Kavanaugh wouldn’t say

Sep 7th, 2018 10:36 am | By

Kavanaugh is being very deferential to Trump.

Justice Neil Gorsuch called President Trump’s personal attacks on federal judges “demoralizing” during his confirmation hearing last year. “When someone criticizes the honesty, the integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening,” Gorsuch said, adding: “I’ve gone as far as I can go ethically.”

Not very far, but far enough for Trump to fly into a rage and talk about withdrawing the nomination. (He had to be talked out of it.) Kavanaugh is being way more prudent.

The president’s second nominee for the Supreme Court demurred, for example, when asked whether it was appropriate for Trump to say that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “mind is shot” when he called for her to resign.

“I’m not going to get within three Zip codes” of answering that question, he replied.

Kavanaugh wouldn’t say if it’s okay for Trump to say that the Justice Department should not prosecute Republicans because it will hurt their chances of holding the House in the midterms.

He also refused to say that it was inappropriate for Trump to insist that Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly adjudicate a fraud lawsuit against Trump University because he is the son of Mexican immigrants. Speaker Paul Ryan once called this “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

One way to view this is as a potential justice being carefully apolitical. Another way is to view it as being way too loyal to his benefactor (who happens to be a blatant criminal on a national scale).

But the nominee’s steadfast unwillingness to even mildly distance himself from Trump’s sustained attacks on the third branch of government, despite being given dozens of opportunities to do so by senators in both parties over the course of 24 hours in the hot seat, means that the question lingers of how independent he’ll be once confirmed to the highest court in the land.

Also…

Several Democratic senators expressed concern that Trump did not add Kavanaugh — widely known in legal circles as an outspoken critic of investigations into sitting presidents — to his list of potential Supreme Court picks until last November— six months after the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

“In this age of President Donald Trump, this expansive view of presidential power takes on added significance,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Because Trump has chosen a justice who will be ruling on any case to do with Trump’s immunity from prosecution. The state of play seems to be that no matter what Trump has done – even if evidence turns up showing that he has committed mass murder – he gets a pass as long as he’s president, and Republicans refuse to remove him as president for any reason whatsoever.



Dude’s a symptom

Sep 7th, 2018 10:19 am | By

Obama has Said the Name.

Former President Obama on Friday delivered a blistering criticism of the political tactics of his successor President Trump, saying he had built on the fears of the powerful as they look to diminishing importance in a rapidly changing nation.

“It did not start with Donald Trump,” Obama said during a noon speech at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “He is a symptom not the cause. He’s just capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years, the fear and anger that’s rooted in our past.”

Naturally; Trump isn’t intelligent enough to originate anything. But by god he does have a talent for connecting with The Evil in people, and drawing it out and amplifying it.



Apparently Giuliani is the boss of everything

Sep 6th, 2018 5:44 pm | By

Giuliani says Trump will not answer questions. Mind you he’s been saying that for weeks, but maybe now he’s saying it for real no backsies.

President Donald Trump will not answer federal investigators’ questions, in writing or in person, about whether he tried to block the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, one of the president’s attorneys told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said questions about obstruction of justice were a “no-go.”

Because look: he stole the election fair and square and now he’s in there and you can’t do a damn thing about it so ha.

Giuliani’s statement was the most definitive rejection yet of special counsel Robert Mueller’s efforts to interview the president about any efforts to obstruct the investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Russians.

Most definitive how? Jonathan Lemire doesn’t say.

If the legal team holds its stance, it could force Mueller to try to subpoena the president, likely triggering a standoff that would lead to the Supreme Court.

And that’s why Trump nominated Kavanaugh.

Mueller’s office has previously sought to interview the president about the obstruction issue, including his firing last year of former FBI Director James Comey and his public attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump’s legal team has argued that the president has the power to hire and fire appointees and the special counsel does not have the authority to ask him to explain those decisions. Giuliani said Thursday the team was steadfast in that position.

So it’s basically just “I can because I can and it doesn’t matter how corrupt and criminal it is, you can’t touch me, so ha.” In other words the US is an authoritarian kleptocracy and that’s the end of it.

Though the president has publicly said he was eager to face questions from Mueller, his lawyers have been far more reluctant to make him available for an interview and have questioned whether Mueller has the right to ask him about actions that he is authorized, under the Constitution, to take as president.

This is what I mean; this is fucked up. We shouldn’t be having a criminal guy who does criminal things telling us we can’t touch him because of the Constitution – the one that he 1. knows nothing about and 2. shits on every chance he gets. We shouldn’t have thug Giuliani thugging around the place and telling us the thugs can do whatever they want. This is ALL WRONG.



Flores? Who’s that? Some illegal?

Sep 6th, 2018 2:22 pm | By

Just in case you were worried that the Trump mob is too busy looking for moles to keep on torturing people they don’t like – worry no more: they’re still at it.

The Trump administration announced a new rule Thursday that would allow immigrant children with their parents to be held in detention indefinitely, upending a ban on indefinite detention that has been in place for 20 years.

The rule, proposed by the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, goes into effect in 60 days and will allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to keep children with their mothers in detention facilities while their cases for asylum play out in court.

A DHS official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the purpose of the rulemaking is to terminate the 1997 Flores settlement agreement that said children could not be held in detention longer than 20 days. The result may mean the issue is taken to appellate courts or even the Supreme Court.

There’s always time to get rid of regulations that protect vulnerable people. Always.



Eat the poor

Sep 6th, 2018 12:04 pm | By

This is what those “unsung heroes” who are secretly trying to keep Trump from smashing all the porcelain are actually doing: giving huge tax cuts to billionaires while seeing to it that poor people are thrown out of the food stamps program. Please tell us more about how noble and courageous they are.

Nearly two million low-income Americans, including 469,000 households with young children, would be stripped of benefits under the House version of the farm bill being considered this week by congressional negotiators, according to an analysis by a nonpartisan research firm.

The bill, a multiyear spending measure that narrowly passed the House in June, includes a proposal to reformulate income and expense criteria for the 42 million recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Under the bill, states could remove about 8 percent of those receiving aid from the rolls, according to the research firm, Mathematica, which used data from the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service.

Yeah! Stick it to those disgusting losers who don’t have much money, oh and by the way Trump will be needing Air Force One for another golfing/shopping/ranting trip today/tomorrow/over the weekend.

About 34 percent of seniors in the program, or 677,000 households, would lose benefits under the proposal, according to the study. More than one in 10 people with a disability, another 214,000 households, would also lose eligibility.

Good! They should be out digging for coal; it builds character.

Those estimates do not account for another proposal in the measure, which would impose strict new work requirements on beneficiaries. An additional 1.2 million people could be stripped of aid under that plan, according to a separate analysis released in May by the Congressional Budget Office, the study’s authors said.

President Trump favors imposing stricter requirements on adult recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, and has disparagingly described beneficiaries as “welfare” recipients.

On Wednesday, he called for lawmakers to adopt the House version of the bill, which also includes billions in subsidies for agricultural states in the Midwest.

“The Trump Economy is booming with the help of House and Senate GOP,” he wrote on Twitter. “#FarmBill with SNAP work requirements will bolster farmers and get America back to work. Pass the Farm Bill with SNAP work requirements!”

Then he went back to watching tv.



Unwavering faith

Sep 6th, 2018 11:48 am | By

Ahh good, he still has support from a friend.

 



Catch 22 22 22 22

Sep 6th, 2018 11:15 am | By

The Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearing are throwing down.

On Day 1, Senate Democrats tried to stop the hearing before it even started. On Day 3, they went into full-on revolt: One by one, starting with Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), they threatened to release confidential documents about President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“I am going to release the email about racial profiling, and I understand the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate,” he said. Within the hour, Booker did just that.

Other Democratic senators soon joined in, threatening to release confidential emails and documents from Kavanaugh’s time as a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) cheered them on via Twitter.

Because they shouldn’t be confidential.

Within the hour, Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) released another email chain from Kavanaugh in 2002, with him debating whether Native Hawaiians should have the same protection as Indian tribes. The words “Committee Confidential” are stamped diagonally across each page.

“I would defy anyone reading this document to conclude this document should be deemed confidential in any way, shape or form,” she said.

Wait, there’s more.

These are two of tens of thousands of documents a lawyer for Bush who is vetting the Kavanaugh documents marked as confidential, meaning members of the Senate Judiciary Committee can see them, but the public cannot.

Practically, for Booker, that meant he could not display an email in which Kavanaugh discussed government racial profiling in 2002 when he used it Wednesday to try to pin down the nominee on his views of the policy. Republicans on the committee immediately raised a point of order during Booker’s questioning, claiming that the senator was unfairly cross-examining Kavanaugh without providing him the documents. They argued that Kavanaugh could not respond to specific questions about this email if he did not have the email in front of him.

He doesn’t have it in front of him because the Republicans have classified everything!

Make America a mob state again.



“If you want to know who this gutless loser is”

Sep 6th, 2018 11:03 am | By

Sarah Sanders ventriloquising the lunatic she works for:

The media’s wild obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great Americans who proudly serve our country and work for President Trump. Stop. If you want to know who this gutless loser is, call the opinion desk of the failing NYT at 212-556-1234 and ask them. They are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act. We stand united together and fully support our President Donald J. Trump.

We might as well be brawling in a bar.



You can try to understand your own unique gender for you

Sep 6th, 2018 10:16 am | By

Ok, now I get it! At last I understand what is meant by “gender identity.” One Justin Hancock created a chart last year that explains it all.

What’s Your Gender?

You get to choose your gender your gender identity, whether you are a he/she/they or zie and you get to choose how you want to do your own gender. This is true no matter what body you may have, or what chromosomes you may have or how you feel about your body.

You can work out your gender by learning some more about different identities and seeing if any of those fit you, or you can try to understand your own unique gender for you. Hopefully you will find this useful.

Gender Scales

First of all have a look at these scales.

I did. I looked, and saw, and all was explained.

gender scales BISH

look masculine………………….Look feminine

rational………..emotional

tough………soft

takes charge…………takes part

independent…………sharer

head strong……….sensitive

active……….passive

outgoing…………shy

There you have it – that’s gender, and where you place yourself on that dotted line is your Gender Identity. We know which is meant to be which because of the helpful “masculine…..feminine” on the first line.

Now, you may have thought that all those adjectives (plus one pair of verbs + adjective) were simply more or less crude descriptions of personality, character, habits, and the like – but no no no, those are Gender Identifiers on a highly technical scientific chart of Gender Scales. Just plot your position on each line and then…um…I guess tell us in great detail what your position is on each, so that we will understand exactly, I mean exactly, what your Gender Identity is.

Nailed it.



Kelly scurried in and out

Sep 6th, 2018 9:37 am | By

Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman give us a look inside the West Wing in the aftermath of the “We are the unsung heroes” editorial yesterday.

Mr. Trump erupted in anger after reading the Op-Ed article and John F. Kelly, the chief of staff, and other aides scurried in and out of the press office trying to figure out how to respond. Advisers told Mr. Trump that this was the same as leakers who talk with the news media every day, but a hunt for the author of the offending article was quickly initiated and scrutiny focused on a half-dozen names. Aides said they assumed it was written by someone who worked in the administration but not the White House itself, although they could not be sure.

Look for someone who is massively pleased with himself and not terribly bright.

Yeah I know – sarcastic “Well that narrows it down a lot” response is deserved.

Mr. Trump angrily lashed out during public events and on Twitter. He assailed what he called the “gutless editorial” by the unnamed official and he dismissed Mr. Woodward’s book as “a total piece of fiction” and “totally discredited.” He attributed the accounts to a news media that has sought to destroy his presidency.

Trump acted like Trump, to the surprise of no one.

In the hours after the Op-Ed published, Washington has been scrambling to pin down the identity of this anonymous official.

“It is not mine,” Mike Pompeo, the secretary of State, said of the piece during brief remarks in India on Thursday.

“I come from a place where if you’re not in the position to execute the commander’s intent, you have a singular option, and it’s to leave,” Mr. Pompeo said. “And this person instead, according to The New York Times, chose not only to stay, but to undermine what President Trump and this administration are trying to do.”

Mr. Trump’s mood vacillated from fury to calm throughout Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday. Some of his top aides worked the phones to figure out who was leaking or who might have spoken, and his daughter Ivanka Trump and other advisers tried to quell his distress.

He seemed satisfied that Mr. Kelly and Mr. Mattis had denied remarks attributed to them in Mr. Woodward’s book — Mr. Kelly was quoted calling the president an “idiot” and Mr. Mattis said he had the understanding of a “fifth or sixth grader.” But his ire was trained particularly on two former aides, the former director of the National Economic Council, Gary D. Cohn, and the former staff secretary, Rob Porter, according to people close to the White House.

It’s just such a puzzle, why so many people who work with Trump have criticisms of him.



Actually, we’re the real heroes of the story

Sep 5th, 2018 5:25 pm | By

David Frum has a ringing retort to the disgustingly self-congratulatory Times op-ed.

If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no “riskiness” exemptions in the text of that oath.

My point exactly. Don’t tell us how secretly defiant you are, get him out. Until then, just shut up.

The author of the anonymous op-ed is hoping to vindicate the reputation of like-minded senior Trump staffers. See, we only look complicit! Actually, we’re the real heroes of the story.

But what the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil. He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president’s willfulness.

What happens the next time a staffer seeks to dissuade the president from, say, purging the Justice Department to shut down the Mueller investigation? The author of the Times op-ed has explicitly told the president that those who offer such advice do not have the president’s best interests at heart, and are, in fact, actively subverting his best interests as he understands them on behalf of ideas of their own.

He’ll grow more defiant, more reckless, more anti-constitutional, and more dangerous.

Oh gee, so he will – I hadn’t thought of that part.

The new Bob Woodward book set the bad precedent. The high official who thought the president so addled that he would not remember the paper he snatched off his desk? Those who thought the president stupid, ignorant, beholden to Russia—and then exited the administration to return to their comfortable, lucrative occupations? Who substituted deep-background gripe sessions with a reporter for offering detailed proof of presidential unfitness, or worse, before the House or Senate? Yes, better than the robotic servility of the public record. But only slightly.

What would be better?

Speak in your own name. Resign in a way that will count. Present the evidence that will justify an invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or an impeachment, or at the very least, the first necessary step toward either outcome, a Democratic Congress after the November elections.

Your service in government is valuable. Thank you for it. But it is not so indispensable that it can compensate for the continuing tenure of a president you believe to be amoral, untruthful, irrational, anti-democratic, unpatriotic, and dangerous. Previous generations of Americans have sacrificed fortunes, health, and lives to serve the country. You are asked only to tell the truth aloud and with your name attached.

Exfuckingactly.



No YOU’RE putting your ego first

Sep 5th, 2018 5:17 pm | By

Sarah Sanders has issued a press release that was obviously dictated by Trump and cleaned up a little. Jake Tapper shares it:

Nearly 62 million people voted for President Donald J. Trump in 2016, earning him 306 Electoral College votes – versus 232 for his opponent. None of them voted for a gutless, anonymous source to the failing New York Times.

You see why I say it’s obvious. Even his piggiest people don’t talk that childishly for public consumption.

We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the paper chose to publish this pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed. This is a new low for the so-called ‘paper of record, and it should issue an apology, just as it did after the election for its disastrous coverage of the Trump campaign.

No it didn’t. That’s one of Trump’s pet lies.

President Trump has laid out a bold and ambitious agenda. Every day since taking office, he has fulfilled the promises he made. His accomplishments in less than two years have been astounding.

The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign.

Trump breathes in every word.

Sarah Sanders gave us a picture of it.



Adults in the room, doing jack shit

Sep 5th, 2018 4:27 pm | By

Also in the annals of High-minded Horseshit: the Times breathlessly posts a Deep Throatesque anonymous op ed by Someone High Up in the Trump administration, saying don’t worry folks, we’re keeping Trump under control, and it’s all worth it because TAX CUTS and DEREGULATION and MORE BOMBS. Apparently we’re supposed to be impressed.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

In other words you want tax cuts at the expense of the non-rich 90% of the country so you put up with the lying homicidal maniac because he provides them.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

Free minds? Pull the other one. The Republican party is home to the theocratic Evangelicals and to the theocratic bishops and their fans. Free people? We have the highest prison population by percentage in the world – 724 people per 100,000. Republicans love that. The Democrats aren’t great at doing anything about it, but they don’t embrace it with the passion Republicans do. Also note the ideals that are missing: equality, justice, a fair distribution of social goods.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

Don’t worry, I’m not getting you wrong, I think you’re disgusting. By “effective deregulation” you mean getting rid of environmental laws, labor laws, safety laws, laws that protect consumers, laws that make it difficult for banks to drive us all off a cliff while pocketing the profits. By “historic tax reform” you mean making billionaires even richer. By “a more robust military” I don’t know what you mean – I guess ten times more than we need rather than five? Anyway, it’s all crap, so we’re not about to get you wrong.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

That’s all interesting, but the Republicans could get rid of him now if they really gave a rat’s ass about the general good. 25th Amendment or impeachment, either one; they could do it. They’re not doing it because they’re looking out for themselves.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

Heroes my ass! They could and should get him out, not thwart a few of his worst ideas and then come bragging to us for cookies.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

I knew that was coming – the invocation of Saint John of McCain. He was a Republican, he voted for Trump’s stuff, he was as greedy and cynical as the rest of you.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

Cue vomit emoji.



Help prevent shame spirals

Sep 5th, 2018 3:52 pm | By

California’s consumer protection office sued Goop for making bullshit claims about putting  jade and rose quartz eggs in one’s vagina. Goop settled. Goop has to pay a not nearly large enough sum of money.

Goop claimed its jade and rose quartz eggs, which are inserted vaginally, could balance hormones and regulate menstrual cycles, among other things.

Based on exactly what, one wonders. Just a little daydream? A hunch? A poetic feeling for the wisdom of nature?

Goop said in a statement that while it “believes there is an honest disagreement about these claims, the company wanted to settle this matter quickly and amicably. This settlement does not indicate any liability on Goop’s part”.

Both the jade and rose quartz eggs, which are sold for $66 and $55 respectively, are still for sale, but Goop is prohibited from making further health claims that are not backed up by science.

Stuff has more details:

The Jade Egg (US$66), as currently displayed on Goop’s website, says it is “used by women to increase sexual energy”, while the Rose Quartz Egg (US$55) is “associated with positive energy and love”.

Sneaky. People can “use” anything for anything, and anything can be “associated with” anything. The claims are meaningless but they will doubtless trick many into buying the stuff.

Inner Judge Flower Essence Blend (US$22), also currently sold out on the site, can be taken on the tongue, added to water and used externally “to help prevent ‘shame spirals’ downward toward depressive states,” the site says.

Ya that makes sense. You put a nice smell on your arm then you sniff it and you feel smell-goody instead of shame. Science!

Via Rob at Miscellany Room



Consequence: a result or effect of an action or condition

Sep 5th, 2018 11:59 am | By

Don’t worry, folks, it’s all just hysteria.

During opening statements at the start of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) repeatedly dismissed concerns that Kavanaugh will play a key role in restricting women’s reproductive rights as mere “hysteria.”

Is it time to remind Ben Sasses that the root word of hysteria means “uterus”?

Also, is Ben Sasses seriously claiming that Kavanaugh will not tip the balance of the Court? Because nine is really not such a big number that he should be confused about it.

Referring to a string of protesters who were thrown out of the hearing while yelling things like, “stop the oppression of women!“, Sasse said, “People are going to pretend that Americans have no historical memory, and supposedly there haven’t been screaming protesters saying ‘women are going to die’ at every hearing for decades. This has been happening.”

Well, Senator Smug, that’s because when abortion is illegal or prohibitively difficult and expensive to get, then women do die as a result. However uteral that may sound to you, it’s just a fact. Pregnancy has risks, and so do illegal abortions, and so do closures of abortion clinics.

As ThinkProgress detailed, it’s likely that Kavanaugh could provide a decisive vote chipping away at reproductive rights.

We know that Kavanaugh will almost certainly kill Roe v. Wade. There are currently four votes on the Supreme Court who consistently vote against abortion rights. Kavanuagh gave a speech in 2017 criticizing Roe and praising the dissent. And he sided with the Trump administration, at least temporarily, when the administration literally held women prisoner to prevent them from having an abortion.

Kavanaugh’s record also suggests he would give the Trump administration a free hand to curtail the Affordable Care Act independently of Congress, and would be resistant to any congressional efforts to further regulate firearms.

Despite what Sasse would have you believe, those positions have consequences — the greater availability of firearms correlates with more shooting deaths, and less access to health care correlates with higher mortality rates.

Ben Sasse is just being testosteral.



Look, look, they issued statements and everything

Sep 5th, 2018 11:30 am | By

Trump has gone Full Woodward. Of course he has.

Oooh, a press statement from the press secretary – now that’s authoritative!

That is, two guys who still work for you have attempted to distance themselves from Woodward’s book. Wow, imagine our astonishment.

Eight hours between those two, so I guess he got a good night’s sleep. Or maybe somebody took his phone away.

He hasn’t read it.



Think about the message it sends to women and girls

Sep 5th, 2018 11:17 am | By

The Guardian has a piece by Hannah Mouncey, an Australian trans woman who plays Australian rules football.

Hannah Mouncey

 Graham Denholm/AFL Media/Getty Images

That’s Mouncey in the red jersey.

Late last week, the AFL released its long-awaited policy on transgender participation in Australian rules football. In it are a set of requirements trans women need to follow if they aim to play at AFLW level. These include having your testosterone below a certain level for two years, which I have no problem with, as well as the requirement that trans women undertake number of physical tests designed to ascertain if they have an advantage over cis women playing AFLW – the presumption being that this is because they are trans.

What does that mean, “the presumption being that this is because they are trans”? Surely the issue isn’t that they are trans but that they have male bodies.

The reasons I’m critical of the AFL’s policy are not the reasons people may assume. Essentially, every physical requirement the policy asks me to meet I will. I know what I can do, and I know how I compare overall. Yet, there are still a number of issues surrounding how the policy is applied.

It is not yet clear, for example, if the data being used by the AFL to compare cis and trans women can be independently verified. Nor can we be sure the clubs have accurately reported their data. The question that has been answered by the AFL, however, is that if a trans athlete and a non-trans athlete were both to perform above average on their testing regime, the trans athlete would be excluded from AFLW, but the cis athlete wouldn’t. Not very consistent, or fair.

Hold on just a second there. Framing it as “trans athlete” and “cis athlete” makes it sound like underdog and oppressor – but again, the issue isn’t “trans athlete,” it’s “athlete with male body.” In Mouncey’s case, very large solid powerful body. Even if you buy into the idea that “cis” people have privilege over trans people, that doesn’t automatically cancel out the advantage male bodies have over female bodies in sports like football.

My biggest concern is the fact that weight is being used as one of the key physical measures for possible exclusion. Forget the fact that in a game that has such an emphasis on endurance and speed, being heavy is not necessarily an advantage and think about the message it sends to women and girls about their bodies: if you’re too big, you can’t play. That is incredibly dangerous and backward.

Aw yeah, I’m sure that’s really what Mouncey cares about.

But what I find most puke-worthy here is Mouncey’s willingness and in fact determination to do this thing – to play a contact sport on a women’s team while having a body like a brick shithouse. That’s got nothing to do with being trans, it’s all about being an entitled self-centered shit.

Updating to add another photo of Mouncey playing on the women’s team:

Image may contain: 2 people, people playing sports and outdoor



No doubt

Sep 5th, 2018 10:28 am | By

Oh lord, so confused. About those “pronoun badges” offered by the Edinburgh Student Union

While I personally see this as a fantastic step forward on EUSA’s part, the wider reaction on Facebook has been less than encouraging. In a poll, 81 per cent of people (at the time of publishing) said that they don’t think the pronoun badges are a good idea, with only 19 per cent of respondents voting in favour.

While the results of this poll surprised me, many of the comments on both the original article and the poll unfortunately did not. In response to the original article, one Facebook user simply responded with a gif which stated “we need a new plague”. On the poll itself, another user commented “mine better say microwave” and accused someone who argued against them of being “confused about their gender”. Pronoun badges are not just a trans issue, yet the majority of people are using it as an excuse to air their no doubt long held transphobia.

Oh no doubt. No doubt at all. Why? Because they’re transphobes. How do we know? Because they’re transphobic. How do we know? Because of their no doubt long held transphobia. How do we know? Because they’re transphobes. This is easy – tedious, but easy.

As a gender non-conforming butch woman, I’m often mistaken for a man, and I’m often subject to the awkward “uh, actually” conversation that follows. While uncomfortable, as a cis woman (identifying with the gender I was assigned at birth) I know that I’m lucky to be able to correct people and feel safe in doing so.

Wait.

Wait.

She says she’s a gender non-conforming butch woman, and then a few words later she says she’s a cis woman, identifying with the gender she was assigned at birth. What sense does that make? Doesn’t “gender non-conforming butch” mean not “identifying with the gender she was assigned at birth”? If you’re gender non-conforming then you’re not identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth.

She actually means sex at birth, but the ideology of this pile of sick is so incoherent she doesn’t realize it.

For many trans people however, correcting people on their pronouns can be terrifying and downright dangerous. By introducing pronoun badges, EUSA is making sure that trans and gender non-conforming students are safer and less likely to receive harassment for their gender presentation.

Is it? Are we sure about that? If “correcting people on their pronouns” can be terrifying and downright dangerous, then why wouldn’t wearing badges announcing one’s pronouns be even more so? The badges turn up no matter what, while participants’ third person pronouns don’t turn up all that regularly in conversation, and when they do it’s not necessarily always the case that they need to be corrected.

It’s important to note these badges are in no way compulsory, but rather a new option for people to take advantage of if they please. The violent reaction makes it seem as if armed EUSA members will be holding people down and tattooing pronouns on them against their will.

The reaction isn’t violent.

Other than that, good piece.



Reduced to ashes

Sep 4th, 2018 11:52 am | By

There’s the dreadful news from Rio:

The stately national museum, once home to Brazil’s royal family, was still smoldering at sunrise on Monday when scores of researchers, museum workers and anthropologists began gathering outside, dressed in black.

Some sobbed as they began taking stock of the irreplaceable losses: Thousands, perhaps millions, of significant artifacts had been reduced to ashes Sunday night in a devastating fire. The hall that held a 12,000-year-old skeleton known as Luzia, the oldest human remains discovered in the Americas, was destroyed.

In recent years, state and city governments in Brazil have failed to pay police officers and doctors on time. Public libraries and other cultural centers have shut down. The ranks of the unemployed and homeless have swelled.

The museum itself was not spared, falling into disrepair as the country struggled. It got so bad, local news media reports said, that professors who worked at the museum resorted to collecting money to help pay for cleaning services. Beyond a few fire extinguishers and smoke detectors, the museum did not have a fire-suppression system, officials said.

No fire suppression system – good lord. I’d assumed, without thinking about it, that all museums would have the best fire-suppression system available, on account of how the stuff inside them is irreplaceable.

It took more than six hours for 80 firefighters from 21 stations to extinguish the blaze. On Monday, they scoured through piles of ashes searching for salvageable pieces from a museum that had housed a trove of indigenous artifacts, as well as Latin America’s pre-eminent collection of Egyptian mummies and Roman frescoes from the ancient city of Pompeii.

Cristiana Serejo, the deputy director of the museum, told reporters on Monday afternoon that about 10 percent of the museum’s collection had been spared. Among the surviving materials were a large meteorite and a portion of the zoology exhibit.

Mr. Oliveira, the paleoartist, said museum officials were all but resigned to the loss of the Luzia remains…

“We are strongly hoping that she survived, but it’s very difficult,” he said. “The skull is very fragile. The only thing that could have saved it is if a piece of wood or something fell and protected it.”

The fire wiped out years’ worth of research by botanists, marine biologists, paleontologists and entomologists.

Beatriz Resende posted photos on Facebook:

Image may contain: one or more people, night and outdoor

Image may contain: night and outdoor

Image may contain: 1 person, night



“You are not a good witness.”

Sep 4th, 2018 11:26 am | By

Part 2 of the Post on Woodward on Trump:

Gary Cohn kept Trump from yanking the US out of NAFTA by stealing the letter saying “We’re out!” off his desk.

Cohn and Kelly both pretty much hate him.

Woodward illustrates how the dread in Trump’s orbit became all-encompassing over the course of Trump’s first year in office, leaving some staff members and Cabinet members confounded by the president’s lack of understanding about how government functions and his inability and unwillingness to learn.

But, again, who did they think he was? Other than an angry loudmouth?

Last March, John Dowd met with Mueller and his deputy.

Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.

Later that month, Dowd told Trump: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”

But Trump, concerned about the optics of a president refusing to testify and convinced that he could handle Mueller’s questions, had by then decided otherwise.

“I’ll be a real good witness,” Trump told Dowd, according to Woodward.

“You are not a good witness,” Dowd replied. “Mr. President, I’m afraid I just can’t help you.”

The next morning, Dowd resigned.

Nobody can help him. Or, apparently, us.