no idea his joke diminishes women, or he does it on purpose.
I remember when pro football players' abuse of women was at the top of the news, Pierce exulted (and not ironically) about what a great weekend it was going to be for pro football. That the NFL was allowing the abuse to go on didn't phase him. His football-watching pleasure was paramount.
There are also the sins of omission. Pierce seldom covers women's issues, & when he does, he seems to sticks to issues revolving around sex, and he uses these issues more as an excuse to lampoon the men for their interest in "lady parts" than to stand up for women. Even his repeated use of the term "lady parts" is an objectification. Women aren't people -- they are things which have "parts."
Here's blogger E. J. Perkins (a man), writing in 2011: "In the course of trashing Michele Bachmann's performance, Pierce observed that she was 'dressed, for some reason, like a Marriott bellhop.' ,,, Pierce did not comment on the attire of the other candidates. But he thought it perfectly acceptable to go all Robin Givhan on Bachmann. Pierce is no male chauvinist and he's well-known for his frat-boy writing style.... Yet, in this case, he exemplifies the unthinking tendency by men to reduce women to objects."
As the writers I've linked today demonstrate, Rachel Dolezal's subterfuge points to myriad issues related to perhaps the greatest issue in our domestic history -- and certainly our greatest sin -- yet Pierce makes a point of saying he doesn't care about it. He seemed to care quite a bit about racism when it was a "manly" issue: white guys killing black men, but when it's more subtle than that -- when a woman is the subject -- her story, & more importantly the commentary it has engendered doesn't measure up to "the staggering welter of problems we have in this country regarding race."
Pierce's brand of sexism is dangerous precisely because people don't notice it. The subtlety makes sexism acceptable to his readers, who are mostly liberal.
One would never convince Pierce of this, of course. He would protest, if confronted, with classic Pierce indignation. But however cleverly he put it, Pierce's "I am not a sexist," is no more convincing than the sentence that begins, "I am not a racist, but...."
Marie
I read your blog regularly but as with Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden, your comment about Charlie Pierce reflects your unexamined biases. I reread Pierce's column on Dolezal and don't find anything troubling in it. (And neither did apparently the commentators, some of whom were women.) Dolezal's "subterfuge points to myriad issues related to perhaps the greatest issue in our domestic history . . . " Please. One person misrepresented her racial history in order to advance her career. You don't do any better with your other examples. You really want to relitigate Clinton's impeachment over a sexual transgression? "Abuse of a young, unstable woman?" She was an adult, the sex was consensual, and she would undoubtedly challenge your unsupported characterization of her as "unstable." Pierce consistently mocks male politicians for their attempts to interfere with women's decisions regarding their health. You don't like that he uses "lady parts" in doing so. Perhaps you should criticize Digby for her doing the same. You don't cite anything in support of Pierce's "exulting" over NFL allowing abuse to continue so I can't comment on that; however, I do recall reading several posts where Pierce criticizes Roger Goodell and the NFL's actions regarding Ray Rice's assault of his then fiancée. Finally, you do yourself a disservice by engaging in ad hominem attacks. It merely demonstrates that your criticisms are empty of substance.
As Little Johnny and the Dwarfs salivate over the prospect of sticking it to the black guy in order to score points for their side, it's worth considering (I'm actually wondering if they will) what the ACA has already done and what it will continue to do for millions of Americans.
My wife sometimes bemoans the fact that a lot of the work she does inside the house, organization, taking care of our finances, etc., are largely invisible, whereas, many of the projects I work on, staining the back deck, painting the porch railings, trimming the rose bushes, etc., have an immediate visible impact.
The ACA does both. In addition to addressing some of the behind the scenes messiness and the difficulty in choosing an insurer, its accomplishments may be hard to see but aid immeasurably (like my wife's making sure our mortgage payments are on time) to a sense of security in life. But it also has an immediately recognizable effect on people's lives.
Just the relief of knowing that you're insured is one thing, but knowing that, should you visit the doctor because of a funny spot on your leg and get back a diagnosis of cancer, you won't lose your house or, even worse, your life, as was the case with this TV reporter who got a chance to thank the president personally.
For Republicans on the court to take all that away purely out of spite and try to evade responsibility by saying it was the fault of those four little words and they had no choice...
I can't even come up with words to describe that kind of inhumanity.
@Dmichael: There are all kinds of abuse. Ferinstance, "read[ing] a blog regularly" & never contributing to it except to diss the blogger. Kind of like freeloading off a kindly relative for six months while you get your shit together or whatever, then complaining that she should have used homemade noodles in tonight's lasagna.
So-called liberals always disappoint me the most.
Marie
Well kids, it's finally happened.
Donald Trump has officially declared, in a speech with braggadocio to burn ("I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created,"), that he is kicking off his vanity campaign for president. Alongside those 45 other people.
I was trying to think of who he reminds me of. I thought of some of Shakespeare's fools, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, Malvolio, Dogberry, but all of those guys are too....three dimensional. You can actually even care about them at some point. Even that idiot Dogberry does something right in the end. No. I was trying to think of some character who was announcing a fantasy goal with the same sort of Trumpish delusion and inattention to reality.
And then....A-HA!...I thought of this guy.
La Donald announced in NYC? That's odd. I heard he was in Paris, awaiting the birth of his fifth wife.
@Akhilleus: Well, Donald Trump is good for something. First time I ever noticed that the Emerald City was art deco.
Marie
I can hardly wait until a reporter asks Jeb! about the Pope's encyclical about climate change. Jeb! was adamant the science "wasn't settled." We seem to have a lot of Cafeteria Catholics (choose the parts you like) running for office nowadays. He'll probably say the Pope should leave science to scientists, even though the Pope consulted with highly respected scientists in writing his encyclical.
Jeb! likes the part about "sanctity of life" where he decided to score points by sticking his nose into the Schiavo case.
On Steve M's characterization of Mitt: the fact that Mitt is a lying sack of shit pretty much says it all.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the former Majority Leader of the House of Representatives has no idea how many people are on the Supreme Court?
Tom DeLay, who was recently saved from a prison term by a passel of right-wing judges in Texas, thinks there are ten SCOTUS justices. The extra one must be a 'bagger plant just in case.
He also has some mighty odd ideas about how things work in this country. For instance, DeLay does not believe in the rule of law:
“...right now, the American people don’t understand that the Supreme Court, when it makes a ruling, it’s just an opinion if no one enforces that ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.”
So, let me get this straight. Unless the Supreme Court puts a gun to your head or sends out the Marines to surround your house, you can do whatever you want contra any decision the Court hands down. Why? Because, according to DeLay, "...it's just an opinion" unless it's backed up by the threat of violence.
So fuck the rule of law.
The hubbub, of course, is over the possibility that the NINE Supreme Court justices, or at least a majority thereof (it'll never be unanimous.....never on this issue) may rule that gays and lesbians are human beings and American citizens, like the rest of us, and have, or should have, the same rights as everyone else.
This, of course is same whacko who claims that god wrote the Constitution. These people get more dangerous by the day. Seriously, if he really believes there is no rule of law in this country, the crazies will be out in the streets walking around waving loaded weapons, threatening passersby, moms, kids, grandads, daring anyone to do something about it.
Oh wait. They already do that.
Why don't these fucks just secede and get it over with? They can all live in a Confederate paradise even wingier than Kansas. No laws, no taxes, no services, no schools, no regulations. Just oligarchs and chaos.
@Akhilleus. Thanks for the link. I'll be sure to link it in tomorrow's Commentariat. What an extraordinary idiot!
However, I do appreciate DeLay's interpretation of the Constitution. It occurs to me that the Congress doesn't have an army either, so I guess the only person in the whole wide world who can tell us what to do is the Commander in Chief.
I believe DeLay just declared martial law. Texans were right to be worried, after all, about an Obama invasion. (And no wonder they're worried, if they're letting DeLay interpret the Constitution for them.)
When you think how powerful DeLay was -- including supposedly being Hastert's puppet-master -- & what an ignoramus he is, it's a wonder the federal government continues to function at all. We owe a bigger vote of thanks to bureaucrats than I realized.
Marie
I don't believe that my comment was in anyway abusive. If you want to characterize any substantive criticism of your expressed opinions as "abuse," then there is no point to having comments on your blog. I note that you did not address any of the substance of what I wrote but have chosen to call me a "freeloader." I have prevoiusly posted comments. Perhaps you don't recall them because they weren't merely "Me too!"
Marie,
You know, that's a very good point, something most of us don't consider often enough.
For all the abuse government workers get, all the jokes about lines at the RMV and pot holes and city workers sleeping on the side of the road while picking up double time, there are many more people who take public service seriously and keep the gears oiled and the wheels turning, and serve to mitigate as best they can the machinations of scandalously ignorant jerks like DeLay and the lemmings he encourages to hate, distrust, and ignore the guv'mint.
It's no wonder he feels like he can do whatever he wants regardless of laws or regulations, and no wonder he was indicted (and should be wearing the latest in orange jumpsuits). When he was in the private sector, he was routinely being audited and fined by the IRS for failure to pay taxes and was investigated by the EPA for his use of outlawed substances back when he was a bug crusher.
I could be nice and suggest that the chemicals maybe got to him but I think he's always been that way. A prime example of the species Simia Republicanus.
@Dmichael: I didn't address the substance of your comment because there wasn't any, other than your complaint that I couldn't find the citation for Pierce's "yay! football weekend" comment. As far as I can tell, there isn't an archive for Pierce's blog; I tried a couple of Google searches, trying to remember some of the words he used, but I didn't come up with the right post. (It was probably an "Out on the Weekend" post.) While I was looking for that, I also looked for his commentary on the NFL domestic abuse scandal -- in the two posts I found, he wrote that, yeah they were bad, but he used them as set-ups to complain about something else that was also bad -- one about that abusive Alabama judge & the other time that ESPN or somebody was mean to his off-again/on-again friend Bill Simmons. I know he still does sports commentary somewhere else, so maybe that's where you saw his commentary on the domestic abuse news.
As for your remarks about Lewinsky, they're antediluvian, juvenile, misogynistic & not worth addressing further.
You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of women's issues -- I mean zip -- & you misrepresented my remarks about Dolezal & the subsequent related commentary, so what's to respond to?
In your last comment, you even misrepresented my response to you. I guess it's an aggressive game you play to justify your attacks & bolster your beliefs. I'm not playing. Call me passive.
As for your assertion that you have previously posted comments, I checked back six months, & in that time you posted only one comment, accurately correcting an error I had made. So make that, "Kind of like freeloading off a kindly relative for six months while you get your shit together or whatever, then complaining that she forgot to change your sheets once last month & she should have used homemade noodles in tonight's lasagna." I stand corrected.
Marie
Forgive me, Marie, but I never saw Monica as being abused. I'll not be able to provide a citation, but I remember Monica stating that things got rolling when she flipped up her skirt and showed Clinton her throng while delivering pizza. I think that puts it a couple of moves beyond consensual and nowhere near abuse.
@AK: Donald–– yes, exactly like the lion––perfect! even looks like the Donald.
@Dmichael: " I reread Pierce's column on Dolezal and don't find anything troubling in it. (And neither did apparently the commentators, some of whom were women.)"
I am a woman––reread what I actually DID say. Your reference to "me too" implying that we here are always in agreement (especially with Marie?) is simply incorrect. In my case she and I have had a few hardy disagreements through the years, but we do this with respect, not with snideness or vitriol. Take note of Haley Simon's post–––one of the issues Marie and I argued about. We here on R.C. may be of one mind on a lot of issues, but we are not a bunch of lemmings. I did not think your comments were abusive; I did think they were misinformed and wrongly executed.
@Haley Simon: Your recollection is the same as mine as to how the relationship between Clinton & Lewinsky began. What must be considered, however, are -- among other factors -- the power differential & the age difference: An adult POTUS & a young, unpaid intern. The difference could hardly be greater. Clinton knew nothing about Lewinsky except that she was "a little bit slutty." Hardly a recommendation. He had an obvious responsibility not to encourage her come-on. Attractive men do that all the time. Clinton abused his responsibility.
It turned out, of course, that, according to her later testimony, Lewinsky believed -- based on their few brief & not exactly mutually-satisfying encounters -- that Bill would leave Hillary & marry her. So definitely "a little bit nutty," too. Clinton never had any intention of having a lasting or public relationship with Lewinsky. She told him she was in love with him. He used her on a whim & tossed her. That's abusive, doubly so because of the difference in their statuses.
Later, when the story hit the press, Clinton intended to lie about his relationship with Lewinsky & portray her as a crazy woman with whom he had never had any relationship whatsoever. That's abusive. The blue dress foiled that plan.
Dmichael doesn't get that, but you should. The relationship was inherently abusive because of Clinton's intentions, his ignorance of who Lewinsky even was & the difference in their ages & statures. It was ultimately abusive because he -- according to both of them -- never reciprocated sexually, never treated her with respect & intended to defame her to the press. (In fact, I think Sid Blumenthal got the ball rolling on that, leaking to the press that Monica was a nut job.)
Was Stephanopoulos Shocked by Blow Jobs? No, he was shocked by the President's carelessness & callousness. Good for him.
Marie
Marie,
Whew! I'm glad you remember the same story.
They were both stupid and used each other - the basis of many a sexual adventure. I cannot believe for a moment she thought the President of the United States was going to divorce his wife and marry her. That is some kind of dumbness!
To bolster my opinion... She was 22 and a college graduate. She was fully emancipated. She was not sexually inexperienced. She had had an affair with another married man. Though most often described as an intern (which adds to the impression of 'innocence'), she had been promoted to a paid position.
Most telling, not only was she fiddling with the damn President of the United States, a man of some importance, she was fiddling with a married man whose wife was in close proximity (that takes some kind of balls) and she had to have had a pretty good idea that his daughter also lived in the vicinity. To say nothing of the guy who helped her get the job - Leon Panetta - and the fu*kin' Secret Service, who, in those days, meant something. Those are the ingredients of one hell of an affair - who cares if you are always the pleasurer, never the pleasured. Every moment is heart-stopping.
I was 22 once, rather pretty, loved an adventure or two, and regretted some. But I knew what I was doing and so did Monica. Of course, Clinton did, too. Sex. It's pretty amazing. Ah, yes. I remember it well.
Gads!
I hope my grandchildren aren't lurking!
@Haley Simon: I met JFK when he was young & handsome -- and married -- and I was a teenager. It never occurred to me to make any kind of pass at him. Even if I'd had an inkling he would be receptive -- which it turned out he probably would have been -- I was smart enough to know there would have been nothing in it for me. I would not describe myself as having been a model of psychological stability, but I wasn't loony enough to even momentarily imagine JFK would dump Jackie for me & we'd live happily ever after in the White House or Hyannisport.
When I was 22 I was married, so I didn't have any experiences that exactly corresponded to Lewinsky's, but when I was 20, a handsome, powerful, older, married man whom I knew well did try to seduce me, & I went to extraordinary (& kinda funny) lengths to avoid the seduction. The day after I extricated myself from the situation he set up, I told him he'd better not try that stunt again. He didn't. Again, I didn't see any upside.
Later, when I was older & single, I did have a few affairs with powerful or famous married men whom I found appealing in one way or another, but the affairs were strictly of a casual nature; neither of us thought we were building a life together. I've never jumped into a relationship that was an obvious heartbreaker -- which is not to say that I haven't had my heart broken. I have.
So, no, I don't think Monica Lewinsky had the slightest idea what she was doing. A sensible young woman would not have diddled with the POTUS. Throughout the entire duration of her affair & the aftermath, she was the poster girl for hysteria. I have always felt sorry for her because she did not seem to be in her right mind at any point. I hope she's okay now. I think people who make jokes about her or blame her for her relationship with Clinton just don't understand mental illness or whatever you call the condition that would cause a young woman to imagine a quickie with a bigshot would lead to a life of blissful togetherness. I doubt that has ever happened in the history of the world.
Marie