Known for big, dumb mouth

Jan 1st, 2019 11:17 am | By

Why did Cyrus Trump fling that tweet full of childish insults at McChrystal? Because McChrystal pointed out that Cyrus Trump doesn’t tell the truth.

“‘General’ McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama,” Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. “Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover!”

Trump was retweeting a post from Fox News’ Laura Ingraham sharing a story headlined “Media Didn’t Like McChrystal Until He Started Bashing Trump.”

The commander in chief’s name-calling comes after McChrystal said during an interview Sunday that Trump was dishonest and immoral.

“I don’t think he tells the truth,” McChrystal told ABC’s Martha Raddatz on “This Week.” When asked if he thought Trump was immoral, McChrystal responded: “I think he is.”

It’s so typical of Trump to react to being called untruthful and immoral by barfing out a string of untrue insults on a public platform. “Call me immoral?? I’ll show you immoral! Call me a liar?! I’ll show you lies!!”



The return of King Cyrus

Jan 1st, 2019 10:46 am | By

Katherine Stewart points out that some militant Christians see Trump as a new King Cyrus.

Cyrus, in case you’ve forgotten, was born in the sixth century B.C.E. and became the first emperor of Persia. Isaiah 45 celebrates Cyrus for freeing a population of Jews who were held captive in Babylon. Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful.

The point is, you see, that it doesn’t matter whether Cyrus is a good person or not, the point is what he does for The Believers, who are the only people who matter.

As the Trump presidency falls under siege on multiple fronts, it has become increasingly clear that the so-called values voters will be among the last to leave the citadel. A lot of attention has been paid to the supposed paradox of evangelicals backing such an imperfect man, but the real problem is that our idea of Christian nationalism hasn’t caught up with the reality. We still buy the line that the hard core of the Christian right is just an interest group working to protect its values. But what we don’t get is that Mr. Trump’s supposedly anti-Christian attributes and anti-democratic attributes are a vital part of his attraction.

Today’s Christian nationalists talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and America’s founders, but at bottom they sound as if they prefer autocrats to democrats. In fact, what they really want is a king. “It is God that raises up a king,” according to Paula White, a prosperity gospel preacher who has advised Mr. Trump.

What they like, in short, is the absolute power. They like the dominance, the force, the tough guy. What else is God, after all? The ultimate bully, tyrant, thug, dictator. God is a shit. God creates inferior beings in order to make them suffer for eternity because they don’t crawl to him in the correct way. Trump would do that if he could.

The great thing about kings like Cyrus, as far as today’s Christian nationalists are concerned, is that they don’t have to follow rules. They are the law. This makes them ideal leaders in paranoid times.

“When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?” Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, asked in 2016. If you’re hearing those boxcars pulling up in the distance, as it were, you don’t merely overlook the antisocial qualities of a prospective leader, you embrace them as virtues.

It is, of course, more of a guy thing. Much more.

Another important thing to understand about Cyrus is that he is not a queen. In the Christian nationalist world, legitimate political power is largely male power. Mr. Drollinger insists that the Bible describes only “male leadership.”

So from that point of view, Trump’s contempt for women is a plus, because the only alternative to contempt for women is being ruled by queens.

This isn’t the religious right we thought we knew. The Christian nationalist movement today is authoritarian, paranoid and patriarchal at its core. They aren’t fighting a culture war. They’re making a direct attack on democracy itself.

They want it all. And in Mr. Trump, they have found a man who does not merely serve their cause, but also satisfies their craving for a certain kind of political leadership.

Short version: they love a bully.



Messages from a padded cell

Jan 1st, 2019 10:14 am | By

25th Amendment time. Seriously.



$1000 a ticket

Dec 31st, 2018 5:29 pm | By

While federal workers go unpaid and soybean farmers wonder who will buy their crop now, we are paying for the tents at Trump’s party at Mar-a-Lago.

While the president has vowed to remain in Washington as the government shutdown continues, his swanky party at the Florida resort will go on regardless. And, as Quartz reported, it will be funded in large part by American taxpayers. The news outlet found expenses for the party on government spending records, showing that a little more than $54,000 went to a tent rental company from Delray Beach, Florida, which confirmed that it was for Trump’s New Year’s Eve party. The purchase was officially made by the U.S. Secret Service, which is in charge of security arrangements when Trump travels to his resort.

Donald Trump’s exclusive New Year’s Eve party came under fire last year, especially after taxpayers picked up a bill of more than $26,000 for renting lights, generators, tables, and tents at the soiree. Trump has also cashed in big since becoming president, the Press Herald reported. Ticket prices for the party jumped by 25 percent, reaching $1,000 for those who are not members of Mar-a-Lago. Members will still have to pay $650 to attend, which is on top of the club’s $200,000 initiation fee, which doubled the year Trump became president.

Interesting. He’s raking in the bucks for the party, while we help pay the party’s expenses. Nice little grift he’s got there.

“This type of naked profiteering off of a government office is what I would expect from King Louis XVI or his modern kleptocratic equivalents, not an American president,” said Norm Eisen, former White House ethics lawyer under Barack Obama.

Image result for money



No they’re not

Dec 31st, 2018 5:08 pm | By

Sigh.



An invisible 10-foot wall

Dec 31st, 2018 11:36 am | By

Headlines can be funny. Headline in the Post:

Trump claims there’s a 10-foot wall around the Obamas’ D.C. home. Neighbors say there’s not.

Immediately below the headline there’s a photo of the house which clearly shows there’s no 10-foot wall around it. The “Neighbors say” is otiose when we can see for ourselves that there’s not.

Anyway.

In one of his most recent arguments for a southern border wall, President Trump on Sunday falsely claimed that the Washington home of former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama is surrounded by a 10-foot wall.

Damn, talk about other minds. Dude, the house exists and people can see it! We can all see your big dumb stupid lie!

He might as well say the Capitol is painted orange or the Washington monument has sprouted wings.

Some found the president’s tweet irresponsible. Fred Guttenberg, the father of one of students killed in the Parkland school shooting, tweeted, “Are you seriously trying to put our former President at risk?”

The Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s tweet and security risks Monday morning.

A spokesman for the Obamas declined to comment on Trump’s tweet, and the White House did not respond to an email requesting more context on Trump’s claim that there is a wall around the property.

“More context” – what other context could there be? “Trump makes shit up” is merely what we already know.



Bird view

Dec 31st, 2018 11:10 am | By



It’s not just that it’s not funny

Dec 31st, 2018 10:32 am | By

It seems Louis CK is back, and Matthew Dessem at Slate has heard the bootlegged tape.

And what he’s been up to, judging from the material, is bemoaning the money he lost, fuming over young people and political correctness, and writing some really killer jokes about the respective penis sizes of various ethnic groups. It’s not just that it’s not funny: it’s positively sickening. Here, for example, is the way C.K. ends a bit about visiting his doctor (described earlier in the joke as old, and Jewish, and touchy-feely):

And he said, “You need to stop eating ice cream.” I said, “You need to go fuck yourself. And don’t ever touch me again, you old faggot. You old fucking Jewish fag. Get your fucking hands off me.” You’re fucking with my ice cream, I get upset.

Transgressive. Or is it just – you know – what it looks like? Venom?

Whatever you think about C.K.’s past use of slurs in his act, his old material at least made some attempt to think about what they meant. There’s no payoff here except for the slur itself: The entire joke is that he’s so mad about not being able to eat ice cream that he’ll casually use it, even with someone who—as he spends the whole build-up establishing—he otherwise likes. It’s cheap and it’s hacky. But it has nothing on the five solid minutes (!) he devotes to lamenting the fact that people have stopped using the word retarded. After reminiscing about how often people said it during his childhood—and saying it over and over again himself, sometimes in a comically exaggerated Boston accent—he lands on this:

But we started to feel shitty about it, so we changed it to intellectually challenged. What the fuck, it’s—don’t name the kid a thing he can’t say out loud. An intellectual challenge is can you translate Shakespeare into Latin and make it rhyme. These kids are not intellectually challenged, they’re intellectually fuckin’ done. They are! It’s not their sport!

Etcetera.

C.K. is doing a George Carlin thing, acting like he’s telling forbidden truths, but spends five minutes riffing on “Christ, people with intellectual disabilities are stupid.” So stupid, in fact, that, according to C.K., “They don’t give a fuck what you think of them,” if anyone was looking for a permission slip to go back to using a slur. And speaking of people who don’t give a fuck what you think of them, Louis C.K. is such a rebel that he doesn’t give a fuck what you think of him, as he made clear, seemingly in response to someone leaving or giving him a dirty look around four minutes into his killer material at the expense of the intellectually disabled:

What’re you, gonna take away my birthday? My life is over, I don’t give a shit. You can, you can be offended, it’s OK. You can get mad at me. Anyway. So why do black guys have big dicks? Let’s talk about that for a minute.

He’ll probably be Trump’s next press secretary.



If that means nails and dresses

Dec 31st, 2018 10:01 am | By

This isn’t particularly terrible in the great scheme of things, but…

…but it irritates.

Why does it irritate? The public announcement of plans for self-absorption, for one thing. “My major resolution for 2019 is to spend more time contemplating the glory of me.” That and the fact that it’s presented as right-on and enlightened. That, to my mind, is one of the most glaring problems with the ideology of transitude: the way it flips narcissism into a progressive ideal. News flash, “folx”: narcissism is the opposite of progressive. Always. Obsessing over your very own Special Rose-scented Idennidee cannot possibly be progressive. Self-obsession takes you nowhere but to greed and self-dealing.

The other is the shallow brainless antifeminist idea that “gender identity” is All About Nails and Dresses. As many actual feminists responded, try instead doing all the domestic work and getting yelled at in the street and being talked over by the men at work – then you might begin to have a clue. Mister Nails and Dresses responded by blocking all those actual feminists. Of course he did.



The organizing team will take time for more outreach

Dec 30th, 2018 4:09 pm | By

Ah I found the source of the Eureka march story.

HERE IT IS ON FACEBOOK

The below PSA has just been released. Thank you to the women and men who helped make this decision.

Humboldt County organizers and supporters of the annual Women’s March have decided to not hold a rally in Eureka on January 19th. This decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march.

The local organizers are continuing to meet and discuss how to broaden representation in the organizing committee to create an event that represents and supports peoples who live here in Humboldt. Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community. Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community.

The group is exploring holding an event in March to celebrate International Women’s Day. Anyone interested in helping organize these events are welcome and encouraged to attend.

The Eureka Women’s March organizing committee encourages local supporters to attend the Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration in Eureka on January 21, Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

One commenter strongly approves:

I applaud the decision… I have boycotted the march since the beginning as it has been a process that by default has incorporated institutional racism, transphobia and a lack of support of sex workers…This group LISTENED to community members. This march has unfortunately, intentionally or not, become an event that silences any voice that is not a cis white woman’s voice. White woman voices are NOT the only voices and I intend to support a group that is trying to create space and voice for those not included.

How, I wonder, does a march become a process that by default incorporates transphobia and a lack of support of sex workers. How does the commenter know, for instance, that the march and the organizers are not rich in trans people and sex workers?

In all fairness, I agree that the organizers shouldn’t all be white; I agree that the march should be rainbow as hell. I just don’t think cancellation is the way to go, because I don’t see how they can tell the march itself will be all white or too white simply because the organizers are.

Putin is probably putting these stories in his scrapbook.



A necessary quality for leadership

Dec 30th, 2018 11:52 am | By

Expect new Trump eruptions today: top military guy says Trump is crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

Retired four-star Gen. Stanley McChrystal did not mince words about President Donald Trump in a wide-ranging interview with ABC’s “This Week,” saying the president is dishonest and immoral and adding that he could not work for Trump.

“I don’t think he tells the truth,” McChrystal told ABC’s Martha Raddatz who questioned the general on whether he feels Trump is a liar.

When asked if Trump is immoral, McChrystal said: “I think he is.”

Trump slaps his immorality out there on Twitter every day. A moral person doesn’t talk to and about people the way Trump does, especially from a position of power.

Having recently published “Leaders: Myth and Reality,” McChrystal took issue with Trump’s leadership style. He mentioned a necessary quality for leadership in his mind — a leader being willing to sacrifice himself for others.

“I have to believe that the people I’m working for would do that, whether we disagree on a lot of other things,” McChrystal said. “I’m not convinced from the behavior that I’ve seen that that’s the case here.”

Understatement. I think we’re all quite convinced, from the behavior we’ve seen and read about, that that’s not the case here. Trump wouldn’t sacrifice himself for others to the extent of a paper cut or a mosquito bite.

McChrystal said, if asked, he would reject the opportunity to work in the Trump administration.

“I think it’s important for me to work for people who I think are basically honest, who tell the truth as best they know it,” he said.

“I’m very tolerant of people who make mistakes because I make so many of them — and I’ve been around leaders who’ve made mistakes … but through all of them, I almost never saw people trying to get it wrong. And I almost never saw people who were openly disingenuous on things.”

“Openly disingenuous” – it should be an oxymoron, but Trump makes it work.



Primary sources

Dec 30th, 2018 11:38 am | By

This Eureka Women’s March story is starting to piss me off, because it’s broken out of the far-right enclave now but I still can’t find a primary source – neither the Facebook group nor the putative press release.

The Washington Post for instance – it just repeats the reporting without linking to the sources it cites.

Organizers of the 2019 Eureka Women’s March, originally scheduled for Jan. 19, said in a statement that the decision came after numerous conversations with leading local activists and supporters of the march.

“Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,” the Facebook statement read. “Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.”

Did it? Did the Facebook statement read that way? Where is it? Why not link to it?

This seems like pretty crappy journalistic practice.

While many of the Facebook group’s members applauded the organizers’ efforts to diversify the rally, others expressed dissatisfaction with the decision.

“Local Organizers have let themselves be duped, What kind of crowd do they expect when you have 77.86% of the population being White?” group member Terri Selfridge commented on the post that announced the cancellation of the march. “Organizers PLEASE RECONSIDER!!!”

Newsweek did the same thing.

It’s annoying.

Monday: Updating to add: I did find the Facebook group later in the day.



Why can’t we do this thing that’s against the law?

Dec 30th, 2018 10:39 am | By

John Kelly on his way out says hey Trump never ordered him to do anything illegal.

White House chief of staff John Kelly, who will depart President Donald Trump’s administration on Wednesday, told The Los Angeles Times in an extensive interview published Sunday that the president never ordered him to do anything illegal and added that the proposed border wall at the center of the government shutdown fight is not as it has been portrayed.

Listen, he also never sliced people’s arms off with a sword, so good news, right?

Kelly, set to be replaced by Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who will serve as acting chief of staff, said he made sure the president had access to detailed information prior to making decisions, even though the president says publicly that he goes with his gut instinct.

“It’s never been: The president just wants to make a decision based on no knowledge and ignorance,” Kelly said. “You may not like his decision, but at least he was fully informed on the impact.”

Nope, not buying that. Kelly may have “made sure the president had access to detailed information” but that doesn’t mean Trump paid any attention to it. Kelly may have “fully informed” Trump in the sense of saying things to him and putting things in front of him, but that doesn’t mean Trump took a blind bit of notice. Do we think Trump can take in information? No we do not. We think Trump lives in his own head and hears only maybe 5% of what anyone says to him.

The retired Marine general said Trump often pressed him on his legal authority to do certain actions, asking, “Why can’t we do [something] this way?” Kelly added that he was not ordered to carry out any illegal action “because we wouldn’t have.”

Not because “it would be wrong” but “because we wouldn’t have.” Ringing endorsement of the character and integrity of the sack of hot air sitting in the White House.



The scale of the president’s mendacity

Dec 30th, 2018 10:17 am | By

Linda Qiu takes a look at The Year in Trump Lies.

Here at The New York Times, we have also fact-checked countless campaign rallies, news conferences, interviews and Twitter posts. After nearly two years of assessing the accuracy of Mr. Trump’s statements, we can draw some conclusions not just about the scale of the president’s mendacity, but also about how he uses inaccurate claims to advance his agenda, criticize the news media and celebrate his achievements.

One, he repeats his lies instead of admitting they are lies.

Examples abound. He has falsely characterized the December 2017 tax cuts as the “largest” or the “biggest” in American history over 100 times (several others were larger). He has misleadingly said over 90 times that his promised wall along the southern border is being built (construction has not begunon any new section). He has falsely accused Democrats of supporting “open borders” over 60 times (Democratic lawmakers support border security, but not his border wall). And he has lobbed over 250 inaccurate attacks on the investigation into Russian election interference.

Two, he embellishes and amplifies his lies.

Take his repeated fabrication about the construction of new steel mills. After his administration announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in March, the president claimed in June that United States Steel was “opening six new plants.” A month later, the number rose to seven. He has also occasionally cited eight, possibly nine or a vague “many plants,” and he claimed once that plants were “opening up literally on a daily basis.” To date, United States Steel has yet to open or build one new plant, though the company has restarted idled components of some plants.

On the one hand, a plant every day; on the other hand, zero plants. That’s quite a gap.

Three, he adapts his claims as new evidence becomes public.

Four, he deploys the army of straw men.

The usual target of this particular strain of falsehoods is the news media, which Mr. Trump suggests purposely underestimates or misinterprets him.

Mr. Trump often lauds strong job growth under his watch and says that the “fake news” would have deemed such numbers “impossible” or “ridiculous” during the 2016 campaign. Yet he neglects to mention that the number of jobs added in the 22 months after his inauguration — 4.2 million — is lower than the 4.8 million jobs added in the 22 months before he took office, undermining the premise of his retrodiction.

Well he knows his fans aren’t going to look it up.



They all want to subordinate women

Dec 29th, 2018 4:20 pm | By

Peter Beinart says the authoritarian nationalist wave has one commonality:

[B]esides their hostility to liberal democracy, the right-wing autocrats taking power across the world share one big thing, which often goes unrecognized in the U.S.: They all want to subordinate women.

To understand global Trumpism, argues Valerie M. Hudson, a political scientist at Texas A&M, it’s vital to remember that for most of human history, leaders and their male subjects forged a social contract: “Men agreed to be ruled by other men in return for all men ruling over women.” This political hierarchy appeared natural—as natural as adults ruling children—because it mirrored the hierarchy of the home. Thus, for millennia, men, and many women, have associated male dominance with political legitimacy. Women’s empowerment ruptures this order.

But then you pause to ask why “the hierarchy of the home” seemed natural. Maybe it’s just because of the dimorphism: male humans dominate female humans just as male gorillas dominate female gorillas. Then again humans aren’t gorillas, and bonobos do things somewhat differently, so maybe it’s not that simple.

Because male dominance is deeply linked to political legitimacy, many revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries have used the specter of women’s power to discredit the regime they sought to overthrow. Then, once in power themselves, they have validated their authority by reducing women’s rights. In a 1995 paper, Arthur Gilbert and James Cole of the University of Denver observed that French revolutionaries made Marie Antoinette a symbol of the immorality of the ancien régime and that Iranian revolutionaries did the same to Princess Ashraf, the “unveiled and powerful” sister of the shah. After toppling the monarchy, the French revolutionaries banned women from holding senior teaching positions and inheriting property. Ayatollah Khamenei made it a crime for women to speak on the radio or appear unveiled in public.

And the Arab spring “revolutions” went the same way.

In their book, The Hillary Doctrine, Valerie Hudson and Patricia Leidl note that when the Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi replaced the longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Morsi quickly announced that he would abolish the quota guaranteeing women’s seats in parliament, overturn a ban on female circumcision, and make it harder for women to divorce an abusive husband. After Muammar Qaddafi’s ouster, the first law that Libya’s new government repealed was the one banning polygamy.

On the one hand women must be kept away from any kind of power, on the other hand their fathers and husbands must be empowered to treat them like shit. No to seats in parliament, yes to female genital mutilation.

Commentators sometimes describe Trump’s alliance with the Christian right as incongruous given his libertine history. But whatever their differences when it comes to the proper behavior of men, Trump and his evangelical backers are united by a common desire to constrain the behavior of women.

To be honest, that’s putting it too mildly. Trump doesn’t want to just constrain the behavior of women, he wants to degrade them, grind them into the dirt, monster them, put targets on them. His contempt for women is visceral and intense.

Beinart concludes that to break this pattern it’s necessary to start with the hierarchy at home.

Compare the United States, the Philippines, Brazil, Hungary, and Poland with the countries of northern Europe, where women’s political power has become more normal. In 2017, women made up 48 percent of Iceland’s parliament. In Sweden, the share was 44 percent; in Finland, 42 percent; and in Norway, 40 percent. In the countries that have recently elected gender-backlash authoritarians, the rates are lower, ranging from Italy’s 31 percent to Hungary’s 10 percent. This doesn’t mean a Nordic Orbán or Bolsonaro is impossible: Northern Europe has its own far-right parties. But it’s harder for those parties to use gender to delegitimize the existing political order, because women’s political empowerment no longer appears illegitimate.

It no longer appears illegitimate, in large measure, because gender equality has become more normalized in the home. In 2018, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published the amount of time per day that women and men spent doing unpaid household chores such as cleaning, shopping, and child care. If you calculate the gender gap in each country, a pattern emerges. There is a striking correlation between countries where women and men behave more equally in the home and countries where women are more equally represented in government.

Feminists have always known that.



The future participants are the wrong sort

Dec 29th, 2018 12:30 pm | By

Errr…what?

News from northern California:

The organizers of the annual Women’s March have decided not to hold a rally in Eureka on Jan. 19, as previously planned, because they say participants do not represent the diversity of the area.

Excuse me? How can they possibly know that? People at a march can just show up, and the organizers can’t know in advance how “diverse” they are or aren’t.

“This decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march,” organizers said in a press release.

They said organizers will continue to meet and discuss how to broaden representation to create an event that represents Humboldt County.

“Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,” the press release went on to say. “Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community.”

Or they could just go ahead with the march and see who shows up.

On the other hand, this source is a Sinclair tv station, and all the other sources I found are extreme-right (Breitbart, Free Republic, etc). I can’t find the press release itself, only extreme-right outlets quoting from it. I can’t find the march on Facebook, although last year’s is there. I’m not sure how reliable or accurate this is. If it is, I remain curious how they can know a march is too white before the march happens.



Ideological fitness tests are applied for political purposes

Dec 29th, 2018 11:51 am | By

People tried hard to de-platform Caroline Norma but they didn’t quite get there.

Five days before I was scheduled to speak at a conference on Historical Materialism at the University of Sydney, I received an email from the organizers, explaining that they had refunded my registration fee and struck me from the conference program. They told me that comments I’d made in an online opinion piece three years earlier made my attendance inconsistent with “the commitment of the Historical Materialism Sydney conference organizers to creating an inclusive space for people with diverse gender identities.” In the greatest of ironies, my piece had criticized leftists for playing wedge politics in order to purge radical feminists from progressive circles. The conference was certainly a leftist one: its title, “Historical Materialism,” refers to a Marxist view of history as emerging out of social relations and their contradictions, rather than out of enlightened progress. In keeping with this politically structuralist theme, and as an historian who has written books from a similar standpoint, I’d proposed the talk, “Keeping alive the myth of property in the person: Prostitution in today’s capitalism.”

It’s almost funny that organizers of a conference on historical materialism tried to shoo away a scheduled speaker because she doesn’t genuflect to magical claims about “gender.”

Dr Norma did give her talk, but she was the only person on the panel, because the two other women skunked.

They might have been influenced by an “open letter” posted to social media demanding I be no-platformed from the event and encouraging attendees to boycott my presentation. Indeed, it was mostly boycotted. To date, I have received no word of apology from either the University of Sydney or conference organizers for this slight on my professional reputation, or for their breach of principles of academic good conduct…

Well, reputation, principles, academic good conduct…they’re not materialist enough. Gender, on the other hand…

We know from the history of left organizing that ideological fitness tests are applied deliberately for political purposes. They are applied for the benefit of the people whose interests a movement is seeking to advance. How they are applied clearly signals who is being prioritized.

As to whose interests the Australian left is pursuing, the antics over my attendance at the Historical Materialism Sydney conference gave the game away. Questioning the notion that gender is a matter of how we feel about ourselves, rather than a matter of how we have been systematically treated throughout our lives, was turned into a crime more serious than ignoring tens of thousands of Asian women in brothels on every street corner of Australia’s cities. But the comedic disproportion of this scenario wasn’t accidental. It was manufactured in service of male interests that are now coming under pressure from feminist challenge.

Over the last few years, the Australian left has seen the #MeToo and violence against women movements become entrenched causes of its constituents — young female ones in particular. This growing movement poses a threat to the interests of the male left, which have always ignored violence against women and been sexually libertarian in nature.

Gender bollocks as cover for male sexual violence…but then why do so many women sign up? Massive social pressure is one reason, but I’m not sure that’s all. The history remains to be written.



Let them eat surplus cheese

Dec 29th, 2018 9:38 am | By

Of course he did.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Friday freezing federal workers’ pay for 2019, following through on a proposal he announced earlier in the year.

The move, which nixes a 2.1% across-the-board pay raise that was set to take effect in January, comes as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are expecting to begin the new year furloughed or working without pay because of a partial government shutdown.

Trump told lawmakers he planned to scrap the 2019 pay bump for federal workers in August, saying the federal budget couldn’t support it. In addition to the 2.1% pay increase, the executive order also cancels a yearly adjustment of paychecks based on the region of the country where workers are posted, called the “locality pay increase,” that was due to take effect in January.

Right; the federal budget can support a giant tax cut for the rich, and it can support paying for Trump to swan off to Florida nearly every weekend and Secret Service for his kids’ business trips, but it can’t support a tiny pay rise for federal workers at a time when housing costs and medical costs and education costs are soaring way beyond what we are told is the official inflation rate.

About 380,000 federal employees are on furlough and 420,000 are working without pay as the new year approaches.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders in August, Trump described the pay increase as “inappropriate.”

“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,” the President wrote.

But it can sustain reckless tax cuts on the rich and reckless spending on the military and Wall. Sure.



Taking a wrecking ball to decorum

Dec 28th, 2018 4:34 pm | By

Well that’s one way to put it.

In his first two years in office, President Donald Trump has rewritten the rules of the presidency and the norms of the nation’s capital, casting aside codes of conduct and traditions that have held for generations.

In Trump’s Washington, facts are less relevant. Insults and highly personal attacks are increasingly employed by members of both parties. The White House press briefing is all but gone, international summits are optional, the arts are an afterthought and everything — including inherently nonpartisan institutions and investigations — is suddenly political.

The thing is, though, Trump hasn’t actually rewritten any rules; he hasn’t done anything that thoughtful, and he couldn’t if he wanted to, because he doesn’t have the equipment. He doesn’t rewrite rules, he simply ignores them and does what he wants to do. He really is that stupid and headlong and childish. A bull in a china shop hasn’t rewritten the rules, he’s simply barged around the way a bull does. That’s Trump.

Taking a wrecking ball to decorum and institutions, Trump has changed, in ways both subtle and profound, how Washington works and how it is viewed by the rest of the nation and world.

Yes, that’s much closer.

I’m being picky but I think we need to be very careful not to attribute planning or forethought or any kind of thought to what Trump does, because we need to keep constantly in mind just how vacant his mind is. Know the enemy.

“He’s dynamited the institution of the presidency,” said Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian at Rice University. “He doesn’t see himself as being part of a long litany of presidents who will hand a baton to a successor. Instead, he uses the presidency as an extension of his own personality.”

Not “litany”; that’s the wrong word. Line. But anyway dynamited, yes. Tear up the drawing of Trump rewriting rules and substitute the drawing of a huge explosion.

Trump’s tweets often trade in public insults that modern presidents just don’t share in public: The Senate minority leader is “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer.” The media are “the enemy of the people.” His own former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, is “dumb as a rock.”

And that level of insult, at times veering into the coarse and the crass, has bled into the dialogue of official Washington. Outgoing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, weeks before he resigned in a cloud of ethics scandals, tweeted that a Democratic congressman had struggled “to think straight from the bottom of a bottle.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats this month that the border wall was a “manhood” issue for the president.

Oh come on. You can’t compare Trump’s Twitter insults, including “little Adam Schitt,” to Pelosi telling colleagues the wall is a manhood issue. She didn’t tweet it, and it’s not remotely as crass and childish.

He’s trashed the place like a drunken frat boy. The rules remain unrewritten.



And I’m Marie of Romania

Dec 28th, 2018 3:54 pm | By

Do women actually act like this? I don’t mean aren’t all women naturally gentle and benevolent at all times, because of course we’re not, but do we act like this? In my experience no, we don’t, not ever, because we can’t. We just can’t. We wouldn’t get away with it, it wouldn’t work, no one would put up with it for a second, no one would be intimidated by it, no one would keep saying “I apologize, ma’am,” no one would just stand there while we kicked a display to the floor.

Men, though? Even some men who are not bad guys, but…they nevertheless let themselves lose their temper that way, and shout that way, and intimidate everyone in sight that way.

Shouty Guy in Store Tantrum is doing what too many guys do. It’s kind of a giveaway, “ma’am.”