What's the best nickname someone's ever given you?
I'm going to call it a tie between Iain calling me "Apple Cheeks" and Deeks calling me "Lint Trap," lol.
Question of the Day
Fat Fashion
This is your semi-regular thread in which fat women can share pix, make recommendations for clothes they love, ask questions of other fat women about where to locate certain plus-size items, share info about sales, talk about what jeans cut at what retailer best fits their body shapes, discuss how to accessorize neutral colored suits, share stories of going bare-armed for the first time, brag about a cool fashion moment, whatever.
* * *
I recently got this sweatshirt from Torrid, and I love it so much!
RIP fucks.
Obviously, I still care about a lot of things, but it's absolute perfection for those "I'm not offended; I'm contemptuous" moments, lol.
Anyway! As always, all subjects related to fat fashion are on topic, but if you want a topic for discussion: Got any tops (or jackets, or shoes, or whatever!) that you love because of an overt message they convey?
Have at it in comments! Please remember to make fat women of all sizes, especially women who find themselves regularly sizing out of standard plus-size lines, welcome in this conversation, and pass no judgment on fat women who want to and/or feel obliged, for any reason, to conform to beauty standards. And please make sure if you're soliciting advice, you make it clear you're seeking suggestions—and please be considerate not to offer unsolicited advice. Sometimes people just need to complain and want solidarity, not solutions.
For the Tall Ladies
[Content Note: Misogyny; sizism; violent metaphors.]
One of the interesting things I've seen, on Twitter and here in comments, in response to the Ghostbusters trailer is tall women being very excited about Leslie Jones' evident tallness.
Jones, who is six feet tall, has talked about her tallness in interviews and in her stand-up. In the profile of her I recommended in December, she says: "I know I'm fly—don't get me wrong. But I don't look, like, standard Hollywood. As a comedian, it's something you learn to use."
Her Showtime special, "Problem Child," which aired in 2010, began that way:There's a certain defensiveness to it, by design: "Jones often begins her standup sets by 'taking away their bullets'—neutralizing anything that might distract an audience, so that 'they can stop looking at my outfit, stop worrying about whether I think I'm sexy, and just listen.'"
I know y'all already noticed that I'm a big bitch. ...When I walk in a Payless, it gets quiet than a motherfucker. ...I swear, men, if you can get past my big-ass feet and how tall I am, I'm a great fucking catch. ...I'm fine. I can fuck. I can fight. Oh, I ain't no damsel in distress, motherfucker. You can go get the car, baby, while I handle these three thug motherfuckers.The final line devolves into shadowboxing—Jones bobbing and weaving like a mean-mugging Buster Keaton.
I don't know the lived experiences of tall women, as, at 5'3", I'm pretty much the opposite of tall. But when I hear y'all speak about your experiences, I can certainly relate, as a fat woman, to the constant admonishments, oblique and overt, to take up less space.
And I think it's great that Paul Feig lets Leslie Jones take up space on the screen. I can imagine how cool it is for tall women to look at that frame, and see a tall woman being allowed to be fucking tall.
Anyway. Here's a thread for the tall ladies to talk about the trailer, or their experiences generally with representation in pop culture.
And to my tall friends: Thank you for generously bending over all those times to give me hugs.
Daily Dose of Cute
Zelly and Duckie. ♥
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
Politico has the full transcript of Mitt Romney's jeremiad against Donald Trump, if you're interested. Donald Trump will no doubt be responding at his campaign event scheduled this afternoon. Shitshow-a-go-go!
[Content Note: War; video may autoplay at link] Fucking hell: "The Syrian government reported a nationwide power outage on Thursday—just the latest electricity problem in a country that has seen frequent outages during a five-year war between the regime, rebels and terror groups. Electrical workers determined the cause and had begun restoring power to some places by late afternoon, the country's ministry of electricity said without detailing what had gone wrong. It wasn't clear how many people were affected by Thursday's outage, as many cities outside of the government's control already weren't being served by the government-run power grid. The ISIS terror group and other militants groups control large parts of the country, and many cities in these areas use fuel-powered generators for electricity."
[CN: Misogynoir] Good grief the Republican Party is fucking terrible: "Naming post office buildings is a job that sometimes falls to the US Congress, and the often stalled body is surprisingly efficient at doing so. But yesterday (Mar. 1) was a surprising exception to their frequently unanimous vote: Nine congressmen, all Republican, voted against naming a new post office building in Winston-Salem, North Carolina after poet Maya Angelou. ...The measure still passed, with 371 'yes' votes." Good.
[CN: Assassination; misogyny; terrorism] My god: "Berta Cáceres, the Honduran indigenous and environmental rights campaigner, has been murdered, barely a week after she was threatened for opposing a hydroelectric project. Her death prompted international outrage at the murderous treatment of campaigners in Honduras, as well as a flood of tributes to a prominent and courageous defender of the natural world. The co-founder of the Council of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras (Copinh) was shot dead by gunmen who entered her home in La Esperanza at around 1am on Thursday. Some reports say there were two killers; others suggest 11. They escaped without being identified, after also wounding her brother. Police told local media the killings occurred during an attempted robbery, but the family said they had no doubt it was an assassination prompted by Cáceres's high-profile campaigns against dams, illegal loggers, and plantation owners." I tend to believe her family. My condolences to them, and everyone who knew and admired Cáceres. What a chilling message to Honduran activists who survive her.
[CN: Guns; murder] "South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has been denied leave to appeal against his conviction for murdering [Reeva Steenkamp, who was dating Pistorius at the time he killed her]. The Constitutional Court has made the ruling, meaning Pistorius will now be sentenced in April. ...Prosecutors are believed to be targeting a sentence of at least 15 years in jail for Pistorius."
[CN: Colorism; appropriation] Nina Simone's family continues to be deeply unhappy with the unauthorized biopic of the singer starring Zoe Saldana.
Actress Kaley Cuoco, who previously made some stupid comments about feminism that I'm too disinterested to look up, now says she's definitely a feminist: "Of course I'm a fucking feminist. Look at me. I bleed feminism. I get equal pay to my male costars on a big show, I have my own home, I'm as independent as you could possibly be." Okay then!
[CN: Image of insect at link] I love this: "Found all over the world, the wandering glider (Pantala flavescens) is aptly named. The dragonfly has truly global reach, and it is found on every continent except Antarctica. To get to all those far-flung corners of the planet, the winged insect (also sometimes called the 'globe skimmer') makes epic migratory flights: They have been seen, for example, traversing the Indian Ocean in the hundreds of thousands on their way from Asia to Africa. But just how far they go has shocked researchers. New research suggests that these dragonflies make transcontinental voyages on a regular basis, which is quite a feat for an insect less than 2 inches in length."
[CN: Video autoplays at link] And finally! This video is a few months old, but I only saw it for the first time today: A kitten tries to copycat (see what I did there?!) her mama's grooming routine. TOO ADORABLE!!!
Whoa: Jane Sanders' Interview with Chris Hayes
[Content Note: Racism; misogyny.]
Jane Sanders, who is married to Bernie Sanders, did an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes last night, and it was something. And by "something," I mean "super shitty."
Hayes: —Clinton's lead, which is now nearly two hundred allocated delegates more than Sanders, will become more difficult for Sanders to overcome, because of that proportional allocation. That's a lesson Clinton learned in her two thousand eight race against Barack Obama. Joining me now, spouse of two thousand sixteen presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders. Ms. Sanders, it's wonderful to have you. Um, what is your feeling about—So, a couple of quick thoughts here:
Sanders: It's nice to be here, Chris.
Hayes: —the mathematical path forward for the Sanders campaign, facing now this banked deficit of 200 allocated delegates, and the fact that it's proportional all the way through?
Sanders: Well, we knew the early maps would be harder for us, uh, for several reasons. First that the people across the country might not be as familiar with Bernie as they are, uh, with the woman that has been in three presidential campaigns—two of her husband's and her own already. Um, so she's quite well-known throughout the world, and we needed to introduce Bernie. Um, however, uh, the early states have turned out to be at least as good as what we had hoped. Um, as you say, it's proportional, so, in Massachusetts, we had forty-nine percent of the vote. The delegate—the delegate count is going to be just about equal. In Vermont, where they know him the best, he got a shutout. Uh, he will get a hundred percent of the delegates, because, uh, Secretary Clinton didn't meet the—the fifteen percent threshold to get any delegates from our state. Um, in terms of the states that we just had, with, um, Super Tuesday, it seems—I think there are two important things to point out: Most of the states that, uh, Secretary Clinton won had low voter turnouts. Most of the states that Bernie won had high voter turnouts. We know, when we have a high voter turnout, Bernie does better, because the more people that participate in the process, they more they, uh— His ideas are carried out. Uh, the second is that most of the states—just, you know, not all of them—but most of the states are historically red states and are not likely to carry the day in the general election. Most of the states that Bernie has won are mostly blue states or battleground states. And he's won them handily. I think it was, um, ten percent in Oklahoma, nineteen percent in Minnesota, twenty some odd percent, ah, in Oklahoma, so—
Hayes: Well, let me stop you right there.
Sanders: —I think we're looking good.
Hayes: Let me stop you right there. There's two things, talking about this from a red state, blue state— I mean, that does seem to me a little, um, a little bit of misdirection, insofar as general election electorates are different, right? And also, it also seems a little dismissive of, say, the good folks in Alabama, right? I mean, it's not Alabaman Democrats'—
Sanders: Oh no, yeah.
Hayes: It's not Alabaman Democrats' fault that they don't have a majority of voters in Alabama! [chuckles] They can't do anything about that, except, you know, make more Democrats. Um, and, and that—that links up to a deeper issue here, right? Which is there is a stark demographic divide happening in the states that Clinton is winning and the states Sanders is winning. Exit polling showing Bernie Sanders losing black voters by eighty-five to fourteen; losing in those states with very high percentages of black voters across the South. I mean, it just seems impossible to me for someone to win the Democratic nomination in the age of the Obama coalition who is losing by those margins among black voters.
Sanders: Well, the age of the Obama coalition was two thousand eight. This is two thousand sixteen. And we'll see either the Sanders coalition, or the Clinton coalition. Uh, I think that it's— You're absolutely right; we need to reach the, uh, the African American voter better. As I said, they're not that familiar with them—with Bernie. What we've done is, um, try to reach the working class voter, uh, the middle class voter, and not go, uh, not divide and, and, and reach out to individual sectors of the community. The Latino community, the African American community, the women, the men, the—the young. Um, but we have to do a better job on that. Um, and we know that, and we are going forward. I think if you look at the, uh, election results of yesterday, you'll see that we were—we had increased, uh, significantly with the Latino vote. Um, and in terms of the wide discrepancy, the same discrepancy holds true with Bernie against Clinton in terms of anybody under 30, no matter what race, what ethnicity—
Hayes: Yeah, there's a huge disparity.
Sanders: —they are. Yes.
Hayes: All right. Jane Sanders, from Burlington, Vermont. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
1. I find it really gross when Sanders won't even say Hillary Clinton's name, but instead refers to her, for the first time in the interview, as "the woman that has been in three presidential campaigns—two of her husband's and her own already." What the fuck.
2. Black voters just haven't heard of Bernie Sanders. That old canard. This line of bullshit is problematic for a whole lot of reasons, not least of which is the implicit circular racist shitshow that is: Black voters aren't informed and, if they were, they would definitely vote for Bernie
Sanders, so the fact that they aren't voting for Bernie Sanders proves they're uninformed. For fuck's sake.
3. "The age of the Obama coalition was 2008." Uh, nope. That was the beginning of the age of the Obama coalition. And that coalition is the future of not only the Democratic Party, but of the country. The fact that the Sanders campaign has failed to realize or accept this fact is exactly why they're losing.
4. The Sanders campaign is trying to reach out to working class and middle class voters irrespective of race, because they don't want to be "divisive." Hoo boy.
5. It is flatly not true that Sanders wins with "anybody under 30, no matter what race." Sanders wins with white voters under 30, and, in some contests, only white men under 30.
That is hardly a comprehensive accounting of everything wrong with this interview. Again I say: What the fuck is the Sanders campaign even doing?
Have at it in comments.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There are some flickery lighting effects in this video.]
Ray Parker, Jr.: "Ghostbusters"
Film Corner: Ghostbusters
[Content Note: Slapstick violence.]
It's here!!! The first full-length trailer for this summer's Ghostbusters film, starring Leslie Jones, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Kristen Wiig!!!
Video Description: Overhead shot of New York City at dusk. Text Onscreen: "30 years ago." Tinkly piano version of Ghostbusters theme. Text Onscreen: "Four scientists saved New York." Shot of New York City street. Text Onscreen: "This summer." Graffiti of Ghostbusters logo in subway. Text Onscreen: "A new team will answer the call."
Cut to Kate McKinnon, a thin white blond woman; Melissa McCarthy, a fat white brunette woman; and Kristen Wiig, a thin white brunette woman, standing in a row, looking petrified. McCarthy, holding a camera, says breathlessly, "It's a class four apparition." Cut to a lady ghost hovering above them, glowing blue. Wiig approaches her. "It's okay," she says. "She seems...peaceful." She reaches out her hand as the ghost looms. "My name is Erin Gilbert, doctor of particle physics. I—" The ghost screams and vomits green slime all over Wiig. McCarthy records it, gape-mouthed. THERE IS SO MUCH SLIME!
Cut to Wiig, all cleaned up, later. "That stuff went everywhere, by the way," she says. "In every crack. Very hard to wash off." McCarthy and McKinnon look horrified.
Text Onscreen, as the Ghostbusters theme begins to play in earnest: "From Columbia Pictures."
Cut to a lab, full of equipment and parts and wires and gadgets. McCarthy says to McKinnon and Wiig: "We have dedicated our whole lives to studying the paranormal. Now there's sightings all over the city."
Cut to Leslie Jones, a tall, thin black woman, who is dressed as a public transit worker, standing in a subway tunnel, looking up at a gaggle of blue-glowing ghosts. Cut to people running in the streets.
"There are people out there who need our help," McCarthy says, back in the lab. A proton pack (!) glows. She says to McKinnon: "Holtzmann, you're a brilliant engineer." McKinnon demonstrates a contraption she's built. She winks and smiles. McCarthy says to Wiig: "Erin, no one's better at quantum physics than you." Wiig stands in front of a giant whiteboard filled with equations and makes finger-guns. "We can provide a real service," says McCarthy, leaning on a piece of equipment and getting shocked. "Ooh that's hot," she whispers, makes a whoopsface.
Cut to Jones, sitting in a booth at the lab. She smiles broadly. "I'm joining the club!" she says. "You guys are really smart about this science stuff, but I know New York." Clip of Jones at work in a transit booth. "And I can borrow a car from my uncle!" Cut to the street outside the lab, where Jones stands with a hearse. "Haha!" she exclaims, spreading her arms.
"Uh, you didn't disclose that the vehicle was gonna be a hearse," McCarthy says. "It's a Cadillac!" Jones replies.
Cut the the hearse Caddy decked out as the Ghostbustermobile, leaving a garage and tearing down a street. Cut to the four women standing outside the Ghostbustermobile in their Ghostbuster uniforms, looking COOL AS FUCK.
"Let's go!" Wiig says. "Let's go!" McCarthy says. "Oh," they both say, and look at each other. "Did you want to—? I'll let you," says McCarthy. "Next time," says Wiig.
The Ghostbustermobile racing down a street at night. The Ghostbusters bustin' ghosts! In voiceover, Wiig says: "Someone is creating a device that amplifies paranormal activity. We might be the only ones who can stop it."
Cut to Wiig walking cautiously through a wig shop. She's startled by McKinnon posing in a wig and hat and making a silly face. "Holtzmann, come on!" she exclaims. McKinnon replies, "The hat is too much, right? Is it the wig or the hat?"
Giant ghost strolling through Times Square! The Ghostbusters ready their proton packs! Wiig shoots at a ghost! McCarthy punches a ghost with a device! Jones, McCarthy, and McKinnon aim their proton shooters at a ghost! Administrative Assistant Chris Hemsworth kicks open a door!
In voiceover, McCarthy says: "There's a bigger picture at hand here: These ghosts can possess the human form."
McCarthy looks in a sink drain glowing green and gets slimed in the face. Her face drips slime. Jones looks at her like WTF. McCarthy, clearly possessed, gives a creepy smile. She picks up McKinnon by the throat and dangles her out a window. Jones runs, yelling, toward McCarthy, who then spins her head around backwards on her neck. "Oh hell no," says Jones. "The devil is a liar!"
All three tumble back in and onto the floor. "Get outta my friend, ghost!" Jones yells. She slaps McCarthy, and the ghost leaves with a green swoosh. "Ow, that's gonna leave a mark," McCarthy moans. "The power of Patty compels you!" Jones shouts, and slaps McCarthy again. "Owwww!" McCarthy groans.
Ghostbuster logo. Text Onscreen: "Who you gonna call? Summer."
* * *
The thing I love about this trailer is that it manages, in under three minutes, to highlight each of the four stars' unique comedic talents. We see Leslie Jones' amazing high-volume physical comedy punctuated with grinning swagger; Melissa McCarthy's exquisite goofiness; Kate McKinnon's brilliant dry sardonicism juxtaposed with over-the-top expressions; and Kristen Wiig's inimitable quiet awkwardness. It's terrific.
Mitt Romney to Trash Talk Donald Trump
[Content Note: Bigotry.]
It was announced yesterday afternoon that two-time presidential loser Mitt Romney will appear today at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City to give a speech at 11:15am ET "on the state of the 2016 race."
Ever since, parts of the transcript have been "leaking" to the press, to let everyone know that the real purpose of his speech is to attack Donald Trump as a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad candidate.
Here are the excerpts that have been made available to the press:
In 1964, days before the presidential election, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America that it was a "Time for Choosing." He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I'm no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country...A few thoughts:
At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times...
But if we make the right choices, America's future will be even better than our past and better than our present...
Of the remaining candidates, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront have come from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich...
Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good...
The president of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country's great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren...
Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton...
On Hillary Clinton's watch at the State Department, America's interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power...
A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory...
I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good...
Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat...
His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill...
1. When you're sending out a dude who thinks people aren't entitled to food as the standard-bearer of your party's moral compass, you have derailed.
2. Again, this charade is ostensibly the result of Republican Party elites who want to stop Donald Trump. But could anything more effectively solidify his support among right-leaning voters than a representative of the party establishment attacking him very publicly?
3. Surely the GOP knows, unless they have some backroom deal with Trump and this whole thing really is a fucking farce, that this could push Trump into a third-party run. Which would make a Clinton or Sanders victory even more likely. So what's the real strategy here?
4. To cite Trump's policies as dangerous garbage, but then suggest that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich offer "serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront" is laughable. Utterly absurd. Aside from Trump's "build the biggest wall" proposal, the other candidates for the most part share the same policy positions as Trump, and, in some cases (Rubio on abortion; all of their positions on totally defunding Planned Parenthood; all of their positions on repealing the provision that insurance must cover preexisting conditions) are even more extreme than Trump.
5. I agree wholeheartedly that Trump "has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president." But on what planet do Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have the temperament and judgment to be president? This entire Republican primary has been a colossal shitshow. None of the people running should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Ever.
Good grief.
HB2 at SCOTUS: Updates
[Content Note: War on agency. NB: Not only women need access to abortion.]
As I mentioned yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt, a case challenging parts of Texas' omnibus abortion bill, HB2.
For some additional background reading, see Jessica Mason Pieklo's "The 36-Year-Old Abortion Rights Case Emerging Again in Whole Woman's Health" and Tina Vasquez's "For Undocumented Women in Texas, HB2 Is Life or Death."
For coverage of yesterday's events at the Court, see:
Dahlia Lithwick: "The Women Take Over."
Irin Carmon: "No Clear Signal from Supreme Court on Abortion."
Lyle Denniston: "Argument Analysis: Two Options on Abortion Law?"
If you want to see what mainstream media sources are saying about the arguments, Molly Runkle's got a good round-up of coverage.
The transcript of the arguments is available in PDF format, and one thing that is abundantly clear: It matters a whole lot that there are liberal women on that Court.
Here, for example, are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor calling bullshit on the fundamental inconsistency in Texas' argument, made by Solicitor General of Texas Scott Keller, that steep requirements for clinics are to "protect women's health" but that the closing of clinics as a result does not constitute an undue burden:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well, how many women are located over 100 miles from the nearest clinic?DAMN.
MR. KELLER: Justice Ginsburg, JA 242 provides that 25 percent of Texas women of reproductive age are not within 100 miles of an ASC. But that would not include McAllen that got as-applied relief, and it would not include El Paso, where the Santa Teresa, New Mexico facility is.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It includes—
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That's—that's odd that you point to the New Mexico facility. New Mexico doesn't have any surgical—ASC requirement, and it doesn't have any admitting requirement. So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas because Texas says to protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to Mexico—New Mexico, New Mexico where they don't get it either, no admitting privileges, no ASC. And that's perfectly all right. Well, if that's all right for the—the women in the El Paso area, why isn't it right for the rest of the women in Texas?
MR. KELLER: The policy set by Texas is that the standard of care for abortion clinics should rise to the level of ASCs for clinics, and admitting privileges for doctors. Texas obviously can't tell New Mexico how to regulate, but the substantial obstacle inquiry examines whether there is the ability to make the ultimate decision or elect the procedure. And when there's—
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Then why should it count those clinics?
MR. KELLER: Well, here, the evidence in the record showed that this particular clinic was 1 mile across the border that was still in the El Paso metroplex, and women in El Paso often used that facility to obtain abortions. So that would go into the contextual analysis of this particular as-applied challenge. This doesn't go to the facial challenge, but the as-applied challenge and whether women in El Paso do have access to abortion. In any event, over 90 percent of Texas women of reproductive age live within 150 miles of an open clinic as of today.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Keller, the—the statistics that I gleaned from the record were that 900,000 women live further than 150 miles from a provider; 750,000, three-quarters of a million, further than 200 miles. Now, that's as compared to just in 2012, where fewer than 100,000 lived over 150 miles, and only 10,000 lived more than 200 miles away. So we're going from, like, 10,000 to three-quarters of a million living more than 200 miles away.
MR. KELLER: Well, Justice Kagan, first of all, I believe the statistics at JA 242, which is their expert testimony, would not account for McAllen or El Paso, but in looking at the fraction of women affected. And that would be the facial challenge standard, that at a minimum, a large fraction of cases, there would have to be invalidity even if there was an undue burden. The travel distance of—even in Casey, the district court found over 40 percent of Pennsylvania women were going to have to travel at least one hour, sometimes over three hours, and there was a 24hour waiting period. Texas reduces that waiting period to two hours for traveling over 100 miles. And in Casey, that was not a facial substantial obstacle. Here, that relevant fraction is—is lower. And under Casey, then the facial challenge would not succeed. And Petitioners have a heavy burden, and they haven't shown any capacity evidence—
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: When there's a need. Meaning, where are you taking an account in the undue burden analysis the value of the need being—of being imposed? Meaning, even if I grant you that in some circumstances travel time is necessary because you just can't get any kind of abortion clinic to go into a particular area, so you might have to impose a burden that might be undue in other circumstances. Where do we evaluate the benefit of this burden? What—what's the need? You—you seem—your brief seemed to be telling us that there's no role for the Court to judge whether there's really a health benefit to what you're doing.
MR. KELLER: Well, there would be three elements of the doctrine. There's the rational basis test—
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm not talking about the doctrine. I'm talking about the question I asked, which is, according to you, the slightest health improvement is enough to impose on hundreds of thousands of women—even assuming I accept your argument, which I don't, necessarily, because it's being challenged—but the slightest benefit is enough to burden the lives of a million women.
If Justice Kennedy is persuaded by that exchange alone, I don't even know.
Justice Ginsburg once said: "People ask me sometimes, when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine."
I don't disagree. And in related news on that front, President Obama is reportedly vetting Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jane L. Kelly as a potential nominee to replace Justice Scalia. According to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, announcement of the President's pick could come within the week.
Blog Note
I believe I've mentioned that for the last eight months or so, I've been having recurring bouts of vertigo. I'm having a really bad spell at the moment; I think it's just that working a lot of super long days lately is taking its toll, especially because I suck at self-care. So I'm going to take the afternoon off and try to get some rest.
I'll be back tomorrow morning.
As always, well-wishing is welcome, but no one should feel obliged. Thanks so much for your patience and understanding. ♥
Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Wev in an Endless Series
[Content Note: Misogyny; violent imagery.]
Shaker Liz sent me this NYT piece by Frank Bruni: "Hillary Clinton's Moment." It's basically about how Hillary Clinton is the worst, but, hey, she tries really hard and has moxy. You go, gal! Except she's still very unlikable. OH WELL!
All of it is obviously terrific, but I was particularly fond, ahem, of two passages:
But grit won't be enough.The only way Hillary Clinton has become a legitimate contender for the US presidency is because she had to "pay her dues" for decades. As First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the US, as Senator, as failed presidential candidate, as campaigner for her former rival, as Secretary of State, as diplomat, as presidential candidate once again. It has made her arguably the most qualified candidate in US history.
The surprising, impressive success of Sanders, who had his own key wins on Tuesday, has made that clear. There's an ire and a disgust in the body politic — they fuel his campaign just as they do Donald Trump's — and they're built on a belief that the system is rigged, the status quo is unacceptable and its guardians are untrustworthy.
Clinton is poorly positioned to mollify that rage, and the reason isn't just coziness with Wall Street. It's her familiarity, her celebrity, her crowd. She's political royalty, and she can put the crown deep in a closet; she can renounce it all she wants. There are voters who will still see it there.
And oh, the baggage she carries! Many more Americans have an unfavorable impression of her than a favorable one: In a Quinnipiac University poll from early February, the split was 56 to 39 percent.
She conquers that … how? By introducing herself better to voters? They know her plenty well. By unveiling yet another new image? It's hard to imagine there are any permutations left.
And now the theory is that she's overexposed? Cool.
Bruni says it is "hard to imagine there are any permutations left," which is not only a neat way of implicitly accusing Clinton of inauthenticity and inconsistency, but also a neat way of ignoring that, while there are policy reasons to oppose Clinton, many of the people who oppose her, especially the ones relying on bullshit shorthands like "she's too familiar," aren't opposing her because of policy, but because she's a woman.
A woman with "a crown," as Bruni notes, while failing wholly to even obliquely consider the misogyny in that statement, no less the aggressive misogyny that is wielded against her by voters and the media.
Of course there are no "permutations" left, because Clinton cannot stop being a woman.
Bruni then pivots to Clinton's unlikability, because of course, and how it will make it difficult for her to beat the super likable Donald Trump:
To attain the presidency, a politician needn't be adored — just less loathed than the alternative.Wow.
In that same Quinnipiac poll, Trump's unfavorable to favorable ratio was even worse than Clinton's: 59 to 34 percent. Her supporters and advisers are accordingly crafting a strategy of brutal negativity and relentless attacks, as The Times reported earlier this week. Envisioning that, David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, said that a Clinton bid would be less "hope and change" than "hate and castrate."
Nope, no misogyny there. No trading on antifeminist tropes about feminist women being castrating bitches.
And let us consider what it means that a prominent Democratic strategist describes Clinton (potentially) going after Trump for being an abusive shitlord as "hate and castrate."
Trump has literally advocated war crimes, which is merely the tip of the noxious iceberg that is his eliminationist, marginalizing, hateful rhetoric. That's not hate, but criticizing him for it is? And attempting to strip him of the power he gets from advocating violence and displacement and racism and misogyny is "castrating" him?
Cool calculations, bro.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it eleventy million more times in the foreseeable future: That the media's favorite game is destroying Hillary Clinton and their favorite entertainer is Donald Trump is fucking terrifying. Their glib fuckery is going to carry fascism straight into the White House.
* * *
On a side note, I have read so many pieces recently by people who have worked with Hillary Clinton, talking about what a lovely person she is. Three this week alone:
Former Governor of Vermont Madeleine Kunin: "I've known Hillary and worked with her. She can be serious and funny. She inspires fervent camaraderie in her staff. She is the most intelligent woman I have ever met."
Breaking Down Barriers Mother Sybrina Fulton: "It was a very heartfelt meeting. It was supposed to be pretty short in the beginning, but because of the topics and the tragedies and the things that were being discussed, Secretary Clinton wanted to hear more. The meeting was very productive on our end as mothers. But it was also an eye opener for Secretary Clinton, because now, not only did she hear about these tragedies in the news and on social media and from her staffers, she heard first-hand from the mothers. And she's a mother. She's a grandmother. She's a wife. She's a woman. She related to us at a time when nobody else would listen."
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau: "I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate. The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she'd spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda. Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who've worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter's preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way."
I have read pieces like these for years. Long before this election, there were pieces written by folks about how great it was to work with and/or for her at State, and before that in the Senate.
And I'm sure there are people who haven't enjoyed working with her. But there are an incredible number of people who have. And say so. Publicly.
While, on the other hand, there are precious few horror stories of working with someone who's supposed to be History's Greatest Monster.
Members of the media who discuss her "likeability" ad nauseam know that these stories exist as well as I do. If they cared about doing their jobs, they'd explore why it is there exists this vast cavern of "likeability" between the people who work with her and the people with the choice to vote for her.
Of course, that would require some uncomfortable self-reflection, since they're the ones busily creating the caricature of The Monster in the first place.
Poison Kiss: A Paranormal Romance by Ana Mardoll
Hello, Shakers! Some of you may have already seen me promoting the heck out of myself on Twitter, but Liss has pointed out to me that not everyone uses the twitters! So in-case-you-missed-it and if-you're-interested, I have a new book out: Poison Kiss.
I have a long post up with store links and frequently asked questions and content notes all compiled up here on my official author website (which is very nifty and professional and if you subscribe to the site it will let you know when I publish more books!), so I figured I'd take this space to just talk to ya'll like I usually do. Mild spoilers below, but no more so than if you read the book description!
HB2 at SCOTUS Today
[Content Note: War on agency.]
Today, Texas' omnibus abortion bill, HB2, which was signed into law by then-governor Rick Perry on July 18, 2013, following then-state senator Wendy Davis' filibuster, will be considered by the Supreme Court, as they hear arguments in Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt.
Eesha Pandit has written a terrific piece, "The Supreme Court's Massive Abortion Case: Everything You Need to Know about Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt," which I recommend reading it its entirety, but here I'll excerpt her explanation of what's at stake:
Now for the politics: What's at stake when the lawyers stand before our eight Supreme Court Justices this week? Quite simply: The fate of abortion access all over the country, not just in Texas, hangs in the balance.If the law is upheld in Texas, it would restrict abortion access so severely in the state that abortion would be virtually inaccessible for millions and millions of people who need it.
The Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that legislators may restrict abortion rights, but not if those restrictions cause women an "undue burden." Thus, the key question in the case is whether the Texas law, with its four core restrictive provisions, is unduly burdensome to someone seeking an abortion.
Before the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who made it clear that he believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, many pro-choice advocates worried that this case could serve to bring Roe down altogether, if enough justices decided to use this opportunity to declare that there is, in fact, no constitutional right to an abortion. With Scalia's seat now vacant, that scenario is off the table, since there simply aren't enough votes left on the bench for such a ruling.
Now all anticipation and anxiety shifts toward Justice Anthony Kennedy, the notorious swing vote. If Justice Kennedy voted to uphold HB2, the Court will likely hand over a 4-4 decision. In this scenario, the decision of the lower court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, that HB2 is constitutional, will stand. In that case, the Texas law would be upheld, but only in Texas, establishing the abortion restrictions until the law, or one similar, makes its way to the Court again, after the appointment of a new justice.
In addition to Texas, 23 states have passed laws — called TRAP ("Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers") laws — that regulate abortion providers above and beyond federal law.
I desperately hope that the Supreme Court—by which I mean one man, Justice Kennedy, who holds the fate of millions of women et. al. in his hands—does the right thing and overturns HB2.
And I will say, once again, that I am, and will always be, pro-abortion for any person who wants or needs one. Because abortion is healthcare, and healthcare is a right.
Super Tuesday Wrap-Up
So, the results of Super Tuesday are in, and here's how it all shook out:
On the Democratic side, where the nominee needs 2,383 delegates, Hillary Clinton won seven states and one territory: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and American Samoa, bringing her delegate total (sans superdelegates) to 544.
Bernie Sanders won four states: Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont, bringing his delegate total to 349.
On the Republican side, where the nominee needs 1,237 delegates, Donald Trump won seven states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia, bringing his delegate total to 285.
Ted Cruz won three states: Alaska, Oklahoma, and Texas, bringing his delegate total to 161.
Marco Rubio won one state: Minnesota, bringing his delegate total to 87.
John Kasich and Ben Carson, neither of whom have won any primary contest, have 25 and 8 delegates, respectively.
* * *
I did a little bit of tweeting last night as the returns came in and the candidates gave their speeches. I've Storified those tweets, for anyone who's interested.
A couple pieces of related news:
Bernie Sanders has vowed to stay in the race all the way to the convention. His campaign manager Jeff Weaver said during a CNN interview yesterday: "We're going all the way to the convention. We'll see you in Philadelphia." On the one hand, this is not great news for Clinton, if she is indeed the eventual nominee, because it gives her no downtime before the general election. On the other hand, Sanders staying in the race means that the Democratic contest will continue to feature in the news cycle, which will (marginally, sob) keep the cable news from being All Trump All the Time.
I didn't like it in 2008 when people were trying to push Clinton out of the primary, so I will not replicate that by saying I think Sanders should get out of the primary. That said, I do have serious concerns about his team's strategy [content note: racism]:
Sanders' goal was to emerge from Super Tuesday with a viable comeback path. But it's unclear how he envisions proceeding from here. His team has sketched a strategy that involves running up margins in the predominantly white states that have responded better to his message. He's hoping to rattle off wins in the weeks ahead in friendlier territory — Nebraska, Kansas and Maine, which are next on the calendar.Emphasis mine.
That strategy pisses me off for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I want black voters to help choose the Democratic nominee. Not just because black voters have a right to vote and for their votes to matter, and because it's gross to not prioritize the value of votes from a population most likely to be disenfranchised, but also because I understand how privilege and marginalization work.
Black Democratic voters—specifically black women—who are voting in their own best interests are going to choose a candidate whose policies also benefit me (and anyone else more privileged than they are). However, the reverse is not necessarily true: White Democratic voters, by virtue of our privilege, don't need to (and thus often don't) take into consideration the needs of black citizens.
I am thus very hostile toward the argument that black voters shouldn't be key in helping select the Democratic nominee. Black lives matter and black votes matter.
* * *
Next, the Democrats head to Kansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska on March 5 and Maine on March 6.
The Republicans head to Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine on March 5 and Puerto Rico on March 6.
Super Tuesday Returns Thread
Instead of a QotD today, I'm just going to open a thread where we can discuss the Super Tuesday returns as they come in, candidate speeches, garbage media coverage, good media coverage, any associated stories regarding voting access or caucus fuckery, etc.
Have at it in comments.
Obstructionists Gotta Obstruct
In contravention of the Constitution, tradition, the public will, and anything resembling decency, the Republicans continue to hold fast in their promise threat to stonewall President Obama's right to nominate a Supreme Court nominee:
There were no signs of a breakthrough as President Obama met Tuesday with Senate Republican leaders pledging to block anyone he nominates to the Supreme Court.Just yesterday, I wrote: "I refuse to indulge the pretense that the Republican Party doesn't support Trump's candidacy. The fuck they don't."
Senate Majority Leader (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) both sat down with the president in the Oval Office.
"They were adamant. They said 'no, we're not going to do this at all,'" Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after the meeting.
"All we want them to do is to fulfill their constitutional duty, and at this stage, they are deciding not to do that," he added. "They're going to wait and see what President Trump will do, I guess, as far as a nomination."
If the fact that party leaders are allegedly appalled at the prospect of Trump being their nominee and yet continue to obstruct President Obama in anticipation of a Trump presidency doesn't underline what transparent bullshit their supposed horror is, I don't know what the fuck would.
Tough Break for the Bigotry Tornado
[Content Note: Fraud; exploitation.]
Couldn't happen to a nicer crook:
Super Tuesday has gotten off to a not-so-super start for Donald Trump - a state appeals court has given a green light to a lawsuit that charges his Trump University was a fraud.I saw a news item about "Trump University" recently, and it was absolutely appalling. Just a gold-plated pyramid scheme that exploited people without remorse.
In a unanimous ruling, a four judge panel of the state Appellate Division said the state Attorney General's office is "authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud" - despite the bloviating billionaire's claims to the contrary.
...Schneiderman charged Trump University, which operated between 2004 and 2010, was a sham that ripped off its students, beginning with a "free" seminar.
The suit said "although Trump University speakers represented that the three-day seminar would teach students all they needed to know to be successful real estate investors, the instructors at those three-day seminars then engaged in a 'bait and switch,' telling students that they needed to attend yet another seminar for an additional $5,000 in order to learn more about particular lenders."
The AG's suit charged that through "their deceptive and unlawful practices, (Trump and the school) intentionally misled over 5,000 individuals nationwide, including over 600 New Yorkers, into paying as much as $35,000 each to participate in live seminars and mentorship programs with the promise of learning Donald Trump's real estate investing techniques."
It also charged they "repeatedly deceived students into thinking that they were attending a legally chartered 'university'" and "intentionally misrepresented, through advertisements and oral misrepresentations, that prospective students would be taught by successful real estate 'experts' who were 'handpicked' by Mr. Trump when, as alleged by petitioner, not a single instructor was actually handpicked by Mr. Trump.
..."The Attorney General further maintained that the instructors had been inadequately vetted and in fact had little or no experience in real estate investing, instead having prior work experience such as food service management and graphic design," the appeals court noted.
I doubt this is going to have much effect on his campaign; he'll wave it off with one of his "I just whiffed shit" expressions and some argle-bargle about how he wins all his lawsuits because he's a tremendously classy businessman.
But I do hope that some of the people who were taken advantage of by "Trump University" get some well-deserved damages from it.
Back |
