Category Archives: Undead sexist cliches

Kavanaugh, sexual assault and witch hunts

I’m already on the record that I consider Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, a dreadful candidate. He’s been picked because he’s a reliable right-wing voter who apparently has zero respect for women’s control of their bodies (he ruled the state could impose abortions on two mentally handicapped women who didn’t want abortions).

And now a woman, Christine Ford, has gone public with charges he attempted to rape her back at a high school party (she has discussed it years earlier) To which the Republican response has been outrage, at Ford and at Dems, for scheming to stop Kavanaugh. How dare they! Along with “he didn’t do it!” and “you can’t prove he did it!” I’ve seen arguments that even if Ford’s telling the truth, what Kavanaugh did at 17 is completely irrelevant to who they are now; that we shouldn’t punish him for a teenage error; assault is just teenage horseplay; that this is a “witch hunt”; and that if they can destroy Kavanaugh this way, all men are vulnerable!

All of which leads Scott Lemieux, among others, to wonder why the GOP still supports him. The Republicans have stuffed the federal judiciary with right-wingers so finding someone with the same right-wing views and paper credentials shouldn’t be hard. True, he favors insulating Trump from legal charges, but he can’t do that without a majority of the court on board. And as noted at the link, it’s unlikely the Dems will be able to block a new nominee, even if they take the Senate in the mid-terms. So why not look for someone who doesn’t have any allegations of sexual assault against them?

Well, Trump already has a history of supporting men with a history of spousal abuse. I doubt he’d have an issue appointing a rapist to the Supreme Court, but I’m sure he resents liberals telling him no or suggesting that a man doesn’t have the right to do anything he pleases with women. For some on the right, the charge may give the nomination more spice: take that feminazis! A nastier version of owning the liberals. White House sources say it slightly differently: giving in would ruin Trump’s image as the guy crushing his adversaries.

As for the specific arguments I mentioned, well they don’t hold water either. “He was 17” is a fair argument if he was misbehaving but assault is something else again. It’s not harmless teenage mischief (as Caitlin Flanagan points out), any more than Trump bragging about harassing women was just locker-room talk.  As Lance Mannion says, the real question is, should someone who committed a violent crime be on the Supreme Court? “He was 17” assumes the answer is yes; it shouldn’t be. We’re not talking about jailing him based on Ford’s letter, but whether he should sit on the country’s highest court.

I can’t help wondering if some of the men dismissing Ford are thinking back to their own teen (or adult) years and assuring themselves this is bullshit: they did stuff like that, they’re obviously not rapists, so what he did must have been okay! Rough horseplay, that’s the word!

As for being a witch hunt, how? A charge has been made. It’s being investigated. Nobody’s suggesting removing Kavanaugh from his current lifetime gig as a federal judge. And I’ll bet very few of the “witch hunt” screamers are as vocal about the charges Hilary Clinton is leader of a vast ring of pedophile Satanist cannibals, which comes a lot closer to being a literal witch hunt (and as the Pizzagate incident shows, one that could potentially lead to violence).

I doubt this will derail Kavanaugh, but Ill be delighted if it does.

PS. Bonus note: After Ford’s charge hit the news, the Republicans presented a list of women who supported Kavanaugh. Most of whom now take it back And Kavanaugh’s buddy and character witness Mark Judge isn’t exactly known for his supportive views of women. More examples here. And here (including blaming rape on the way women dress)

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Conservatives still don’t understand consent, or rape, or pretty much anything.

As witness right-wing bullshit artist Jerome Corsi claiming that the Catholic pedophilia scandal proves the current Pope is pro-gay. Because of course covering up for the rape of children is exactly the same as supporting adult consensual gay sex (Corsi’s not unique — when the scandal originally broke, several pundits claimed the real issue was gay priests, not pedophilia).

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos thinks it’s possible false rape accusations outnumber real rape cases. Same old, same old. Though it’s telling that the subhead on the story describes DeVos as “fumbling” the interview, as if she just misspoke. Given her concern for alleged rapists on college campuses, I doubt she fumbled at all.

A murderer claims he was driven to kill by being incel. And some incels argue rape is a valid mating strategy because they can’t get laid any other way (the idea rape just reflects men’s genetic drive to spread their seed is not unique to them).

Ezra Klein points out that the now-infamous anti-Trump editorial supports Trump’s policies, just not Trump. Which is another reminder the real problem is Republicans. Same point, made differently. Roy Edroso suggests the real agenda is so the anonymous writer can emerge unscathed after Trump leaves office. McSweeney’s mocks the op-ed beautifully.

Democratic left-winger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has gotten some facts wrong, which supposedly proves she’s not ready for prime time. That’s not the standard the media apply to Paul Ryan.

The Roberts Court is the 19th Century pro-segregation Supreme Court all over again. And Trump’s chosen Supreme may be a perjurer; he’s definitely conservative, despite Republicans doing their best to cover that up.

Pedophilia isn’t the only thing the Catholic Church may be covering up

Another example of conservative Christians fantasizing they’re an oppressed minority: the belief California is going to ban the Bible.

David Barton simultaneously believes it’s okay for Christians to support Trump because of his policies, and that “the end justifies the means” is an unGodly attitude. But of course, the people he thinks have that attitude are the imaginary left-wingers committing voting fraud to win.

Now that the FCC has killed net neutrality, wireless carriers are busy throttling.

And the Justice Department is busy trying to gum up the North Carolina elections.

Ted Cruz’s family came from Cuba. Yet he finds it amusing his supporters tell his opponent in the Senate race go back to Ireland.

Republicans claim liberals are the uncivil ones, but they’re the ones punishing Nike for daring to use Colin Kaepernicke in an ad. But even Chuck Schumer loves some reactionary centrism.

Southern Baptist Pastor John McArthur thinks social justice is evil.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Unsafe in any station, Part Two of infinity

Back when the “me too” movement kicked off, I posted on FB that line from Cato’s letter that “The only security which we can have that men will be honest, is to make it their interest to be honest; and the best defence which we can have against their being knaves, is to make it terrible to them to be knaves. As there are many men wicked in some stations, who would be innocent in others; the best way is to make wickedness unsafe in any station.” A friend of mine replied that this is exactly what was happening: predators were finally finding their position unsafe.

The story of Louis CK returning to stand-up for an impromptu set despite sexual harassment charges he admits were true makes me wonder how unsafe these stations really are. Fans gave his appearance on stage a standing ovation. Some pundits are arguing being off-stage a few months is more than enough suffering; Michael Ian Black, for instance, argues Louis has “served his time” — he’s trying to find redemption, aren’t we obligated to give it to him? If there’s no redemption, why should he (or any man) even try to be better (a line of thinking beautifully mocked here)?

I agree there needs to be a path for redemption, but this ain’t redemption. It’s the comic’s fans not giving a crap about what he’s done, or what he might do in the future. Will we see the same if Matt Lauer successfully works on a comeback (or for that matter Trump’s racist ally Steve Bannon almost getting a platform again)  As Rebecca Traister puts it “these men can return to their industries, with the expectation that their reentry might be near the top.” The women who backed away from projects because Louis CK or Lauer were involved? Had their careers wrecked by Harvey Weinstein? Had to deal with the alleged climate of harassment and Who Cares Who Grabbed You under Les Moonves at CBS? The men’s defenders don’t seem worried these women might not be able to find a path back, or concerned about fairness for Janet Jackson (at the link it details how Moonves allegedly trashed her career). As Abigail Nussbaum says, Louis CK returning unrepentant and unredeemed is a workplace safety issue.Harassment’s not just about sex, it’s about women (in some cases, men) becoming unable to work in their profession, do their job, earn a living because of the risk.

CK taking a few months time out is not redemption: “Louis CK” says Nussbaum, “has done absolutely nothing to indicate that he is seeking redemption. He clearly wants his career back, but there has been absolutely no indication that he regrets his past behavior (except inasmuch as he regrets what it eventually cost him), much less any attempt to make restitution to his victims, or work on himself to try to become a better, less toxic person. But because he is a famous, rich white man, Black automatically assumes the existence of his regret.”

Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg points out the difference between forgiveness (given, voluntarily, by the victim, if they so choose), atonement for sin (granted by God) and redemption, which requires actual work: Acknowledge the wrong you’ve done, preferably publicly. Become a person who won’t do it again. Make restitution. Apologize “in whatever way will make it as right as possible with the victim.” And when the opportunity arises to do it again, don’t. Samantha Field discusses the same process from a Christian perspective (her point that restoring someone to their old position does not redeem them seems relevant to the CK mess). John Scalzi suggests, though I don’t have the link handy, that ten years away from the limelight/political office should be a minimum.

We have a long way to go yet before unsafety for the wicked is the norm.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Jordan Peterson’s enforced monogamy

I’ve written before about Jordan Peterson. The guy who thinks if women don’t want harassment at work they shouldn’t wear makeup. That identity politics is bad except the male supremacist kind he practices. That lobsters are proof that the male-dominated hierarchies we live with are natural. And that we can fix the problem of incel terrorism by enforced monogamy.  “Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners…The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” If we don’t enforce monogamy, the rich, powerful men will hog all the women to themselves and so all the lower-class males will wind up lonely, frustrated and ready to lash out.

Unsurprisingly, this generated a lot of blowback, so Peterson quickly retrenched. He wasn’t suggesting something equivalent to government redistribution of women (even if he did talk about enforced monogamy as analogous to economic redistribution) and anyone who assumed that enforced monogamy meant anything of the sort was just ignorant! What he mans is “socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy because it’s an effective means of regulating female reproduction” (so the babies live, not because he’s male supremacist or anything) and aggression. That’s why monogamy exists, “pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal.” (if you overlook all the societies where it isn’t)

If Peterson is simply saying society should value monogamy, well it does. Hasn’t he noticed? Society promotes marriage and monogamy in everything from ads for diamonds to rom-coms. It’s strongly inculcated in us, more so than some periods in a past when a man having a mistress was part of being rich and successful. So either he doesn’t have a solution or he’s suggesting a solution that involves somehow pushing women to be monogamous without getting government involved. He doesn’t suggest how that would work — massive slut-shaming? — probably because any solution is going to be more sexist than he wants to look.

Because let’s face it, unless women have no choice, they’re unlikely to pair off with incels. Not (contrary to incels’ own belief) because they’re hideous trolls but because they celebrate the deaths of 10-year-old girls. And long to enslave women. And revere mass murderer Elliott Rodger. It’s hard to see many women jumping at the chance to shack up with these guys. And I don’t see the incels going for it unless they got a hottie — fat women having sex is one of their triggers.

Peterson pretends getting married is the only alternative to more incel violence (a revised version of George Gilder — Peterson ain’t original) but plenty of married men murder and kill their spouses. And astonishingly plenty of lonely men walk around not feeling the urge to kill or brutalize the people around them.

Nor, as pointed out here, is there any real evidence that alpha males will suck up all the available women leaving none for the incels (Echidne makes the same point). This has been a conservative argument against sexual freedom for years (like I said, not original): if people were free to arrange any marital situation they liked, the rich would have big harems and the rest of us (“us,” of course, is men) would be crying in our beer. The possibility that lots of women wouldn’t want that arrangement — that having a tenth or a hundredth of a man’s affection isn’t attractive, even if the sultan is rich and supports them — never figures in. Women are just the helpless puppets of their genetic drive to breed with superior men.

Peterson has the same ability lots of self-help gurus do, to recycle cliches and make them sound deep. But recycled baloney is still baloney.

All rights to image remain with current holder.

8 Comments

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Caitlin Flanagan and Jordan Peterson; two bad tastes that taste bad together

Anti-feminist Caitlin Flanagan insists that sexism guru Jordan Peterson has the left terrified because he’s knocking our legs out from under us by shattering identity politics. Once you take the liberal fixation with identity politics off the table, “it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology.”

Like Laura Ingraham’s complaints about America, that’s sort of true. If you eliminate race and gender from the discussion of history and religion (as this slacktivist post notes), then we do talk about things in a different way. But it’ll be wrong.

Whether you’re male or female, black or white is massively woven with religion and history, with how they treat you and how you experience them. Even today, we have people who preach that blacks are cursed to inferiority by the sin of Ham, and that women are made by god to have no rights. Peterson’s take on this amounts to Big Whoop, Everyone’s Disadvantaged “Maybe you’re too short, or you’re not as beautiful as you could be, or, you know, your parent, your grandparent was a serf — likely, because almost everbody’s grand-, great-grandparent was. And you’re not as smart as you could be.” Oh, and maybe you’re Hispanic or black and you’ve suffered discrimination, can’t get your kids in a good school, lost a job, but it’s the same thing. Nobody’s got a perfect life.  The solution is the free market!: “We’re going to outsource it to the marketplace. You’re going to take your sorry pathetic being, and you’re gonna try to offer me something that maybe I want. And I’m going to take my sorry pathetic being, and I’m gonna say, “well, all things considered, as well as I can understand them, maybe I could give you this much money”, which is actually a promise for that thing. And you’ve packed all of your damn oppression into the price. And I packed all my oppression into the willingness to pay it. And that solution sucks. It’s a bad solution. But compared to every other solution – man, it’s why 10 percent of us have freedom”

As Flanagan says, Peterson reaches this nitwit conclusion by ignoring “identity politics.” If you ignore that it was perfectly legal when I was born to refuse to hire a woman, a black man, a Jew, to shut them out of the free market, to bar blacks from even spending money in the same stores and restaurants as white people yes, that’s seeing things in a different (though entirely unoriginal) way. But it’s wrong. It’s the same-old, same-old about how identity politics is bad, a ridiculous issue, rather than stuff — abortion, birth control, integration, equal rights — that has a massive effect on people.

And, of course, to assume that Peterson is somehow operating from a dispassionate, rationalist stance free of ideology when he glorifies male dominance is just nonsense. Or that Flanagan, a woman who hires a nanny then condemns feminists and working mothers for hiring nannies (see first link in post) is making an objective judgment. She despises feminists and working mothers and here’s a guy who doesn’t have any more use for them; is it surprising she fantasizes he’s going to end feminism?

Liberals don’t fear Peterson’s bad ideas. Speaking personally, I fear the number of people who will swallow them and advocate for them because there are always people willing to embrace the bullshit that white, male supremacy is both right and natural so discrimination is okay. That doesn’t make Peterson any righter. And it doesn’t mean he’s the antidote to identity politics; he embodies them.

1 Comment

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Laura Ingraham pretends her words have no meaning

So Fox News’ Laura Ingraham went on a long rant about how “in some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people and they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases legal immigration that of course progressives love.”

In a strange way, she’s right, just not the way she thinks. The America I know and love doesn’t exist in some parts of the country. The parts where they hate and fear Hispanics, adore Trump and desperately fear equality for non-whites. Sure, those parts have always been there, but at least when I was a teen we were lurching, in awkward baby steps, toward greater equality for all, back before the right-wing began pushing back in favor of white supremacy in the 1980s. Back then, while immigration had a lot of opposition, there was also pride that someone from a “shithole country” would want to come here and start fresh. When the Statue of Liberty was still “the mother of exiles.

Ingraham’s anti-immigrant screed (which also included bashing Ocasio-Cortez) got a thumbs-up from David Duke. Apparently being so blatantly racist didn’t suit whatever Ingraham’s target demographic is, so she promptly announced it had “nothing to do with race.” Nope, she was upset because “the rule of law, meaning secure borders, is something that used to bind our country together …, I made explicitly clear that my commentary had nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but rather a shared goal of keeping America safe and her citizens safe and prosperous.”

Um, no, talking about demographic change is about race. It’s nothing to do with secure borders, particularly when she cites legal immigration as part of the problem. This is a standard racist dog whistle, pretending they’re concerned about legal immigration rather than America having more Hispanics than they want. It’s why even though I don’t like illegal immigration I’ll never sign on with anti-immigrant groups. I’d be fine if we had the same number of people coming in legally; most of them wouldn’t. Likewise, I suspect the stuff about keeping America safe references the constant alt.right theme that white people need safe spaces, by which they mean anyone who isn’t them should be excluded from everywhere white people want to be.

Even if she wasn’t dog-whistling in her apology (“See, alt.righties, I’m still one of you!”) her apology is bullshit. What she said simply doesn’t mean what she claims it does. It’s roughly as convincing as Jordan Peterson explaining when he calls for enforced monogamy to solve the incel problem, he obviously didn’t mean we should enforce monogamy. Like Ingraham, I guess his career still depends on not being caught crossing certains lines.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

The Klan, divorce in America and the Sub-Mariner: books and graphic novels

THE SECOND COMING OF THE KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition by Linda Gordon is a history written in full awareness how much that Klan’s anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, anti-Catholic politics mirrors the current era, and how the Klansmen (and women) saw themselves as the Real Americans in contrast to their opponents (Jews being their biggest bogeyman). After the initial attempt to revive the Klan in the wake of Birth of a Nation flopped, a couple of PR whizzes (Elizabeth Tyler and Edward Young Clarke) bought the organization and took it national. Their trick was that along with politics they presented the KKK as a fraternal organization much like the Masons or the Elks (and it did have a lot in common with them), with the added plus that if members recruited new Klansmen, they got a commission (part of which was passed up the line). Tyler was the first of several prominent Klanswomen who found the organization a perfect outlet for ambitions as motivational speakers, organizers and businesswoman. Interesting, and depressingly familiar

When I was a tween, my impression from TV was that divorce was slightly edgy, disreputable and just not done by normal people. Ah, youth; DIVORCE: An American Tradition by Glenda Riley shows that the US was already divorcing at a much higher rate than Europeans, and had been doing so for years (the US allowed judicial divorce long before Great Britain did). Riley tracks the constant push and shove between those who wanted to make marriage eternal, those who thought an exit option was necessary, and those who thought marriage, not divorce, was the real problem (the whole “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove we love each other” of the 1960s had lots of precedent). This has lots of detail, some of it amusing, such as learning Indianapolis was once the quickie divorce capital of America (though the statistics don’t confirm the reputation). Interesting again

MARVEL MASTERWORKS: THE GOLDEN-AGE SUB-MARINER by Bill Everett and others was one I picked up on sale last year. While I’m not particularly a fan of Namor, there’s some fun to be had here; in one story, when Namor busts up a ring of radium thieves he keeps the rare element for use by his own people (not yet identified as Atlantean) rather than returning it. The backup, the Angel, is pretty fun too; the protagonist apparently has no secret identity, being the Angel full-time (not the only Golden-Age hero of whom that was true). Entertaining, but I doubt I’d have bought it at full-price.

#SFWApro. Art by Alex Schomburg, all rights remain with current holder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Comics, Reading, Undead sexist cliches

There was no room for these added links about sexism in this morning’s post

So here we go! Some are a bit old, I really need to clean out my bookmarks more regularly.

Samantha Field responds to a blog post about how men want to marry debt-free virgins without tattoos. According to the original post, that’s not all men want: we also want women who haven’t gone to college (they might get ideas above their station) and ideally have stayed at home under their father’s control until we meet them. In short, as Field puts it, it’s not about tattoos, it’s about desiring women who have no independent life at all.

Good idea Oregon: A ban on anyone convicted of partner violence from buying guns.

A woman had a miscarriage. The pharmacist refused to provide her with abortion drugs because of his religious beliefs. Of course, it’s a miscarriage so he’s not saving the baby’s life — but despite the health risk to the woman, he wouldn’t “kill” the baby. I’m sure we’ll see more of this until we reach the same point Ireland was at for years.

A standard counter-feminist argument is that women don’t get the top jobs or good tech jobs or high-paying jobs or [insert similar item here] simply because they make different choices from men. And those choices are completely unaffected by social pressure or companies’ policies (much the same way Megan McArdle imagines poor people choose to be poor). Wired however, shows how tech recruiting sessions come off sexist which turns away women.

I hadn’t heard about this before, but the suffragette movement a century ago defended itself from police violence with jujitsu.

Another day, another non-Muslim terrorist.

Working with women can reduce gender stereotypes.

The Trump family, where a woman eats what the man tells her to.

Evangelical male supremacist Doug Wilson says that a man who has sex with a hundred women is like a “master key” whereas a woman with hundred lovers is just damaged goods like a broken log. But of course he’s not saying a man who sleeps around is better than a woman who sleeps around! Yeah, right.

Minnesota Republican Jason Lewis thinks it’s a bad thing we can’t call women sluts any more. People can and do, it’s just they’re more likely to get called out for it. Which for conservatives is the same as tyranny and thought policing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Sympathy for the devil’s moral complexity? Yeah, right

Several years ago, I wrote an And column in response to one Victoria Coren Mitchell saying we needed to be more nuanced about Roman Polanski raping a thirteen-year-old instead of reducing cases like this “to mindless categories of good and bad.” Because he’s a great filmmaker. He’s a Holocaust survivor. And doesn’t the victim have to accept some responsibility for letting Polanski get her alone?

I, on the other hand, have no problem with reducing “rape of 13 year old” to “bad.” And I don’t think that’s mindless at all. Polanski is a rapist. He raped a 13-year-old. There’s no nuance to that. Being a rapist is not the sum total of Polanski’s existence but it is him, just like racist lawyer Aaron Schlossberg owns his racist rants [edited for clarity]

Apparently my incisive reasoning didn’t convince pundit Lee Siegel (come on, he couldn’t possibly not have read my column right? Right?). In an NYT op-ed, he argues that, as Mitchell found with Polanski, we’re suffering a lack of nuance when we judge Harvey Weinstein, and when we judge people who try to explain him: “If, in a spirit of free intellectual and imaginative inquiry, you dared to suggest that a man who masturbated in front of a woman he barely knew without her consent might have been acting out, in an attitude of aggressive contempt, his own shame and emasculation — if you tried to understand his actions, without justifying them — you would be shouted down and vilified … Could it be that Mr. Weinstein, who reportedly had often been mocked for his appearance, wanted to dehumanize these women as well, while at the same time turning himself into a person who is watched and admired, like a person of beauty?”

As noted at the link, Siegel postures as a daring truth-bomber unafraid of being shouted down and vilified, when he’s actually writing in one of the country’s most prominent newspapers. Pretending he’s handing out mimeographed Free Harvey Weinstein fliers, then rushing off before the cops bust him is just bullshit (much like the daring thinkers of the intellectual dark web). That said, it’s possible Siegel will be villified, but I’m okay with that. Because he’s kind of a chump.

As noted at the link, feminists have been discussing what drives men to rape and harass for decades. Nobody’s villifying them for bringing it up (plenty of people villify them for not slut-shaming rape victims). But their explanations are considerably less elaborate than Siegel’s: rape involves power, lust, patriarchy, male ego. Portraying Weinstein as wanting to be admired or acting out “his own shame and emasculation” seems almost like a plea for sympathy. Like Mitchell. Or like Camille Paglia portraying Bill Cosby as compensating for an emasculating wife. Maybe that’s unfair to Siegel, but he does seem very disturbed we’re more interested in punishing Weinstein than understanding him. Dude, if he did what he’s accused of, punishment is entirely appropriate. Understanding is optional. It doesn’t matter if he’s been mocked or humiliated or feels emasculated, if the accusations are true (and I’m inclined to believe them), he raped and abused a whole bunch of women and tried to destroy their careers if they resisted.

As with Polanski, I don’t think classifying Weinstein as “bad” indicates a lack of moral complexity on my part. Nor do I think we need more sympathy for incels. You know, the guys who think 10-year-old girls deserve to die?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Incels and other links

An online incel discussion concludes that when women turn a man down they should be terrified he’ll dox, harass or assault them. Yet we still have mainstream thinkers who wonder why women don’t want to sleep with incels. Which the incels likewise think is a great idea.

Rush Limbaugh dumbsplains how Fifty Shades of Greyis actually a feminazi conspiracy. Showing similar brilliant logic right-winger Dave Daubenmire declares the success of Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter is the work of feminism.

In California, they recalled the judge who gave sexual assaulter Brock Turner a slap on the wrist.

Trump celebrated Ramadan at the White House but not with any American Muslims, just diplomats from Saudi Arabia and other allies. After all we wouldn’t want to invite non-white or non-Christian Americans into Trump’s presence, would we?

Crooked Donny also seems much more interested in Eastern Europe than our allies.

A while back I noted that the big papers love to hire Never Trump conservatives but no pro-Trumpers. Well the NYT crossed that line with brilliant results.

Alabama’s GOP favors Roy Moore’s protege for the new chief justice. On the plus side, the ‘bama sheriff who made millions from the fund for feeding prisoners got voted to the curb.

Republican revisions to the ACA eliminated the penalty for not buying insurance. But they’re using the penalty to argue (again) death to the ACA!

As No More Mr. Nice Blog predicted a while back, Republican predictions of an expose putting the final nail in Clinton’s coffin, or the Democratic Party’s or the Deep State’s never come true. But they keep the right whipped up so they feel everything is an existential crisis.

White Americans calling the cops on blacks is just a legal way to enforce white supremacy.

The Supreme Court ruling on baking wedding cakes for gays inspired one store owner to post a No Gays sign. And NRA mouthpiece Dana Loesch says forcing a baker to bake for gays is slavery.

Neo-Nazi California Senate candidate Patrick Little claims he came in first or second, but the Jews rigged the vote.

No, Perry Stone, bringing back prayer in school will not stop school shootings. Christianity didn’t stop slavery. Or the rape of slaves. Or lynching (and posing for it afterwards). Or anti-abortion terrorist Eric Rudolph. The only question is, does Mr. Stone seriously think it’ll work this time, or is he just using an excuse to force prayers on unbelievers?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches