Monday Open Thread [6.15.15]
The US Senate Torture Report revealed horrifying details of America’s interrogation program. Helen Mirren will fill you in.
NEW HAMPSHIRE–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY–Morning Consult: Clinton 44, Sanders 32.
I tend to disbelieve this poll, but then again there could be some neighboring state effect happening in New Hampshire.
Ready the guillotines. Rich Californians don’t think they should have to ration their water. From Gawker:
California’s wealthiest do not think that they should be subject to the same restrictions on water consumption as everyone else, the Washington Post reports. Rich people pay higher property taxes and are therefore entitled to more water and poor people are just going to have to suck it up.
“We pay significant property taxes based on where we live,” Steve Yuhas, a resident of the affluent Rancho Santa Fe, said. “And, no, we’re not all equal when it comes to water.” […]
“It’s no longer a ‘You can only water on these days’” situation, Santa Fe Irrigation District spokeswoman Jessica Parks said. “It’s now more of a ‘This is the amount of water you get within this billing period. And if you go over that, there will be high penalties.’”
And man, oh man are people upset about that! “I’m a conservative, so this is strange, but I defend Barbra Streisand’s right to have a green lawn,” said Yuhas, who hosts a radio talks show and also has a home in Los Angeles. “When we bought, we didn’t plan on getting a place that looks like we’re living in an African savanna.”
Poor babies.
Philip Klein: “When Republicans lost two elections to Obama, it was easy to explain away as a special phenomenon. In 2008, Obama was a rock star running against a boring old senator who represented an incumbent party that had presided over an unpopular war and financial crash. In 2012, he ran for re-election against a weak candidate who had trouble winning over his own party. But in 2016, Republicans have the ability to nominate a formidable candidate to put up against a Democrat with lots of baggage. If they blow it, then it may be time to throw in the towel.”
Steve Benen says Hillary Clinton’s announcement speech on Roosevelt Island in New York on Saturday was one of the most substantive announcement speeches he has ever heard.
Clinton has never been a great orator, and her campaign aides intend to play to her strengths and avoid her weaknesses. This was clear on Saturday – the former senator and Secretary of State skipped the soaring rhetoric and instead presented a fairly detailed and ambitious policy agenda, filled not only with progressive priorities and economic populism, but also popular policy ideas with broad national support.
There was one word, however, that Clinton used more than any other, which told voters quite a bit – about her personality, her style, and her approach to political leadership.
That word was “fight” – she used it, by my count, at least a dozen times. In fact, the main body of the speech was built on a foundation of “four fights” Clinton wants to “wage and win” on Americans’ behalf.
“The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top…. [T]he second fight is to strengthen America’s families, because when our families are strong, America is strong…. So we have a third fight: to harness all of America’s power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity…. That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.”
The entire announcement was built around the belief that Clinton is a tireless fighter, a hallmark of her lengthy career in public service.
“I certainly haven’t won every battle I’ve fought, but leadership means perseverance and hard choices. You have to push through the setbacks and disappointments and keep at it. I think you know by now that I’ve been called many things by many people – ‘quitter’ is not one of them.”
Eight years ago, Barack Obama’s announcement speech was built around the audacity of hope. He believed then, much as he believes now, that Americans’ differences are superficial compared to the values that bind us together. He sees a search for common ground is a key to effective leadership.
Eight years later, Hillary Clinton’s pitch is altogether different. She’s less hopeful and more confrontational. She sees our divisions as real, deep, and worth fighting over. Clinton recognizes her foes who aren’t committed to helping American families, and she’s ready to brawl.
And that is why I support Hillary Clinton for President.
Greg Sargent writes about how Hillary will respond with a fighting attack on all Republicans everywhere should the Supreme Court decide to throw their law degrees out the window and rule against Obamacare subsidies.
In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Clinton signaled that if the Supreme Court guts subsidies for millions in three dozen states, she will respond with a plan to avert all the chaos that would result. And she sharply dismissed the legal arguments being made by the challengers:
Asked about the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, Clinton said that no matter which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules on federal subsidies, “I will be prepared to set forth what I would do.”
Clinton said that if the court does what she thinks it should do based on the law and the facts, “that would mean it would not rule in favor of the very contorted argument that is being made by the opponents to blow up the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee of coverage.”
That suggests Clinton may be preparing to go on offense against Republicans if the Court rules for the challengers. She is dismissing the lawsuit as a cynical effort to undermine the ACA’s basic coverage guarantee — telegraphing a very critical response to such a ruling — and signaling aggressive engagement if and when the debate turns to what should happen next.
Republicans appear divided over how to respond if the Court guts subsidies. Some Congressional Republicans are floating plans that would temporarily extend subsidies. But they are now saying they won’t produce any consensus plan until after the Court rules. Meanwhile, it’s not clear that Republicans can pass any such consensus plan, because conservatives may revolt at doing anything to keep Obamacare going. It’s also unclear whether GOP leaders would want to buck conservatives and pass a temporary fix with the help of a lot of Democrats. Beyond all this, the GOP fix plans appear likely to do more harm to Obamacare than good.
Clinton says she will offer a fix of her own — probably some kind of simple rewrite of the disputed legislative language — while calling for the universal coverage guarantee to be restored. In other words, she would actually fix the problem created by the Court ruling. This could contrast sharply with the GOP post-King approach, which, judging by recent GOP rhetoric, will likely be saddled with a tortured, incoherent storyline: Republicans will blame the loss of coverage for millions on Obamacare itself, while pledging to fix the problem even as their “solution” undermines the law further.
But, if Obamacare survives this latest Court challenge, it is here to stay forever.
I really liked Hillary Clinton’s Roosevelt Island speech. When Democrats remember that they are the party of the working man and women, the party of FDR and RFK – they win.
The irony is that Bill Clinton was the guy who threw all of that brand equity in the trash can. Funny old thing, life.
The best thing about Hillary’s speech is it will be hard to walk it back.
So, what’s the liberal spin on why Bruce Jenner can be a woman, but Rachel Dolezal can’t be black.
I have my own take on it , but I’d like to hear what the real purveyors of social issues have to say about it.
There isn’t a liberal spin. Mainly because this question is stupid. Comparing apples to oranges. Not surprised that a wingnut would ask it tho.
I thought self identification was all that mattered these days.
J-Roc on Trailer Park Boys is a white black guy, and everyone just accepts him for who he is.
Only among concern trolls.
ACA=oxymoron
I’m trying to keep my enthusiasm in check, but as FBH has been a pretty good barometer of GOP concerns, it is hard to not think that Hillary Clinton could win 48 states.
Clearly, gender is different from race in many ways. But there are similarities as well… both are social constructs that are apparent based on how one looks. So if inside your mind you feel different than you look outwardly aren’t we suppose to accept how one chooses to be identified whether it’s gender or race?
More to the point, I think this idea that there is no comparison (apples and oranges) is a cop-out. Also, I am really tired of this line of argument that says something like… “well, that’s the ‘wing-nut’, ‘Fox News’ talking point so I don’t need to take it seriously.” That’s fucking totally lame…
Feel free to elaborate or the differences between gender identity (Jenner) and racial identity (Dolezal)… because the question isn’t stupid. It’s just difficult to answer because it doesn’t fit the model that’s usually argued.
Dolezal lied about her parents race. That is what makes it apples and oranges. You are just begin a contrarian, and that’s fine. Just don’t expect much engagement.
Like the guys who parrot ‘Fox News’ talking points – simple contrarianism isn’t worth engaging.
Of course it is stupid. FBH isn’t here to argue about gender or racial models. He just wants to know why it is OK for Bruce Jenner to become Caitlin Jenner, but not OK for Dolezal to be a white woman claiming to be black. There are no “models” here. Just a known wingnut working out his own talking points.
FBH: People of Caucasian descent identifying themselves as “Afr.-Amer./Black” is just about the only way your party will be able to muster any reasonable level of minority votes for 2016 and beyond…
FBH – if by liberal spin you mean science, let me answer your question. There’s a growing body of research to suggest that being transgender is biological in origin. Any one worth his/her salt who has studied transgender issues has found evidence of genetic differences between trans and cisgender (go ahead and look that up) people. To my knowledge, there is no research to support the idea that Dolezal did not make a conscious decision to deceive people, or that she is genetically inclined to perceive herself as non-white.
Would you like me to explain climate change next?
I get that part for sure… but the fabrication was necessary because she couldn’t identify with the race she felt she was otherwise. That fabrication isn’t necessary with transgender people.
Setting lying aside for a moment… Is it cool to identify as black if you have two white parents and were raised white in the same way it’s cool to identfy as female if you have a penis and were raised as a male?
There’s no research yet. Because nobody really considered it. I don’t think the fact that we lack evidence in an area we haven’t studied has any impact on whether as a culture this is cool or not.
If there was evidence that people could psychologically feel black does that change the argument?
Because 30 years ago you could make the same argument about transgender.
Prop Joe – LOL.
Hey, Cass… that’s fair enough. FBH is a proven idiot. I hope my question(s) are a tad deeper…
And… for the record… I think both “trans” situations (gender and race) are likely OK… I just don’t know about our latest episode.
I do know we shouldn’t dismiss it out of hand just because somebody lied about her father
Sure… go ahead and identify all day. Be Clarence Thomas until the cows come home. Be the person you want to be. But don’t lie about your parents race. That crosses a line.
Fair enough. And yeah I guess that answers my question. If Dolezal didn’t fabricate the story about her father then her marking ‘black’ or ‘African American’ as “race” on a form & identifying as black is OK just like marking ‘female’ as “gender” is OK for a transgendered person.
I just think it’s very dodgy position to pretend like this is a story about a local NAACP chair lying about the race of her father. We all know this, and we all really know what this is about, but relying on the fabricated story gives everyone the out. That’s cool.
“FBH is a proven idiot. I hope my question(s) are a tad deeper…”
@Dorien Gray-Tell me if your deep intellect can explain if sexual orientation is a natural state or a social construct that can be interchanged, and whether the evolutionary condition of being black, can be compared to that social construct in the context of this argument……fool?
There is no biological basis for “feeling” black.
If there was, then I would expect that Pandora, who often tans to a darker color than I am normally, would chime in with how black she “feels”. Gender is based in chromosomes and physical characteristics as well as your brain’s gender (or how your brain is structured along gendered lines). Blackness is not. Certainly not American blackness. Or, conversely, what would be the biological basis of whiteness? Especially its American version.
I don’t much care that she claimed to be black. And leadership of the NAACP has always included white people. She claimed blackness for family who didn’t want that AND she faked a life and a backstory in order to claim her blackness.
I believe both gender and race are a mix of biological, psychological and cultural influences. It’s not a binary model like one or the other.
My problem with that argument, Cass, is that’s the same line used against trans-people 25 years ago. I guess people won’t be accepted as trans-racial until more study is done.
Maybe it isn’t a thing, but the fact is we don’t know what we don’t know. And considering how much shit transgendered people have had to go through I think it’s a bit premature to state, unequivocally, that this isn’t a thing. We can just say we don’t know.
As far as the father fabrication, I agree with everyone. That’s slimely.
@FBH and Dorian Gray: The reason your questions aren’t being taken seriously is the perceived lack of seriousness in purpose.
Why does FBH care? Only to play gotcha with liberals. He doesn’t care about anything except buttressing his a priori prejudices, or else he would read up on the issue and try to learn where the research stands. Instead he repeats his ignorant claim about “social constructs,” showing that he understands this only just enough to try to mock it.
Why does Dorian care? Seemingly to play the contrarian. We “all know what this is really about,” he writes, except we don’t — he is making lots of assumptions that we don’t share. Why does he say her deception was “necessary” when clearly it wasn’t? What is this “really about” that we’re all supposed to “know”? Why doesn’t he state his position instead of asking others for theirs, and why does he care whether we agree with his position?
If you want a discussion, state your position first. Otherwise, don’t be surprised that nobody here feels like playing “gotcha.”
That’s fair. So… I’ll take those in order.
I said “necessary” only in the sense that it would be very difficult for Dolezal to live as a black woman with four European grandparents and two white European parents. This is wholly due to the fact that skin color is visible. Transgender people need to deal with the outwardly visible part as well but to a lesser degree since the historical markers for gender are usually not seen. (I do believe there’s been quite a bit of obfuscation and fabrication in the transgender community historically too, but nobody would dare call a transgendered person a liar today. They were just trying to cope with cultural norms.)
I think it is very convenient that there’s this bit of the story about lying that everyone can latch on to so that the “apples v oranges” defense works. The Jason defense… There’s no need to discuss it because Dolezal lied. I disagree with this argument (see above)
It’s a very interesting situation that deserves more discussion than an out-of-hand dismissal. 25 years ago before we knew anything about transgender studies a lot of people said a lot of stupid things about what went on in people’s brains re: gender. This situation seems pretty similar to me.
My position is that we currently don’t know the psychological roots of race identity. So to call the transgender versus transracial argument apples and oranges is premature. I think there is every reason to think that 25 years from now transracial could be supported just as much as transgender.
Clear enough? Not going for a gotcha. I’m trying to get people to think outside the cookie cutter answer.
“My position is that we currently don’t know the psychological roots of race identity.”
My position is that race identity is 100% a social construct. The genetic differences between races are vanishingly small.
“It’s a very interesting situation that deserves more discussion than an out-of-hand dismissal.”
I disagree. However, it is interesting that this wasn’t even a topic covered in the post, but a conservative troll wanted to use it to work up the easily baited liberals and it appears to have worked.
That’s how they operate, here and on the national stage. Hold out some race bait, and we jump to bite on it.
I was waiting for someone the mention it, but because it’s a taboo topic it took a fucking moron troll to bring it up. None of the contributors here will do it because discussing it is outside the liberal lanes.
What if we discover that social and cultural pressure early in life trigger racial identity questioning and potential changes in how one identifies? I don’t see how this is very far outside the realm of possibilities.
You make a very big assumption about racial identity and is a pretty significant one. Are well all suppose to take it a fact because it’s your position?
Not every argument against you guys is a conservative plot, by the way. You lot are getting as paranoid as a freshman on a first time hash buzz.
“None of the contributors here will do it because discussing it is outside the liberal lanes.”
Please. You are not the boss of me. I put up shit that interests me. This doesn’t. Period.
My position is the position of genetic scientists. All we know about racial “difference” was invented by Edwardian and Victorian era racists.
I never said there were genetic differences of course. That’s another way of trying to scuttle the argument. Feel free to reread what I wrote.
Here’s a question, since you seem like you may know and I don’t… would a forensic neurologist studying say Caitlyn Jenner’s brain be able to say that it is a female brain or male brain… can they be differentiated? and if they indeed can be (I don’t know) which one is in her body?
As far as what you put up, that’s perfectly cool with me. I just really get turned off by this idea that there are these taboo topics and anyone raising them is a conservative troll… contrarian perhaps…
My problem with that argument, Cass, is that’s the same line used against trans-people 25 years ago. And it is an argument that people still make today. But 25 years ago, a Johns Hopkins prof and researcher named John Money was doing groundbreaking work on gender identity. I took a course from him (the course was often called Sex and Money) — the basic science was taking quick shape even then. He was criticized for exactly the reason why people argue against transgender science now — if you have boy parts, God made you a boy. If you have girl parts, God made you a girl. There is no room for genetic differences or anomaly or expressions.
Race, on the other hand, it utterly societal. Utterly. The genetic differences are in skin color and on bodily features, but that isn’t a reliable indicator. Once I walk out of my house, I know I am a black person, because white people make sure I know it. If I walk out of the door in Europe, people relate to me via my Americanness, not the color of my skin in the way that white people do. You can belong to a community and feel connections to it ad identify with it, but that is not race. Science can also track a few genetic differences to race, but those aren’t fundamental to identity the way that gender is.
Don’t worry Geezer. I read. I know that male and female of species can sometimes be a chromosomal crap shoot, and you are right in that it doesn’t interest me that much.
I take a live and let live attitude towards these types of things, and it’s not until someones freedom starts to involve my freedom, then do I start to have issues.
“I was waiting for someone the mention it, but because it’s a taboo topic it took a fucking moron troll to bring it up.”
So you’ll gladly discuss a “taboo topic”, but only after someone else brings it up? I think the Weenie Hut Junior blog site is where you want to go.
You just shrug off the notion that this woman might not be representative of anyone but herself. Keep in mind that the entire thing came to light because she apparently wrote an anonymous, 20-page-long hate screed and sent it to herself — but forgot to actually mail it. It was by investigating for hate-crime evidence that people started looking into her background, and the rest is now weird history.
When tens of thousands of people start claiming to be black, it might be as deserving of study as transgenderism.
An important point here is that this is by far not the first time something like this comes up in American History. Effa Manley, who became part owner of the Newark Eagles in the old Negro Leagues, was also a high-ranking NAACP member. Manley’s “racial” background (in quote because I completely agree that “race” in America is totally a social construct) was always ambiguous, but the best research suggests that her birth parents were both considered white. Her mother, however, remarried to an Africa-American man, and that step-father raised Effa, and she established her own social identity as being black.
During her career as a civil rights leader, she organized boycotts against stores that wouldn’t hire black clerks (“Don’t shop where you can’t work”) and spearheaded an anti-lynching campaign, rising to Secretary-Treasurer of the Newark NJ NAACP. Throughout most of her life her colleagues and friends were aware of her ambiguous history, but nobody thought much about it. On several occasions before her death in 1981 she said in interviews that she wanted to be remembered for what she had done rather than for who brought her into the world.
A barebones biography can be found in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effa_Manley
All the people suggesting that this whole current affair is somehow exceptional, and that people throughout American history haven’t been putting their own twist on racist profiling need to actually read some history.
And to note geezer’s last point (which crossed my own post): I certainly can’t show you tens of thousands of people who are technically “white” (whatever that means) passing as “black,” but a pretty steady stream of them does show up–especially in the South–throughout the late 19th Century and dwindling (at least in the records) sometime around the 1950s. The instances are anecdotal and I don’t know of but one fairly obscure academic study done in the 1940s, but I’d say with some confidence that if there are dozens of cases we know of (without taking particular trouble to track down more) that’s probably indicative that over that century the incidence did reach into at least the low thousands.
(There are multiple incidences in post-Civil War Alabama and Mississippi history of “whites” deciding to become “black” and joining multi-racial (which, under their laws then meant “black”) families and communities.)
^^^Yes. And the difference between the folks who can claim blackness when they want to is that they can always get rid of that blackness when it suits them. A biological expression of race would not be able to be washed off. Or at least it waits for the perm to grow out.
Except, cassandra, in order to “go back from black” once so identified in the Jim Crow south one would literally have to move out of state because they had laws that officially made this a one-way ticket …
But in the main I do agree with you. It’s a part of American History that has always fascinated me, but like intersexed babies and transgendered people, we pretty much haven’t been ready as a society to talk about it.
…and now we’re talking about it instead of ignoring it as an issue of little interest.
Oh, and I see Cass’s point too. Claiming an identity without the cultural and societal pressures associated with it. Like Caitlin Jenner did…
See, all I’m saying it’s there’s more to this than the Conventional Wisdom says…
You are right about that, Steve, but there was at least a ticket — an option not available to those not black by choice, no matter where they went in the US.
I agree, cassandra. My reading suggests, however, that those who did so in the Deep South (and I’ve been surprised by the numbers I infer) did so to marry and raise families, and few if any ever recanted their choice. I know that Effa Manley continued her assertion of her identity past death threats in the 1930s and 1940s. My point (if I have one) is that it is incredibly shoddy reporting to treat this most recent case as if nothing like this ever happened before in our history.
If there’s a “conventional wisdom” in this case, I’ve yet to hear it.
The difference between this and sexual dysphoria is that the transgendered have feelings of distress; there’s no evidence this woman has done anything other than game the system.
More for you to ponder: Even her artwork is plagiarized:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-art_n_7586972.html
Still think this is something beyond a single psychologically damaged person?
Frankly, when I first heard of this story I thought that this woman might have some racial version of the Munchhausen syndrome.
My point (if I have one) is that it is incredibly shoddy reporting to treat this most recent case as if nothing like this ever happened before in our history.
This is true. I have relatives (white men and women) who married black people before I was born. They were certainly treated as black by the white community that knew who they married. Identity and treatment was different when travelling — depending on whether the white person was travelling with the black person. Even the man who wrote Black Like Me or the woman who wrote Soul Sister went through a great deal to present as black in order to gather the experiences they wrote their books from.
Cassandra I don’t doubt that in the future because of this that racial munchausen may very well be a valid syndrome.
James McBride’s “The Color of Water” is about his mother, who was another such person. McBride worked at The News Journal and Inquirer before he became famous.
The “look how difficult my life has been even though it really hasn’t” syndrome is everywhere all around us. Think Brian Williams. People are always conflating to pump up their own egos, I think of this as one more manifestation of that.