Author Archives: pandora

About pandora

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

It’s Time I Got Off The Fence – My Presidential Endorsement

Here’s where I began. Before Bernie Sanders entered the primary I was fine with Hillary Clinton. Basically, I knew what I would be voting for (warts and all). Nothing anyone says about her is new to me. That doesn’t mean I agree with her on everything. It just means that I was open to supporting a Sanders’ nomination. I even wrote a post about it and commented on it extensively.

I’m going to be really honest here. Many of the comments from Bernie supporters on this site concerned me.  I heard a lot about why social issues weren’t important and would have to wait – suddenly incrementalism was A-okay.  That surprised me, and concerned me, since Dems are going to desperately (and I mean desperately) need the votes of black and brown people, women, non-Christians, the LGTB community, and other minority groups in November. Not to mention that every time I asked for reasons to support Bernie I received a host of reasons to not support Hillary. Basically, I wasn’t comfortable with the strategy of “My candidate doesn’t suck as much as your candidate” comments. And boy, there were a ton of those. To me, that shows a weakness of your candidate.

Guess you’ve already figured out who I’m going with. I’d already admitted weeks ago I was leaning towards Hillary. The time since has merely strengthened my stance. Here are my reasons:

Sanders simply isn’t bringing out the vote. His promise to expand the electorate, to revolutionize the turn-out, hasn’t happened. In truth, that’s my biggest reason. I held back on endorsing mainly to see if Bernie could deliver. He hasn’t. And there’s no denying that increasing voter turn-out is his stated path to victory. Three contests in and not enough people are feeling the Bern. That’s a big problem.

Sanders keeps stating that, in order to enact his platform, that people will have to… Write letters to Congress? Protest Congress? Put pressure on Congress? Start a revolution? Sorry, but that won’t happen. Remember “Yes We Can”? That didn’t work out so well, especially since some Obama supporters quickly turned against our new President, and adamantly refused to give him the benefit of the doubt.  And what bothers me is that a lot of today’s Bernie supporters were the very first ones to bail ship on Obama. So forgive me for not putting much faith in their being the leaders of the revolution Bernie is calling for.

And before I get comments on how it is our duty to point out flaws (or betrayals) and not become cheerleaders, I will agree with that sentiment – and I 100% respect it – but I don’t really want you on my team. And since a huge part of Sanders’ campaign relies on people rising up, people are going to have to suck up some disappointment. Yep, that’s politics. So, if Sanders’ supporters aren’t willing to do that, then I’m out. And given history, they will have to accept compromise and disappointment and stay the course. A Sanders win = the long haul. Are Bernie supporters up to that? I have my doubts.

Money, big donors and SuperPacs. The idea that Sanders will eschew these funding streams keeps me up at night. Is this just a political primary tactic? I would hope so. If not, add one more strike against him. You have to compete on the playing field that exists. I worry that Bernie’s main point (and it is a main point) about money from big donors, Wall Street, and SuperPacs will give us a candidate fighting with one arm tied behind his back. That’s unacceptable to me, mainly because it completely ignores the reality of what’s headed his way. That does not mean I like big donors and SuperPacs. It simply means they exist. Ignoring them, and the very real damage they can cause, isn’t acceptable to me.

Throwing a punch isn’t in Bernie’s wheelhouse. I watched last night’s Town Hall in South Carolina and Sanders falls flat on going on attack. (And that really worries me because this election – especially if Trump’s the nominee – will be a slug-fest never seen before) Don’t get me wrong. I admire Sanders for trying to keep it clean, but I’m beginning to think his motivation for keeping it clean is because he can’t throw a successful punch. Every time he goes after Hillary it falls flat. It simply doesn’t connect, unless you’re already in Sanders’ camp. I’ll also point out that the attacks Bernie is launching against Hillary won’t be a big issue in the general. Sure, Trumps self-funding lines up with Bernie’s small donations, but the general will be an entirely different animal when it comes to money. (More on that later.)

Issues. Sanders main issue is popular and 100% true, but he seems uncomfortable speaking to issues beyond income inequality. The office of the President requires more than a focus on a single issue – no matter how important. As I watched the Town Hall last night I was amazed that Sanders wasn’t asked one question on foreign policy. Not one. I don’t blame Sanders for the missing question, but given that foreign policy is glaring problem for him I was gobsmacked that it wasn’t part of the questioning. Sanders has gotten better on not answering every question with income inequality, but it still persists. He’s really not comfortable moving beyond that issue. And it shows.

Hillary’s speeches to Wall Street. I’m fine with her saying that everyone (Rs and Ds) need to release their speeches, but I’m playing the long game. As a Democrat, I do not want to add to the Republican arsenal in the general. I still can’t forget how Romney got away with not releasing his financials. The press let that slide – of course they did. Let’s not handicap either of our candidates on an issue Republicans will not only use against them, but get a pass on not doing the same. If everyone has to release their speeches to groups, fine. If not, then count me out of a standard that won’t apply to Republicans. The press love the “release the speeches” question. I’m not willing to give them that – especially since we all pretty much know what’s in those speeches. She was nice to who she was speaking to and they wanted her to speak, not because she would say something outrageous, but because they wanted to feel important and have a photo in their office. It had more to do with celebrity than policy. Was Hillary nice to them? Of course she was. Is this really an election deciding issue? Nope. She’d be a fool to release those speeches, and I don’t want a fool as a candidate. Basically, this is primary stuff – and I don’t fault Bernie for pursuing it. In fact, if he actually delivered turn-out in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada I’d probably reconsider my support of Hillary. But he hasn’t, so, yeah, I’m playing the long game.

Vetting. This is a huge issue for me. I simply don’t understand why Bernie supporters (or Hillary – other than she will need his supporters – or Republicans!)  won’t vet their candidate. Whenever a concern about Bernie comes up, here’s what I see:

1. Comments, not about Bernie, but rather comments saying Hillary is awful, shrill, Wall Street = she’s corrupt, a liar, Bill Clinton, not progressive, etc.. Those things have nothing to do with supporting Bernie Sanders. I have a big problem with people who can’t promote their candidate, and, instead, rely on telling people how awful the other candidate is. I went back and looked at DL posts from 2008. Hillary, for the most part, was a side issue (at least until the delegate count showed Obama had the win). We were all about Obama, and even dealt with the attacks coming at him – and we didn’t do that by saying Hillary is terrible (altho there was some of that). Instead, we promoted Obama and his policies. It was great reading through those old posts and comments. We really were on our game.

2. Lengthy explanations on why Bernie didn’t really mean, vote for, things he’s said or voted for. To me, if every criticism against Sanders involves ignoring his votes, or his words, and a lengthy explanation (and I mean lengthy) on how he didn’t really mean or support the action he took… that’s a huge red flag. Unless we really believe that the American public is good at nuance and listening to lengthy explanations? Sanders voted for the Crime bill. He voted against the immigration bill. I don’t have a huge issue with those votes, but if we’re going to hold Clinton accountable for things she said and voted on without allowing her lengthy explanations then I’ll hold both accountable for their votes and words. If we accept explanations, then we need to accept all of them. If you’re willing to do that for one candidate and not the other, then that’s a problem for me… and your candidate.

Minority vote: Bernie still struggles with voting blocks Dems will desperately need in November. Now, I don’t think he doesn’t care about these issues – I think he does care – it just feels like he’s late to the game on these issues – like he’s never really considered them. That said, he’s getting better, but his words on these issues seem forced – and he definitely hasn’t picked up the lingo or code words that people deeply involved with these issues use regularly. During the last Town Hall ( before the Nevada caucus) he was asked a very specific question about feminism and responded by saying that Gloria Steinem had dubbed him an honorary woman and then went back to income inequality and how women are paid less than men. Listening to his answer I found it lacking. A good start, but not good enough. He’s just not comfortable on women and minority issues. Can he correct that? We’ll see. I hope he does since there’s a great discussion to be had on feminism and other social issues.

So… I’m going with Hillary Clinton. Not because she’s the perfect candidate and doesn’t have flaws and is supposedly “electable”, but because Bernie Sanders isn’t speaking to me as a whole person, isn’t delivering his promise of voter turn-out, relies on lengthy explanations to draw distinctions between himself and Hillary, avoids the foreign policy questions of today with a history lesson of decades past, still hasn’t been vetted on things that a lot of people will have a problem with, and, for good or bad, can’t throw a punch that connects.

All that said, I do have one major concern with not choosing Sanders. Ready? Here it is, and this might negate everything I’ve written above. A significant portion of Bernie supporters will vote for Trump if Bernie doesn’t win the nomination. Pooh, pooh comment sections all you want, but there are many Bernie supporters who will go for Trump. That frightens me, so… could I still be conflicted? Who the hell knows? I will say this… I had the same fear when it came to Obama not winning the nomination. I feared that some Obama supporters would simply not vote in the general if the nominee was Hillary. This time I fear they will vote. For Trump. There’s a common thread there that terrifies me. Newly engaged voters are unpredictable.

Truth is: We have no idea how either of our candidates would fare against Trump. That terrifies me too.

I need a drink.

 

Let’s Lighten Things Up – I Saw Deadpool Last Night

We aren’t a big “go out to the movies” couple. Normally, we prefer to stream – so we can rewind when we miss lines, grab a drink/snack and take bathroom breaks. That makes me feel old.

But last night we went to the IMAX theater on the Riverfront and watched Deadpool. I had some reservations – I didn’t like The Hangover, much to my son’s dismay – but ten minutes in I loved this movie. It hit the perfect note in sarcasm, silliness, and action. Yep, Mr. Pandora and I laughed out loud. It was clever and fun.

FYI: This is not a children’s movie. Not. One. Bit.

So… have you seen Deadpool? Did you love it? Hate it?

This is your break from politics thread. Enjoy!

Can We Learn From This?

There’s been an interesting evolution in the DL comment section. I wanted to give my take on it.

Whenever the subjects of race, women’s issues, religion (mostly concerning Muslims), LGBT, etc. come up and white privilege is pointed out we hear white people quickly saying “not all white people” and then sharing their reasons as to why they are the exceptions to whatever is being discussed. This derails the conversation, moving it away from whatever social issue is being discussed and putting the focus on white people’s concerns. I have lost count on the number of posts on DL where this has happened, and I’d like to figure out how we can stop doing this.

I get that some progressive white people aren’t happy with this turn of events. What I also get is this: Yes, all white people. Please notice the word “all”. I am including myself. I am a work in progress on these issues. I have learned a lot, mostly by listening to non-white, non-straight, non-Christian, non-male people, but I have a long way to go. It’s a learning process, mainly because I actually have to learn about experiences I not only never had to face, but never even knew existed. So yeah, I’m kinda big on the listening and learning before speaking technique.

But here’s what I noticed. White people are getting upset at being lumped into a group. I hear that we don’t know their personal experiences or discount their feelings or silence their voices or judge them not as individuals, and I’m beginning to see this outcry as an opportunity to learn something.

If we (white people) are upset/annoyed/exasperated/angry/defensive whenever white people, or white men, are called out as a group then, perhaps, we should ask ourselves how we would handle this situation if we had to deal with it every single day in every single aspect of our lives? Because we really aren’t handling this well given the comments here and elsewhere. We (general “we”) are asking for consideration that we don’t afford to other groups.

If we feel unfairly judged in these discussions on social issues because of our race, surely we can extend that feeling to other groups and understand why people who aren’t white are upset/annoyed/exasperated/angry/defensive with the very same behavior that makes us upset, annoyed, exasperated, angry and defensive? See how that could work?

No, we white people will never personally “get” the black and brown experience, being Muslim, LGBT, or a woman (if you’re a man), but we should be able to take our feelings of being unfairly judged as a monolithic group and afford the same consideration to other groups. Believe it, or not, we are not experts on everything.

Last Night’s Democratic Debate & Ezra Temko’s complete play by play

Did you watch? I did, and I thought both candidates did well. There wasn’t a knock out punch on either side, but there were some hits.

Who do you think won?

Here is Ezra’s complete play by play:

PBS +2 two women, one a POC, moderating debate
BERN +1 – starts off with an advantage due to NH big win
HRC +1 – better handshake with moderators

Opening Statement
BERN -1 – opening statement: leaning with hands on the podium
BERN +1 – mentions Trump, is going after leading R rather than other D
HRC +1 wearing yellow, I’d like to see BERN try that
HRC +1 and -1 admits economy is rigged, but is using BERN’s frame
HRC +1 opening statement did not involve stumbling or pauses like BERN’s, and nods were more controlled than in the past
PBS -1 commercial right after opening statements!?

Health Care
BERN +1 first question = lays out specific ambitious useful ideas
BERN +1 defends role of government
HRC -1 Goes right on attack, essentially calls BERN a liar, which is not going to work for her. People trust him more than her.
HRC -1 again letting BERN frame debate, sharing again how she agrees with him, pivoting to wonk.
HRC -1 critique of BERN’s health care plan is not useful for if BERN wins primary, feeds right into commercial for the Rs
HRC+1 BERN says we need courage to take on drug companies, HRC responds that she’s been in the trenches

Size of Govt. or something
HRC -1 Great to try to frame your attacks as being about vetting candidates and plans, but having concrete and detailed plans does not equal a campaign message of hope.
HRC -2 Sick of hearing the “make promises we can’t keep” line. Turns me off each time.
HRC +1 uses term “political capital”
BERN -1 “You’re not in the White House yet” – this seemed awkward for you to say
BERN +2 of course we need to end tax haven deferral. That’s much more concrete than HRC saying we’ll close loopholes. Which loopholes? Names Financial Transaction Tax as well. These are pretty concrete proposals.
HRC +1 uses term “political capital” Yes to sociology terms

Feminism, Women, Gender Equality
HRC +1 Humble answer about women supporting BERN
HRC +1 Didn’t take the bait on Madeleine Albright, did good job with ARM: Address, Respond, Technique
PBS -1 HRC mentions first primary debate of 200+ with majority women on stage, moderators don’t even smile
BERN -1 ‪#‎WomensLivesMatter‬, yet opens his answer talking about lots of different social identities
BERN -1 Uses 79 cents on dollar for gender pay gap without mentioning interesctionality
BERN +1 A Sanders victory would be historic
HRC -1 Yes, you’re not asking people to support you to get a woman in the White House, but it’s not just about you. Why don’t we have candidates over half the time that are women that folks like better? That’s sexism.
HRC +3 Yes, HRC would be the first woman president, and no she’s not anti-woman. That deserves a few points.
BERN +1 Yes, BERN would be the first Jewish president. But us Jews are 2% of the U.S., and women are half of the U.S., so only one point in comparison.

BERN -1 +1 uses word gall, but again attacking Republicans and uniting BERN & HRC. When he does this it makes it look like he is a Democrat and leader. When HRC does it it looks like she is just BERN-lite

Racism & Criminal Justice Reform
BERN +2 calls mass incarceration of black men a tragedy, uses moral language and speaks from values
BERN +1
BERN -1 debate is well underway and there hasn’t been much positivity yet from BERN +1 names some race stats that makes him seem knowledgeable

HRC +1 seems annoyed, yes she was talking about this before BERN’s campaign took off, and yet people think she’s against all of it. ‪#‎BlameBill‬
HRC +1 tries to take it to a personal story and get away from wonk
HRC +2 names racism as systemic
HRC +1 shows intersectionality of issues
BERN -1 “Nothing that Hillary Clinton said do I disagree with” Still with the negative framing…

Race Relations
HRC +1 knows people have mobiles
HRC +1 -1 very articulate and composed, but people want to see her not just as a fighter but as a relaxed person beyond the political presentation. Authenticity
BERN-1 I think he could have a better suit…
BERN-1 Racism is not just about classism. So okay, but go further…
Bern-1 Why did you repeat “white people?” Why is that surprising that we should talk about white people?

PBS -2 “Don’t they have a reason to be resentful?” What kind of question is that?!
HRC+1 Good response, though then she got wonky, but even that corresponded really well with the sociology book we read last week in social stratification

BERN -2 PBS “Am I wrong, to be even be describing this as a matter of race?” “Yeah, you can.” She doesn’t need your permission!

BERN +1 -1 Detailed response that showed he knew stuff about what he was talking about, but don’t look down as you deliver your final words in a response. It makes them lose their power.

Immigration
BERN +1 For immigration reform, being explicit about rooting values in being pro-family
HRC +1 Finally pointed out a useful contrast, voting for comprehensive immigration reform in contrast to BERN
BERN +1 Defended his vote well, positioned himself well with labor and racial justice groups
HRC -1 Glad to hear you say you are against private prisons, but you are staying policy detail/wonky

Seniors
HRC +1 She seems confident and positive, despite the NH loss.
BERN +1 Is probably thankful this is still focused solely on domestic issues! Social security is one of his bread and butter issues.
BERN -1 Looks sad a few seconds after saying “That’s my bill” – probably because most of his bills go nowhere in Senate

HRC Corruption/Establishment
HRC -1 Does not address question about big contributors and power. Basically complete dodge.
BERN -1 “the only candidate up here, of the many candidates”
BERN -1 It sells, but I think it is dishonest to compare your low-donors to HRC’s high-donors. How about compare your low-donors to HRC’s low-donors?
HRC +1 Yes, apples and oranges. Though could explain what she meant.

HRC +1 Good speech about Obama, but still dodging issue
BERN -1 No poker face on his feelings about Obama and Wall Street reform
BERN -1 HRC doing well on talking about comprehensive approach to deal with risk – Bernie waving arms, coughing, sticking out tongue, etc.
BERN -1 & HRC -1 Okay, you’ve been talking about banks, but what are you gonna do about corporations like Walmart and Monsanto?

PBS +1 Giving space to the candidates to speak
PBS -1 Really? Recapping debate in middle of debate that we’ve already been watching?
PBS -1 Telling us what to think in the middle of the debate…

Reduce Govt.?
BERN +1 Good answer re: waste and efficiency, though you could name something specific…
HRC +1 Like the idea of confident in govt and taking a public management eye to govt in one sense

Foreign policy
HRC +1 Just as detailed and confident in IR, almost looks like she’s trying to set BERN up for not being able to address
HRC & BERN -1 For calling ISIS ISIS rather than Daesh
HRC +1 ‪#‎Allyship‬ ‪#‎EndIslamaphobia‬ ‪#‎TrumpSucks‬
BERN -1 using “his or her” binary
BERN -1 sounds knowledgable and prepared, but not answering the question at hand
BERN +1 Ouch, attacks HRC indirectly, blaming her for ISIS
BERN -1 “men and women” binary
BERN -1 / +1 Funny faces and waving finger etc. Looking all around, not sure what to do with what HRC is saying about his past votes.
HRC +1 Discounts BERN’s Iraq vote as not being enough to answer what to do now about ISIS and today’s challenges, which he didn’t really answer – he gave a historical account
HRC +1 Lovin’ on Obama, and Obama’s love for her
BERN -1 Judgment swipe seemed a bit personal based on set-up
BERN -1 When would you support regime change? E.g. WW II
BERN -1 Stop waving your finger around, keep your head still a little longer
HRC +1 Gets a point for remembering and honoring the military folks who are actually on the front lines
BERN +1 Calls HRC’s book a “very good book”
BERN -1 Is he still speaking to Millenials when talking about Henry Kissinwho?
HRC +2 Enjoyed the attack – waiting to hear who you DO listen to on foreign policy…
BERN -1 What are you doing with your hands? And smiles.
HRC +1 In control of debate. Talks when she wants how long she wants
HRC & BERN +1 taking turns and in a way listening to each other

HRC & BERN +5 Nothing right now in the debate about this, but both running as Democrats and so much better than all the Rs. Some free points.

BERN -1 So what are you doing about Russia? PBS gave you a multiple choice leading question and I heard work with them and protest against aggression, but how?
BERN +1 Doing much better on foreign policy than in past debates
HRC -1 Still seems smart, but I’m not convinced the wonk is going to rally folks out and excite them to vote for HRC

PBS -1 Getting bored and/or tired

BERN +1 called U.S. beacon of hope for oppressed and downtrodden, good to hear U.S.-positive message from BERN. Should hear more of this for broader appeal

PBS -1 I don’t like Robert Andrews answer
BERN -1 Holding up FDR without mentioning things like Japanese internment.
HRC -1 Also mentions FDR without Japanese internment
HRC +1 not spending time on a useless question
HRC -1 Going on attack here at the end. People seem to respond well to this re: President Obama.
HRC ??? “I expect this from Republicans, not from…”
BERN +1 Defended himself and made attack seem trivial
HRC +1 Responded well, renamed specific complaints – e.g. “weak” “personal assessments” etc.
HRC -1 waited to make attack until very very end of debate when there wasn’t time to discuss it
BERN -1 “One of us ran against Obama”
BERN -1 A lot of interesting issues came up in this debate.
PBS -2 Did they still not talk about climate change? What about the recent Supreme Court ruling?
HRC +1 good positioning self as a comprehensive candidate
HRC -1 still not a comprehensive message, but a list of policies.
HRC +1 names systems of oppression, brings it home and local attacking WI governor.
HRC +1 “Giving a chance, tearing down barriers to people living up to their potential” – finally shares some message
HRC -1 if this is her closing message, it should be incorporated throughout the debate
HRC +1 Did not let Bernie frame entire debate
BERN +2 Don’t think most of his supporters are going to change their mind based on the debate

Attention All Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives

It’s no secret that I can’t get 100% behind a candidate. Whatever. I’m a mess. Yep, it’s me, not you.

Here’s what we can do…

Given the fact (yes, fact) that neither one of our candidates will get their agenda through Congress, we will need to stay focused and supportive. Some (some, not all) of the most vocal supporters on both sides were also vocal Obama supporters. They (some, not all) were also the first to throw in the towel when the Obama Presidency didn’t deliver exactly what was promised, or had to compromise. Yes we can! might have been a sincere campaign slogan, but today it’s never been more important. We dropped the “we” pretty fast last time, and, yes, that hurt us.

That cannot happen again. If you’re signing on to your candidate’s agenda, then no bailing when things get rough – and they will get rough.

I have always been fine with moving towards a goal, by taking steps. Everyone had better be on board with that reality, because if we win then we can’t go from cheerleader to complainer. And if you feel it’s not fair for me to call for you to hold your fire then you aren’t acknowledging the political landscape. This ain’t 2008. We know what’s coming. We didn’t then, but we do now.

If you think criticism will get you what you want once our candidate is President, you’re kidding yourself. Previous criticism turned into Republican and MSM talking points… unless you believe when the negative numbers for “Obamacare” were presented anyone took the time to discuss that a portion of those numbers were because it didn’t go far enough. Yeah, that sure as hell wasn’t the talking point.

So, if you’re on board today, then you have to be on board for the duration. If a Dem becomes President the goal will be to change hearts and minds, not getting the agenda enacted – because that ain’t happening any time soon.

I will support our chosen candidate. I will continue to support them through their term. If you can’t sign onto that… that’s a big problem. It’s also a familiar problem. So maybe it’s not me… it’s us?

So, who’s with me? Are we ready to go the distance?

An Attempt To Figure Out Why I’m Still Not Feeling The Bern

I’m going to just put everything out there – which means this post will probably be all over the place.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but one of my biggest issues with Bernie Sanders is his limited platform and the way all, and I do mean all, roads lead to income equality. That just isn’t enough for me. There isn’t any acknowledgement that a rising tide does not lift all boats equally. And there definitely isn’t enough focus on the systemic hurdles that face minority groups in this scenario.

I can give examples of this, but others have done it better.

Ta-Nehisi Coates has several posts that reflect my feelings:

Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?

Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:

No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.

So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.

For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”

Exactly. Bernie saying that getting reparations through Congress is nil (I agree with that) ignores the fact that getting his agenda through Congress is nil, as well. Being pragmatic on this issue confuses me. It strikes me as such a divergence from his stated agenda. His use of the word “divisive” is interesting. Who is it dividing?

It’s not that I see a path to/towards reparations. I don’t. It’s that Bernie Sanders, a candidate that most agree won’t be able to enact his agenda (no matter how much we agree with it) is suddenly a pragmatist. BTW, this isn’t a post about reparations; it’s a post about why a candidate who openly calls for a revolution is suddenly citing how Congress works today. Either getting things through Congress is possible, or it’s not.

The Enduring Solidarity Of Whiteness

But ultimately, Johnson doesn’t reject reparations because he doesn’t think they would work, but because he doesn’t believe specific black injury through racism actually exists. He favors a “more Marxist class-oriented analysis” over the notion of treating “black poverty as fundamentally distinct from white poverty.” Johnson declines to actually investigate this position and furnish evidence—even though such evidence is not really hard to find.

(The Washington Post)

Courtesy of Emily Badger, this is a chart of concentrated poverty in America—that is to say families which are both individually poor and live in poor neighborhoods. Whereas individual poverty deprives one of the ability to furnish basic needs, concentrated poverty extends out from the wallet out to the surrounding institutions—the schools, the street, the community center, the policing. If individual poverty in America is hunger, neighborhood poverty is a famine. As the chart demonstrates, the black poor are considerably more subject to famine than the white poor. Indeed, so broad is this particular famine that its reach extends out to environs that most would consider well-nourished.

[…]

In its pervasiveness, concentration, and reach across class lines, black poverty proves itself to be “fundamentally distinct” from white poverty. It would be much more convenient for everyone on the left if this were not true—that is to say if neighborhood poverty, if systemic poverty, menaced all communities equally. In such a world, one would only need to craft universalist solutions for universal problems.

But we do not live that world. We live in this one:

Patrick Sharkey “Neighborhoods And The Black White Mobility Gap”

This chart by sociologist Patrick Sharkey quantifies the degree to which neighborhood poverty afflicts black and white families. Sociologists like Sharkey typically define a neighborhood with a poverty rate greater than 20 percent as “high poverty.” The majority of black people in this country (66 percent) live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The vast majority of whites (94 percent) do not. The effects of this should concern anyone who believes in a universalist solution to a particular affliction.

There’s a discussion to be had on these issues – one that involves more than income inequality, breaking up banks, single payer health care and free college tuition for all. We have discussed these very differences on this blog. We’ve discussed it when it comes to high-poverty, racially identifiable schools. We have discussed it when we’ve pointed out food deserts and red-lining. And I really don’t understand why Sanders applies a one size fits all to his message. Surely there’s room to address these issues as well? It’s the absence of these issues that leaves me wanting.

Moving on…

Why does Bernie Sanders remind me of Ralph Nader? It might be because he’s not a Democrat, and that may very well hurt down ticket Dems. Raising money for and supporting Dem candidates is important to me. It’s also part of the job for the nominated Head of the Party, especially if the nominee wants a chance at enacting their agenda. (BTW, there’s the electability argument in a nut shell) But it might have more to do with this comment:

When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying: “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”

That’s exactly what Ralph Nader said. How did that work out? And let’s not forget that one of the big jobs for our nominee (Head of the Party) will be to support down ticket Dem candidates. Can Sanders do this for a moderate Dem? I’m not sure since it goes against his message.

I’m also over the Progressive title contest. To many Sander’s supporters I am not a Progressive. It bothers me that this tactic is one of Sanders favorites. Maybe that’s why I hesitate? Either I’m 100% with Bernie or I’m out, complete with my Progressive label rescinded. It’s fine to debate Progressive policies. I love that! It’s wrong to debate over who really is a Progressive.

I feel the same way when it comes to women issues. Income inequality affects women (and minorities, see above) differently. Even if Bernie succeeded in enacting his agenda, women and minorities would still lag behind. Surely we can address this too? And maybe  that’s why while I agree with Bernie’s message it feels incomplete.

Where exactly does the Sander’s campaign place women and minority issues? So far, they are missing, even though these issues could fit easily into his stump speeches. The fact that they’re missing really bothers me. Not kidding, this is a biggie for me. It’s what he’s not saying.

Basically, if feminism and minority issues matter one day, but not the next – that they are reduced to a distraction, a side issue, and not important enough to be addressed –  I have a problem with that. These are not side issues to me. They should be part of Bernie Sanders’ message. They are important, and the fact they could be so easily inserted into Bernie’s speeches, yet aren’t, gives me pause.

If I’m leaning towards Hillary Clinton then Sanders’ supporters should try and convince me why I shouldn’t. I’m open to listening. Lord knows I’ve said it enough on here.  So far, here on DL and elsewhere, you’re not convincing me. Example: Sanders’ answer during the debate on foreign policy should have generated a lot of concern. Why is he given a pass on this? His answer demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge, yet it was sorta brushed off. So, I worry. I worry that some Sanders’ supporters aren’t vetting their candidate. I worry when they brush off the “socialist” label like it will have no impact. I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this.

Yesterday I wrote this comment (it relates to what I said in the paragraph above):

I know where the candidates stand on most issues (based on votes and comments) but what I don’t know is how they stand on these issues compared to one another. That’s important to me. Not only where they stand, but also how (or even if) they would prioritize these issues. If candidates say police brutality (just an example) is wrong but have no plans to address the issue then, to me, that’s a problem. See what I’m saying?

I know Bernie’s #1 issue, what I don’t know is what other issues matters to him and how he’d prioritize them. Is that really to much to ask? It obviously seems to be too much to answer. Instead, across the board, we get… pretty much everything Hillary did was bad, she hasn’t accomplished much (other than bad things), she’s a corporate shrill, gave speeches to Goldman Sachs for money, isn’t trustworthy, her voice isn’t melodious, her marriage isn’t real, judge her by her husband’s actions/policies, it’s sexist to vote for her because she’s a woman, she’s corrupt, a liar, the same as a Republican, and on and on.

So much for a policy discussion. I’m beginning to think that’s deliberate, probably because both candidates agree on more than they disagree. That’s true, btw.

Go on. Have at it. I’m ducking!

 

 

 

We’re Going To Have To Talk About Sexism Because It’s Surrounding Us

To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. I want this to stop – on all sides.

Gloria Steinem said:

“Women are more for [Hillary Clinton] than men are…First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience…Not to over-generalize, but…Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie…”

That’s completely unfair, and I dealt with this argument when I supported Obama in 2008. She did apologize, but that doesn’t undo what she said. And it sure as hell doesn’t help her candidate. With friends like these…

Madeleine Albright said:

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Again, not helpful. If I was a Bernie supporter this would make my support stronger. Way to go!

Women on women crime is 100% unacceptable. These two women are guilty of doing just that – and Hillary should call them out. They’ve divided women into categories by who they support. I will never accept that. But hey, I completely support a woman’s right to chose. There’s no place for comments like these. No. Place.

Then we have the BernieBros – yes, they are real, and they have always been around. Whether its an article on Hillary, Beyonce, Sarah Palin, rape, reproductive rights, most Reddit posts, they will be there. They are not unique to this Presidential campaign, but if you’re looking for examples of sexism in this campaign look no further than the comment section on any article about Hillary and Bernie. It’s rampant, and it probably has a lot to do with the way we’ve always gone after female candidates. Their tactics are extremely familiar.

Bernie called this behavior out. That’s great and I applaud him for that. More of this, please! Hillary, are you listening?

And I’m embarrassed to admit that DL contributed to this nonsense in 2008 – with our jokes about pantsuits and the Hillary Nutcracker. Yeah, I’m ashamed of my behavior over those posts and comments. I was guilty, guilty, guilty. It was just so easy – probably because it’s always been the first line of attack against women.

This morning, while listening to Al Mascitti, my jaw dropped several times. Here are some snippets:

The reason Gloria Steinem was successful was due to the fact that she was prettier than other “plain” feminist spokeswomen.

Bill Clinton talking about sexism after his relationship Monica Lewinsky isn’t credible.

Questioning if the Clinton marriage is a real marriage.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a melodious voice.

Personally, I think Steinem’s prominence had more to do with summing up feminist issues into easy sound bites and how far she pushed the envelope. She caught the media’s attention, sorta like the way Trump does. And… if her prominence had to do with her looks then who’s to blame for that? I’d say it was those who chose to cover her over other prominent feminists. See how that works?

His thoughts on Bill Clinton speaking about feminism… Is he saying that an adulterer can’t be a feminist? That confused me. I really don’t know what the point was. I hope he explains, because I couldn’t follow his logic.

As far as questioning a couple’s marriage, I find that distasteful. No one knows what goes on in someone’s marriage.

But the main thing that really bothers me is how Hillary is judged by her husband’s record. It makes her an extension of him and not her own person. That’s not fair, and it sure as hell never goes in the other direction.

Enough with the voice thing. Not kidding. It’s a no win situation for a women, and it’s not applied to men – whose voices, I guess, are the default position. Al did say he didn’t want to use the word shrill, but his use of melodious (pleasant sounding) makes the same point. Gotta admit, comments about voice and tone make me see red. Women will never win this BS battle, so can we knock it off? Pretty please?

Basically, everyone needs to stop this behavior. If we did, perhaps, we could discuss issues like Climate Change, reproductive rights, immigration, Police brutality, improving our education system, Foreign Policy (altho this was touched on in the last debate) our crumbling infrastructure – you know, things that our candidates aren’t discussing. Personally, I’d like to hear about these issues, as well as income inequality. Hopefully I get my wish because these things matter, too.

Income inequality is an important issue, but it isn’t the only one, and right now I’m not sure where the candidates stand on other issues that matter to me. That’s a problem for me. A BIG one. It’s probably the reason I can’t pick a candidate. I need more, because the office of President is about more, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the debates. Guess I’m saying, I completely understand where each candidates stand on income inequality… can we start to include other things? There actually are other things.

Meanwhile, can we step up our game and drop the sexism on both sides?

And in the words of John Scalzi, “I’m guessing you thought I was way off on your political philosophy but right on the button about the other two. Just think about that for a while.” We’ll rewrite that as: “I’m guessing you thought I was way off on your political candidate but right on the button about the other candidate. Just think about that for a while.”

This One’s For You, Kevin

Earlier today I asked Kevin O. to stop turning Delaware Dem’s death penalty post into an abortion post. My comment was brief, but I should have taken the time to explain that his comments were off topic and that he was free to post his thoughts on an open thread. For that, I apologize.

Kevin emailed me saying that my comment sent him a signal that his voice didn’t matter. Now, while I admit I could have taken the time to fully explain staying on topic, I’ll also say that his views on abortion don’t really matter to me. We won’t agree on this, and that’s fine. But only one of us has views that would personally impact others. That said, I’ll give him this forum to express himself.

He did write a blog post…

I will firmly state I am against the death penalty.  Like State Rep. Sean Lynn said yesterday, if there is even a chance of an error, than we cannot and should not put a person’s life on the line like that.  With that being said, I also oppose abortion.  To me, life is life.  Yes, the death penalty was put in place to execute the most egregious of criminals out there, but the Bible firmly states “Thou shalt not kill.”  Under that line of thought, a fetus is a life just as much as a murderer on death row.

For abortion, I believe that all life has an unfulfilled purpose.  I saw a post on Facebook this morning where a woman talked about being raped.  She had a child and gave it up for adoption.  Many years later, that very same child saved a woman from being raped at a party.  I often think about what could happen with children who are not able to reach their full potential.  Some don’t have a chance at all.  I used to be against all abortion with the exception of a woman who is a victim of rape.  I have changed that view in recent years because there are other options.  I understand women in those situations are given no choice.  But I have no doubt, if even 1% of our most famous inventors, writers, musicians, or leaders were born out of that environment, our world would be a lesser place had they not been born.

There is a difference between the death penalty and abortion – mainly the State doesn’t sentence a person to have an abortion. Abortion is a personal, legal, medical decision between a woman and her doctor. If you don’t believe in abortion – don’t have one. The State won’t order you to – you can, you know… opt out. 😉 (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

I get that Kevin feels strongly about this, so strongly that he’s okay with forcing a woman to give birth to her rapist’s baby. That boggles my mind. It also diminishes the brutal reality of rape – it sidelines it and turns the female rape victim into an incubator who loses her voice and autonomy. That isn’t okay.

 

Oregon Militia Leader (And Several Others) Arrested. One Dead

Via The Guardian:

An associate of the armed Oregon militia occupying a wildlife refuge was shot dead on Tuesday after a shootout with federal agents that resulted in the arrest of the group’s leader Ammon Bundy and a group of protesters.

The shootout appears to have taken place on a highway in rural Oregon – away from the federal refuge the armed militia have been occupying.

FBI officials said they arrested Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy, Bryan Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Payne on Tuesday afternoon after they stopped them along the highway.

The agency described the shootout and arrests as resulting from “an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” that occurred at 4.25pm PST.

TPM has more details on the shooting:

CNN and the Oregonian reported Tuesday night that LaVoy Finicum, 54, was killed. When law enforcement officials intercepted the vehicle carrying several militia leaders, most surrendered, according to CNN. However, police told CNN that Ryan Bundy and Finicum did not. Law enforcement told CNN they were not clear on who opened fire first. Bundy did not suffer life threatening injuries.

The arrested are facing Federal felony charges of “conspiracy to impede officers through the use of force, intimidation or threats”.

I’m not sure what these arrests will lead to. Will the remaining militia members surrender and/or go home, or will they hunker down and prepare to retaliate? I have a bad feeling about this, and I do think law enforcement allowed this situation to go on far too long. I have trouble envisioning a scenario where the militia packs up and leaves peacefully without achieving any of their goals. They came armed for a fight and over the past few weeks have pushed the envelope toward confrontation – removing fences, threatening citizens, convening their own court, etc..

Yeah, I have a really bad feeling. I hope I’m wrong about where this is headed.

A Learning Experience – College Roomies

My daughter started college last fall and within the first two weeks her roommate dropped out. That meant she had the dorm room to herself, which she loved at first, but then grew to feel she was missing out on an important part of the college experience. I agreed.

That changed over the holidays. My daughter was assigned a roommate for the spring semester. She was thrilled. The young women immediately started texting. For the most part the texts dealt with questions of what my daughter had in the room, what the new roomie needed to bring, and general procedural questions about dorm and university life.

We took her back to school last Sunday afternoon. Three hours later my daughter texts me:

She is super religious…

I replied that college will expose you to different sorts of people. She agreed. A day later I received this text:

She doesn’t want my boyfriend, or any boy, over at night. Not spending the night, no boys at night at all

I told her that wasn’t her roommate’s call, and she could have her boyfriend and her male friends over as long as they were respectful.

Next text from her:

She says it makes her uncomfortable. She is really nice, and all. Just super conservative Christian

Hmmm… how to handle this? We spoke on the phone. I told her that she should be aware and respectful of her new roommate, but the new roommate didn’t get to make all the rules. I then asked her what rules she had made. Her answer: None. My first, immature reaction was for her to make rules that the roommate wouldn’t like, but I didn’t tell my daughter that idea because it’s petty and dumb. Instead I told her to do what she normally does – have her boyfriend over in the evening to watch Netflix and be personable and inclusive. She took my advice, and while the roommate wasn’t happy my daughter established precedent.

The second night they went to dinner together and my daughter’s gay, guy friend stopped by their table. Yep, I received more texts:

She thinks being gay is a choice

Her family only allows her to wear dresses and skirts

She doesn’t believe in evolution

My response: “Why are you even in these conversations?”

Her response: “I was getting a bible lesson.”

My response: “You need to shut these conversations down.”

This led to another phone call. We decided that the best way to handle this was telling the roommate that they would have to agree to disagree and while my daughter respected her right to her beliefs she didn’t share them and would prefer they weren’t the topic of every conversation. She also said that both of them needed to respect each others friends. That seemed reasonable to me, but the roommate didn’t seem to agree. I come to this conclusion because my daughter says the “religious” talk and rules haven’t stopped, they’ve actually increased. Sigh… I knew this would happen.

More rules appeared; rules about sex, drugs, alcohol, make up, parties, clothing, etc. – and we’re only four days in at this point. The roommate didn’t ask my daughter’s views on these issues (she hasn’t asked my daughter’s views on anything) she simply issues edicts. The funny thing is my daughter’s first roommate was a party girl and my daughter wasn’t entirely comfortable with that. Had her new roommate even attempted a conversation with my daughter she would have found some common ground, but she didn’t. My daughter responded to her by saying, “You don’t even know me. Why are you making assumptions?” The roommate’s answer? A bible verse.

Of course, I knew exactly why assumptions were being made. It’s the nature of the beast. The roommate is quite comfortable in preaching her beliefs, but not the least bit interested in my daughter’s thoughts. It is curious why a person with such strict beliefs would choose a highly urban, highly diverse university and why they wouldn’t request a single room. And we may be heading that way. Altho… my daughter won’t request it.

Basically, I think this is a good experience for her. She needs to learn how to interact with different people. She is also learning to stand her ground respectfully and not simply give in to the loudest, most strident voices. Hopefully, both young women will learn something from the other. Hopefully, a compromise can be reached. Hopefully no one loses it and ends up wailing at the other.

As usual, DL readers, your thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Virginia GOP Bill Would Result In School Children Having To Show Their Genitals – Not. Kidding.

Yesterday I wrote about a North Carolina A state law requiring that doctors who perform an abortion after the 16th week of pregnancy supply an ultrasound to state officials. If you thought that was creepy, take a look at this:

Use of restroom facilities; penalty. (HB663)
Introduced By: Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg)

Description
Use of restroom facilities; penalty. Requires the Director of the Department of General Services and local school boards to develop and implement policies that require, respectively, that every restroom designated for public use in any public building on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth and every public school restroom, locker room, and shower room that is designated for use by a specific gender to solely be used by individuals whose anatomical sex matches such gender designation. Such policies may also provide that a student may, upon request, be granted access, to the extent reasonable, to a single stall restroom or shower, a unisex bathroom, or controlled individual use of a restroom, locker room, or shower. The bill defines “anatomical sex” and provides a civil penalty for a willful and knowing violation.

That’s the general overview. Let’s take a look at the actual bill (emphasis mine):

HOUSE BILL NO. 663

Offered January 13, 2016
Prefiled January 11, 2016
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 2.2-1147.3 and 22.1-79.7, relating to use of restroom facilities; penalty.

———-
Patron– Cole (By Request)
———-
Committee Referral Pending
———-
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 2.2-1147.3 and 22.1-79.7 as follows:

§ 2.2-1147.3. Use of restroom facilities in public buildings; penalty.

A. For the purposes of this section, “anatomical sex” means the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s anatomy.

B. The Director of the Department shall develop and implement policies that require every restroom designated for public use in any public building on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth as defined in § 2.2-1147 and that is designated for use by a specific gender to solely be used by individuals whose anatomical sex matches such gender designation.

C. Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this section shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $50. Civil penalties assessed under this section shall be paid into the Literary Fund. Any law-enforcement officer may issue a summons regarding a violation of this section.

§ 22.1-79.7. Use of restroom facilities; anatomical sex; penalty.

A. For purposes of this section, “anatomical sex” means the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s anatomy.

B. Local school boards shall develop and implement policies that require every school restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by a specific gender to solely be used by individuals whose anatomical sex matches such gender designation. Such policies may also provide that a student may, upon request, be granted access, to the extent reasonable, to a single stall restroom or shower, a unisex bathroom, or controlled individual use of a restroom, locker room, or shower.

C. Any student who willfully and knowingly violates this section shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $50. Civil penalties assessed under this section shall be paid into the Literary Fund. Any law-enforcement officer may issue a summons regarding a violation of this section.

Exactly what sort of policies would local school boards develop and implement? How would they be enforced? I would think that if a school official thought a child was using the wrong bathroom they would need to confirm their suspicions with a physical inspection. Typing that sentence made my skin crawl.

I guess law enforcement will be pulling down pants and lifting up skirts, as well. How else would they know if they should issue a summons?

All roads in this Bill lead to a person proving their gender by exposing themselves – in schools it would be children exposing themselves to adults. Hey, maybe they could take pictures of each child’s genitalia and keep it on file!

And what is it about bathrooms with these guys? (Okay, insert joke bursting with truth here) They are obsessed with gay and trans sex. They equate sexuality with gender, but they’re never as worried about lesbians. All their fascination revolves around the male anatomy. The way they behave one would think that the only thing stopping them from engaging in the very behavior they decry is the law. Remove/don’t implement laws and then there’s nothing holding them back.

99.99999999999% of people enter a bathroom to, you know, use a bathroom, but not in their world. In their world gay and transgender people enter a bathroom for sex. Freud would have a field day with these people.

What the hell is wrong with Republicans? They’re against Sex Ed, but are okay with a bill that would make a pedophile salivate?

Fetus Pictures Being Sent To Government Officials

Of all the slippery slope arguments this one actually has merit.

RALEIGH, N.C. — A state law requiring that doctors who perform an abortion after the 16th week of pregnancy supply an ultrasound to state officials has sparked a new and bitter front in the war over abortion here, with stakes that are both personal and political.

Supporters say the purpose of the law is to verify that doctors and clinics are complying with state law, which outlaws abortions after 20 weeks but with an exception made for medical emergencies. Critics say the purpose is to intimidate and provide hurdles to women and doctors. The ultrasound provision, already a requirement in Louisiana and Oklahoma, is part of the continuing pushback against abortion in Republican-controlled states. In highly polarized North Carolina, it has raised the temperature of the abortion debate, which has been used to motivate conservative and liberal voters alike.

The law requires doctors who perform an abortion after the 16th week of pregnancy to send the State Department of Health and Human Services the method used to determine the “probable gestational age” of the fetus, the measurements used to support the assertion and, most controversially, an ultrasound showing the measurements. The provisions took effect Jan. 1.

The reason for this law comes down to this: Doctors are liars who routinely break the law. Of course, that’s not the real reason. The real reason is to intimidate women and their doctors; to set up a procedure where doctors are hauled into court and that many  (given that determining fetal age isn’t an exact science – because fetuses do not grow at the same rate), will be hesitant to perform abortions at the 17, 18 and 19th week due to the threat of prosecution.

So much for HIPAA Privacy rules. You have to wonder what other medical records will be sent to government officials, because this law opens the door to that.

North Carolina has added this statement: “The North Carolina law states the documents will not be considered public records, and that the confidentiality of the doctor and patient will be “protected,” with the doctor responsible for leaving off the patient’s identifying information.”

How would this law actually work? Given that determining fetal age is an approximate, I guess “questionable” ultrasounds head to some sort of court. Would the woman have to testify? I would think so. How could she not be called to the witness stand? Not kidding, how could she be removed from these proceedings? If the state official says the fetus was 21/22 weeks and the doctor says it was 18/19 weeks there needs to be another witness – someone who could verify the date of their last period, the date on which they had sex, and would we need to bring in their sexual partner, as well, to confirm these statements? And if the woman confirmed what the doctor said how would you prove her wrong? Are we heading to a place where all women would have to register, with the state, their menstruation dates every month so a record would exist that could be used in court? How else would the state be able to prove their case?

I’m not kidding. How would the state be able to prove that an abortion was performed after 20 weeks without knowing a woman’s menstruation schedule ahead of time?

This is simply another unscientific way to limit abortion to 16 weeks instead of 20. It’s intimidation. And what is it about Republicans and their obsession with putting a camera up a woman’s vagina? That’s really creepy. But taking pictures is a GOP staple – and one that frequently gets them into trouble with their other sexual fetishes. There’s a reason so many anti-abortionists take pictures of the women entering clinics. There’s a reason they take pictures of their license plates. There’s a reason they post a doctor’s personal information online. It’s to shame and intimidate women (who they can’t stop getting abortions), and in some cases to give directions to murdering a doctor.

And they can’t stop the women. Despite all their whining and preaching they can’t convince the one group who could fulfill their goal – Women. If you can’t make a persuasive argument to the group you need to make your vision a reality, then you’ve failed. It’s why they go after doctors and impose restrictions on clinics that should make oral surgeons shudder in fear. It’s why they infantilize women. They can’t convince them so they remove them from their argument. That’s what a losing argument looks like.

And just for fun, North Carolina has extended the waiting period for abortion from 24 hours to 72 hours. What’s amazing to me is how this impacts the very people Republicans spit on every day – the poor. A 72 hour waiting period for a wealthier woman is an inconvenience – for a poor woman it can be an insurmountable obstacle. So Republicans are actually for creating more of the population they sneer at. I’ve never been able to wrap my head around that one.

And then there’s this gem:

Also under the law, doctors performing abortions after 20 weeks must send the health department the “findings and analysis” that were used to determine that a medical emergency existed.

Oh good, another personal medical record heads to court! And here I thought the Republicans hated the ACA due to the government coming between a person and their doctor. Guess that only applies to male persons. Women’s bodies are public property, after all.