Not Another Political Blog

Disaster Capitalism exposes the weaknesses that were always there

2020-03-28T11:24:00.001-04:00

Naomi Klein. Whether you've read the Shock Doctrine or not, you should see this.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1237300.The_Shock_Doctrine

Everything is connected. Democratic socialism is common sense.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1238536047455330306?s=20
The ideas are popular bc people need them. Evidence of this are things like the rise of Yang, Republican acceptance of temporary emergency paid sick leave and $1000 checks, neoliberals are even... oh wait. (*Note that the Yang and Republican mentions aren't a credit to them - see disaster capitalism* This deserves a longer explanation but I'm not going to do it.)

https://youtu.be/niwNTI9Nqd8

https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2020/3/19

Here's another one of you've run out of podcasts or want to hear about Pelosi and Schumer.
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/14/donald-trump-and-the-counterrevolutionary-war/

Where is Joe Biden

2020-03-28T11:15:00.001-04:00

March 21, 2020

Idk who's going to win the nomination, but one candidate is all over this and one is - who knows?

Why hasn't joe taken control and led a Democratic attempt to inform and at least look like he could handle this if he were president (since he, his handlers, and supporters are dismissive and acting like he's the presumptive nominee)? If you're auditioning for a leadership role, either against Sanders or 45, shouldn't you, eh, LEAD? Do something?

While Biden figures out a webcam or is in hiding again, Bernie has been out there, he responded right away with a plan and reassurance, and he continues to update and encourage people to help each other.

Looks downright presidential - if you like using that word.

Good And Mad by Rebecca Traister

2020-03-28T11:12:00.001-04:00

Good and Mad by Rebecca Traister

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39939208-good-and-mad

"I've been thinking a lot about the ways that women are required to perform our emotions during this moment, and in particular how much thought and effort we put into mitigating the risk of being seen as angry.

These performances have belied the reality that if you consider yourself fully human as a woman, and fully endowed with dignity, then anger is a very reasonable response to sexual harassment, assault, or other gendered violence.

This is another thing I've been thinking about: How anger has both limited me and led me astray, and also been a wonderful motivator. Anger leads me to seek answers, to seek change." -- Moira Donnegan

https://twitter.com/MoiraDonegan/status/961992524213751809?s=20

Bernie is best for the coronavirus pandemic and after

2020-03-28T11:06:00.003-04:00

Everything Has Changed Overnight
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/everything-has-changed-overnight

Basic Income in a Pandemic and Beyond
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/universal-basic-income-ubi-coronavirus-covid-19-crisis/
(And get out of here with Yang nonsense.)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/16/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income-229847

Too late, coronavirus proved Bernie Sanders was right. Now we have to settle for a recession led by Biden
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-bernie-sanders-biden-medicare-for-all-wheresjoe-wedeservebernie-a9421471.html

Workers Are More Valuable Than CEOs
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/03/coronavirus-low-wage-workers-front-lines-grocery-store

Joe Kassabian @jkass99: The problem with capitalism is that you eventually run out of other people's labor.
https://twitter.com/jkass99/status/1242555406523629568?s=20

The Intercept Tara Reade - rape accusation against Biden

2020-03-28T10:51:00.000-04:00

I first saw this on Democracy Now - Tara Reade accused Joe Biden of rape and sexual assault.
And now we have the same old fight: to believe women or not to believe women. Some men are just waiting for a major news network to pick this up or for some excuse to say aha! we don't actually have to believe women! They're liars! I believe Tara. Will she be deemed credible by YangNews, CNN, or the hacks at MSNBC, or the fine civil folks at NPR? I don't know. I don't care. It's hard to come forward and be subjected to these immediate attacks of disbelief and opposition and even death threats. I understand why women don't report. Men still don't. WE have learned nothing.

Everyone in the wake of these things who are out of the gate unconvinced are suspect. Not suspect in a criminal way or anything like this, but tagged mentally as someone who is not safe, someone you wouldn't go to if you were in trouble, someone you can't trust with real things. I'm not talking about canceling, but you can't count on them when it counts. That circle gets smaller and smaller.

Here's the Democracy Now link:
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2020/3/26
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/26/headlines/the_intercept_times_up_legal_defense_fund_refused_to_support_metoo_allegation_against_joe_biden

Katie Halper's video and tweet - she is from The Hill's The Rising and is who broke the story, I think?
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1242691746561167360?s=20

TIME’S UP SAID IT COULD NOT FUND A #METOO ALLEGATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN, CITING ITS NONPROFIT STATUS AND HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/

Ryan Grim at the Intercept addresses an objection to her name change as basis for not believing her.
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1243199151673872389?s=20

******
Intercept and other media measured for facts and bias in response to Howard Dean's tweet and suspicion of Reade and The Intercept.
https://twitter.com/Bern4Bern/status/1243561239705460736?s=20

Howard Dean may have deleted his tweet, so here it is:

******

Outlets begin picking it up days after Democracy Now:

The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is an integrity test for the Democratic Party
https://www.mic.com/p/the-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-is-integrity-test-for-the-democratic-party-22661534

JOE BIDEN'S SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSER WANTS TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK OUT WITHOUT FEAR OF 'POWERFUL MEN'
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-campaign-team-denies-past-sexual-assault-allegation-former-senate-staffer-1494794

Joe Biden Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Senate Aide In 1993
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-sexual-assault-tara-reade_n_5e7e69c8c5b6256a7a2a88f2

A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation

Thanks, fundies. Governors who don't express obedience to Trump won't get aid

2020-03-28T10:00:00.001-04:00

Trump says he's directed Pence not to call governors who aren't 'grateful' for federal aid

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/white-house-coronavirus-task-force-to-hold-daily-briefing-after-trump-signs-stimulus-bill

Please tell me more about how he's a baby Christian and you were a Christian in and out of the voting booth when you elected this disaster.

He's withholding aid based on who's not grateful enough, however that will be determined. Is this the presidential rising to the occasion you'd hoped for?

These "values" you mean to protect at the expense now of the world's population include mainly - let's be honest, for most, only - securing prosecution of or outlawing a medical procedure ON SOMEONE ELSE that you have always had the religious freedom to simply abstain from if you choose.

When people told me he'd grow into it, rise to the occasion, and learn the job, I thought they were delusional. Not that I'm the only one, but we were right. 🎉 Now what? I guess wait for his next speech that will contain exactly no useful, factual information and probably some conspiracy, lies, and disinformation.

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1243668778573053953?s=20

Quote: "Here’s the thing: even if every governor tells him to go fuck himself, it’s his job to help anyway. This is fucking insane. He’s making decisions about who lives and who dies based on who kisses his ass the most. Fuck him. Honestly, I’m just fucking over it."

US assassinates Soleimani and a letter from 2003

2020-01-03T11:58:00.002-05:00

So this happened now and is making my Gen X cohorts think of an earlier time.
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/3/headlines/us_assassinates_powerful_iranian_general_qassim_suleimani_at_baghdad_airport

Here is what I wrote 20 years ago, still a Christian, maybe 8-10 years from deciding to leave religion. I think I asked decent questions. It's on this blog in another spot, so it has an older intro...

I'm 42 and it's 2020. I hope things have changed, but I don't see it. Well, at least I've changed!

I think this letter was in 2003. I was 25. 9/11 was of course in 2001. But it's all linked in my mind and time and events get a little muddied, but I remember it as one big mess both because the Republicans linked them and both things made me see the church and American exceptionalism/patriotism for what it was.

#######

I had been looking for this email I sent to a friend discussing my various questions about war, action in Iraq, peace and how this relates to the Bible or how Christians are supposed to react to these things. Some are questions and items are just me trying to process my Bible study and balance it with various political views. It was written about two months after our invasion in Iraq at the tender age of 25. That seems so long ago, but I guess it's not really. The first part is the letter to the friend. I also refer to his responses and also a Bible study the young adults had on this or a similar topic at which there was surprisingly little discussion.

Some of it is repetitive and maybe not that well thought out, but it is interesting to me to re-read. I suppose what drove me to write it was the annoyance that patriotism, support for war, support for Bush, and obeying authority read no protesting, no questioning, no criticism of the president) were being lumped together (by some) as the sum of a good Christian when it wasn't necessarily Biblical to do so. Another was Bush's cowboy pseudodiplomacy.

I read this article :
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html

now here ? https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128467&page=1
Reason for War? [White House Officials Say Privately the Sept. 11 Attacks Changed Everything
W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.]

and this one http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

and wondered if the reasons given for the war (intent) had an impact on any conclusion on whether or not the Bible allows war. If we gave reasons such as WMD, link to Al Qaeda, and then liberation from dictatorship, but the real reason was wanting to flex our muscle and teach the region a lesson, would this be wrong? (There are current leaders who have killed more innocent people, have more WMD and have threatened to use them more than once) Are there right and wrong reasons to go to war, like proving a point versus self-defense?

>Also, I’ve heard people quote Old Testament verses to show examples >of war and justify it. Since we’re under a new covenant and the 10 >commandments are not sufficient, is there enough new testament >justification for self defense or war? >

>Some people I have talked to say that because the Bible says submit >to government, we should support the attack on Iraq. Period. A lot >of times their logic is that Bush is appointed by God or that God >approves only of American style democracy and I don’t think that’s >what the verses below are saying exactly. After all, Christians in >other parts of the world would submit to their leaders and not ours. >‡I know we’ve covered submission before, but I’ve heard 1Pet 2 and >Rom 13 used to justify war in the same places submission was >defined. When we question our faith, we are not being unsubmissive >or unfaithful, so just raising points on the opposite side should >not be considered unsubmissive. >‡Dissent, free speech and protesting are allowed under our >government (authorities appointed by God-Rom 13), so are protesters >really resisting authority as some have implied? >‡If our government decided that we could not practice our religion >or told us to do something against God’s will, we’d obey God and not >man. It’s hard to see how this verse (Rom 13 and 1Pet) is an >adequate justification for war. It addresses the fact that if you do >wrong, the government has the authority to punish. It doesn’t say >much about what to do if you are following God and the authority is >not. >The real question is –is war right or wrong. I’m going to stop on >this now because I think I’m going around in a circle. >

>Bush’s spiritual advisor is Billy Graham. Does this present any >problems in our submitting? Many of his speeches remind me more of a >televangelist rather than a head of state, so I think Graham has >alot of influence. I guess this goes back to the question about the >government going against God’s will and what we do in this case. >

>1 Pet and Rom 13 say “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man” >and “be subject to governing authorities”. It sounds like the UN >would fit the description. The US did not go through the UN, so if >the UN is an authority, we were wrong in attacking. I was wondering >if UN Resolutions are not the ordinances of man also that we should >be submitting to? If not, then all countries are dealing with each >other by different standards and can claim theirs is the right one >because if you are a citizen of that nation you have to follow that >leader, but that‘s just my opinion.. Anyway, if nothing else, the US >agreed to be apart of it and follow the UN charter. Should we not >keep our word and comply with treaties and charters (like the UN’s ) >that our government discussed at one time, voted on and promised to >abide by? We seem to accept it’s authority when we want, (i.e we >made a big deal about Iraq undermining the UN and not following the >Resolution that said WMD are illegal for Iraq to possess and make) >and dismiss it when we don’t like it (i.e. when we could get support >for a war resolution at the time we wanted it). It seems that if the >UN has no authority for us, then our big reason for war, the fact >that Iraq had WMD and was not permitted to do so by the UN, would be >shot down. If we decide that the UN does have authority, then we >undermined it and ignored it when we attacked Iraq. Also, the rules >of war were mentioned Friday. Most of those rules, the Geneva >Conventions and all that are UN creations made to preserve order and >justice among nations, so if the UN has no authority for us then >most rules for guaranteeing human rights and justice aren’t >applicable and we can’t accuse others of not following them, unless >the US has it’s own special rules for war. In this case, I would >still have the question I talked about in my 4th paragraph- if the >Rom and 1 Pet verses are conditional, wouldn't we need to figure out >whether it is right to do that first, then accept it if it fits with >God's word. >

>This is in response to a Bible study we held on the war topic: >
>I mentioned some verses that seemed like they wouldn’t fit with >permitting war. You said that those were dealing with the individual >and not government. Does this mean that the government is not made >up of individuals- only Bush? Are there verses that exempt those in >government or authority from these verses? In those verses, the >Bible didn’t say that government is exempt. >

>It seems like the consensus was that it’s ok to kill in war even >though innocent blood is shed. Besides the verses about submitting >to government (which I will get to later), the main support was the >Old Testament distinction between killing and murder. I realize that >God told the Israelites to kill everyone including children in some >battles, but that was a direct command. God didn’t tell Bush to >attack Iraq, take it over and kill everyone. He doesn’t speak to us >in that way anymore. Is the distinction still made in the new >testament and how do we know for sure? >

>We talked about things done in war like dropping a bomb, firing in >the direction of enemy fire, and blowing up buildings (or “targets >of opportunity”, if you will) as not being murder because the >soldiers aren’t intending to kill innocent people. Soldiers have to >be pretty naïve to believe that a bomb dropped from whatever height >, firing in a general direction, and blowing up structures with >force that could kill those inside and collapse houses in the area >on top of people is only going to hit the person or facility deemed >to be evil by the government. It’s true that our weapons are more >precise now, but innocents still die. Another thing that struck me >was that just because a dozen or so planes go out so no one knows >who dropped it or pilots think about family or feel nothing when >they drop bombs except a slight bump as it is released it doesn’t >affect whether or not innocents will die or whether it is right or >wrong. These things are done just so the soldiers won’t carry the >guilt. It was also said that fewer Iraqis died in this conflict that >Hussein killed. Does this justify war Biblically or otherwise? It >sheds no light on the war question. >

>It also seemed like people agreed that we are supposed to submit to >government and buy their justification for war except if they tell >us to do or not do something that is a Biblical truth (ie. Come >together and worship). This one is logical and easy to accept-Paul >and others were told not to preach by authorities and they did >anyway. Another exception mentioned was Nazi Germany and the >holocaust even though those people had to submit to their government >like we have to submit to Bush, or “ordinances of man” or authority. >The holocaust was immediately dismissed as wrong without discussion. >Is that because the people were innocent? But we know about as much >about that as we know about reasons our government gave for war. It >seems that we’d established that we can’t know the government’s >intent and can’t trust what they say and basically can’t understand >what and why the governments do these things. (By the way, I’m not >saying the holocaust was just. I’m just trying to understand.) If >there are exceptions to submit to government, then we must determine >whether the act is right or wrong and the Rom and Pet verses can’t >be used alone because they are conditional. About those verses, >noticed some things that may be nit picking or wrong altogether, but >it made me think. 1Pet2:15 says that submitting to the ordinances of >man is the will of God and that by doing it we will silence fools. >So if the government is not doing good, we won’t be doing the will >of God or silence fools. This seems to say that if war is right, we >should have submitted, but if it is wrong, we should disagree. 1 Pet >2:16 talks about not using liberty as a “cloak for vice”. I’m not >sure if that means that reasons for war might matter. It sounds at >first glance that government shouldn’t use it’s authority to >accomplish it’s goals unless they are not vice. I’m not totally sure >what that verse is saying, though. I’m just trying to understand why >we use the Rom 13 or 1Pet 2 to justify war, but then say that it’s >ok to resist the government in the holocaust or in civil >disobedience in the 60’s. The verse doesn’t make distinctions that >I’m aware of, but we do. >

>Another thing that I wonder about is why we are supposed to believe >all the “evidence” and forgeries our government uses to gain public >support for war, but when high ranking officials come out and say >that the government may not have had the best intentions (innocent >people killed for no reason, as much as depends on us, we did not >live peaceably), then we are to dismiss this because they are just >out to get the president or make people look bad. If war is allowed, >it seems like it should be a last resort but in the Iraq case, we >threw out weapons inspectors and ignored countries that wanted to >try all possible peaceful means before war (many countries that were >opposed to war, would not have opposed it had it actually been a >last resort). I’ve heard Bush and others in his administration say >that they think war should be a last resort, (but with the evidence >they gave, all possibilities were not exhausted. Self-defense was >hardly a reason because we ended up proving their military >inferiority by the fast advances we made. Another thing that makes >me question the government’s intentions is that there was a definite >change in policy after 9/11. We changed to pre-emption rather than >attacking in self-defense. The same people were in Bush Sr’s >administration (Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, etc) and tried to push >pre-emption, but it leaked out and people were outraged, so they >changed it. It’s disturbing how 9/11 made people more supportive of >violence against other nations and against those who “look Arab” >including Indians and Hispanics. Needless to say, since Bush Sr’s >people are in Bush Jr’s administration and people need less evidence >now to support war, the pre-emptive policy was a big hit. It seems >like this change is more motivated by revenge than anything else or >a desire to please the public.

>***
>You asked why has God put his people in so many wars. It was >different then. God spoke directly to people and provided food from >heaven. We're under the new covenant and some things have >changed/been fulfilled. I can't recall the cases where God told the >apostles to wipe out cities with force or Paul or Jesus doing >anything that violent. >

>Rom 13:4 says that is you do evil then the ruler can punish you for >doing evil. I guess a question I have is are we supposed to be >subject to our ruler, all rulers, only those that "do good"? Some >seem to think that American presidents have more approval from God, >so it’s ok for us to invade whoever we choose for whatever reason, >though I don’t know where they get this. Who's to say that George W >is "doing good"? It says in KJV that rulers are ministers of God for >good, so they can punish subjects for doing evil. As I mentioned >before, it seems to address what goes on if the subject is doing >evil, not if the ruler is doing evil. We mentioned the holocaust as >an "obvious" exception to having to do what rulers say and I have a >feeling the civil diobedience in the 60's would also be considered >the "right" thing to do along with resisting many other injustices. >It does not seem to give these exceptions in the Bible, yet we have >made them. If we say that rulers are from God and we need to follow >them, then Hussein's soldiers were doing right in fighting our >troops and Hitler's men were doing right by following orders and >rounding up Jews, gypsies and others that Hitler didn't want in his >perfect race. and no one wants to accept this. >

>Were Jesus and Moses parents resisting authority when they went >against the rulers decree about killing baby boys? In at least one >case, God told them to disobey the order. So what does that say >about disobeying orders when they are wrong or are not doing good?

>*** >Friend's reply: >I did have another question for you. Do you think there is ever a >time war would be justified? I mean, say all means were tried with >Hussein, WMD were found, etc. Would you still think the war was >sinful? >

>My reply: >I’m working on that one about is a war ever justified. Without >looking at the Bible, my inclination is to want to hit right back >when we are attacked, but is this right? I don’t know. I would tend >to say we were right to attack Japan after they attacked Pearl >Harbor, but the A bomb was going too far. That was more like >revenge. I have nothing to base this on and I don’t know why I think >this, it is only my feeling. >

>About the Iraq attack (also my opinion because I can’t find Biblical >proof), there isn’t much that would make it right. We didn’t exhaust >all means. That is obvious. Gen Franks was saying how it could take >a year or so to find WMD and we have the full run of the country. >Weapons inspectors in this last round should have been given at >least a year and maybe more because they may not get the access they >want all at once. Even if WMD are found now, they’d have to prove >that Iraq had the ability and machinery necessary to launch or >disburse the WMD and also prove that there was an attack planned on >us with those WMD for the near future if we wanted to use the >self-defense excuse to justify the pre-emptive Iraq attack (even if >they find “proof” you really can’t know until they attack-that’s the >danger of pre-emption. There’s a lot more chance of doing more harm >than good unnecessarily). The US used the undermining UN excuse at >the beginning because the resolution says they are not supposed to >have WMD. We can’t decide if this is an acceptable excuse until we >figure out my questions in my past few emails about the UN. If the >UN is not binding by Biblical standards, then we can’t use that as >an excuse. If the UN is binding, then our using the resolution as >justification for war then acting without the UN and against it was >undermining it and wrong. >

>(Re: your 3rd item)We don’t know what our own military was told >either. All we have are history books to tell us who was told what. >The books do say some of what Hitler’s men were told and will say >what Hussein’s men were told. My point was that everyone has their >leader to follow, so when leaders accuse other leaders of being >evil, fighting those soldiers of the “evil” leader may not >necessarily be fighting evil. We’re just killing people who re also >following their leader. >

>It seems Bush has taken a very oversimplified and controversial view >of the world with the whole good vs evil thing and “if you’re not >for us, you’re against us”, but it appeals to Christians which most >of our nation is. >

Levar Burton Reads - the bad or the ugly

2019-12-08T13:42:00.002-05:00

First, the podcast link: http://www.levarburtonpodcast.com/

I will talk about some of the good ones eventually because there have been very good ones (!),

(such as The Lighthouse Keeper by Daisy Johnson, The Paper Menagerie by Ken Liu, The Truth About Owls by Amal Mohtar, and maybe the Murakami one, the Second Bakery Attack, and Lesley Nneka Arimah's What It Means When A Man Falls From the Sky)

but there are two that annoyed me quite a bit - especially when he praised the female representation and I felt it was pretty horrible.

Let's talk about #12, No Man's Guns - A Western, so ick, right out of the gate. Not a fan.

Levar, in his commentary, says there are usually no women in westerns but this one had a prominent women's voice. Huh? I missed that. I think this is a horrible example of a woman's voice. She's not a prominent voice and isn't terribly developed as a character. She does show show contempt for her scumbag brother or whoever she travels with, which is good, but obviously she's still under his control. No agency. Depressing. Typical.

The main character had quite a journey, getting comfortable with dying/ his fate and then having his word first disbelieved then proved true, justice done, and life saved in the end.

All the woman had was this guy thinking some thoughts about marriage and that maybe she was feminine but talked a little too much. She didn't. His opinion on what makes a good woman is pretty stunted. She was more of a prop even than #3 below. I was not nearly as wowed by the woman's voice because I know I have a lot more thoughts every second that this guy gave the woman in a lifetime. Too much of a sexist stereotype to be a real character.

#3 Empty Places

This is one he was kind of gushing over. I get it -- from his particular perspective how he gravitated to this theme. He's right that the mentor/ mentee thing in the two major characters is good - they end up being better people than you'd expect.

A secondary -- but maybe not so minor -- character was this queen. Even though her story wasn't as prominent, I felt she should have had more life -- been less of a prop for these other characters. She was writing this letter to a past male friend because she was unhappily married to a brutish and horrible king who forgot their son's birthday, among other things. She was only 16 or something, which again is pretty terrible. So the main characters stole this letter she wrote so that she is barred from her own growth, well-being and connections beyond castle walls -- and, importantly, sinking her chances of escape either mentally or physically from an unhappy and who know what else - marriage.

The two main characters conspire to steal the letter and leave a gift so that the queen will think the king remembered the son's birthday. This will cause her to show patience and kindness which will encourage the king to return the kindness. ??? Like WHAT IS THAT ???

Men aren't responsible for their own bad behavior? The only way to deal with bad men is to ignore the actual problem and be extra nice to them?? Give them more chances??

I think there are some good themes to explore here, like he said with the mentor relationships, but the one regarding the queen tells women they shouldn't expect more; just work harder and ignore your own suffering and the man will come around - maybe. If ignoring his coarseness and unfairness doesn't work, oh well, you can't leave! There's the kingdom to think about. What will your subjects say - how will this reflect on the king? Clearly, all that matters is making the king look good and everyone will pull together to see that this happens, even at the expense of a woman. Because who care about them; right?

Unless I missed something - that particular theme was garbage.

On the other hand, if she was caught corresponding with a male friend and if the punishment is beheading or medieval torture, maybe they DID help her, such as the "help" in those times was? Abuse in marriage rather than death. Life sucks either way in that case. I'd loved to have seen a little more consideration or compassion for the queen. As in many stories and maybe life, the woman here was just a prop in several men's stories.

Movie Nites: Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre

2019-10-14T08:15:00.001-04:00

The next two are slashers - Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre

There seems to be something hyper masculine (dare I say toxic?) in saying you can watch a slasher movie with no substance and think it's funny or something. Be different! Say it's bad. Because it is.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/10/178587/horror-movies-death-by-sex-slut-shaming

Halloween

Long awaited. I'd never seen these, but of course they've been referenced and spoofed into oblivion. Everyone who says they love horror loves these two movies.

And there's really nothing there.

The killer with the bleached Capt Kirk mask killed his sister when she was a teenager (why??) and he was an 8 year old or something. He's put in an asylum and breaks out 15 yrs later and stalks a girl in his hometown as old as the sister was (maybe?) for, again, I don't know what reason. There is no reason. Are they trying to say violence is perpetrated by the mentally ill? Violence is senseless and has no discernible cause? Violence is entertaining? No. Just no.

There's lots of stalking (girl sees, her friends tell her they don't see) then senseless gore and one girl's friends dropping like flies. I feel like this is playing on women not being believed in sexual assaults and their expertise and observations being generally given less weight than men's - but it'snot so much calling attention to it, but rather using it as a given as part of the story.

Maybe there's slut shaming too? The girl that wanted to have sex I think is the one the guy murdered, ripped up his sister's gravestone and put on her bed with her in it. The studious girl who appeared not to want sex is the one who lived. Hm.

Some movies you can debate whether or not it's feminist or good. I don't think that's the case with these.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

This one was a bit stressful. Being in the middle of nowhere, all the friends you're with are murdered one by one, then you're tortured and nearly killed. Yay!

Even the man at the gas station when she runs away and thinks she's safe the first time is in on it, is part of the murdery family of men.

There's lots of screaming, if that floats your boat. Lots. Her face - lots of close ups of her screaming. And more screaming. Women feel this kind of terror a lot I think. Not only that, but are warned of it and blamed for it, so it's tiring. She does get away, I guess, in the end. So that's good. For the franchise at least?

I connected with this book and quote a lot more:

"Women have always been the most important part of monster movies. As I walked home one night, I realized why. Making my way down dark city streets to my apartment in Brooklyn, I was alert and on edge. I was looking for suspicious figures, men that could be rapists, muggers or killers. I felt like Laurie Strode in Halloween. Horror is a pressure valve for society's fears and worries: monsters seeking to control our bodies, villains trying to assail us in the darkness, disease and terror resulting from the consequences of active sexuality, death. These themes are the staple of horror films.

There are people who witness these problems only in scary movies. But for much of the population, what is on the screen is merely an exaggerated version of their everyday lives. These are forces women grapple with daily. Watching Nancy Thompson escape Freddy Krueger's perverted attacks reminds me of how I daily fend off creeps asking me to smile for them on the subway. Women are the most important part of horror because, by and large, women are the ones the horror happens to. Women have to endure it, fight it, survive it — in the movies and in real life. They are at risk of attack from real-life monsters. In America, a woman is assaulted every nine seconds."

― Mallory O'Meara, The Lady from the Black Lagoon:

Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick

I used to have a recurring dream about being chased. Sometimes I was caught, and when I was, I screamed and nothing came out of my mouth. The whole thing was just pure heart-pounding terror. Even when you wake up, it takes time to calm down. I've felt nearly the same in a parking deck, walking alone after dark on a college campus, being in public after a creep makes it known he's watching you. I've made my schedule around making sure I'm in a populated area but not too populated or in order to make sure I'm not running in a forest in the dark. I really don't need to watch these things to know what it's like to feel scared. Maybe men do? I'd rather think they watch to develop empathy than revel in the misogyny of slaughtering women for being sexually active. I'm probably too optimistic.

Movie Nite: Carrie

2019-10-13T20:30:00.000-04:00

October movie nite:

Carrie

The release date is November 3, 1976, so it's a year older than me. That's kind of fun. Also November 3 is Godzilla's birthday.

I think I had seen this one before. It wasn't nearly as scary as I remembered. By far the best out of the several campy and several slashers we've seen this month. You probably can't go wrong with Stephen King. It was spooky, had a plot, and had some magic to mix things up a little. It didn't kill the women for having sex like some others, so That's a plus. Did it equate women with being witches emitting a polluting substance as this article brings up? Maybe. I'll entertain that. I think greater was the comment on religion - that Carrie's ignorance that caused her shame was caused by her mother's abuse and religious beliefs. So, I don't know on balance whether this was necessarily a feminist flick. It could go either way.

Leaving the question of whether or not the movie is particularly feminist or not for a moment, my daughter had seen it done in some form in this show she likes, Riverdale. It's everywhere in pop culture. It was kind of fun to show her the original.

It's got telekinesis and stuff and a little horrible religion messing people up. I like the way the people the mother evangelized to really didn't pay much attention. Mixing up the magic and religion is a pretty good choice - it makes you think about believers and manipulation and related things. She gets her period at the beginning and is kind of an outcast, so those are always good themes as well. Coming of age and feeling like an imposter are themes with a lot of material. Getting your period comes with a lot of those things represented in a person grappling with finding out they have a power and need to develop it - extra responsibilities, the need to learn a lot of things very quickly, extra dangers, etc. And as I type, it's interesting that I'm comparing a supernatural power to getting one's period because I've always thought of it as the opposite of a power. Maybe my thinking is influenced by the patriarchal culture.
It's always been an unfair burden, something that holds me back physically and or emotionally, gets in the way, has to be managed and planned for whether you want to or not so you don't bleed everywhere or get pregnant. The fact that the telekinesis came with her fist period was an interesting and maybe not insignificant plot point.

I had imagined it as a bit scarier than it was. The scariest thing is actually the lighting and camera angle at the school dance (at which the iconic pig blood scene occurs). It captures school in a fairly exaggerated but familiar way. There's only one murder and it's not like a rampage - it's rather justice that no one else seems to be able or willing to deliver. I didn't even really remember the Jesus voodoo doll thingy from the first time around, but it was featured prominently in the doll and the abusive mother's death. I guess that's why I liked the movie, the most vulnerable person was sort of protected instead of picked off and tortured more like in a slasher movie. Well, except for the fact that she died. So, again, not sure it's particularly feminist, but it's got more going on than your average slasher/thriller.

A few other things worth noting that critics have brought up is the mother being the source of the harmful patriarchal religious abuse, so it's kind insult to injury like women are inflicting this on themselves; men are answering for nothing. And tied to that, treating menstruation as a shameful thing - and again the mother didn't educate her because of enforcing the extreme patriarchal religious view of women as sinful, dirty beings. It's hard to say for sure, but worth discussing.

Movie Nite: Teenagers From Outer Space

2019-10-13T16:26:00.000-04:00

October Movie Nite

Teenagers From Outer Space

Really 50s. Ridiculous. An alien named Derek lands on Earth and wants to stay. It's complicated! - his dad's the supreme leader of his planet where they don't have families so they can't just fry him on the spot for desertion of his space duties He moves in with a teenage (I'm assuming) girl and her grandfather. The name was really funny, I don't know why. Because they're supposed to be named Mork? After he reached town, it was all Donna Reed or Father Knows Best - for a little bit.

But the killer alien - I don't remember his name - kills with such impunity and coldness and sterility, it feels very much like a comment on the fear and war and the new bomb technology. Maybe a fear of science as a result? It gets more points than a slasher movie for that bit.

This is one of the parts of substance:

Captain: Morrow! Go below and bring up the young gargon specimen. Now the decision depends on its reactions.Derek: Wait, Captain. I have found evidence of intelligent beings on this planet!
Thor: Of what concern of foreign beings?
Derek: Of none to you, Thor! Just as you were so unconcerned when you destroyed this small creature, so bravely!
Thor: It was no more than an insect.
Derek: But it had life. And that life you had to take to satisfy your endless hunger for killing.

The romance is as unimpressive and sexless as the 50s. She has two boyfriends and nothing really happens. Maybe we can excuse her because they're trying to stop Derek's alien friend from zapping everyone's meat off their skeletons.

It's interesting that the reporter boyfriend isn't jealous - maybe some progressive thought there? Or maybe just the real life relationship between the two guys snuck into the fiction.

The writer/producer was in the film as the reporter/boyfriend of the girl Derek was in love with and was actually the boyfriend of the man who played Derek. Fun background info.

This next exchange was kind of cheesy, but maybe tries to say in words what they should've shown - how love feels and that you can love those who seem different by your culture's standards because we're all the same - as in the Twilight Zone's People Are the Same All Over and Third From the Sun.

Derek: Betty, when you learn where I'm from, well... you will not understand but, I hope it will not make any difference between us because...Betty Morgan: I don't care where your from. I don't understand all this, but somehow I feel that I've always known you. That we've never been apart!

Another kind of irrelevant but fun fact:The grandfather, Harvey Dunn, had missing fingers and in real life made cards to explain.

The story of my finger cut off July 18, 1908: "Caught in a cogwheel of a printing press at the Press and Dakotan office, Yankton, S. D., while working around the press. Attending physician Dr. Moorehouse. I did not sue for damages. I can write just as well now, if not better, than before the accident. The stub of the finger has the tendency to melt in summer and freeze in winter. I swear this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge." Sincerely yours, Harvey B. Dunn.

Movie Nite: Plan 9 From Outer Space

2019-10-13T13:46:00.001-04:00

We were going to watch one horror movie every night in October, but I think we're averaging every other.

Plan 9 From Outer Space

The UFOs were as bad as promised.

And Vampira!!!

I kinda fell asleep a little.

And this is pretty bad... because only detectives can makes very basic inferences:

LT. HARPER Well don't forget Mrs. Trent claims to have seen them too. She didn't have anything on her breath.
LARRY She was hysterical.
LT. HARPER Well true, she was frightened, and in a state of shock. But, don't forget that torn nightgown and the scratched feet.
LARRY Yeah I hadn't thought of that. I guess that's why you're a detective lieutenant and I'm still a uniformed cop.

But there are a few interesting things! -- besides the legendary badness of the film. The aliens want to destroy earth people because we made terrible weapons - probably the big bomb scare theme - and they want to destroy us before we destroy them. Compared to the slasher films, I appreciate the noble goal here. In fiction writing, they always say to show, don't just tell, so possibly the guy could've taken a few classes before launching this, but I like the idea.

In another part, the alien mentions God and the human is shocked. In a way, it's a comment on how people from other cultures assume they're different, but they have more in common than they think. I like that theme generally, like several in the old Twilight Zone series.

The major funder was a Baptist preacher and converted a lot of the cast, as I learned in the Vampira book I read recently. Tor Johnson, while being baptized with most of the crew, pretended to drown. Maybe they didn't take the conversion all that seriously? Would've been funny either way.

The book in question:

Vampira: Dark Goddess of Horror - my notes on Goodreads:
There isn't a huge cache of info on Vampira it seems. Even so, Poole manages a good bio as well as description of where she fit in the cultural changes and how she may have influenced.

What stood out to me was that she was a strong figure who instead of doing the submissive pin up routine, looked at the audience and embodied a women's right to pleasure - and pain if she wants - just by a scream.

She seems to have had lots of bad luck where others got breaks, made a few no so great choices (the lawsuit, for one), and was a little too strong for her era. Like the James Dean stunts. I feel like that would have been fine for today, but it kind of soured people on her at the time.

She's kind of an underdog or forgotten legend. She was pretty revolutionary - or ahead of her time in some ways. There was a bit about how she wanted to choose the next Vampira. She wanted a black or Latina woman, but the network said no to avoid "controversy."

She was under contract four a role in a work by William Faulkner. She was in the Village in the 40s, though her words are forgotten rather than celebrated like her male cohorts, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs. Ackerman, it's said, borrowed from her without attribution. It's amazing that she had so much influence and so little reward.

Quote from the beginning: "Here, the marginalized learn the importance of performance for survival. They understand themselves as different from the dominant power structure and know a direct challenge rarely ends well. So they role-play and subvert, often through the medium of anarchic humor."

transgender people and athletics

2019-09-23T09:54:00.001-04:00

transgender people and athletics and the ADF scare tactics

---

I think I'll try and put most of my thoughts here. I'm feeling hermit-y again. Facebook is increasingly not a place I want to microblog or do much else besides connect in groups or post funny crochet things.

I get that white guys think communicating with (read: shouting down/mansplaining) people with differing views is open minded, but I spend my life swimming upstream and being uncomfortable and need the respite of groups with similar interests who don't get offended by equality.

---
I saw this link below come up on my timeline - and just to warn you - it's going to be biased and hateful because that's the Alliance Defending Freedom's brand - so I looked for more info and interestingly, the targeted individuals are black. (See the Boston.com link here) Hmmm.

A few links on that bit:

-- https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2810857-andraya-yearwood-knows-she-has-the-right-to-compete.amp.html

-- https://rewire.news/article/2019/04/05/the-crisis-of-violence-against-transgender-people-is-not-a-myth/

-- https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community

---

In quotes is the FB post and link that popped up on my feed this morning.

"I'm not posting this to get into the whole gender issue (if you comment on that, try to argue about that, I will remove it. Take that to your own wall). I'm posting this because these young ladies, and others like them, are being robbed of what they have worked so hard to earn."
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/09/09/make-your-voice-heard-men-don-t-belong-in-women-s-sports

---

The poster only wanted to talk about the sports - all transgender discussion would be deleted, but I don't understand that since the crux is fearmongering on the right and complete lack of knowledge of that entire point of view, probably intentionally. So discussion of transgender issues would be exactly what's needed.

The link is directly encouraging hate and discrimination, so discouraging discussion is asking us to accept the indoctrination and propaganda without talking about it while posting on a public discussion oriented platform. Though I get not wanting a bunch of arguing on your own page.

Here was my polite appeal to the religious crowd before I deleted it:
I would just encourage people to find info outside of this organization, which very definitely is pushing discrimination if you look at the action items (and its activism in general). There's already a court case. This will get sorted out. It needs no action.

This was a thoughtful Twitter thread (indy link below) more based on evidence about trans athletes.... (#7 kind of explains what this organization is doing)...

The way I learn and connect with things is through books, so maybe read books by trans authors? I would just urge a bit of understanding or curiosity even though it makes us uncomfortable theologically before acting like this org here.

https://www.indy100.com/article/trans-athletes-lgbt-twitter-thread-brynn-tannehill-8808621

---
I wonder if this issue and "concern for fairness" can be the gateway into thinking about how we might be too competitive or how sports shouldn't matter that much or how we should focus on education more actually.
---

Further searching and information:

Interesting find here. A documentary at the Tribecca Film Festival featuring one of the girls from Connecticut... Could be a source of the backlash. I don't know if I'm interested in what came first. I just don't think we should discriminate and be obsessed with people's genitals at birth or whatever it is Christians say.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/changing-the-game-trailer-exclusive-tribeca-1203193075/

I haven't read these, but I'd start here maybe- books by non-binary authors:

https://bookriot.com/2018/10/27/trans-non-binary-authors/

Peterson, Pinker, and the Intellectual Dark Web

2019-05-29T11:26:00.002-04:00

There are a group of names that keep popping up that people will insist that are more progressive than you think or that need to be heard because they are being silenced. Who can be against free speech; right? In reality, whatever else their main focus is, they are usually spouting some serious strains of Islamophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, hate for immigrants to rival the GOP, or patriarchal gender binary defense to rival the most conservative church. They will talk about free speech and human rights so that you think they might be progressive - until you realize these rights they are talking about are only for them. They are uninterested in yours. Who are they? Generally white guys who think everything is equal so why do these other groups need any more rights? It's infringing on their freedom to call people by the pronouns they ask. They whine about #metoo going "too far." They don't see color. Women owe them sex and ant prove capitalism is natural. They love to opine about the outrage culture of the left and identity politics.

This is a fun little satire.

New Jordan Peterson book asserts all dogs are boys and all cats are girls

I fell into the intellectual dark web awhile back in explaining why Jordan Peterson is not as great as Joe Rogan fans insist. At times I have emphasized the fact that he spawned men's rights activist groups of entitled male "victims" of feminism. Other times, I have cited how he is, some argue, hateful toward trans people and thinks feminists are evil. Men have trouble connecting to these themes apparently.

On one hand, he uses science like a social Darwinist, which is to say wrong - he doesn't know anything.

On the other hand, lots of Big Thinkers and New Atheists or whatever we're calling them overlap with this problematic bunch for some benevolent (or not so benevolent) sexism, racism, etc. Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker come to mind. They are known for being critics of religion and don't always say objectionable things. They come across as reasonable and people you should be allies with in the protection of separation of church and state. But some will cite scientific research or statistics with the criticism that seems to support racist or Islamophobic stereotypes, but them will warn against such - as though to say "I'm not racist, but..." and then go on to say something very racist. Racists and Islamophobes love these guys. And they have the added benefit of these guys being respected neuroscientists and thinkers rather than a Milo Yiannopoulos type spouting hateful tropes. Not everyone who enjoys these skeptics or religion critics is racist or sexist, but they often can't see the problem with them due to their privilege.

In "Why Do People Love to Hate Steven Pinker," you can see a little of the disconnect in this description of Quillette in which I agree with the unnamed latter critic that Quillette is a center for white male grievance:

"He’s also been a supporter of and contributor to Quillette, the online house journal for the Intellectual Dark Web, the loose collection of academics and writers who see themselves as forging a centrist path in a rigidly ideological culture. Quillette is either “unique and indispensable,” as Pinker puts it, or a “center for white male grievance,” as one critic described it. The Quillette ethos, to the degree that there is one, tracks closely with Pinker’s thinking. "

In Down Girl by Kate Manne, she shows how Steven Pinker indirectly used someone else's sexist argument to deny that the Isla Vista killings were caused by misogyny. He might be in favor of progress, but that doesn't mean he's not also sexist or unable to see the problem (and denying one exists!) owing to his privilege.

"Again" because Pinker used Heather Mac Donald to do his anti-feminist dirty work for him in the immediate aftermath of the Isla Vista killings. pic.twitter.com/reMgaJyQxa
— Kate Manne (@kate_manne) March 12, 2018

The AV Club has an interesting take on the infamous Bari Weiss NYT article on the subject:
The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it

"The ridiculousness of the article is pretty clear. It takes the arguments of its subjects at face value, legitimizes the unironic use of “Intellectual Dark Web,” and generally reads as an apologia for those who, a few short years ago, were rightfully ignored for propagating bad arguments meant to give audiences reassurance that their worst instincts are, in fact, good to have. "

Finally Watched - Won't You Be My Neighbor

2019-04-14T11:50:00.003-04:00

Won't You Be My Neighbor?
Trailer

I've been putting it off watching this Mr. Rogers documentary for a year because I knew how I'd feel, and I didn't want to do that yet - you know, deal with the melancholy - like he was the last good person and he's dead... I'm going to be processing this for another year.

Some notes.

That first week of the show was about WAR! How did they do that? King Friday wanted to build a wall, Henrietta Pussycat was scared of the shooting, and the resolution was to send messages of peace by balloon to the king. Wow. An anti-war message promoting peace and possibly protest! I feel like people would say that's too political for kids – and even some adults – today. You'd be accused of having an agenda, of being divisive, pushing that liberal political message. Why can't we get along and rise above politics would be the message today. But the fact that that was the first week was awesome. He kept that up, speaking to children's deepest fears and hence some adults' as well.

How he didn't like TV really is great. He saw the pies in the face and wanted to use the medium differently. That was kind of a big idea. The images in the film were of commercials with kids with toy guns and slapstick comedy with people doing mean things.

Of course his mother's quote of looking for the helpers is in there. We bring it out in times of disaster. I look for the helpers. The kind people who do things because they too see the humanity in others and want to put as much good out into the world as possible. Those are my people, but there are so few...

What he says about silence – that it's the greatest gift. It's what I feel or AM. This one was profound to me and hit hard. I'm naturally this way, but it's always made me feel different and a bit defective. (See later when Daniel Tiger worries he's a mistake...) I've always been teased for that, but I suppose it was harder for him being a man and going up against those toxic masculinity/ male entitlement type expectations. Clemmons explains how he modeled a different way to be a man. That was groundbreaking stuff -- him just being himself. Clemmons debunks the wild speculations that Rogers was gay. They had nothing to compare him to, so they made up tattoos and navy seal stories, etc. That was a great moment as well since it's something that's still lacking in our culture despite strides we've made in equality.

I love his sincerity and the way he connects with each individual and lets them know he's happy to be spending this moment with them and he wouldn't have it any other way. When he says he's glad to meet someone, it's not a formality, he means it. Yo-Yo Ma was funny in describing that. He was three inches away from his face and it freaked him out. The look on his face as he recalled that was priceless.

I always want to be that open as he was and tell people that I appreciate the time I spend with them because I do. There are times in my life I've been able to tell people what they mean to me – usually when someone dies or when I've felt grateful - wedding and baby showers when so many people are so incredibly supportive and helpful you feel like you can't possibly deserve it. A few other random times. But I feel like I don't want to unnerve people by saying it out of the blue. Certain times feel more acceptable for me to express that so they won't think I'm terminally ill or contemplating suicide or something.

He somehow took the best things from Christianity and Buddhism and acted it out – the love and acceptance and being in the moment, not the authoritarian sexism. Though there was an issue with Clemmons going to a gay bar and Rogers having talk with him that he couldn't do that. I wished he was better on that. They didn't go into that so deeply. It seemed that he came around to personal acceptance of his friend, but who knows whether the gay bar incident was more about the show and how he knew that the public wouldn't accept it or what. Maybe he was protecting his friend? Maybe just the show?

Daniel tiger saying he thought he was a mistake... That was heart wrenching because I think all of us with an introverted tendency tend to think this at some point – or all points in life about various things about us. The duet is amazing. It's what you wish someone would've told you instead of eventually sorting that out on your own. I sort of told my daughter this on a make up discussion, that I like her just the way she is. I wanted to make sure she knew that it's okay to dress up and have fun with make up, but it's her I love for being her. I hope I said it right.

A big takeaway is when he told why he made the ending song, how he thought every child needed to hear that, that they were loved just the way they are. That's important. I feel like I didn't get that enough.

The film covered a bit of the backlash to Mr. Rogers. I can't believe I said that – backlash. To Mr. Rogers. Fox News blamed him for the state of America and the youth who feel entitled or didn't earn their specialness. Westboro Baptist Church picketed his funeral. There's so much wrong with this Fox News conservative view. He's talking about a human's inherent worth and it being important to know that for oneself and also (or in order to) see it in others. He's not talking about unearned expertise or some former Muslim making the rounds denouncing Islam not because of his or her scholarship but because he or she fit your narrative of hate and vengeance.

I grew up with that backlash to being too loving, sadly. Spare the rod and spoil the child! I'm not going to argue about disciplinary methods here. That's another conversation. Parents need to figure that out. That's only one aspect of this. I heard this in CHURCH. People would say from time to time that other denominations focused too much on the love of God like it was some mushy gushy very bad thing. They would say preachers are talking too much about God's love and not enough about church discipline. “When I was a kid, we heard fire and brimstone and we behaved! Church-goers today are just like the children of parents who don't want to hurt their child's self-esteem by correcting him.” They scoffed at self-esteem and love as weak (unless it was tough love in which they were exacting harsh penalties while saying love). But I have to say I died just a little inside whenever I heard it said we don't need to hear about the love of God so much or that it is overemphasized at the expense of harder truths. Every cell in my body was saying NO! But we NEED love! Don't take it away! I need to hear it. I don't experience love in “not even to eat with such a one.” I need you to look me in the eyes and tell me your love is unconditional. I need you to show me you value my inherent humanity (and I, yours). Tough love isn't love. Hating the sin, but loving the sinner isn't love. Of course I only felt those things. I could never ever say them out loud.

One thing that's odd about him was that he was so kind and well adjusted despite being a rich kid and then on to fame. Even with that, I feel he's a kindred quiet spirit I feel a affinity with. Maybe the bullying and music and introspection helped give him that desire to put good into the world as the ultimate goal with no ulterior narcissistic motive. I always say as a shorthand for my philosophy – do the most good for the most people. I feel like despite the Christianity and Republicanism, he thought like that. If I had met him though, I may have feared his Christianity. Though i guess when he was alive, I was one, so maybe I'd have admired the way he took the good from it and left the poison.

At the end of the film, they speculate about what Rogers would say about Trump. I think he'd focus on the problems not from a broad political or philosophical point of view, but he'd focus on how that affected kids like he always did. He wouldn't tell about school shootings, but address the fear they could have worrying about what if that happens to them. And in the same way, those immigrant kids who are scared of being deported or separated from their parents – that's where he'd start. I wonder if he'd have the same compassion for Muslim kids though. He didn't want Clemmons to come out as gay, but was at least good on race with that segment making the point of sharing the pool together. It's hard to say.

************************

One more thing on the Challenger and memory...

I'll put this at the end because I don't associate it with Mr. Rogers, but it was in the film and made me think about that day and how I don't know if what I'm remembering is true to the facts of where I was or what I saw.

Footage of the Challenger exploding was so strange. I saw it and had a very immediate reaction. Gut wrenching. Very sad. I wonder if my memory of watching this in school is real or something I made from news coverage. I swear I remember all the classes at my Christian school gathering around the few TVs, though. There was cheering and excitement- she was a teacher going up, you could feel the teachers' connection. And it lifted off, but then everything turned to just confusion and sadness so completely abruptly. Such a complete shift, opposite emotions. It was jarring even though I didn't know what a space launch was supposed to look like or even really what death meant most likely. I don't know what I knew. But I knew the thing that was keeping them safe wasn't doing that anymore and they couldn't breathe all the way up there. Did I know that even? Then I swear a little kid said “see the pretty colors” and it made me really sad both because they didn't know people were hurt and because they'd find out sometime. You want to help, but you know telling them the truth isn't going to "help" really. That was another kick in the gut. But I wonder how much of that memory is news footage later and how much is really mine. I heard Bart Ehrman speak on memory once and now I don't know what I know. Haha.

If you want to cry again,

read the part about when Diane Rehm asks Mr. Rogers

what he does when he's sad... It's heartbreaking.

Here's the Congressional hearing where Mr. Rogers secures funding for PBS.

ACTION - Born Alive Bills - NCGA S359

2019-04-12T11:47:00.000-04:00

I wrote our governor today about the born alive bill. I did use two paragraphs from a NARAL post, but I added the first and last paragraphs.

So this is one of those ALEC copy/paste things - frequently referred to as the "born alive bill".

See here and here for how they keep popping up, why we don't need them, and how they push an anti-choice agenda through seemingly innocuous means.

Online: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper

Please veto these extreme anti-woman, anti-abortion bills. This is a religious/healthcare/moral issue for pregnant individuals. The simple fact is this is a human rights issue. By denying women abortion as healthcare, lawmakers assume women lack the capacity to make health and moral decisions for themselves. What's next? Taking away our bank accounts or forcing our husbands to co-sign loans?

S359 (H602 in the house) is an extreme anti-abortion bill written by politicians, not doctors, that has no basis in medicine or science. The sole purpose of this bill is to intimidate patients and criminalize doctors and healthcare practitioners.

It's yet another effort by the anti-abortion majority to push extreme and inflammatory rhetoric in order to achieve their ultimate goal: banning abortion altogether.

Please veto all anti-abortion legislation and don't let the religious right take away our right to healthcare, autonomy, privacy, and religion.

***********************

*PACK THE GALLERY--#StopS359!* MONDAY, APRIL 15th, 2pm

North Carolina General Assembly
16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh

Bring all your friends and come pack the NCGA Senate gallery Monday, 4/15, at 2pm. The Senate will be voting on the extreme anti-abortion bill S359--Come fight for reproductive rights and abortion access and to #Stop359!

The North Carolina General Assembly is again trying to restrict abortion access and use our bodies for political stunts. S359 (H602 in the house) is an extreme anti-abortion bill written by politicians, not doctors, that has no basis in medicine or science. The sole purpose of this bill is to intimidate patients and criminalize doctors and healthcare practitioners.

It's yet another effort by the anti-abortion majority to push extreme and inflammatory rhetoric in order to achieve their ultimate goal: banning abortion altogether.

Help us pack the Senate gallery of the NCGA

Please also keep calling and emailing your members of the NCGA and tell them to vote against S359 and its companion bill H602! Find your NC House and NC Senate members here: https://www.ncleg.gov/RnR/Representation

And, keep contacting Governor Cooper to tell him to veto S359, to veto H602, and to veto all other anti-abortion bills that reach his desk.
Phone: (919) 814-2000
Online: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper

"Something," Ilhan Omar, and Islamophobia

2019-04-12T09:54:00.003-04:00

Why is the GOP hating women of color today?

Well, here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/pure-racist-act-ny-post-slammed-using-attack-rep-omar-over-speech-islamophobia/

So several things here. People are mad because she didn't call 9/11 murder, she called it "something." And why she might have done that - the answer to this is absolutely illustrated in the Post's reaction and in people's reaction below. See the quote a few paragraphs down.

She may have said that because she was talking in that moment that was picked out and over-analyzed about the resulting Islamophobia and the blanket assumption after 9/11 that all Muslims and more widely all brown people are terrorists and dealt (and it remains) with everything from death threats and discrimination to actual physical harm.

So proving her point, the NY Post puts the signature picture of the burning towers and responds to the Congresswoman's words with all the power of its shoddy journalism on the front page with a giant headline, guaranteed to whip up the uninformed hatemongers into a frenzy. Aaand this happens...

Quote:

"Hundreds of people protested Omar outside the banquet, with chants that included “Burn the Koran,” “Ilhan Omar go to hell,” and “Shame on you terrorists.”

She used her speech to talk about Islamophobia, and she did not mince words about President Trump, saying she believed that he played a role in fueling “hate against Muslims.” "

So you see the Islamophobia she was referring to is alive and well.

When someone says 9/11 is murder, it puts the attention on the perpetrators, which was done after the tragedy to generate hate widely for brown people and Muslims and flag waving vengeance and a desire to kill in another ill-conceived invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter having nothing to do with it. Do we call those murders?? There were far more victims of 9/11 than those who died in the towers and she was differentiating between them.

Note that these people aren't criticizing her words, they are saying that she is a terrorist which was the very point she was making about the atmosphere after 9/11 where government policy and GOP/Bush fearmongering had dangerous effects then and continues to now through GOP/Trump.

You can question her phrasing, her tone, or her clothes - women deal with this EVERY SINGLE DAY with sexism and women of color more so than me through racism - but she is making a valid point that we need to pay attention to.

This is the NY Post's front page news:

And here you have another example of the NY Post's opportunistic bottom feeding exploitation of fear, racism, and stereotypes. Sub par journalism would be one thing. Inciting hatred is far worse.

Size Matters, But Training Helps!

2019-03-31T13:24:00.000-04:00

Most of my jiu-jitsu training partners outweigh me by at least a hundred pounds. Sometimes more. I’m a 5’0” 41-year-old bookish introvert. This sport is hard. I get mat burns and sore fingers and bruises. Am I doing well? Do I look like a purple belt? Everyone’s bigger and stronger. Why keep coming back?

A lot of folks seem to rely on quite a bit of strength at first if they happen to be built that way. I wasn’t born that lucky or with a particular interest in spending hours on the machines in a gym next to guys flexing for themselves in mirrors. Why stick around if you’re not winning?

In working with bigger folks, I have had to be mostly technical and that can be demoralizing, especially as a beginner without many tools in the toolbox. Even later I think – I’m a purple belt after all, I should be somewhat good at this. This sweep should work! It’s hard and I spend a lot of time figuring out how to escape – which is to say on the bottom sucking stale, sweaty air, ineffectually shrimping, being the proverbial nail instead of the hammer, as the Gracie quote goes. I don’t have it all figured out now, but I’m better than I was when I started! That’s a win for me.

There are some advantages to being small like speed and fitting into spaces people don’t realize they’re leaving, but if all my weight isn’t in the two or three points I’m using for the technique, it’s probably not going to happen. Even when I’m doing it perfectly, their strength gets the better of me many times. Size matters. That’s just a fact. That doesn’t have to ruin the fun though! Is crushing everyone you meet what you consider winning? Is that the goal of your training?

Not all competition and vigorous training is bad. I do kind of dread the type of competition when you first get your purple belt or a new guy thinks “oh, this tiny lady should be an easy submission.” But when you find good people who respect each other and watch out for one another, a little competition can be good. There is a way to push each other, up the pace, but still in a playful controlled way. You both understand that your life doesn’t depend on “winning” this particular session. If your guard gets passed or you get swept, it’s not the end of your career. It means a little more work maybe. Now you have to pass guard again. But it certainly doesn’t reflect poorly on who you are as a person. It’s not a character flaw. If you’re on the mat, you’re learning and getting better. If you’re doing the work, you’re winning.

Though I enjoy friendly competition, I’m also putting my life in your hands as a smaller person. We smaller folks have to stay vigilant about a partner muscling through techniques or whether or not to invert or turtle if a heavier person might do something dangerous. Even if not explicitly stated each time, we all – no matter our size – still trust each other with our joints and necks. Training partners are there to make each other better and take care of each other. You’re not there to practice “street techniques” or mark off “wins” in your jiu-jitsu notebook. At least I hope not – not in an open mat and especially not during a regular class. There’s a high degree of trust involved that we don’t necessarily think about on a day to day basis. But if we’re all – regardless of size – in it for cooperative, respectful competition rather than skull crunching, spine crushing, knee wrenching wins we’ll all last longer, learn more and have more fun doing it.

I wrote this for:
https://geoffbalmebjj.com/2019/03/31/size-matters-but-training-helps/

Toxic Masculinity and Libertarianism

2019-03-24T12:24:00.000-04:00

I've been increasingly interested in the links between white supremacy and domestic violence since the mass shootings have been linked to these and toxic masculinity is in the news. There are links and associations amongst those things throughout society as we've seen in Gamergate, guests on sports radio shows and their massive popularity, and even some presidential candidates' problematic associations. In trying to find a driving force, left and right didn't seem all that helpful/conclusive, but libertarianism seemed a possible likely connection with the emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of altruism/equality/liberty for ALL. -- and it says MRA are two sides of a coin, not that if you're one, you have to be the other (but you could be). And, yes, there are different strains of libertarianism, so don't sweat it if you don't have MRA tendencies!

This article is from 2015 and so maybe unacceptable to many, but I wondered if anything like this had been written...and it turns out it had. There are three good quotes below, presented for your introspection.

Why Libertarians and MRAs Sound the Same When They Talk About Feminism

On MRA:

"For those of you who are blissfully unaware, men's rights activists are basically weaponized douchebags. They tell us that feminism has gone too far and men are now second-class citizens."

On privilege bolstering MRA or libertarianism:

"Obviously, the idea that we all go through life as isolated individuals and that group identities (race, class, gender, sexuality, etc) don't define us in any meaningful way could only seem plausible to a white man of at least moderate financial means—or anyone bound up in the aspirational fantasies of whiteness, masculinity, and economic elitism. Whiteness, and especially straight male whiteness, is treated as the de facto standard from which others deviate, to such an extent that a straight white (cis, able-bodied) man can completely forget his experience is not universal. From within that perspective, it's easy to see freedom as consisting in, and only in, being left alone to do whatever you want with your money."

And ding ding ding - we have a winner!-->👇

"Both libertarians and MRAs are dedicated to missing this point. They speak in the language of individual rights and equality because by reducing all the complexity of the social world down to a set of isolated units, they can pretend that everyone's privileges and disadvantages are rightfully earned."

Banning Abortion in the Case of Down Syndrome

2019-03-24T11:58:00.002-04:00

Banning Abortion in the Case of Down Syndrome

Arkansas Senate approves bill banning Down's syndrome abortions

Arkansas ‘Down Syndrome Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act’ (SB 2)

As it impinges on the right to an abortion I don't think anything should - if you are pregnant and don't want to be, you should have the right to decide - but I don't think Down Syndrome is a good reason for it if you want kids in the first place.

I don't think one *should* abort for sex selection or Down Syndrome or anything along those lines. But that's a different question than a legal ban. Bans get into the state requiring you to give a reason and or proof and that's extremely problematic for privacy in medical care and maintaining a right to abortion in general. Obviously there's a movement to ban abortions of which this ban is likely a part, not just a disingenuous slippery slope argument. It's got to remain an opinion and up for discussion rather than law if we want to keep the right to choose at all.

What about Iceland? They've got such a low number of Down Syndrome births.

As long as there is choice in the matter - which is a necessary right of bodily autonomy - it won't be eradicated, as headlines frequently announce. I don't even like using that word, eradicated, but it drives home a certain point about our problem with ableism in this country and the extent to which Down Sydrome isn't really a disease that you can, in good conscience, speak about in such a way. You aren't going to "eradicate" it with any sort of preventative measure at this point - those things aren't known as far as I know. It's not polio. Eliminating a single disease is good and there are vaccines that accomplish that by preventing the spread of them and keep people from catching it. You don't "catch" Down Syndrome though.

The facts are, that Down Syndrome isn't a disease and the eugenics aspect is hard for me to deal with. Eliminating a segment of the population with traits some simply find undesirable is troubling, to say the least. With Downs, sure the are health issues, but there are a host of other traits that make them much needed members of society. We would be less without them. I wonder what the line would be if we could predict blindness or other things from the womb. Who would be next? Maybe in Iceland and the Netherlands they are in general a more cooperative or collective society and services wouldn't diminish despite a lower incidence and there wouldn't be more stigma/discrimination, but I suspect that situation here would be a disaster.

It might seem like a positive, this near eradication in Iceland, but talk of eradication is hard to reconcile (or frankly hear anyone discuss) with knowing Down's people and what they've added to my life. It's not like polio, where there's a vaccine and you're eradicating a disease instead of a set of traits and a particular personality. We would be less without them.

I hope the thinking doesn't change among our population such that it goes the way of Iceland - I wonder if it comes with a greater intolerance of all disability - but equally I hope abortion is never banned again.

---

If you want to read something by someone who said it better, you can read this by a woman who has experience:

The "Down Syndrome Abortion Ban" Uncovers A Difficult Truth About Pro-Choice Politics & Disability

A couple of quotes from the article, things to think about:

I do not believe my daughter's mutations are an accident. I do not believe they are a gift. I believe they are part of who she is. And I know that I will always feel grateful and honored to be Esmé’s mother, just as she is.

Genetic mutations, genetic difference, is what has allowed us to become more resilient as a species. It is at the root of how we grow and adapt.

Instead, what we need, and what individuals like Esmé require of us, is a turn toward compassion, selflessness, joy, and determination in the face of struggle.

---

From the struggle in Ireland where people with Down Syndrome were used as political pawns by anti-choicers.

STOP USING DOWN SYNDROME AS ANTI-CHOICE PROPAGANDA

Quote from article:

Writing in the Irish online publication The Journal, Darach Ó Séaghdha, the father of a toddler with Down syndrome, takes issue with the "Love Both" flyer. He's tired of seeing faces of children with Down syndrome in anti-abortion propaganda and almost nowhere else. "She's more likely to see a girl like her in such propaganda than she is to see a girl like her in a TV show or even working in a shop," he writes. Meanwhile, he’d like to see these groups put similar efforts into expanding postnatal services.

Gaza war crimes report

2019-03-24T10:18:00.000-04:00

Gaza war crimes report and what's been in the news the past two months...

So a run down on news in Palestine. There's always too much to digest, but when the world notices and makes a report of Israel's war crimes I feel it's always a positive.

👉First, a new film. 1949: Creation and Catastrophe
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/last-eyewitnesses-nakba/

👉February 2019 - any time war crimes are officially pointed out, I am here for it. There will be no adverse effects for the criminals, but at least it is being recorded - this time.
UN Investigators Call For Arrests Over Gaza War Crimes

UN says Israel's killings at Gaza protests may amount to war crimes

👉Two ads in the Israel elections that seem to say the quiet part loud and incite violence:

First ad --
https://t.co/s8Y4Oziw75

And the shooting one -- with video 😥😤
Jewish Lawmaker Shoots Dead Arab Colleague in Campaign Video; Complaint Filed
👉March 2019 - continued terrorizing of peaceful protesters
Palestinian shot, injured as Israeli army attacks peaceful Kufr Qaddoum protests

👉Israel's need for self-defense just doesn't hold up.
'Endless Trip to Hell': Israel Jails Hundreds of Palestinian Boys a Year. These Are Their Testimonies
"A report a year earlier from British legal experts concluded that the conditions the Palestinian children are subjected to amount to torture, and just five months ago the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe deplored Israel’s policy of arresting underage children, declaring, “An end must be put to all forms of physical or psychological abuse of children during arrest, transit and waiting periods, and during interrogations.”"

👉Susan Abulhawa's social media feed brought this one to my attention. Maybe it's as a result of the Ilhan Omar issue where she called out the US bias and AIPAC lobby group's stranglehold on American politics and was wrongly derided as being anti-Semitic.

Israel’s Stranglehold on American Politics
"The Israel lobby’s buying off of nearly every senior politician in the United States, facilitated by our system of legalized bribery, is not an anti-Semitic trope."

👉Saying the quiet parts loud. Israel isn't a state for all its citizens - only for Jews. We all knew that. Now we can fight apartheid and get rights for all equally? Right?

Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is ‘not a state of all its citizens’

👉Somewhat related to the previous link, the US Trump administration recognized Israeli soverignty over the land they stole in Syria although they have no authority to do so.
Trump says US will recognize Israel's sovereignty over Golan Heights

And of course some in the apartheid state would like to make the apartheid official and have the US declare the West Bank the property of Israel, also contravening international law.
Israel MK calls for Trump to recognise Israel’s annexation of West Bank

👉Daily acts of violence and injustice against Palestinians
Two Palestinian Families Forced by Israeli Authority to Demolish Their Homes

Me and Joe Rogan, Part Deux: Is He Liberal and Open-minded?

2019-03-22T13:11:00.000-04:00

There has been push back as to my assertion that Joe Rogan isn't as liberal as fans think he is. I still think he's maybe more liberal than his listeners, but definitely right of center on many things, though occasionally leaning left and mostly libertarian.

His anti-PC rants make it clear he's a privileged white guy and trivializes and diminishes anyone else's experience who sees the world as anything but how he sees it. PC is just about not being as asshole, yet he wants to retain his right to be an asshole and be considered nice and reasonable. But this isn't a right. You can say what you want! But don't be surprised when people call your sexism sexism.

In his 2016 show, which if you had any doubts about his leanings, is called Triggered. Out of the gate with the title he's belittling marginalized groups' daily discrimination and issues by kind of laughing them off. “Oh, why do you need safe spaces and trigger warnings, you oversensitive snowflakes!” He feels this way because he doesn't experience these hardships brought on by gender or race and has no desire to understand those who do. He even goes farther and says they are trying to censor and control him, which is absurd. Instead of trying to understand where people are coming from in his so-called inquisitive manner, he hand waves his obstinance saying “it's all good.” He puts up a wall of objection to much need introspection on his part and then “forgives” the marginalized groups for offending him in a way entirely manufactured by him not putting himself in their shoes. Is that gaslighting? It's something.

Quote form the Maxim review ofTriggered:

“If that title and Rogan’s history of criticizing political correctness has you expecting a 60 minute screed against safe spaces and microaggressions, you’re going to be disappointed. Rogan certainly takes his swipes—feminists, transgender people and Instagram models will find cause to take offense—but...”

--So basically, don't expect a horrible screed, it's just going to be good-natured trans and gay and feminist bashing! It's all good!

Look at his guests if you need further proof of his leanings – and I'll give alternative guest ideas as we go. (I also understand that it won't work if my guest suggestions don't want any part of Joe Rogan or if Rogan himself is completely uninterested in the topics or guests. That would be a further proof that he's not as open as he would have you believe.) He'd rather talk with incels, neo-Nazis, fake moon landing guy or quack pseudoscience when he gets high and “curious” rather than a wide range of people. He's applauded for this “learning” though never really pushes his actual intellectual or ideological boundaries. In order for me to see a leftist or someone liberal and curious about left leaning things, I'd see him asking: what is restorative justice? What does abolishing ICE or abolishing prisons mean? What would that world look like? But he instead wants to find a leftist hypocrisy between feminists wanting to see rapists in jail and leftist talk of closing prisons. And he doesn't really even want to explore that so much as make a declaration. His curiosity just does not extend in that leftward direction like everyone wants to say. He saves all the open-mindedness and curiosity for the right, alt-right and right wingnut part of the spectrum – if it is a spectrum at all, which I would debate.

Same with anything to do with women. He's not open to introspectively challenging his beliefs that feminists hate men or feminism is bad. He has zero curiosity except when he has "proof'" that actually women are the problem - and then it isn't a feminist guest, but a link with a title he likes (though the article didn't say what he was asserting... ).

A search for Joe Rogan and feminists will get you JRE #724 with Christina Sommers (and a long list of his problems with feminists and feminism, showing that he really doesn't get it). A quick search on Sommers will give you her connection to conservative think tank AmericanEnterprise Institute where she thinks about gender with Dick Cheneyand those like-minded freethinkers.

Rogan likes guns. But not particularly women or trans people. But they could bond over guns, if not a belief in equality or the protection of their further existence on the planet.

https://unladylike.co/episodes/014/shoot-gun

Cristen and Caroline, hosts – very long list of references on gun owning groups, if interested!

Queer and Trans Gun Club - https://twitter.com/trigwarnatl

I don't like guns, so I can't really speak to all these groups, but maybe they'd be interesting or sparka liberal's curiosity.

https://www.triggerhappypanda.com/

Trigger Happy Firearm Instruction, LLC is dedicated to empowering women through safe firearms education! We aim to effectively educate 1 million women on firearms safety and fundamentals.

Or this? Socialist Rifle Association.

The Socialist Rifle Association's mission is to uphold the right of the working class to keep and bear arms and maintain the skills necessary for self and community defense.

They oppose assault weapons bans AND the US backed coup in Venezuela. How about that.

I don't know anything about that. Rogan is likely not curious. https://socialistra.org/

For UBI, universal basic income, he had Andrew Yang, Richard Spencer's favorite and not someone who could really explain the pros and cons.

Here's an argument against: http://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/universal-basic-income-inequality-work

Robert Reich may not come on there, but Dan Savage did in t#512 (2014, so maybe UBI, marginal tax rates and Medicare For All wasn't as popular then?). All people got from this appearance on Reddit was - did Joe Rogan “win” or “lose”. Facepalm. Savage isn't really all that liberal either - he's another with one of these privileged white boy libertarian streaks.

He could have antifa people on and talk about how the media portrays them. He could have democratic Socialists on and talk about how they are demonized as Stalinists. There's very little "inquisitiveness" with respect to leftist topics whereas he gives more of a frenemy vibe and wide latitude to a wide variety of right wing nuts.

Rogan has had Ben Shapiro on, but no one from anything like Current Affairs? https://www.currentaffairs.org/

I wonder how this show compares to Rogan? https://burnitalldownpod.com/

“What do you get when you put a Think Progress sports reporter, a Canadian sports activist and a Hofstra professor together on the same podcast? One capitalist-hating, Trump-hating, NFL protest-loving group of far Left women.” – NewsBusters

Brenda Elsey, Associate Professor of History at Hofstra in New York
Jessica Luther, freelance sportswriter and author in Austin, Texas
Shireen Ahmed, freelance writer and sports activist in Toronto
Lindsay Gibbs, sports reporter at ThinkProgress in Washington, DC
Amira Rose Davis, Assistant Professor of History and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Penn State University

Any libertarians there?

Anyone from Can We All Be Feminists would be a good informative gues, but I think anyone in trans or fat activism he'd just laugh at with no curiosity to be found whatsoever. Not that they would be open to such a forum given his reputation...

Can We All Be Feminists?: New Writingfrom Brit Bennett, Nicole Dennis-Benn, and 15 Others onIntersectionality, Identity, and the Way Forward for Feminism

Another author is Kendi. I can't see him coming on, but who knows.

Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America

by Ibram X. Kendi

I really can't see NPR types like these going on Joe Rogan, but that would be interesting.

John Biewen and Celeste Headlee, Scene On Radio

http://www.sceneonradio.org/men/

http://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/

Josie and Clint do the Justice In America podcast. Would they come on? They could explain criminal justice if he wanted, though.

“Justice in America,” hosted byJosie Duffy Rice and Clint Smith III, is a podcast for everyone interested in criminal justice reform—from those new to the system to experts who want to know more.

Another author - not sure she'd come on, but I loved her book. She explained feminism well.

Soraya Chemaly, author Rage Becomes Her

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2555837324?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1

-Vienna women's city mentioned in RBH --

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/oct/13/why-arent-we-designing-cities-that-work-for-women-not-just-men

-Brazil - the self defense class mentioned in RBH --

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/opinion/brazilian-women-yell-manners-feminism.html

PrisonCulture to talk about Cyntoia Brown or others she's advocated for.

https://freebresha.wordpress.com/

https://twitter.com/prisonculture

http://mariamekaba.com/

http://www.lumpenmagazine.org/a-world-without-prisons-a-conversation-with-mariame-kaba/

Jeremy Scahill on imperialism/warmongering – I feel like he could talk with Joe and not be too academic for him. I couldn't find if he's been on. I feel like he could appeal to the Abby Martin folks.

https://theintercept.com/podcasts/

Maybe he could have someone on to talk about the ERA - he likely thinks it's not needed, but why not push himself to find out why people think it is?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/a-rebuke-to-trump-a-century-in-the-making.html

https://unladylike.co/passera

Susan Abulhawa - author and outspoken critic of Israel

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6692041-mornings-in-jenin

https://twitter.com/sjabulhawa

The New Zealand Mosque Attack and Clinton's Concern Trolling

2019-03-17T16:10:00.002-04:00

Chelsea Clinton went to a memorial for NZ victims of the mosque shootings and was confronted by two NYU students, a Palestinian Muslim and her Jewish friend (Rose Asaf and Leen Dweik ) to tell her she wasn't welcome at the event- they aren't comfortable with it- for endorsing the same sort of Islamophobia that inspired the NZ attacks. It seems even the left is accusing the students of both saying Chelsea caused the attacks and for attacking a rich white pregnant lady. How dare they. I know the left is new and divided on support of Palestinians and standing up against Islamophobia, but this seems very backwards.

**********

I posted this on FB mostly to shout my dismay at the void so excuse the tone:

One of the US Democratic Socialist groups on FB posted this, uncharacteristically:

https://hillreporter.com/watch-as-chelsea-clinton-calmly-reacts-to-an-nyu-student-claiming-she-caused-the-new-zealand-massacre-27747

It says Clinton is the epitome of grace under fire, would that we all could be like this rich white lady whose white teary words we quoted extensively!

Um no.

Also, Leen Dweik and Rose Asaf were misquoted as accusing Clinton of causing the NZ attacks. False. Read the students' actual account:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/leendweik/why-we-confronted-chelsea-clinton

Don't defend Cheslea Clinton. Are we applauding her not punching someone? She deserved to be spoken to (she was neither yelled at nor attacked) and the young woman did NOT say she caused it but that her attacks against Ilhan Omar (and others) were the same sort of Islamophobia you see leading up to the violent attacks and it needs to stop.

The Palestinian student felt Clinton's presence was detrimental to the healing process and she shouldn't be there. Valid concern. Clinton did not respect or understand that.

Do not applaud concern trolling.

What white people saw and identified with in Clinton was the confusion and hurt we white people feel for exerting white privilege or trying but failing to be an ally. But that isn't victimhood, it's coming to terms with our privilege, it's growth. Growth is painful, as we see in the video. She should just listen, correct herself if she wants to help, and leave if they want her to. She shouldn't be exalted or pitied. She's no more a victim than Megan McCain.

This person is remembering the victims on twitter:

https://twitter.com/KhaledBeydoun/status/1106746726864637952?s=19

Another truth...

https://twitter.com/LumpyLouish/status/1107009953510932481?s=19

Me and Joe Rogan

2019-03-17T15:52:00.000-04:00

Why am I thinking about this? Everything is connected. There was a massacre at a mosque in New Zealand this weekend. At the time, I was gathering info about the Democratic primary nominees – all 50 of them or whatever – so that I can be an informed voter. A name came up that I did not expect: Joe Rogan. What? I have to hear about this guy all the time – in the gym (see photo) every day there's a mention, when my husband comes home from work after having listened to the Alex Jones segment for the 5^th time, I hear about him. He's everywhere. And it doesn't make sense.

Some will frame this as me hating on Joe Rogan or men, and that's fine. I don't hate anyone. I know what fears and dangers I grew up with and still experience – and, further, know that women who are queer or black or disabled face far more dangers than I ever will. I'm concerned about continually giving a platform to the linked ideologies that disrespect and endanger women and minorities that manifest as things like mass shootings of schools to Orlando nightclubs to Charleston churches to Christchurch mosques to the synagogue in Pittsburgh.

In some ways I thought Joe Rogan might be the problem initially, but that's not exactly the case - though he's not blameless! He's a platform and - while he doesn't have an agenda - he definitely chooses guests not to challenge his worldview, but to reinforce it. He's no different than anyone else. He's not enlightened as many weed smoking psychedelic enthusiasts would like to believe. He's not free thinking or open minded or particularly curious. He's a libertarian guy who likes to talk and slip in some feminist bashing and trans denying when he can.

You'll see echoes of him in this episode of Scene On Radio on sexism and sports talk radio where it talks about the toxic masculinity and the way "winning" is used: http://www.sceneonradio.org/episode-57-domination-men-part-11/

Related:

12 part series on sexism - https://www.sceneonradio.org/men/

Additional work by the SceneOn hosts:

14 part series on race - https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/

The Joe Rogan Experience isn't exactly the root of the bigger sexism and racism problems. However, his show provides quite a few brilliant examples of how these things fester in society. Whether by dog whistle or outright disdain for equality, he shows how letting these guests speak unchallenged provides a platform for poison to spread under the guise of curiosity or no holds barred first amendment rights. (Putting no limits there is kind of like the extreme free market capitalism described in Shock Doctrine that destroys entire countries... Speaking of Naomi Klein, would Joe Rogan ever have her on?)

Apparently he's had a few presidential hopefuls on his show and obviously he did or used to do jiu-jitsu, so our interests converge some. I think of the typical guests on the JRE being mainly conspiracy theorists, quack doctors, and fascists, so I'm not a regular listener or devotee. Joe is a talkative folksy guy and maybe even funny sometimes, but his assessment of who is interesting to talk to is less wide ranging and curious (as advertised) than niche.

Some of the people he considers interesting are Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, serious (-ish) contenders for a presidential candidate nomination. I paid attention to Tulsi for a hot minute, but ended up seeing too much bigotry to take her seriously. But let's look Mr. Yang, though, because all of the problematic aspects kind of converge here in a special way. He's a prime example of a typical Rogan guest - a guy not terribly objectionable at first blush, but is very definitely nursing some strong latent racism and/or sexism. The fan response is odd (read red flag) - people asking which women candidate they like and a group of dudes says well, actually, they're really excited about Andrew Yang. The fact that bitcoin (unintentional white nationalist dogwhistle?) and being against robots are mentioned more than any real plank in a platform. UBI is mentioned, but not seriously - a living wage or raising the minimum wage isn't in his plan.

And then I saw it. Richard Spencer LOVES this guy. #YangGang. It all makes sense now. Toxic masculinity and white supremacy working through the patriarchy. All the recent school shootings, the PA synagogue, the black church in SC, the mosque attacker in New Zealand recently who cited Trump's white nationalism as inspiration. It's an old story, but one we all experience in some way. We're just now putting the pieces together.

Admittedly, I made a big mistake and went on Twitter to interact with a few of Rogan's more misogynistic fans a while ago. Someone in my feed was saying sexist things in connection with a link Rogan tweeted out with no context – “Women, Not Men, Punish Sexualized Women! (With the usual MRA implication - See? Women, not men, are responsible for sexism! Gotcha!). I broke my rule of not looking through the equivalent of comment sections and was made fun of for suggesting they read and wrongly told that I hate men. But even if I had avoided this annoyance, I would still hear about this guy in nearly every BJJ class or gym I've trained in and my own husband bombards me and begs me to listen to this guest he heard on the JRE. There is no avoiding it really and I'm not really asking that you try.

I get that he's just a famous guy who has the ability to get anyone he wants to talk to him live on his show, and so he just has people on who he thinks are interesting or who are comic friends. He has thing for individual freedom, which would be good were it not for how it manifests. It's more of the type of nominal agreement with equality, but if it's racism or sexism that he doesn't experience, then these people are lobbying for special privileges that white men are being deprived of. He has a large platform and he could use it better to learn more about this wider concept of equality that he disagrees with, but instead he chooses the echo chamber. He'll have Jordan Peterson and Dr. Debra Soh on instead of, for example, this author or anyone involved in the new APA guidelines for men and boys that state that the patriarchy and rigid gender binary hurts men.

I suppose I don't expect him to be any sort of leader or moral compass. For some reason he has this reputation for being reasonable and curious with a wide range of interests and guests from all over the political spectrum. This part is extremely odd to me because I don't see the objectivity and reasonableness in Milo Yiannopoulos and Jordan Peterson talking about long debunked Clinton conspiracy theories and all beef diets. He has a lot of comics on and that could be part of the problem – that's almost a subculturethat's as sexist as the fighting scene.

From the guests I've heard of and the lack of certain voices, it gives him a sort of younger, cooler Rush Limbaugh vibe. Not saying he's that bad. I haven't tabulated all the Joe Rogan guests, but I get a certain vibe from Twitter barrages of his fans and even sometimes people I know who listen. My husband loves the guy and I know he's not a crazy sexist jerk – I'm not saying all Joe Rogan fans are this or that. He doesn't listen to the Jordan Peterson or trans bashing ones, for instance. It seems other fans I've spoken to aren't so selective.

It feels like sexism and racism are too often given a well loved unchallenged platform (I realize he's not a journalist, but it feels irresponsible) on his show. Having racist and sexist guests - even to make fun of them - kind of treats these subjects as a huge joke that everyone knows they don't have to deal with and so the targets of racism and sexism feel a little like our problems are being diminished and made fun of too. Humor can be a helpful tool to deal with bigots and even tragedy, I'll give you that, but handing them a huge platform to let them humiliate themselves sometimes just serves to amplify their message as with Andrew Yang and the boost it gave him.

What is my objective exactly? I don't want to yell or hate or demand you cancel Joe Rogan or boycott anything. I guess all I want is for you to listen. And maybe if you are so moved, I'd further ask the guys who listen to his show to think critically and speak out against racism and sexism even though it's tough in the gym where toxic masculinity (locker room talk) often prevails. Please take a minute for introspection and think about my (and others') humanity for a minute.

All I ask is that you stop and think. Hopefully you'll be an ally against the hate of white supremacy and misogyny, but I won't demand it. I don't care if you like or listen to Joe Rogan or sexist comedians or crazy Alex Jones; I'll still be your friend. I'm just asking you to think a little about where that leads and what they're connected to and how that affects half of the population or commonly targeted groups.

Note for those concerned or defensive about "all men": There is in the larger culture and martial arts community, especially if we are to include MMA, a certain tough guy locker room culture, if you want to call it that. Some women join in it and some women ignore it and do what they love despite it, but if you ask women if it exists, they'll absolutely know what you're talking about. None of that takes away from love of the sport or our male training partners, but it's something women grow up with and have to navigate continually, on the mat and off, so I think you might want to hear this even if it makes you uncomfortable.

Some days I want to insist on my humanity and demand equal rights. Some days I just hope you have a mother, daughter, or wife you care about because I don't know how to generate empathy enough to to extend to the whole world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update today, March 21, 2019 - Slate had a great article that dives deep on this where I just looked at a little part of it.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is-an-essential-platform-for-freethinkers-who-hate-the-left.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update: I found this from exactly a year ago today that explains it quite well:

http://www.mediafiledc.com/time-end-joe-rogan-experience/

Sample interaction:

Some responses unrelated to mine, but that give you an idea of the listeners:

Entirely Inconclusive Premature 2020 Election Guide

2019-03-15T22:50:00.001-04:00

I'll talk about two problem candidates first. They seemed interesting, but there was something that didn't seem right. And it was so wrong upon further inspection...

Andrew Yang (D) – This guy. Ugh. Another rich guy with ... ideas! Well, an idea. Not so much specific policy knowledge as general ideas and possible leanings. Apparently whipped up the Joe Rogan libertarians and MRAs real good though. This is an interesting pattern we should pay attention to a bit more... Running in martial arts circles, Joe Rogan comes up A LOT and that's troubling as he tends to appeal to a certain segment of the population who is not particularly bothered by white supremacy and sexism or who actively engage in it.

So he got noticed for his mention of UBI, which gets leftists' attention for sure. But there's not much else, nor any real plan the enact it. And there are problems. It was a gut feeling, but the problems are becoming more clear.

His name pops up whenever people are asking so are you more a Kamala Harris type or Bernie Sanders or even Beto. A bunch of dudes always add "how about Andrew Yang? I love this guy!" I didn't know why this felt weird to me, but I saw on Twitter that he'd been on the Joe Rogan Experience. Aha! That explains it. You're neither for solid leftist policy for the workers/people and you also hate the idea of a lady president? We've got the guy for you. Andrew Yang's your guy! Because Joe Rogan told you so. Anyone who gives Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson a platform, you should DEFINITELY hold in high regard. (Really, DON'T.)

Also, related to the sexist vibe, there's a white supremacist bent as well. They go to together, what did you expect?

Alt-Right Fanboys Are Crushing On This Candidate

Andrew Yang, the 2020 long-shot candidate running on a universal basic income, explained

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tulsi Gabbard (D) – A big no. She's another that made me sit up and take notice at first. I liked her for a few hours. She said a few bold things I agreed with, seemed possibly left-ish. But she also has some oddball conservative leanings – and come to find out deep roots with conservatives in both money and family and a weird Hindu nationalist bent that you don't want in a president any more than you'd want, say, a white nationalist one. She also reformed her anti-LGBTQ stance when she served in Iraq and saw how terrible Muslims were basically, so no points there – not so sure I'm convinced that she's really changed her thinking. Trump nearly had her in his cabinet because they shared some foreign policy goals, which is extremely troubling.

In other Islamophopia news, here's her with Rabbi Shmuley and Ms. Adelson.

And because it relates to Gabbard, a Joe Rogan guest - that other time I tried to recommend Joe Rogan fans read something:

**************************

In the way of serious candidates, there are a couple.

Bernie Sanders (I) – Probably still the best option. There are a couple of silly things. He's running as a Democrat because that's what he is, though centrists love to say he isn't – look at the I beside his name! - as though this somehow discredits him. The Hillary machine attacking him is utterly ridiculous, but out in force.

He does a great job of breaking down the economic stuff that usually seems complicated - $15 minimum wage is good for business and workers, preK investment keeps people out of prison, family leave and infrastructure are good for citizens and business, worker owned cooperatives close the income gap and increase profit. He does well with immigration and talks about how we rob them - they pay into the system they can't use which is a very different narrative from the border security Democrats.

That part paragraph is from my review of his book. I reviewed it pretty critically overall, so I'm not ignoring his problems. Economic policy can improve a lot of lives and prevent another collapse and he's very good on these.

I'm going to call BS on the “Bernie bro” and “he only appeals to white people” complaints, though I've had my moments in considering these things.

Pretty good piece on this not being about the guy, but about the policy he's trying to encourage. He's caused many a politician to reach a bit farther left in order to be relevant.

Elizabeth Warren (D) – There's a lot going on, but I still think she's good. You can't call Palestinians a demographic threat though...
She does great explainers on taxes, universal healthcare, and breaking up the banks so I feel like if anyone will make progress there, it'll be her. She and Bernie are the absolute best on these issues if we keep pushing them. Unlike, for example, a Pelosi who would say I've been here a long time so I know better, get off my lawn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f519_LGjhCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoPghOdmkuU
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/03/elizabeth_warren_reveals_handwritten_addition_to_senate_tax_bill.html

Buuut in a nutshell, this.
"The fascination here is that someone who is so outspoken and eloquent on economic inequality, health care, Wall Street, government corruption and the horrors of Vietnam and Iraq turns into a conservative when it comes to a Jewish state administering Jim Crow over millions of second-class citizens."
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/elizabeth-demographic-palestinian/

Aaand I wish she'd have handled the Pocahontas/DNA debacle better. But I guess she figured she'd have to do something concrete because even Obama couldn't ignore the racist attack in the end? She shouldn't have taken a genetic test, should have apologized if she put Native American on any forms and should have had listening sessions with Native Americans to see how she could be better or promote their voices somehow.

Pete Buttigieg (boot-uh-judge or boot-edge-edge?) (D) This is the latest new guy I've been hesitantly excited about – well, not so much excited as people I consider progressive/leftist are talking about him. I want to know more. So here we go. He's openly gay – possibly good for his ability to see marginalized people, but not necessarily. I don't know if his enthusiasm for federal action for LGBTQ would extend to supporting the ERA for women or abortion as healthcare...

I just haven't seen in any of his direct or indirect statements or anything that reassures me that he's going to look out for marginalized people across the board. I'm sure he'd toe the line as a progressive or liberal or whatever he is, but in the way people talk you can kind of discern whether or not this is a truly important strongly held belief or just something they have to say. For example, I could see him saying sure he's pro-choice, but kind of ignore abortion rights. But be really good on gay rights in the military, which is good! But very Pete-centric I guess is what I'm saying.

He seems like a no on NAFTA and strong on unions, good there. Salon wrote about his dad admiring a Marxist and he wrote something in high school about Bernie Sanders that keeps being mentioned, neither of which seems to reflect his stances all that much. He wants to run as a "man of the left," but he seems a little lukewarm on Medicare for All and things that would make him truly a man of the left..

So here is a more in depth look. I simply had a bad feeling - these are the supporting facts, basically.

Quote from the article:
"Part of where the left and the center-left have gone wrong is that we’ve been so policy-led that we haven’t been as philosophical."
Kamala Harris (D) - A probable no, she's a cop, but I love her in Congressional hearings. I was kind of excited about her for a bit. As a black woman, she should have the kind of perspective we want in the top job. She's sort of a Hillary 2.0, which is disappointing. You'd think she'd be more likely to consider the marginalized. But she's a prosecutor. She has been on the wrong end of problematic decisions with regard to sex workers and trans people. But she has been leaning left a bot more lately. I hope that shift is real, but I have a hard time believing it. It feels more like she's trying to convince herself that healthcare for all, ending war and legalizing marijuana is a good idea than actually having the ability to lead the party to enact the laws.

This kind of explains it. She says some good things, but doesn't necessarily have the votes or history to back it up...

Said no to AIPAC, then yes...
https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1110301531306409986

Cory Booker (D) – Nope. Love him in confirmation hearings in Congress. Policy wise he's even worse than Kamala Harris though. Very centrist and less likely to consider the marginalized. He used the shooting at a synagogue to disparage the Palestinian struggle for human rights which was odd and showed a severe lack of understanding of foreign policy and the impact of those issues on people in the US (how it ties to the loyalty oath a Palestinian American had to sign to continue employment and the anti free speech measure outlawing of BDS.)

Just one example, though there are many - here.

Oh boy. He and the AIPAC president text back and forth like teenagers??

Amy Klobuchar (D) - I was excited to see her announce because I've been a fan of some of her questions in the confirmation hearings and Congressional speeches, but quickly soured due to the rumors she was terrible to work for. It has been floated that this is a gendered attack against tough women, but it feels like this has more traction than that. Also, she's got the same tough on crime issues as a prosecutor as Kamala Harris.

She said no to AIPAC then yes.

Kirsten Gillibrand (D) - I remember being excited to see her announce too. She's got troubling connections, Wall Street problems, AIPAC/Israel allegiance and a pretty conservative record no matter what she says now, a little like Harris in a way. Bush tax cuts, surveillance, opposing gay marriage. Not impressed.

She said no to AIPAC then yes.

Beto O'Rourke (D) - Big NOPE. I've been loving what he has to say about the border. He should know about this, being from Texas. I think he should try to win a Senate seat and work there. He could do a lot of good. The two big things I think of for him, besides how everyone thinks he's cute, is lanky like Obama and rolls up his shirt sleeves, is his love of AIPAC and the headlines about him not knowing why he's running just that he was born to do it. Oh and that super awkward video announcement where his wife stares at him for five straight minutes and makes a really bad “sometimes he parents his kids” joke.

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/11/orourkes-presidential-progressives/
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/beto-orourke-president-2020-senate-race
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive-texan-cant-get-excited-about-beto-orourke/2018/12/05/641c7f0e-f8b9-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.e24f25ad97f2

John Hickenlooper (D) – It seems like I heard good buzz or excitement about him, but I can neither remember why or find it online. I only found that he'd be against single payer and green new deal, which doesn't seem too promising. He's met Netanyahu, against BDS, spoken at AIPAC – not unusual for even Democrats, but still would like to see some spine and speaking out about human rights instead of blind complicity.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, likewise urged his constituents on both sides to “tone down the rhetoric” in debates about abortion.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/planned-parenthood-reproductive-justice-abortion-robert-dear/

He wants to claim AOC, but identifies with Biden... Um. Yeah. Go away please.
https://www.salon.com/2019/03/02/john-hickenlooper-makes-his-pitch-to-progressives-i-share-a-majority-of-perspectives-with-aoc/

Maybe the buzz was just the “brewpub owner turned politician” thing?

Julian Castro (D) – He's some DNC guy I think? He made a speech at the DNC one year, but I haven't heard much since. Apparently there was a blunder in the announcement in relation to fellow Texan Beto O'Rourke's, but I don't care enough to look it up.

Has a twin brother in politics.

Marianne Williamson (D) – Who? Lecturer and author... hmm. Oprah's spiritual adviser? Okay. NOPE NOPE NOPE. we're done here.

John Delaney (D) – Maryland Congressman apparently, but generally described as a billionaire. Maybe the most bland centrist, though could compete with Biden for that title if he joins. He doesn't understand the difference between democratic socialism and “socialism in it's pure form” much like the GOP.

Jay Inslee (D) – Washington governor. Cares about climate change. A lot. Some outlets (NYT) are saying he's running solely on that, which would be silly because everything is connected and if you can't explain that in a debate perhaps you shouldn't run. Maybe he has other positions. If you call him a progressive, he's a bit watered down. Maybe better than a centrist though. He supported a maternity/abortion insurance initiative, but his minimum wage and family leave policy are not where they need to be. "Moving toward" universal health care. Blah. Opposes the travel ban and supports DREAMers. Good. No brainer. Pretty moderate, except climate change. That would be great...if he had some strong stances on other issues like universal healthcare or breaking up the banks or anti-war or something. To accomplish climate change, he's going to need to develop strong feelings about the connected issues and he doesn't seem to.

Wayne Messam (D) – Florida mayor, first generation American – could be a good sign.
The link -definitely not everything you need to know about him because it doesn't say anything really. Maybe good on guns safety? Possibly. Played football – irrelevant.

Bill Weld (R) -- this guy's running against Trump? I guess?

And as of this week - the week of March 18, 2019 - this Mike Gravel thing
https://splinternews.com/mike-gravels-viral-2020-campaign-is-the-brainchild-of-a-1833434906

There is still lots of hype about Biden, but hopefully his conservative politics and creepy groping problem will keep him out of this race.