#meaning if trump gets in our own conservatives get more extreme | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

itsawritblr · 11 months ago

Text

Holy shit, the New York Times is FINALLY interviewing and listening to detransistioners.

The tide is turning.

Opinion by Pamela Paul

As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do.

Feb. 2, 2024

Grace Powell was 12 or 13 when she discovered she could be a boy.

Growing up in a relatively conservative community in Grand Rapids, Mich., Powell, like many teenagers, didn’t feel comfortable in her own skin. She was unpopular and frequently bullied. Puberty made everything worse. She suffered from depression and was in and out of therapy.

“I felt so detached from my body, and the way it was developing felt hostile to me,” Powell told me. It was classic gender dysphoria, a feeling of discomfort with your sex.

Reading about transgender people online, Powell believed that the reason she didn’t feel comfortable in her body was that she was in the wrong body. Transitioning seemed like the obvious solution. The narrative she had heard and absorbed was that if you don’t transition, you’ll kill yourself.

At 17, desperate to begin hormone therapy, Powell broke the news to her parents. They sent her to a gender specialist to make sure she was serious. In the fall of her senior year of high school, she started cross-sex hormones. She had a double mastectomy the summer before college, then went off as a transgender man named Grayson to Sarah Lawrence College, where she was paired with a male roommate on a men’s floor. At 5-foot-3, she felt she came across as a very effeminate gay man.

At no point during her medical or surgical transition, Powell says, did anyone ask her about the reasons behind her gender dysphoria or her depression. At no point was she asked about her sexual orientation. And at no point was she asked about any previous trauma, and so neither the therapists nor the doctors ever learned that she’d been sexually abused as a child.

“I wish there had been more open conversations,” Powell, now 23 and detransitioned, told me. “But I was told there is one cure and one thing to do if this is your problem, and this will help you.”

Progressives often portray the heated debate over childhood transgender care as a clash between those who are trying to help growing numbers of children express what they believe their genders to be and conservative politicians who won’t let kids be themselves.

But right-wing demagogues are not the only ones who have inflamed this debate. Transgender activists have pushed their own ideological extremism, especially by pressing for a treatment orthodoxy that has faced increased scrutiny in recent years. Under that model of care, clinicians are expected to affirm a young person’s assertion of gender identity and even provide medical treatment before, or even without, exploring other possible sources of distress.

Many who think there needs to be a more cautious approach — including well-meaning liberal parents, doctors and people who have undergone gender transition and subsequently regretted their procedures — have been attacked as anti-trans and intimidated into silencing their concerns.

And while Donald Trump denounces “left-wing gender insanity” and many trans activists describe any opposition as transphobic, parents in America’s vast ideological middle can find little dispassionate discussion of the genuine risks or trade-offs involved in what proponents call gender-affirming care.

Powell’s story shows how easy it is for young people to get caught up by the pull of ideology in this atmosphere.

“What should be a medical and psychological issue has been morphed into a political one,” Powell lamented during our conversation. “It’s a mess.”

A New and Growing Group of Patients

Many transgender adults are happy with their transitions and, whether they began to transition as adults or adolescents, feel it was life changing, even lifesaving. The small but rapidly growing number of children who express gender dysphoria and who transition at an early age, according to clinicians, is a recent and more controversial phenomenon.

Laura Edwards-Leeper, the founding psychologist of the first pediatric gender clinic in the United States, said that when she started her practice in 2007, most of her patients had longstanding and deep-seated gender dysphoria. Transitioning clearly made sense for almost all of them, and any mental health issues they had were generally resolved through gender transition.

“But that is just not the case anymore,” she told me recently. While she doesn’t regret transitioning the earlier cohort of patients and opposes government bans on transgender medical care, she said, “As far as I can tell, there are no professional organizations who are stepping in to regulate what’s going on.”

Most of her patients now, she said, have no history of childhood gender dysphoria. Others refer to this phenomenon, with some controversy, as rapid onset gender dysphoria, in which adolescents, particularly tween and teenage girls, express gender dysphoria despite never having done so when they were younger. Frequently, they have mental health issues unrelated to gender. While professional associations say there is a lack of quality research on rapid onset gender dysphoria, several researchers have documented the phenomenon, and many health care providers have seen evidence of it in their practices.

“The population has changed drastically,” said Edwards-Leeper, a former head of the Child and Adolescent Committee for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the organization responsible for setting gender transition guidelines for medical professionals.

For these young people, she told me, “you have to take time to really assess what’s going on and hear the timeline and get the parents’ perspective in order to create an individualized treatment plan. Many providers are completely missing that step.”

Yet those health care professionals and scientists who do not think clinicians should automatically agree to a young person’s self-diagnosis are often afraid to speak out. A report commissioned by the National Health Service about Britain’s Tavistock gender clinic, which, until it was ordered to be shut down, was the country’s only health center dedicated to gender identity, noted that “primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.”

Of the dozens of students she’s trained as psychologists, Edwards-Leeper said, few still seem to be providing gender-related care. While her students have left the field for various reasons, “some have told me that they didn’t feel they could continue because of the pushback, the accusations of being transphobic, from being pro-assessment and wanting a more thorough process,” she said.

They have good reasons to be wary. Stephanie Winn, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Oregon, was trained in gender-affirming care and treated multiple transgender patients. But in 2020, after coming across detransition videos online, she began to doubt the gender-affirming model. In 2021 she spoke out in favor of approaching gender dysphoria in a more considered way, urging others in the field to pay attention to detransitioners, people who no longer consider themselves transgender after undergoing medical or surgical interventions. She has since been attacked by transgender activists. Some threatened to send complaints to her licensing board saying that she was trying to make trans kids change their minds through conversion therapy.

In April 2022, the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists told Winn that she was under investigation. Her case was ultimately dismissed, but Winn no longer treats minors and practices only online, where many of her patients are worried parents of trans-identifying children.

“I don’t feel safe having a location where people can find me,” she said.

Detransitioners say that only conservative media outlets seem interested in telling their stories, which has left them open to attacks as hapless tools of the right, something that frustrated and dismayed every detransitioner I interviewed. These are people who were once the trans-identified kids that so many organizations say they’re trying to protect — but when they change their minds, they say, they feel abandoned.

Most parents and clinicians are simply trying to do what they think is best for the children involved. But parents with qualms about the current model of care are frustrated by what they see as a lack of options.

Parents told me it was a struggle to balance the desire to compassionately support a child with gender dysphoria while seeking the best psychological and medical care. Many believed their kids were gay or dealing with an array of complicated issues. But all said they felt compelled by gender clinicians, doctors, schools and social pressure to accede to their child’s declared gender identity even if they had serious doubts. They feared it would tear apart their family if they didn’t unquestioningly support social transition and medical treatment. All asked to speak anonymously, so desperate were they to maintain or repair any relationship with their children, some of whom were currently estranged.

Several of those who questioned their child’s self-diagnosis told me it had ruined their relationship. A few parents said simply, “I feel like I’ve lost my daughter.”

One mother described a meeting with 12 other parents in a support group for relatives of trans-identified youth where all of the participants described their children as autistic or otherwise neurodivergent. To all questions, the woman running the meeting replied, “Just let them transition.” The mother left in shock. How would hormones help a child with obsessive-compulsive disorder or depression? she wondered.

Some parents have found refuge in anonymous online support groups. There, people share tips on finding caregivers who will explore the causes of their children’s distress or tend to their overall emotional and developmental health and well-being without automatically acceding to their children’s self-diagnosis.

Many parents of kids who consider themselves trans say their children were introduced to transgender influencers on YouTube or TikTok, a phenomenon intensified for some by the isolation and online cocoon of Covid. Others say their kids learned these ideas in the classroom, as early as elementary school, often in child-friendly ways through curriculums supplied by trans rights organizations, with concepts like the gender unicorn or the Genderbread person.

‘Do You Want a Dead Son or a Live Daughter?’

After Kathleen’s 15-year-old son, whom she described as an obsessive child, abruptly told his parents he was trans, the doctor who was going to assess whether he had A.D.H.D. referred him instead to someone who specialized in both A.D.H.D. and gender. Kathleen, who asked to be identified only by her first name to protect her son’s privacy, assumed that the specialist would do some kind of evaluation or assessment. That was not the case.

The meeting was brief and began on a shocking note. “In front of my son, the therapist said, ‘Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?’” Kathleen recounted.

Parents are routinely warned that to pursue any path outside of agreeing with a child’s self-declared gender identity is to put a gender dysphoric youth at risk for suicide, which feels to many people like emotional blackmail. Proponents of the gender-affirming model have cited studies showing an association between that standard of care and a lower risk of suicide. But those studies were found to have methodological flaws or have been deemed not entirely conclusive. A survey of studies on the psychological effects of cross-sex hormones, published three years ago in The Journal of the Endocrine Society, the professional organization for hormone specialists, found it “could not draw any conclusions about death by suicide.” In a letter to The Wall Street Journal last year, 21 experts from nine countries said that survey was one reason they believed there was “no reliable evidence to suggest that hormonal transition is an effective suicide prevention measure.”

Moreover, the incidence of suicidal thoughts and attempts among gender dysphoric youth is complicated by the high incidence of accompanying conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder. As one systematic overview put it, “Children with gender dysphoria often experience a range of psychiatric comorbidities, with a high prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders, trauma, eating disorders and autism spectrum conditions, suicidality and self-harm.”

But rather than being treated as patients who deserve unbiased professional help, children with gender dysphoria often become political pawns.

Conservative lawmakers are working to ban access to gender care for minors and occasionally for adults as well. On the other side, however, many medical and mental health practitioners feel their hands have been tied by activist pressure and organizational capture. They say that it has become difficult to practice responsible mental health care or medicine for these young people.

Pediatricians, psychologists and other clinicians who dissent from this orthodoxy, believing that it is not based on reliable evidence, feel frustrated by their professional organizations. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have wholeheartedly backed the gender-affirming model.

In 2021, Aaron Kimberly, a 50-year-old trans man and registered nurse, left the clinic in British Columbia where his job focused on the intake and assessment of gender-dysphoric youth. Kimberly received a comprehensive screening when he embarked on his own successful transition at age 33, which resolved the gender dysphoria he experienced from an early age.

But when the gender-affirming model was introduced at his clinic, he was instructed to support the initiation of hormone treatment for incoming patients regardless of whether they had complex mental problems, experiences with trauma or were otherwise “severely unwell,” Kimberly said. When he referred patients for further mental health care rather than immediate hormone treatment, he said he was accused of what they called gatekeeping and had to change jobs.

“I realized something had gone totally off the rails,” Kimberly, who subsequently founded the Gender Dysphoria Alliance and the L.G.B.T. Courage Coalition to advocate better gender care, told me.

Gay men and women often told me they fear that same-sex-attracted kids, especially effeminate boys and tomboy girls who are gender nonconforming, will be transitioned during a normal phase of childhood and before sexual maturation — and that gender ideology can mask and even abet homophobia.

As one detransitioned man, now in a gay relationship, put it, “I was a gay man pumped up to look like a woman and dated a lesbian who was pumped up to look like a man. If that’s not conversion therapy, I don’t know what is.”

“I transitioned because I didn’t want to be gay,” Kasey Emerick, a 23-year-old woman and detransitioner from Pennsylvania, told me. Raised in a conservative Christian church, she said, “I believed homosexuality was a sin.”

When she was 15, Emerick confessed her homosexuality to her mother. Her mother attributed her sexual orientation to trauma — Emerick’s father was convicted of raping and assaulting her repeatedly when she was between the ages of 4 and 7 — but after catching Emerick texting with another girl at age 16, she took away her phone. When Emerick melted down, her mother admitted her to a psychiatric hospital. While there, Emerick told herself, “If I was a boy, none of this would have happened.”

In May 2017, Emerick began searching “gender” online and encountered trans advocacy websites. After realizing she could “pick the other side,” she told her mother, “I’m sick of being called a dyke and not a real girl.” If she were a man, she’d be free to pursue relationships with women.

That September, she and her mother met with a licensed professional counselor for the first of two 90-minute consultations. She told the counselor that she had wished to be a Boy Scout rather than a Girl Scout. She said she didn’t like being gay or a butch lesbian. She also told the counselor that she had suffered from anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. The clinic recommended testosterone, which was prescribed by a nearby L.G.B.T.Q. health clinic. Shortly thereafter, she was also diagnosed with A.D.H.D. She developed panic attacks. At age 17, she was cleared for a double mastectomy.

“I’m thinking, ‘Oh my God, I’m having my breasts removed. I’m 17. I’m too young for this,’” she recalled. But she went ahead with the operation.

“Transition felt like a way to control something when I couldn’t control anything in my life,” Emerick explained. But after living as a trans man for five years, Emerick realized her mental health symptoms were only getting worse. In the fall of 2022, she came out as a detransitioner on Twitter and was immediately attacked. Transgender influencers told her she was bald and ugly. She received multiple threats.

“I thought my life was over,” she said. “I realized that I had lived a lie for over five years.”

Today Emerick’s voice, permanently altered by testosterone, is that of a man. When she tells people she’s a detransitioner, they ask when she plans to stop taking T and live as a woman. “I’ve been off it for a year,” she replies.

Once, after she recounted her story to a therapist, the therapist tried to reassure her. If it’s any consolation, the therapist remarked, “I would never have guessed that you were once a trans woman.” Emerick replied, “Wait, what sex do you think I am?”

To the trans activist dictum that children know their gender best, it is important to add something all parents know from experience: Children change their minds all the time. One mother told me that after her teenage son desisted — pulled back from a trans identity before any irreversible medical procedures — he explained, “I was just rebelling. I look at it like a subculture, like being goth.”

“The job of children and adolescents is to experiment and explore where they fit into the world, and a big part of that exploration, especially during adolescence, is around their sense of identity,” Sasha Ayad, a licensed professional counselor based in Phoenix, told me. “Children at that age often present with a great deal of certainty and urgency about who they believe they are at the time and things they would like to do in order to enact that sense of identity.”

Ayad, a co-author of “When Kids Say They’re Trans: A Guide for Thoughtful Parents,” advises parents to be wary of the gender affirmation model. “We’ve always known that adolescents are particularly malleable in relationship to their peers and their social context and that exploration is often an attempt to navigate difficulties of that stage, such as puberty, coming to terms with the responsibilities and complications of young adulthood, romance and solidifying their sexual orientation,” she told me. For providing this kind of exploratory approach in her own practice with gender dysphoric youth, Ayad has had her license challenged twice, both times by adults who were not her patients. Both times, the charges were dismissed.

Studies show that around eight in 10 cases of childhood gender dysphoria resolve themselves by puberty and 30 percent of people on hormone therapy discontinue its use within four years, though the effects, including infertility, are often irreversible.

Proponents of early social transition and medical interventions for gender dysphoric youth cite a 2022 study showing that 98 percent of children who took both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones continued treatment for short periods, and another study that tracked 317 children who socially transitioned between the ages of 3 and 12, which found that 94 percent of them still identified as transgender five years later. But such early interventions may cement children’s self-conceptions without giving them time to think or sexually mature.

‘The Process of Transition Didn’t Make Me Feel Better’

At the end of her freshman year of college, Grace Powell, horrifically depressed, began dissociating, feeling detached from her body and from reality, which had never happened to her before. Ultimately, she said, “the process of transition didn’t make me feel better. It magnified what I found was wrong with myself.”

“I expected it to change everything, but I was just me, with a slightly deeper voice,” she added. “It took me two years to start detransitioning and living as Grace again.”

She tried in vain to find a therapist who would treat her underlying issues, but they kept asking her: How do you want to be seen? Do you want to be nonbinary? Powell wanted to talk about her trauma, not her identity or her gender presentation. She ended up getting online therapy from a former employee of the Tavistock clinic in Britain. This therapist, a woman who has broken from the gender-affirming model, talked Grace through what she sees as her failure to launch and her efforts to reset. The therapist asked questions like: Who is Grace? What do you want from your life? For the first time, Powell felt someone was seeing and helping her as a person, not simply looking to slot her into an identity category.

Many detransitioners say they face ostracism and silencing because of the toxic politics around transgender issues.

“It is extraordinarily frustrating to feel that something I am is inherently political,” Powell told me. “I’ve been accused multiple times that I’m some right-winger who’s making a fake narrative to discredit transgender people, which is just crazy.”

While she believes there are people who benefit from transitioning, “I wish more people would understand that there’s not a one-size-fits-all solution,” she said. “I wish we could have that conversation.”

In a recent study in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, about 40 young detransitioners out of 78 surveyed said they had suffered from rapid onset gender dysphoria. Trans activists have fought hard to suppress any discussion of rapid onset gender dysphoria, despite evidence that the condition is real. In its guide for journalists, the activist organization GLAAD warns the media against using the term, as it is not “a formal condition or diagnosis.” Human Rights Campaign, another activist group, calls it “a right-wing theory.” A group of professional organizations put out a statement urging clinicians to eliminate the term from use.

Nobody knows how many young people desist after social, medical or surgical transitions. Trans activists often cite low regret rates for gender transition, along with low figures for detransition. But those studies, which often rely on self-reported cases to gender clinics, likely understate the actual numbers. None of the seven detransitioners I interviewed, for instance, even considered reporting back to the gender clinics that prescribed them medication they now consider to have been a mistake. Nor did they know any other detransitioners who had done so.

As Americans furiously debate the basis of transgender care, a number of advances in understanding have taken place in Europe, where the early Dutch studies that became the underpinning of gender-affirming care have been broadly questioned and criticized. Unlike some of the current population of gender dysphoric youth, the Dutch study participants had no serious psychological conditions. Those studies were riddled with methodological flaws and weaknesses. There was no evidence that any intervention was lifesaving. There was no long-term follow-up with any of the study’s 55 participants or the 15 who dropped out. A British effort to replicate the study said that it “identified no changes in psychological function” and that more studies were needed.

In countries like Sweden, Norway, France, the Netherlands and Britain — long considered exemplars of gender progress — medical professionals have recognized that early research on medical interventions for childhood gender dysphoria was either faulty or incomplete. Last month, the World Health Organization, in explaining why it is developing “a guideline on the health of trans and gender diverse people,” said it will cover only adults because “the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents.”

But in America, and Canada, the results of those widely criticized Dutch studies are falsely presented to the public as settled science.

Other countries have recently halted or limited the medical and surgical treatment of gender dysphoric youth, pending further study. Britain’s Tavistock clinic was ordered to be shut down next month, after a National Health Service-commissioned investigation found deficiencies in service and “a lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response.”

Meanwhile, the American medical establishment has hunkered down, stuck in an outdated model of gender affirmation. The American Academy of Pediatrics only recently agreed to conduct more research in response to yearslong efforts by dissenting experts, including Dr. Julia Mason, a self-described “bleeding-heart liberal.”

The larger threat to transgender people comes from Republicans who wish to deny them rights and protections. But the doctrinal rigidity of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is disappointing, frustrating and counterproductive.

“I was always a liberal Democrat,” one woman whose son desisted after social transition and hormone therapy told me. “Now I feel politically homeless.”

She noted that the Biden administration has “unequivocally” supported gender-affirming care for minors, in cases in which it deems it “medically appropriate and necessary.” Rachel Levine, the assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told NPR in 2022 that “there is no argument among medical professionals — pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, et cetera — about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”

Of course, politics should not influence medical practice, whether the issue is birth control, abortion or gender medicine. But unfortunately, politics has gotten in the way of progress. Last year The Economist published a thorough investigation into America’s approach to gender medicine. Zanny Minton Beddoes, the editor, put the issue into political context. “If you look internationally at countries in Europe, the U.K. included, their medical establishments are much more concerned,” Beddoes told Vanity Fair. “But here — in part because this has become wrapped up in the culture wars where you have, you know, crazy extremes from the Republican right — if you want to be an upstanding liberal, you feel like you can’t say anything.”

Some people are trying to open up that dialogue, or at least provide outlets for kids and families to seek a more therapeutic approach to gender dysphoria.

Paul Garcia-Ryan is a psychotherapist in New York who cares for kids and families seeking holistic, exploratory care for gender dysphoria. He is also a detransitioner who from ages 15 to 30 fully believed he was a woman.

Garcia-Ryan is gay, but as a boy, he said, “it was much less threatening to my psyche to think that I was a straight girl born into the wrong body — that I had a medical condition that could be tended to.” When he visited a clinic at 15, the clinician immediately affirmed he was female, and rather than explore the reasons for his mental distress, simply confirmed Garcia-Ryan’s belief that he was not meant to be a man.

Once in college, he began medically transitioning and eventually had surgery on his genitals. Severe medical complications from both the surgery and hormone medication led him to reconsider what he had done, and to detransition. He also reconsidered the basis of gender affirmation, which, as a licensed clinical social worker at a gender clinic, he had been trained in and provided to clients.

“You’re made to believe these slogans,” he said. “Evidence-based, lifesaving care, safe and effective, medically necessary, the science is settled — and none of that is evidence based.”

Garcia-Ryan, 32, is now the board president of Therapy First, an organization that supports therapists who do not agree with the gender affirmation model. He thinks transition can help some people manage the symptoms of gender dysphoria but no longer believes anyone under 25 should socially, medically or surgically transition without exploratory psychotherapy first.

“When a professional affirms a gender identity for a younger person, what they are doing is implementing a psychological intervention that narrows a person’s sense of self and closes off their options for considering what’s possible for them,” Garcia-Ryan told me.

Instead of promoting unproven treatments for children, which surveys show many Americans are uncomfortable with, transgender activists would be more effective if they focused on a shared agenda. Most Americans across the political spectrum can agree on the need for legal protections for transgender adults. They would also probably support additional research on the needs of young people reporting gender dysphoria so that kids could get the best treatment possible.

A shift in this direction would model tolerance and acceptance. It would prioritize compassion over demonization. It would require rising above culture-war politics and returning to reason. It would be the most humane path forward. And it would be the right thing to do.

*~*~*~*~*~*

For those who want tor ead more by those fighting the cancellation forquestioning, read:

Graham Lineham, who's been fighting since the beginning and paid the price, but is not seeing things turn around.

The Glinner Update, Grahan Linehan's Substack.

Kellie-Jay Keen @ThePosieParker, who's been physically attacked for organizing events for women demanding women-only spaces.

REDUXX, Feminst news & opinion.

Gays Against Groomers @againstgrmrs, A nonprofit of gay people and others within the community against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of "LGBTQIA+"

#detransitioners #detransition #gender critical #New York Times #gays #lesbians #trans #trans insanity #long post #article #detrans #transgender #post trans #desisted

743 notes · View notes

marta-bee · 2 months ago

Text

Original source here; I saw it via @liberalsarecol here. I went a bit off and didn't want to piggyback on their post. (What is the etiquette in these situations? I'm never quite sure.)

They said "Walking away from Trump is healthy." To which I can only respond it's not only healthy, it's damned heroic. Star Trek and US politics thoughts below the cut.

I've been thinking about Damar (from DS9)'s character arc in the final season, and how it to relates to the people swept up in Trumpism. Liz Cheney, Gov. Mike Milley, but also just run of the mill conservatives. They all went along with this cult that is MAGA because it worked for them at some level, because it claimed to give power and voice to something they actually believed in (conservative principles of independence and freedom, an economy that let them support their families, being told who they were was something to be proud of). Not the values that resonate most with me, but I can see someone believing them and acting based on it.

Then came something that should be the bridge too far. The thing they couldn't support. Maybe it affected them personally, maybe it was just extremism beyond what they could swallow. Most people caught up in this movement have a point like that, but not all are brave enough to turn aside. Even if it means admitting they were wrong. Even if that leaves them without a party that represents their view. Even if they have to set aside their own policy preferences and vote for a Democrat because there's more important things at stake.

Which, as I said reminds me of Damar. If you don't know the show, it's built around a war between the various species of the Alpha Quadrant and the Dominion, a fascist regime from the other side of the galaxy. The Cardassians are a militaristic, duty-to-the-state heavy species that makes an alliance with them as a way to get military strength and influence. It doesn't work out so well for them. As Damar, a Cardassian military leader turned rebel terrorist, says:

Seven million of our brave soldiers have given their lives to fulfill our part of the agreement, and what has the Dominion done in return? Nothing. We've gained no new territories. In fact, our influence throughout the quadrant has diminished. And to make matters worse, we are no longer masters in our own home. Travel anywhere on Cardassia and what do you find? Jem'Hadar, Vorta, and now Breen. Instead of the invaders, we have become the invaded. Our 'allies' have conquered us without firing a single shot. Well, no longer.

The thing about Damar is he's no flower child or unblemished angel of a character. I can't remember offhand if he was involved in the occupation of Bajor, but given his background it's hard to imagine he wasn't involved in the occupation of somewhere. He shot Ziyal. it's his personal humiliation more than some grand moral awakening that ultimately drives him to rebel. And probably billions died because of how he tried to pursue power and gave the Dominion an Alpha Quadrant foothold. But when it came down to it he said no more, he gave up his pride and the way he'd woven his pride and position and future in with the Dominion, and he changed course.

I mean, I never thought I'd be cheering on a Cheney either. What a world.

My point is, it's hard to take that leap -- much more challenging than being on the right side of things from the beginning. And while it doesn't wipe away getting it wrong to begin with and all you did because of that, the changing course is still pretty heroic in my book.

#marta blathers #us politics #star trek #ds9

49 notes · View notes

vote-democrat-president-congress · 3 months ago

Text

"In any election, it’s hard to know whose word to trust. And in a polarized country, many Americans distrust any information that comes from the other side of the political divide. That’s why the criticism of Donald Trump by those who served with him in the White House and by members of his own party is so striking. Dozens of people who know him well, including the 91 listed here, have raised alarms about his character and fitness for office — his family and friends, world leaders and business associates, his fellow conservatives and his political appointees — even though they had nothing to gain from doing so. Some have even spoken out at the expense of their own careers or political interests.

The New York Times editorial board has made its case that Mr. Trump is unfit to lead. But the strongest case against him may come from his own people. For those Americans who are still tempted to return him to the presidency or to not vote in November, it is worth considering the assessment of Mr. Trump by those who have seen him up close.

Administration insiders:

He will always put his own interests and gratifying his own ego ahead …”

Bill Barr

He was extremely vulnerable to manipulation.”

Fiona Hill

… he was getting input from people who were calling him up, I don’t know who ...”

Anthony Fauci

… undermined American democracy baselessly …”

Thomas P. Bossert

He doesn’t take responsibility for the bad news …”

David Lapan

… says a whole lot more about him than it will ever say about Asian Americans.”

Elaine Chao

… equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists …”

Gary Cohn

His behavior had grown increasingly erratic and unnerving.”

Betsy DeVos

The F.B.I. is under attack by the president of the United States.”

Andrew McCabe

A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators.”

John Kelly

Sometimes it’s just better to steer clear of him.”

Anthony Scaramucci

… I do regard him as a threat to democracy …”

Mark Esper

Trump’s temperament wasn’t rational …”

Cassidy Hutchinson

… doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie …”

Dan Coats

… he tries to divide us.”

James Mattis

… loyalty was mostly a one-way street.”

Cliff Sims

… I think he’s a terrible human being.”

Mick Mulvaney

… caused direct harm …”

Deborah Birx

… very little understanding of what it means to be in the military …”

Richard Spencer

… the most reckless and deadly piece of information I have ever heard.”

Rick Bright

Literally everything I’ve tried to do on cutting drug costs, you have killed it.”

Alex Azar

… played to Trump’s ego and insecurities with flattery.”

H.R. McMaster

… flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob.”

James Comey

The turnover suggested instability and disorganization to our adversaries …”

Mike Pompeo

… renders coherent foreign policy almost unattainable.”

John Bolton

He is wholly unfit to be in office.”

Alyssa Farah Griffin

… a huge violation of your most important oath …”

Marc Short

He has built up a DNA of defensiveness.”

Sean Spicer

You are using the military to create fear in the minds of the people …”

Mark Milley

… Anyone that puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president …”

Mike Pence

… not consistent with our national security objectives.”

Rex Tillerson

Trump relentlessly … puts forth claims that simply are not true.”

Ty Cobb

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality …”

Miles Taylor

Do you think Trump wants a guy to win after him?”

Steve Bannon

… He’s saying some crazy shit.”

Don McGahn

… They are loyal to no one.”

Stephanie Grisham

The Trumps & Trump Inc.

You can’t trust him.”

Maryanne Trump Barry

… a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully …”

Michael Cohen

‘I wanna do what I wanna do’ … ”

Fred Trump III

Trump does not have the temperament …”

Kwame Jackson

He pushed me up against the wall …”

Jill Harth

…actually a racist.”

Omarosa Manigault Newman

Honest work was never demanded of him …”

Mary L. Trump

… the competition reality show set about an American fraud …”

Bill Pruitt

… the hint of menace beneath the surface …”

Gwenda Blair

Our job was to make him look legitimate …”

Jonathon Braun

If you disagreed with Donald, he put you out of his inner circle.”

Randal Pinkett

Republican politicians

He is a coward.”

Dick Cheney

This man is a pathological liar.”

Ted Cruz

He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”

Lindsey Graham

There is nothing ‘conservative’ about Donald Trump.”

Adam Kinzinger

The cheapest S.O.B. I’ve ever met in my life.”

Chris Christie

He’s not loyal.”

Justin Amash

He sought a coup by misleading people with lies.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger

… Power, revenge and retribution is his real motivation …”

Denver Riggleman

Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior …”

Jeff Flake

The healing of the Republican Party cannot begin with Trump as president …”

Geoff Duncan

… taking advantage of the trust placed in him by his supporters …”

John Boehner

He is a con artist.”

Marco Rubio

… a weakening of our shared American values …”

John Kasich

I think he’s toxic for the Republican Party and for the country.”

Larry Hogan

He’s willing to significantly undermine them …”

Bob Corker

There has never been a greater betrayal by a president …”

Liz Cheney

… an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories …”

Mitch McConnell

He should have immediately denounced the mob …”

Kevin McCarthy

… the most expensive and least effective way to do border security …”

Will Hurd

… not decency, not truth, not character, not integrity …”

Bill Weld

He tried to violently overthrow our government.”

Joe Walsh

… We shouldn’t have listened to him.”

Nikki Haley

… bitterness, combativeness and self-interest.”

Charlie Baker

Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud.”

Mitt Romney

… will spend the entire campaign whining about his legal troubles …”

Chris Sununu

… requires the kind of character he just doesn’t have.”

Paul Ryan

Conservative voices

He built a wall of lies …”

Charlie Sykes

If someone says something nice about him, they are our friend …”

Henry Kissinger

He wasn’t motivated by what he didn’t know.”

Hugh Hewitt

… corroded and corrupted American democracy …”

J. Michael Luttig

This is not leadership our country needs.”

Bob Vander Plaats

… We need a new standard-bearer.”

Erick Erickson

Lying is Trump’s toxic superpower.”

Rich Logis

… a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities …”

George Will

Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.”

L. Brent Bozell III

World leaders

… I can't understand how Donald Trump can be on the side of Putin.”

Volodymyr Zelensky

A frightened dog barks louder.”

Kim Jong-un

… stands for a great division in the country.”

Olaf Scholz

… If there is a second time, it won’t be easy …”

Justin Trudeau

I deeply regret that President Trump has not conceded defeat …”

Angela Merkel

Where has our role model for democracy gone?”

Kazuyoshi Akaba

… clearly a threat.”

Christine Lagarde

… President Trump radiates insecurity.”

Kim Darroch

He’s a show-off.”

Mauricio Macri

14 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 11 months ago

Text

By: Pamela Paul

Published: Feb 2, 2024

Grace Powell was 12 or 13 when she discovered she could be a boy.

“I felt so detached from my body, and the way it was developing felt hostile to me,” Powell told me. It was classic gender dysphoria, a feeling of discomfort with your sex.

Powell’s story shows how easy it is for young people to get caught up by the pull of ideology in this atmosphere.

“What should be a medical and psychological issue has been morphed into a political one,” Powell lamented during our conversation. “It’s a mess.”

A New and Growing Group of Patients

“I don’t feel safe having a location where people can find me,” she said.

Several of those who questioned their child’s self-diagnosis told me it had ruined their relationship. A few parents said simply, “I feel like I’ve lost my daughter.”

‘Do You Want a Dead Son or a Live Daughter?’

The meeting was brief and began on a shocking note. “In front of my son, the therapist said, ‘Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?’” Kathleen recounted.

But rather than being treated as patients who deserve unbiased professional help, children with gender dysphoria often become political pawns.

“I realized something had gone totally off the rails,” Kimberly, who subsequently founded the Gender Dysphoria Alliance and the L.G.B.T. Courage Coalition to advocate better gender care, told me.

“I’m thinking, ‘Oh my God, I’m having my breasts removed. I’m 17. I’m too young for this,’” she recalled. But she went ahead with the operation.

“I thought my life was over,” she said. “I realized that I had lived a lie for over five years.”

‘The Process of Transition Didn’t Make Me Feel Better’

“I expected it to change everything, but I was just me, with a slightly deeper voice,” she added. “It took me two years to start detransitioning and living as Grace again.”

Many detransitioners say they face ostracism and silencing because of the toxic politics around transgender issues.

As Americans furiously debate the basis of transgender care, a number of advances in understanding have taken place in Europe, where the early Dutch studies that became the underpinning of gender-affirming care have been broadly questioned and criticized. Unlike the current population of gender dysphoric youth, the Dutch study participants had no serious psychological conditions. Those studies were riddled with methodological flaws and weaknesses. There was no evidence that any intervention was lifesaving. There was no long-term follow-up with any of the study’s 55 participants or the 15 who dropped out. A British effort to replicate the study said that it “identified no changes in psychological function” and that more studies were needed.

But in America, and Canada, the results of those widely criticized Dutch studies are falsely presented to the public as settled science.

Meanwhile, the American medical establishment has hunkered down, stuck in an outdated model of gender affirmation. The American Academy of Pediatrics only just agreed to conduct more research in response to yearslong efforts by dissenting experts, including Dr. Julia Mason, a self-described “bleeding-heart liberal.”

The real threat to transgender people comes from Republicans who wish to deny them rights and protections. But the doctrinal rigidity of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is disappointing, frustrating and counterproductive.

“I was always a liberal Democrat,” one woman whose son desisted after social transition and hormone therapy told me. “Now I feel politically homeless.”

Some people are trying to open up that dialogue, or at least provide outlets for kids and families to seek a more therapeutic approach to gender dysphoria.

“You’re made to believe these slogans,” he said. “ Evidence-based, lifesaving care, safe and effective, medically necessary, the science is settled — and none of that is evidence based.”

[ Via: https://archive.md/ercav ]

It would, but that's also why activists won't do it. This isn't about "healthcare" and it's not even about "rights." As Duchess Lois of Alberta asked "what rights do I not have as a transsexual?"

It's about conducting a social revolution, and revolutionaries don't compromise.

#Leor Sapir #Pamela Paul #detrans #detransition #gender ideology #queer theory #gender affirming care #gender affirming healthcare #gender affirmation #gender identity #pseudoscience #gender pseudoscience #genderwang #religion is a mental illness

9 notes · View notes

yukkikatsuki · 2 months ago

Text

I am this close to snapping if I hear another conservative politician try to come up with a Trump like nickname for a politician from a different party. Do you know how badly I wanted to tear my hair out when I heard the words Sellout Singh (Singh is the last name of leader of one of our political parties) leave the mouth of the leader of the conservative party? What happens in your country directly impacts the world none of us live in a bubble and when the rightwing conservatives in other countries see people like Donald fucking Trump win and get traction in the United States it emboldens them to be more extreme and stop hiding their more extreme ideas and act on them it is dangerous for everyone around the world when people like Trump get into office and I'm fucking tired of people acting like it isn't. He doesn't just impact your country not only as a military powerhouse but because your country is not a fucking bubble it impacts the world stage just like other countries and the politics their impact the United States so yeah a lot of us especially people who live in countries that either neighbour you or are close allies to you have pretty strong opinions about your damn elections that we sit on the edge of the seat for our of fear of what could happen to people in your country and what it could mean for OUR countries.

This time next year at the latest here in Canada we will have had another election and even though I know my riding is a conservative stronghold and the odds of it flipping are slim to none, I'm going to get my happy little ass down to the polls and place my fucking vote because I live in a democracy and it is my right and responsibility as a citizen to vote I don't agree with everything the person inviting for stands for but I'm going to fucking vote for him anyways because of my options his opinion aligns the most closely to my own stances.

96K notes · View notes

sineala · 4 years ago

Note

Is 616 Tony a Democrat or Republican or neither? I’ve seen posts comparing him to Trump (barf!)

Wow. Geez. You don't ask easy questions, do you, anon?

First off, I am going to assume that whoever was comparing 616 Tony to Trump was trying to slander Tony. And I will tell you that we do in fact have 616 Tony's canonical opinion of Trump -- yes, Donald Trump exists on Earth-616 and has been referenced in several comics -- and he doesn't seem to like him much. I mean, this is back when Trump was primarily being known for being a New York businessman. They canonically ran in the same circles and Tony canonically knows him. He doesn't like him.

Here's Tony in Iron Man v1 #227 complaining that Trump bought him out of a building:

And here's Tony again in Iron Man v3 #37 being not especially thrilled when he thinks that the person he is about to meet is Trump:

(The person he is actually meeting is Tiberius Stone, which is also a very bad idea.)

I am also going to point out that due to the way Marvel likes to handle politics in its comics, I don't think we can say anything about the canonical political affiliation of most characters, because Marvel deliberately leaves that undefined. So to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a canonical statement about Tony's political affiliation and we probably won't ever get one.

But we can speculate based on canonical evidence, can't we?

My very long answer is under the Read More.

Your question is sort of framed as "tell me if Tony is a good or a bad person," and I would like to suggest that this is not really a useful framing for several reasons: (1) what the political parties currently stand for is pretty recent, actually, and Tony as a character predates a lot of the modern conceptions of the two parties; (2) the history of the Democratic Party specifically in New York, where Tony is from, is, let's just say, not 100% pure and unproblematic; and (3), when we're talking about someone with the amount of money, connections, and influence that Tony has, party affiliation generally doesn't mean the same thing it would mean for us ordinary mortals. What I mean by that last point is that there is a big, big difference between every one of the following list of statements: "I would vote for Republicans," "I am a registered Republican," "I would give very large amounts of money to Republicans," and "I would accept a political appointment in a Republican administration." For most of us, the last two of those points aren't ever going to be something that comes up in our lives, but they are going to be things that matter very much for someone like Tony Stark. And we have a canonical answer for at least one of those things. We can theorize about at least some of the rest of them.

I'm saying all that because I suspect you're really not going to like my answer.

I think that there is a very, very high chance that 616 Tony is a Republican.

I mean, I don't think he'd be a Republican right now at this exact moment in time, are you kidding me, but I feel like he has definitely been a Republican at some point in the past. Say, before Trump. One of those socially-liberal fiscally-conservative types. With a conscience. Sort of like Mitt Romney. Picture the kind of Republican Massachusetts likes to keep electing as their governor.

Yes, is possible that, since Tony is from New York, he's a lifelong Democrat. It is definitely possible. New York is heavily Democratic in our world, and barring contradictory evidence, that is probably also the case on Earth-616. But I think that, specifically because of the rest of Tony's background and the ways that Tony has interacted with the world of politics in 616, he is most likely to be a Republican. It doesn't mean he couldn't be a Democrat! I have no proof either way! In terms of several elements of his characterization -- say, his commitment to social justice and fighting inequity -- I would say he definitely leans Democrat, because these days that sort of thing is mostly the province of the Democrats, although I suspect that back when Tony was created it wouldn't have been out of character for a lot of Republicans. I'm just saying that Republican seems more likely. If you gotta pick one. I think you could definitely argue for either. He doesn't fit completely into either but his canon interactions with politics push me toward thinking he's a Republican, because he does several specific things that I think it would be unlikely that anyone other than a Republican would be given the opportunity to do at the specific time that he does them.

Yeah. I know.

Right. Okay. Tony is extremely, extremely rich, and even though I know that he is basically the fantasy of The One Good Ethical Billionaire (more on this in a sec), it's probably worth thinking about what actual real-life rich people do with their money in ways that intersect with politics. And the answer to that is, well, generally they give money to politicians who are favorable to, say, helping them continue to have money. Now, yes, as far as I know there is no evidence of Tony doing this in canon -- this is where all the conjecture comes in. So we ask ourselves, okay, if Tony were to endorse particular politicians because of this, what party would he give money to? Who would he want to get in good with? In most parts of the country, that would probably be the Republican party. But, specifically in New York, it's the Democrats.

So, yeah, one of the big points in favor of him being a Democrat is that, well, Democrats traditionally run New York. The class of old-money New York elites are pretty stereotypically Democrats. And that would include Tony. Which is not to say that he couldn't be a Republican, but if he wants to get anywhere with New York politicians, and I suspect he probably does because he is trying to run a series of very large businesses and he owns a fair amount of real estate including several buildings whose permitting processes I can only imagine fall into the category of “probably highly irregular" -- I mean, he has multiple jets that he regularly lands on his house and secret underwater tunnels for a submarine -- he has to cozy up to Democrats. If he gives money to anyone involved in politics, that's who he gives money to. Making superhero bases probably took a lot of money. A massive amount of money. The city planners probably cry when they see him coming.

(At one point I believe they did ban him from keeping the Quinjets in his house. That was when the Avengers had the Hydrobase.)

I tend to assume most people know something about the history of the Democrats in New York, or at least the history of US political parties in general, but the tl;dr version is that the parties haven't always stood for the same things that they do now. They also weren't always the same parties. And historically, in New York, the political machine gives you Democrats. That's just the way it is. The Democratic Party of the past was not really, um, devoted to all the same causes as the current Democratic Party. And it was very hard to get anywhere in New York and not be a Democrat. It still is. If you haven't read up on Tammany Hall, maybe you should. There was a lot of corruption. I mean, yeah, it's not currently a thing, but the Democrats remained in power in New York; it dissolved probably around about the time the Republican Party explicitly decided that the way to win the South was to appeal to the racism of white voters ("the Southern strategy"). Because, yes, before that a lot of white, conservative Southerners were traditionally Democrats. And then the Democrats split about civil rights, and, uh, the Republicans took in the racists.

Anyway! US political history is sure a land of contrasts! Rich New Yorkers are traditionally Democrats! That is a point for Tony possibly being a Democrat, yes. Moving on!

But Tony is not just a random old-money New Yorker. He inherited Howard Stark's money and Howard Stark's company. And Howard was, well, a defense contractor. And so was Tony, until he stopped making weapons. And, uh, being a defense contractor is, um, one of those things that is extremely, extremely Republican. No, I don't have stats to back this up. Just trust me. So, yeah, he's a rich New Yorker -- but he's also a defense contractor from a family of defense contractors. I would be amazed if Howard Stark were anything other than a Republican. Which is not to say that Tony could not be a Democrat anyway, but the job does come with a certain predisposition.

(Incidentally, one of the other things Tony inherited from Howard was his membership in the Hellfire Club, which is one of those things I keep forgetting about until canon smacks me in the face with it every few years.)

We all know that the conception of Tony, as a character, is basically the fantasy of the Ethical Billionaire. He is The Best At Capitalism. He has money and he is not corrupted by it. He has money and he uses it to do the maximum amount of good in the world because that is what he really, deeply wants to do. He supports a large number of philanthropic causes! He has a foundation named after his mother! He funds programs for low-income youth! He runs a homeless shelter for women! Throughout his history, he has been consistently portrayed as a deeply, deeply kind human being, who wants to help people. A lot of people! People who aren't like him! People who might not even like him! That is just... who he is, as a person.

And these days we tend to associate that kind of push for systemic change and caring about social issues and remedying inequity with Democrats, but that wasn't always the case. I think it still would have been believable coming from a Republican, oh, around about the time Tony came into existence. He was created back when you could be an elected Republican and, uh, push social policies that I think these days we would consider progressive. I mean, Eisenhower was the one who started integrating schools, right? The Republicans are the party of Lincoln! It's not like Republicans are prevented from doing good things. And I think we need to keep in mind that Tony dates from the early 60s when socially-progressive was still a thing Republicans could conceivably be.

So, yes, Tony is very kind. It's nice. We all like that about him. But also many of the ways in which he is kind to people are very much Republican fantasies. Like, yes, he's a great boss. He's close to his employees. They're like family. If any of his employees have problems, he helps them out on a personal, individual level -- and that, as an ideal, seems very Republican to me. I mean, he's a CEO, right? He's owned a lot of companies. Are any of them unionized? Combing through Wiki, I find one reference to a union in ToS 63, which is really, really early -- you know, back when unions were more popular. I can't find anything after that. And nothing is coming to mind. So, I mean, yes, we have now established his employees were at one point unionized, but he's certainly not known for, say, running a union shop. Part of the fantasy of the Ethical Billionaire is the idea that Tony's employees don't need unions because Tony is so kind and so generous and so personally selflessly good that he takes care of everyone who works for him. And the thing is, Tony actually does do this. He is fictional and therefore capable of achieving perfection.

Okay. He's a fictional character. Let's step back a little and think about fictional characters, and specifically the way Marvel Comics depicts fictional characters interacting with well-known real people. Many real people from our Earth do seem to exist in 616. Earth-616 is not our Earth in a vast number of ways, but one thing it shares with our Earth is presidents. Whoever is the real-life president when a comic comes out is pretty much generally president on Earth-616 at the time. Yes, I'm going somewhere with this.

Now, for whatever reason, Marvel often does not canonically refer to presidents by their names in dialogue, but the artists pretty much draw whoever is president at the time when someone in canon needs to meet the president. (Captain America seems to get to meet the president a lot. I'm sure you're shocked.)

There are a couple exceptions to "everyone who looks like the president is the president,” namely that Marvel says that the villain who was Number One of the Secret Empire in Captain America v1 #175, who attempted to conspire with aliens to take over the Earth, whom Steve watched commit suicide -- anyway, the official Marvel word is, I believe, that this guy is not Richard Nixon, but Steve Englehart, who wrote the comic, says it absolutely was:

And, yes, this is the incident that causes Steve to lose faith in America and become Nomad. You can kind of see why that would be traumatic. Marvel clearly had some feelings about Watergate they needed to process.

Anyway, I just wanted to put in a picture of that time Ronald Reagan was turned into a snake person. It's Captain America v1 #344:

I love comics.

More recent presidents still make appearances in the comics, and they are the president who was the real-life president at the time. For example, the president who pardons Steve for all his SHRA-related crimes in Who Will Wield The Shield is definitely Obama:

And that means that I must also unfortunately inform you that Hydra Steve also received a presidential pardon:

Though the issue in question (Captain America v9 #8) does not specifically name the president, following the "whoever is the actual president is the 616 president" rule, the president who canonically pardoned Hydra Steve is... Donald Trump.

Let's just pause here to contemplate this. Take as long as you need.

(I was today years old when I learned that Hydra Steve has been dead in comics for over a year. Since the issue in which he was pardoned, actually. Which is an issue I am sure I read the day it came out, but somehow I missed the four entire pages where Hydra Steve is set on fire and burns to death while hailing Hydra with his last breath. I guess it wasn't memorable! I mention because I am pretty sure I am not the only one who missed this.)

Anyway. I do have a point to make here, and my point is this: Tony has received political appointments. Two of them, in fact. In the 2003-2004 Iron Man arc "The Best Defense," Tony becomes Secretary of Defense. He does get Senate confirmation; it's not a deputy appointment. He actually gets unanimous confirmation. And I know that Tony had this job is a fact that everyone knows about Tony, but I feel like a lot of people may not be totally conscious of the timeframe involved here, and by that I mean that he is absolutely, positively, the Secretary of Defense for Earth-616's George W. Bush. Yes, I am sure of this.

Here is Tony with the president in Iron Man v3 #78, being told he got the job:

Yeah. That’s George W. Bush.

Can a Cabinet appointment cross party lines? I mean, sure, it's possible. I am not the kind of giant politics nerd who has this memorized, but there is in fact, a Wikipedia page for US political appointments across party lines. And it looks like there have been five cross-party Secretaries of Defense and five Secretaries of War. So, I mean, yes, it's happened, but it's fairly rare. None of the cross-party Secretaries of Defense (deputy secretaries excluded, since they weren't confirmed, obviously) were ever Democrats appointed by Republicans. And since we're looking at Dubya's administration specifically, it looks like only one of his Cabinet appointees (Transportation) was cross-party. So it looks like he in particular would not have been especially likely to appoint a Democrat to his Cabinet, since in real life he only had the one.

So to me it seems that the most likely party affiliation for Tony has to be Republican, because of this. Sure, the appointment could have crossed party lines. But I feel like it's just... not likely. Being a Republican Secretary of Defense in a Republican administration just seems way, way more possible.

(Also I'd like everyone to remember that Tony is replacing the previous Secretary of Defense because the previous Secretary of Defense was secretly the Red Skull and released an engineered flesh-eating virus at Mount Rushmore. Just, y'know, to set the mood.)

What's more, Tony gets a second political appointment from the Bush administration. It's not a Cabinet position, but he does become the Director of SHIELD in 2007. Here Tony is with the president, slightly earlier, in Civil War #1:

This is not really as good a likeness of Bush as the previous and I guess you could argue that the artist was drawing A Generic Politician but I feel like, y'know, it's probably still meant to be Bush. And Tony may not have wanted this particular job -- we know he definitely didn't -- but he absolutely wanted to be Secretary of Defense. So we know that he is definitely fine with serving in a Republican administration.

So, yeah, that's my argument: odds are pretty good that Tony has, at some point in his life, been a Republican. Maybe not right now. But probably in the past.

Having said that, given the way Marvel handles politics, I don't think it's likely to ever be much of an issue in canon; the Avengers mostly just tend to get to get along with whoever the president is at the time and I can't recall really anything about partisan issues. However, you're never going to convince me 616 Steve was anything other than a New Deal Democrat -- even though I know that in Cap #250 he turns down both the Democrats and the Republicans when they ask him to run for president -- because, I mean, come on. I assume that he and Tony probably try not to discuss politics ever anymore, because we all know how the SHRA went. They probably mostly agree, but when they disagree, people have a tendency to end up dead.

That was probably more than you ever wanted to know about my thoughts on this topic.

#Anonymous #replies

169 notes · View notes

dhaaruni · 3 years ago

Note

Ughhh reading the All The Articles abt losing democracy timed w the passing of bob dole and ed shanen - i DESPERATELY want off this ride lol. My question is like. What exactly do current politicians/justices think is going to happen to them if they continue to empower trump ideology? Like why would i as a supreme court justice or senator want to weaken my own position by capitulating to these bogus state's rights/wannabe theocrats??

Well, I present to you this article about Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy before, during, and after the January 6 insurrection.

The fact is, this stuff is purely business to the elected officials and the journalists who cover them like in the case of McConnell and McCarthy, they want the GOP to regain their Congressional majorities and if they alienate the entire Trump base, that's much harder to do since they don't win enough college-educated white voters anymore due to suburban realignment. Just look at this excerpt from the above article:

"In the following days, Mr. McCarthy heard from some Republican lawmakers who advised against confronting Mr. Trump. In one group conversation, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio cautioned that conservative voters back home “go ballistic” in response to criticism of Mr. Trump, demanding that Republicans instead train their denunciations on Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden."

It's just so craven and opportunistic like they all know Trump's full of shit but they placate him because they know his supporters make their path to 270 electoral votes and Congressional dominance much easier since he draws out low-propensity white voters who have a disproportionate influence on our electoral system. Like, that's why GOP elected officials are encouraging Republican leadership to target private citizens Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, as if both of them haven't suffered enough abjectly cruel scrutiny over the years.

In the case of journalists, they just want to sell their sordid books (hence why they withhold this information for over a year even at the expense of our democracy) and become the subjects of news as well as the writers of it. At the end of the day, they're all egotists who weren't cool at their private schools; they're fundamentally lame people who fell into a modicum of power with regards to their ability to control the narrative and instead of doing some good with it, choose to make the world a much worse place, which is just extremely pathetic tbh.

Oh and I think that the Supreme Court stopped being nonpartisan a while ago. This is why so many of us are mourning Roe v. Wade even before Dobbs v. Jackson hits the docket like it takes 4 votes to accept a case so that means there are already at least 4 votes to overturn Roe, and we're guessing Roberts will side with the liberal justices based on his pleading with the other justices to preserve the court's legitimacy, so the swing vote for this case due to the 6-3 court is *checks notes* Brett Kavanaugh. Aces.

This is also why Supreme Court confirmations are so partisan nowadays like Ketanji Brown Jackson getting only 3 Republican votes to replace a liberal justice without even altering the makeup of the court, is night and day compared to Ruth Bader Ginsburg being confirmed 96-3 in 1993 and Stephen Breyer being confirmed 87-9 in 1994. Recall, when Kagan was confirmed, Dems held a filibuster-proof majority and the 60-vote filibuster was still in place for lower-court and Supreme Court confirmations. But, even back then when the parties were both significantly more moderate than they are today, Kagan only got 5 Republican votes! Of course, in 2013, Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option and removed the filibuster for lower-court judicial nominations and McConnell removed it for the Supreme Court in 2017 but that's how we got to this place.

#answered #politics #anonymous #media matters lots

5 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years ago

Link

In a democracy, every vote is supposed to be equal. If about half the country supports one side and half the country supports another, you may expect major institutions to either be equally divided, or to try to stay politically neutral.

This is not what we find. If it takes a position on the hot button social issues around which our politics revolve, almost every major institution in America that is not explicitly conservative leans left. In a country where Republicans get around half the votes or something close to that in every election, why should this be the case?

This post started as an investigation into Woke Capital, one of the most important developments in the last decade or so of American politics. Although big business pressuring politicians is not new (the NFL moved the Super Bowl from Arizona over MLK day), the scope of the issues on which corporations feel the need to weigh in is certainly expanding, now including LGBT issues, abortion laws, voting rights, kneeling during the national anthem, and gun control.

…

As I started to research the topic, however, I realized there wasn’t much to explain. Asking why corporations are woke is like asking why Hispanics tend to have two arms, or why the Houston Rockets have increased their number of 3-point shots taken over the last few decades. All humans tend to have two arms, and all NBA teams shoot more 3-pointers than in the past, so focusing on one subset of the population that has the same characteristics as all others in the group misses the point.

I think one reason Woke Capital is getting so much attention is because we expect business to be more right-leaning, and corporations throwing in with the party of more taxes and regulation strikes us as odd. We are used to schools, non-profits, mainline religions, etc. taking liberal positions and feel like business should be different. But business is just being assimilated into a larger trend.

Corporations are woke, meaning left wing on social issues relative to the general population, because institutions are woke. So the question becomes why are institutions woke?

…

Through the lens of ordinal utility, in which people simply rank what they want to happen, we are about equal. I prefer Republicans to Democrats, while you have the opposite preference. But when we think in terms of cardinal utility – in layman’s terms, how bad people want something to happen – it’s no contest. You are going to be much more influential than me. Most people are relatively indifferent to politics and see it as a small part of their lives, yet a small percentage of the population takes it very seriously and makes it part of its identity. Those people will tend to punch above their weight in influence, and institutions will be more responsive to them.

Elections are a measure of ordinal preferences. As long as you care enough to vote, it doesn’t matter how much you care about the election outcome, as everyone’s voice is the same. But for everything else – who speaks up in a board meeting about whether a corporation should take a political position, who protests against a company taking a position one side or the other finds offensive, etc. – cardinal utility maters a lot. Only a small minority of the public ever bothers to try to influence a corporation, school, or non-profit to reflect certain values, whether from the inside or out.

In an evenly divided country, if one side simply cares more, it’s going to exert a disproportionate influence on all institutions, and be more likely to see its preferences enacted in the time between elections when most people aren’t paying much attention.

…

Here are two graphs that have been getting a lot of attention

What jumps out to me in these figures is not only how left leaning large institutions are, but how the same is true for most professions. Whether you are looking by institution or by individuals, there are more donations to Biden than Trump. Yet Republicans get close to half the votes! Where are the Trump supporters? What these graphs reveal is a larger story, in which more people give to liberal causes and candidates than to conservative ones, even if Americans are about equally divided in which party they support (and no, this isn’t the result of liberals being wealthier, the connections between income and ideology or party are pretty weak). Here are some graphs from late October showing Biden having more individual donors than Trump in every battleground state.

…

In the 2012 election, Obama raised $234 million from small individual contributors, compared to $80 million for Romney, while also winning among large contributors.

…

In September 2009, at the height of the Tea Party movement, conservatives held the “Taxpayer March on Washington,” which drew something like 60,000-70,000 people, leading one newspaper to call it “the largest conservative protest ever to storm the Capitol.” Since that time, the annual anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington has drawn massive crowds, with estimates for some years ranging widely from low six figures to mid-to-high six figures. March for Life is not to be confused with “March for Our Lives,” a pro-gun control rally that activists claim saw 800,000 people turn out in 2018. All these events were dwarfed by the Women’s March in opposition to Trump, which drew by one estimate “between 3,267,134 and 5,246,670 people in the United States (our best guess is 4,157,894). That translates into 1 percent to 1.6 percent of the U.S. population of 318,900,000 people (our best guess is 1.3 percent).” Even if the two left-wing academics who did this research are letting their bias infuse their work, there is no question that protesting is generally a left-wing activity, as conservatives themselves realize.

People who engage in protesting care more about politics than people who donate money, and people who donate money care more than people who simply vote. Imagine a pyramid with voters at the bottom and full-time activists on top, and as you move up the pyramid it gets much narrower and more left-wing. Multiple strands of evidence indicate this would basically be an accurate representation of society.

Another line of evidence showing that the left simply cares more about politics comes from Noah Carl, who has put together data showing liberals are in their personal lives more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa across numerous dimensions in the US and the UK. Those on the left are more likely to block someone on social media over their views, be upset if their child marries someone from the other side, and find it hard to be friends with or date someone they disagree with politically. Here are two graphs demonstrating the general point.

…

There’s a great irony here. Conservatives tend to be more skeptical of pure democracy, and believe in individuals coming together and forming civil society organizations away from government. Yet conservatives are extremely bad at gaining or maintaining control of institutions relative to liberals. It’s not because they are poorer or the party of the working class – again, I can’t stress enough how little economics predicts people’s political preferences – but because they are the party of those who simply care less about the future of their country.

Debates over voting rights make the opposite assumption, as conservatives tend to want more restrictions on voting, and liberals fewer, with National Review explicitly arguing against a purer form of democracy. Conservatives may be right that liberals are less likely to care enough to do basic things like bring a photo ID and correctly fill out a ballot. If this is true, Republicans are the party of people who care enough to vote when doing so is made slightly more difficult but not enough to do anything else, while Democrats are the party of both the most active and least active citizens. Yet while being the “care only enough to vote” party might be adequate for winning elections, the future belongs to those at the tail end of the distribution who really want to change the world.

The discussion here makes it hard to suggest reforms for conservatives. Do you want to give government more power over corporations? None of the regulators will be on your side. Leave corporations alone? Then you leave power to Woke Capital, though it must to a certain extent be disciplined and limited by the preferences of consumers. Start your own institutions? Good luck staffing them with competent people for normal NGO or media salaries, and if you’re not careful they’ll be captured by your enemies anyway, hence Conquest’s Second Law. And the media will be there every step of the way to declare any of your attempts at taking power to be pure fascism, and brush aside any resistance to your schemes as righteous anger, up to and including rioting and acts of violence.

…

From this perspective we might want to consider this passage from Scott Alexander, who writes the following in his review of a biography of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The normal course of politics is various coalitions of elites and populace, each drawing from their own power bases. A normal political party, like a normal anything else, has elite leaders, analysts, propagandists, and managers, plus populace foot soldiers. Then there's an election, and sometimes our elites get in, and sometimes your elites get in, but getting a political party that's against the elites is really hard and usually the sort of thing that gets claimed rather than accomplished, because elites naturally rise to the top of everything.

But sometimes political parties can run on an explicitly anti-elite platform. In theory this sounds good - nobody wants to be elitist. In practice, this gets really nasty quickly. Democracy is a pure numbers game, so it's hard for the elites to control - the populace can genuinely seize the reins of a democracy if it really wants. But if that happens, the government will be arrayed against every other institution in the nation. Elites naturally rise to the top of everything - media, academia, culture - so all of those institutions will hate the new government and be hated by it in turn. Since all natural organic processes favor elites, if the government wants to win, it will have to destroy everything natural and organic - for example, shut down the regular media and replace it with a government-controlled media run by its supporters.

When elites use the government to promote elite culture, this usually looks like giving grants to the most promising up-and-coming artists recommended by the art schools themselves, and having the local art critics praise their taste and acumen. When the populace uses the government to promote popular culture against elite culture, this usually looks like some hamfisted attempt to designate some kind of "official" style based on what popular stereotypes think is "real art from back in the day when art was good", which every art school and art critic attacks as clueless Philistinism. Every artist in the country will make groundbreaking exciting new art criticizing the government's poor judgment, while the government desperately looks for a few technicians willing to take their money and make, I don't know, pretty landscape paintings or big neoclassical buildings.

The important point is that elite government can govern with a light touch, because everything naturally tends towards what they want and they just need to shepherd it along. But popular/anti-elite government has a strong tendency toward dictatorship, because it won't get what it wants without crushing every normal organic process. Thus the stereotype of the "right-wing strongman", who gets busy with the crushing.

So the idea of "right-wing populism" might invoke this general concept of somebody who, because they have made themselves the champion of the populace against the elites, will probably end up incentivized to crush all the organic processes of civil society, and yoke culture and academia to the will of government in a heavy-handed manner.

To put it in a different way, to steelman the populist position, democracy does not reflect the will of the citizenry, it reflects the will of an activist class, which is not representative of the general population. Populists, in order to bring institutions more in line with what the majority of the people want, need to rely on a more centralized and heavy-handed government. The strongman is liberation from elites, who aren’t the best citizens, but those with the most desire to control people’s lives, often to enforce their idiosyncratic belief system on the rest of the public, and also a liberation from having to become like elites in order to fight them, so conservatives don’t have to give up on things like hobbies and starting families and devote their lives to activism.

#richard hanania #substack

54 notes · View notes

lligkv · 4 years ago

Text

what the world will look like when it’s over

Can’t Get You Out of My Head is the first Adam Curtis documentary I’ve seen. I gather it’s not the most successful demonstration of his method; it sounds like Hypernormalization or The Century of the Self are tighter in their construction, less effortful (count how many times Curtis says something like “But then it started to run out of control” in this one), and perhaps less frustrating in their narration. In the early episodes of this documentary in particular, it feels like Curtis is constantly presenting what’s being covered as the turn, the decisive shift in his narrative—the emergence of the American counterculture, the revolution of the “unit of One” led by Mao Zedong’s wife Jiang Qing to help her break the stalemate with the other revolutionaries in China into which Zedong had fallen in the 1960s, George Boole’s development of Boolean logic to describe human thought. And the whole thing feels longer and baggier than it needs to be. The early episodes devote much time to interesting individual narratives, like that of the Trinidadian British activist or sorts named Michael Freitas (or Michael X) or a trans woman named Julie in 1960s Britain; they also sprawl in a way that makes the overall argument a bit hard to divine. It’s not until the fourth episode that the shape of Curtis’s narrative becomes clear—that our age is the product of a struggle between a new, broadly liberal-democratic and capitalist image of individualism, a dying era of collectivist struggle, and older, more vicious systems of power, derived from the control of capital and expressed through the middle classes’ suspicion and viciousness toward the subaltern and toward each other, even as they remain subject to the power of oligarchs and billionaires.

Curtis also seems to play fast and loose with the facts sometimes. When he presents Médecins Sans Frontières’s founder Bernard Kouchner as an avatar of a theory of the “one world” of liberal democracy—the idea that we’re basically one world of individuals, enjoying certain human rights regardless of political orientations or ideologies, and that Western nations are duty-bound by virtue of their prosperity to intervene when other nations violate people’s rights—it seems a distortion of what Kouchner actually says in the footage Curtis includes: “We don’t care on leftist or rightist countries [sic]; there is no leftist and rightist suffering, and there is no possibility to split the world in[to] ‘good’ people or ‘bad’ people, ‘good’ dead and ‘bad’ dead.” Which isn’t to say Kouchner didn’t believe in liberal-democratic ideas—he may well have—but what he’s shown as saying has to do with the consideration of suffering as suffering regardless of a person’s identity or allegiance, which is a different matter.

This is just one of several moments when I stopped to wonder how secure I actually was in Curtis’s hands. But ultimately, I find the emotional history he lays out resonant. The age we’re living through now, in the 2020s, is indeed the product of certain fantasies of individualism and of a post-end-of-history, neoliberal “one world”—with no ideologies but capitalism and putative democracy—meeting age-old systems of power, acquisition, and control, and age-old features of the human mind and heart: resentment, prejudice, betrayal, jealousy, the need to be prosperous, the need to be free.

And Curtis’s work appeals to me for the same reason the writer Pankaj Mishra’s work does. He historicizes our underhistoricized time. What’s more, he does so in a way that’s especially rare to see in any mainstream media venue. Usually, when you want to understand the connections between, say, colonial-era empires and post-war welfare states, or if you want to understand what happened to turn Western societies as they were post-war to Western societies as they are post-financialization, you have to seek the information out on your own. It’s valuable to have someone in a place like the BBC willing to put the pieces of these narratives together. And willing to remind us of the events that are so incredibly easy to forget even in one’s own lifetime. Abu Ghraib, for instance, which pops up in part 6 of the documentary. That shit happened while I was alive. How often do I remember it? How many American sins get drowned out in the new ones that emerge every day of every month of every year? Or in the stasis that sets in when what was once novel, like the War on Terror or the invasion into our privacy represented by the Patriot Act, fades into regular life?

I was jotting down copious notes while watching the doc, as is my wont. The questions and thoughts that came up, in no particular order:

How do the elites of a given era impose their preferred ideologies? How are the structures of power we grow up with constructed, and how do those go on to shape our behavior?

Control, as it’s practiced by societies in the 21st century, often comes down to the recognition of patterns in human behavior—and their manipulation.

The loss of power, like that which was suffered after the collapse of Britain’s empire or in the slow hollowing-out of America’s manufacturing industry in the 20th century, leads to anger and melancholy that people can’t be expected to abandon. Does doing what you’re supposed to do bring you the happiness you were promised—or anything even resembling that happiness? When we’re living in a historical moment in which the answer is no, as is often the case today, we’ll need to watch out. It’s a sign people are being manipulated and abused.

Over time, the tech industry has come to understand that you can manage people en masse by collecting their data and manipulating the messages they receive in social media activity feeds and advertising—and you can make them feel like sovereign individuals at the same time through the very same means. In light of all this, will there ever be a revolution that actually changes the structure of power we’re currently stuck in? Is there a chance to alter this extreme individualism. on the part of people who are surrounded by political systems so enervated, by the supra-governmental system that is global finance capital—which politicians can’t control, and must appease and palliate—that they can’t respond to phenomena like climate change or meaningfully punish atrocities like wars prosecuted on false pretenses? Or are we stuck where we are, in a world that’s corrupt and exhausted? In nations whose governments depend on technologies of surveillance and myths of consumerist abundance or nationalist glory to maintain power, in the absence of any real vision for the future?

It all leads to some interesting takeaways. For one, the way culture reacts to politics and vice versa. As I was watching Can’t Get You Out of My Head, I was reminded of a conversation folks on the Discord server for the Relentless Picnic podcast had had recently about the strange things Richard Dawkins posts on his Twitter account. And it led me to think: when religious “caring conservatism” was in the White House, Richard Dawkins and his New Atheism, this brash repudiation of religion and its pieties, grew as a counterweight. When Obama and his technocratic regime were in power, with social media bringing on a wave of progressivism in popular culture and algorithms presenting us a fantasy of endless choice—much of which was a thin veneer over the same old shit: banks getting bailed out, forever wars going on, productivity rising while wages stagnated—we also got Jordan Peterson-types who claimed to speak to a human need for narrative, even in this point of stability we had seemed to reach, this recovery of sanity after the chaos that was the Iraq War and the financial crisis; who claimed we needed ideas and myths to animate and drive our lives, because they sensed there was something hollow and mendacious driving all this consumer choice, for all it seemed a symbol of our freedom and progress.

Of course, both Peterson and Dawkins are provocateurs, not intellectuals; I don’t mean to dignify the movements they led much, since in both the appearance of intellectual rigor or moral clarity often covered the indulgence of the worst instincts: immaturity, obstinacy, provocation for provocation’s sake, contempt for women and trans people. The New Atheists had a point, and could be absolute assholes about it; they ultimately could be as fundamentalist and dogmatic as any religious people. As for Jordan Peterson, his actual work, in the way of so many grand theorists, uses the appearance of profundity to cover something ultimately pretty banal. And he’s most known for grandstanding in the public sphere—refusing to use people’s pronouns, the usual conservative shit. But these movements do seem to reflect a countercultural response no less than 1960s counterculture reflects a reaction to the staid culture of 1950s America and the sins it covered up.

Which leads me to the question: what was the culture’s response to Trump’s administration? Maybe QAnon and Russiagate, as conspiracies—that is, actual narratives people inhabit to explain the world’s evils, and not just a vague need for them that they satisfied with Jordan Peterson’s light form of Stoicism or his theories of Light and Dark or whatever the fuck. And in that way, perhaps, once a countercultural movement—namely nationalism and Trumpian populism—actually seemed to have overthrown a regime, of Obama-era liberal technocratic management, culture and politics came to mirror each other, rather than standing in opposition to each other. Both became equally conspiratorial and unhinged; in fact, they merged. All the ruling myths and conspiracies mutate in kind these days: Trump’s garbage about draining the swamp, a cover for Trump and his family enriching themselves and Stephen Miller’s like getting to fashion the state they wanted, becomes QAnon’s garbage about rings of child trafficking and pedophilia and Trump, of all people, being their savior—all while actual trafficking and abuse perpetuated by Jeffrey Epstein and his ilk goes unpunished, Epstein’s death swallowed up by the state without a sound—becomes the liberal pundit class’s screaming about Russia: connections between Trump and Putin that were always conjectural to me, because no one who pled them seemed to feel much need to substantiate them.

Here again I feel like what were once centrifugal forces in our culture—between mainstream and the independent media, for example; between people in power and their critics, either in the media or at society’s margins—have collapsed into a single morass. We’re all in hell and there’s no way out.

In all this, what does Biden’s administration represent? Little more than an interregnum, to my mind. How disappointing to see not even a gesture toward forgiving student debt or raising the minimum wage in these first 100 days of his presidency. There’s been some progress in climate legislation, and progress in putting Stephen Miller’s deportation machine to a halt (though they’re also reopening several emergency shelters to accommodate more minors already being held past the mandated limits for keeping them in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Refugee Resettlement). But there’s also been such triangulation on policy by the administration and its supporters and such complacency on the part of the media covering the administration, refusing to call them out on or even cover this. And how can the average voter respond but with resignation?

Ever since I read Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus near the start of lockdown, absorbing the picture of the world pre-World War II that’s presented in that book, I’ve thought we’re in the same sort of moment that Mann’s protagonist Zeitblom was in. There’s a crisis that’s passing over this whole planet like a wave or a seismic event, and no human intervention can interrupt it. We can only wait for it to pass—holding on to whatever’s to hand, waiting to see what the world will look like when it’s over.

#adam curtis #documentaries #thomas mann #jordan peterson #richard dawkins #pankaj mishra #the relentless picnic #conspiracy

28 notes · View notes

reading-writing-revolution · 3 years ago

Text

Heather Cox Richardson

August 2, 2021 (Monday)

Today, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán posted on Facebook a photo of Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson visiting him. Carlson is broadcasting his television show from Hungary this week, before he speaks on Saturday at MCC Feszt, an event hosted by a government-sponsored university whose mission is to produce a conservative elite.

Hungary is a country in central Europe of about 10 million people who have, in the decade since Orbán took power for the second time, watched their democracy erode. On paper, Hungary is a democracy in that it still holds elections, but it is, in fact, a one-party state overseen by the prime minister.

Orbán has been open about his determination to overthrow the concept of western democracy, replacing it with what he has, on different occasions, called “illiberal democracy,” or “Christian democracy.” He wants to replace the multiculturalism at the heart of democracy with Christian culture, stop the immigration that he believes undermines Hungarian culture, and reject “adaptable family models” with “the Christian family model.”

No matter what he calls it, Orbán’s model is not democracy at all. As soon as he retook office in 2010, he began to establish control over the media, cracking down on those critical of his party, Fidesz, and rewarding those who toed the party line. In 2012, his supporters rewrote the country’s constitution to strengthen his hand, and extreme gerrymandering gave his party more power while changes to election rules benefited his campaigns. Increasingly, he used the power of the state to concentrate wealth among his cronies, and he reworked the country’s judicial system and civil service system to stack it with his loyalists. While Hungary still has elections, state control of the media and the apparatus of voting means that it is impossible for Orbán’s opponents to take power.

Trump supporters have long admired Orbán’s nationalism and centering of Christianity, while the fact that Hungary continues to have elections enables them to pretend that the country remains a democracy.

Currently, political patterns in America look much like those Orbán used to gather power into his own hands. Republican-dominated legislatures are passing new measures to suppress the vote, aided by the Big Lie that former president Trump did not lose the 2020 election. Trump and his supporters are focusing on the so-called “forensic audit” of Maricopa County in Arizona, paid for and conducted by Trump loyalists who insist that Trump actually won despite the repeated investigations that have proved the election was clean.

Today, a piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker revealed how the money for that audit is coming not from local protesters, but rather from “sophisticated, well-funded national organizations whose boards of directors include some of the country’s wealthiest and highest-profile conservatives.” Those organizations “have relentlessly promoted the myth that American elections are rife with fraud, and according to leaked records of their internal deliberations, they have drafted, supported, and in some cases taken credit for state laws that make it harder to vote.”

Mayer details how organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the anti-regulation FreedomWorks, and the Judicial Education Project (which is tied to Leonard Leo, a chair of the Federalist Society, which has worked since the 1980s to stack the courts with originalists) have turned from their previous advocacy to focus on voter suppression. These groups are bankrolled by Milwaukee’s Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, whose board member Cleta Mitchell was on Trump’s January 3, 2021, call to Georgia election officials.

In the Washington Post, Greg Sargent noted that the goal of these audits is to undermine Americans’ faith in elections altogether. Continued questioning of election results even after repeated recounts and verification makes any outcome seem untrustworthy. In such a case, a state legislature might argue it was justified either in “finding” enough votes to swing an election—as Trump tried to get Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to do in Georgia in 2020—or in throwing out the vote altogether and advancing its own slate of electors to the Electoral College.

Mayer points out that organizations funded by the Bradley Foundation are, indeed, talking about taking the choice of electors away from voters and giving it instead to state officials.

Carlson has shown support for Hungary in the past. Notably, in 2019, he endorsed that country’s anti-abortion and anti-immigration policies; in that year, according to investigative researcher Anna Massoglia of Open Secrets, Hungary paid a D.C. lobbying firm $265,000, in part to arrange an interview on Carlson’s show.

But for him to visit Orbán and to broadcast from Hungary right now, when American democracy is under the very sort of threat Orbán represents, seemed to me to be a deliberate demonstration of the Trump Republicans’ plans for our future.

6 notes · View notes

pudgecuddles · 3 years ago

Text

My Content & Boundaries

[No need to be alarmed! Nothing has happened to prompt this, I just figured it was about time that I pin a post like this.]

Welcome to my kink blog! This post is here to introduce myself, disclose what type of content that I may reblog or post here (including trigger warnings) and state my boundaries concerning who I want and don’t want interacting with me or my blog.

Intro:

Hi! I’m pudgecuddles! I’ve been here in the community as a lurker since 2018, and finally got around to making this sideblog about 2 years ago under the handle “prettypudgy”. I changed my username slightly after some twitter douchecanoes took screenshots of my content and made threads mocking it.

I am 24 years old and identify as female. Please use she/her pronouns when referring to me. I won’t be mad at all though if you use they/them or he/him, but I’ll probably just gently let you know what I prefer :)

I am aromantic/asexual, meaning that I do not experience romantic or sexual attraction to people of any gender identity or expression. I still experience aesthetic attraction, and of course enjoy the concept of weight gain as a kink.

Although I am participating in them, I am not looking for RP partners at the moment!

My Content and the Content I Reblog:

Although I do like fluffy and mild WG content (ya’ll who make that type of content are amazing and beautiful and deserve all the love and reblogs in the world), I do enjoy darker and less popular tropes/kinks as well. Up until recently the majority of the stuff I’ve reblogged has been cute and moderate, but I have been working on my own stories and RPs which happen to be on the more intense/darker side.

My content going forward may include topics such as:

Extreme Weight Gain Immobility Mind Break Pet/Pig Play BDSM Humiliation Manipulation Feminization Dub-Con Watersports Eproctophilia Slob Abusive Relationships (it’s not something I enjoy writing, but I may reblog it)

I will always tag specific topics and tropes that may not be for everyone such as immobility or fart kink stuff. And definitely triggering content such as dub-con or degradation. For example, I will tag it as “Immobility”, “cw Immobility” and “tw Immobility”, in case someone has only one tag blacklisted.

Please keep yourself safe! This community is supposed to be a comfortable, creative area where users can curate a homepage of content that matches thier tastes and respects their boundaries. I will not be offended at all if you decide to block me or my written/rendered content. All I ask is if you’re already an acquaintance or mutual of mine that you let me know before you do :) You don’t even need to tell me why, I just don’t want to wonder if I made you mad or were ignoring me on purpose.

Zero hard feelings, seriously! The block button is there to protect you!

Boundaries:

Please do not hit on me, or unexpectedly discus sexual topics without me knowing your age and instigating it. It is different if I already know you and am comfortable speaking with you like that.

Yes: Pudgecuddles: Wow that drawing is ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) You, 18+: Wanna see him get bigger? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

No: Pudgecuddles: Wow! I love your line work! It’s so clean and really compliment’s the shading! You, 18+: Wanna see him get bigger? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

No: Pudgecuddles: Wow! I love your line work! It’s so clean and really compliment’s the shading! You, 16: Wanna see him get bigger? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Yes: Pudgecuddles: Wow! I love your line work! It’s so clean and really compliment’s the shading! You, 16: Thank you so much! ^_^ What do you think about the shape of his hands?

Minors: If you do not have your age, (or at least an 18+ only, or “I am an adult!”) in your bio, I will either ask you for your age or choose not to interact directly with you. This is not a punishment or a personal vendetta. I just do not feel comfortable interacting directly with minors when it comes to NSFW kink content. I am okay with reblogging your content, as supporting those in the community that are still young and exploring their identities in a safe and distant way is very important to me. I am so happy for you that you have found a welcoming and protective space to safely explore your sexuality and discuss your favorite groups. It’s what I wish I had when I was younger.

But I ask that you don’t attempt to private message me or participate in conversations that are sexual in nature.

Bigotry: Do not interact with me, my blog or my content if you do not support all LGBTQ+ identities. This includes but is not limited to: Transgender folk, Bisexuals, Pansexuals, Polysexuals, Omnisexuals, Asexuals, Aromantics and Non-Binary/Agender peeps. TERFs, exclusionists and Battleaxe Bisexuals are not welcome and will be insta-blocked. Same with those that participate in “discourse” on these topics.

If you do not believe that Black Lives Matter or support Donald Trump or any conservative party, politician or policy, please unfollow and block me. They have killed thousands of people and actively lobby against minorities.

This is the only time that I will be political on this blog. I am infinitely more outspoken/advocating on my main, but this sideblog is supposed to be a stress-free, kinky escape from the horrors of reality. I go on my main to reblog petitions, I go on here to reblog erotica.

This does not mean that I do not care, or that I am not an ally or that I enable racists or transphobes. It just means that I recognize that sometimes people get burnt out from constantly being reminded of the policies that harm them, or acts of violence against their race. I want this blog to be an escape, for both myself and my followers.

Hate/Trolling: Hateful or negative comments on me or my friend’s content will get your account blocked. This ranges from “ew” to telling them to kill themselves. This behavior is not tolerable anywhere, and the more extreme comments will be reported to Tumblr staff. Comments saying our content is disgusting will automatically tell me you think it’s hot and are in denial. How very sad. I will dedicate my grossest story to you specifically.

Inter-Community Drama: Mob behavior, brigading, witch hunting, call out posts (vague or by name), vitriolic hate and bullying of any type is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable due to having experienced cyberbullying in the past. Making people deactivate, continuing to attack them after apologies and other related behavior will get you blocked no matter the quality of your content, your standing in the community or our relationship history.

I cannot deal with seeing that behavior and it scares me continuing to interact with those that I learn can so easily turn on their friends like that.

That’s All Folks!

#tw mention of abuse #tw mention of self-harm #tw drama #tw politics

11 notes · View notes

aronarchy · 9 months ago

Photo

The reality is that working class people of different races and ethnicities have more in common than they do with upper middle class and wealthy people of any race or ethnicity.

You don’t understand race. This argues a similar idea as this antiblack poster which keeps getting passed around:

Which only makes sense if you have an extremely limited understanding of the history of the construction of race/white supremacy and the history of labor struggles.

There are two sides to a “culture war,” right? So you’re implying that our side, the marginalized side targeted by the war the Republicans are waging on us, are also fighting somehow? But with what? What we're fighting for is self-defense. We don’t want to be oppressed, and our oppression is a constant which exists and already existed even before any particular conservative movement has been trying to “distract the public.” The “identity issues” are class issues too, and our oppression is inextricably linked to an exploited relationship to labor and capital. The “you” addressed in such statements is only ever the white working classes, the cishet men, the non-disabled, the non- abuse or SA survivors, etc. because you aren’t considering us as political subjects in our own right in the first place, or worth considering/including in dialogue or activism. Else you’d realize we have particular interests we are struggling for and these are not trivial or irrelevant to broader liberation struggles. We are trying to win general anti-capitalist/socialist reforms and protections, but bigots and reactionaries are hindering us.

Not all “culture warriors” are actually unaware of their position. Many do understand that they are being exploited under capitalism or at least that there is a class difference here and it could be a problem, but they actively choose not to do anything against it because they would rather uphold their relatively superior position to the underclasses, and feel that keeping the right to exploit and abuse them is worth remaining a worker beheld to the whims of the capitalists. This same discussion has been had regarding feminism: intersectional feminists have argued that many white, bourgeois, cishet women campaigning against abortion or divorce or anti-rape protections or voting for Trump aren’t necessarily doing so because they’re naïve dupes who think the leopards won't eat their faces too or that they’re personally entirely unendangered by misogyny, but because they would rather punch down and maintain a relative position of power over actually liberating people, including themselves; the guise of unawareness hides their complicity.

Fanon:

The originality of the colonial context is that economic reality, inequality, and the immense difference of ways of life never come to mask the human realities. When you examine at close quarters the colonial context, it is evident that what parcels out the world is to begin with the fact of belonging to or not belonging to a given race, a given species. In the colonies the economic substructure is also a superstructure. The cause is the consequence; you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich. This is why Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem.

Everything up to and including the very nature of precapitalist society, so well explained by Marx, must here be thought out again. The serf is in essence different from the knight, but a reference to divine right is necessary to legitimize this statutory difference. In the colonies, the foreigner coming from another country imposed his rule by means of guns and machines. In defiance of his successful transplantation, in spite of his appropriation, the settler still remains a foreigner. It is neither the act of owning factories, nor estates, nor a bank balance which distinguishes the governing classes. The governing race is first and foremost those who come from elsewhere, those who are unlike the original inhabitants, “the others.”

A crucial event in the production of white supremacy/the racial distinction between workers was the U.S./individual state governments taking away property from/dispossessing Black people and giving parts to poor whites and white workers and indentured servants. And passing laws defining Black slaves and white workers differently, diminishing the rights of the former, and in some cases improving the conditions of the latter. Many white working-class people accepted this distinction to elevate their own status. Labor unions tended to be white-dominated and often excluded Black workers and other workers of color, were racist, and/or worked to win themselves gains which workers of color were left behind from. White workers who rant about immigrants coming to steal their jobs need to view immigrants as their equals and equally deserving of rights if they are to make progress; you can't just try to explain to them that capitalists are the one exploiting them, they won’t understand it unless they can understand that the immigrants are being exploited by the capitalists under the same system too, are also people who can be exploited (else their logic about exploitation in general will falter).

Who caused the “divisionism” first? The capitalist classes and racist white workers, or the more marginalized? Why do white people get to ignore and paper over racial contradictions while non-white proletarians are relegated the responsibility of either putting up with it or solving the entire problem? “Color-blindness” is racist when the system is operating on a color line that cannot just be dismantled by pretending it doesn’t exist.

And what of the lumpenized underclass (especially unemployed, unemployable, and unhoused people, disabled people, runaway abused youth and criminalized sex workers forced to live on/through the streets, others forced to rely on performing insecure or criminalized/underground labor, etc.) and the Black people forced to work in conditions of slavery in the prison-industrial complex? They may be working too, but they lack the protections that even working-class people today have managed to achieve, and it is much more dangerous for them to try to negotiate or advocate for higher wages or social protections or safer housing or having to do less work; they experience punitive material violence much more quickly. How can you address their conditions without addressing the intersecting “identity-based” issues such as racism, queerphobia/transphobia, ableism, misogyny, adultism, etc. which are producing their particular underclassing?

There are some people of marginalized races and ethnicities who have managed to make it to near the top, become part of the bourgeoisie, and do the part of capitalist exploitation of the masses. But they are still affected by racism; they are still in a relatively oppressed position, and their wealth is much more precarious than that of the white bourgeoisie (compare to the Black Wall Street massacre, for example).

Rightwingers do hate us specifically. They want to limit education and pass “Don’t Say Gay” bills because their envisioned social order/authoritarian society is also specifically anti-queer. Do you think they’re pretending to be queerphobic as some sort of trick? Do you think they want to oppress children as a class and abuse them interpersonally and institutionally because it’s some sort of convenient way to carry out their goals solely targeted toward adults, or are they actually patriarchal to their core in their ideology? It’s supposed to be part of their platform, their platform was designed to carry that out; it’s not just there by accident!

If they could somehow maintain perfect security of their bourgeois position without any patriarchal or white supremacist oppression added, they wouldn’t want that; they would reject it as inadequate. “The oligarchs” cannot be abolished without also addressing racism, queerphobia, and other “culture war” issues you deem inconsequential.

If you want to read more arguments or learn more about this, I would recommend checking out @/theangryblackboy on Instagram; he makes very informative posts deconstructing fallacies like these.

“They got you fighting a culture war to stop you fighting a class war”

Sticker spotted in San Antonio, Texas

#queerphobia #racism #antiblackness #intersectionality #adultism

21K notes · View notes

odinsblog · 4 years ago

Text

yeah, i just cant get into any of the debates anymore

watching the dems “own” the republicans was a lot more fun when i believed that they would work to change things

sorry but i just dont have faith in either party. obviously i have never had “faith” in the gop, but the dems will do as little as humanly possible, and not one thing more than that (which is also a kind of evil - in a quiet, maintain the status quo kind of way), and republicans will continue being more openly evil

when the best that “our side” has to offer for two cycles in a row is “tough on crime” and “law & order” conservative dixiecratic candidates - even at the height of the blm movement - it leaves me tired of publicly rooting for “president status quo” and his running mate “vice president incremental”

hopefully trump will not win, but biden will not be better. he will simply be different. and by “different” i mean right back to “normal” and doing the same kind of quiet shit like making student loan debt permanent, fighting against reproductive rights, and being a cheerleader for the police & mass deportation/incarceration. like he has always done for the vast majority of his career

but the “liberal” media won’t harp on it as much and all those people who lie and say they will “push biden to the left AFTER the election” ain’t gonna do jack shit

i understand that people say, “no he’s changed since june of 2019” or whatever comfortable lie they need to believe, but ive seen people intentionally delude themselves in extremely dire times. people will ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe lies when reality gets shitty. and then they will get mad at anyone who doesn’t go happily along with their delusions

this shit is mad depressing. im just ready for the election to be over with

im a black man who is increasingly more and more concerned for the safety of me and my loved ones around law enforcement officers. im not rich and famous. i acknowledge that my fate will be no different whatsoever under either conservative running for office, as they will both support the police and a racist system

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

as always, my standard disclaimers: 1) this is not me telling anyone how to or not vote. 2) please spare me the trouble of blocking you if you feel overcome with the urge to regurgitate some bs about lesser evilism or harm reduction. those two boats sailed back in 2016 for me. the dnc does not give a single solitary shit about actually improving things. they seem to have more to gain by keeping social justice disputes ongoing, as opposed to actually solving them

so yelling “but trump is gonna do bad things” only makes me wonder: how is he gonna do all those bad things? by using the systems that joe biden was the architect of? by using them pre fucking cisely as biden intended for them to be used? is that how trump is gonna do the bad stuff??

anyway thats about how im feeling rn

if you are bothered by anything im saying here, please feel free to hit the unfollow or block buttons, but dont come here starting no shit okay? do you and i will keep on doing me

sn: trump and all his plague rat supporters can go off together somewhere and choke

#joe biden #kamala harris #donald trump #mike pence #politics #democratic debates #debate2020 #vice president debates

53 notes · View notes

politicaltheatre · 4 years ago

Text

A Perfect Storm

Wednesday, February 17th, 2021 was a big day in the history of so-called “conservative” America. It may not be a day they want to remember.

It started with the long overdue demolition of Donald Trump’s long since failed and abandoned Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as perfect an emblem of him and his presidency as could be found anywhere.

It was a poor investment paid for with other people’s money. Poorly run, it ran up huge debts and a seemingly endless list of unpaid contractors and vendors before finally going out of business, dragging down the economy around it and costing taxpayers millions. It leaves behind a pile of rubble, poor air quality, unpaid bills, bitter memories, and the utter lack of accountability that led to all of it.

Later that morning came news of the death of Rush Limbaugh, a talk radio “personality” who perfectly embodied everything toxic in our culture and everything corrupt in our politics. He was a bully - a bully’s bully, in fact - one who made a mountain of cash filling America’s airwaves with racist, sexist, fear mongering bile.

He succeeded for the same reason any bully succeeds: he appealed to short term thinking, offering people looking for an excuse not to have to be accountable to others an excuse and people looking for justification to hurt others that justification. In doing this, by offering victims to pick on and humiliate, he made people who felt bad about themselves laugh and maybe even forget why they felt so bad about themselves in the first place, the powerlessness and loneliness that we all feel when things have gone wrong.

Back in his formative years, his childish behavior might well have been waved away as “looking for attention”, “boys being boys”, or “locker room talk”, but those were just excuses, as much for those saying them as they would have been for him. It would have been easier that way, for them. The price paid for that is something so much worse, a full grown man not only acting like a spoiled, bullying child but preaching it as a virtue, as what it is to be a man.

The one thing to understand about Limbaugh is that he loved it. He loved it. He knew what he was doing and he knew that his actions hurt people. He loved the sense of power that hurting people gave him. He loved that he could do that and get away with it and make millions. And, god, did he love that so many people loved him for it. He loved every minute of it and he was a monster.

He may be gone, but like Trump’s boondoggle in Atlantic City his effect on our lives will long outlive him, and in the long term it will cost those who placed their faith in him as much as it cost everyone he scapegoated on his way to the bank.

The afternoon of the 17th brought more, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott joining right wing scapegoaters filling Limbaugh’s sizable void by blaming statewide blackouts on “frozen wind turbines” and the Green New Deal.

As anyone living in Texas knows, or should, the Texas power grid isn’t connected to the rest of the country and isn’t part of any Green New Deal. As Abbott’s own Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) helpfully pointed out, the loss of wind and solar power during the rare winter storm only accounted for about 13% of the lost power.

If a 13% loss of power is enough to blackout an entire state, that state is run by morons.

Abbott and one or two of his immediate predecessors notwithstanding, Texas isn’t run by morons. They have, however, made decades of mistakes that led to the problems they’re facing right now, from a failure to anticipate or prepare for winter storms, including insulating natural gas supplies and distribution, to the loss of power feeding gas and oil pumps, to Texas’ incompatibility with neighboring states’ power grids, to a culture in the state of corporate deregulation and lack of accountability going back well past the Enron scandal.

Abbott doesn’t want anyone talking about any of that, or the Enron-like price gouging now imported back home for use on Texans. Nor does his and Trump’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, whose praise of the dead Limbaugh betrays his all too recent, post-Trump public rehabilitation. These failures date back to Bush’s tenure in Texas and before. This was very much a crisis waiting to happen.

What makes it worse is that the warnings were there all along, from previous winter storms to decades of climate scientists making rational arguments none of those listening to the Trumps, Limbaughs, and Abbotts of this world want to hear. They want easy answers, and what’s easier than it being somebody else’s fault, somebody trying to tell people how to live their lives, somebody telling them they have to be accountable for their own mistakes.

Right now, as millions suffer through bitter cold without drinkable water either because their pipes burst or the utilities shut down output to try to prevent more damage, they’re all looking for somebody to fix it. If somebody else could pay for it, as well as those Shock Doctrine $17,000 energy bills, they would be very happy. In the absence of that, their short term thinking will gladly accept Abbott and friends’ scapegoating.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The good news is that a lot of Texans think Abbott’s claims were just as stupid as the rest of America did. The bad news is that Abbott’s performance was played as much for out of state audiences as his own. Knowing how he could do very little for Texans, and thinking about his own needs, Abbott played for a friendlier audience that might help him with his own future prospects out of office, which will come sooner than later.

Texas will recover, just as we all will from the pandemic, battered, exhausted, and hopefully with an understanding of what they need to change to make sure they don’t go through that again. Mistakes don’t have to be bad. They don’t have to fill us with shame. We can learn. We do. In truth, making mistakes is how our species has learned most of what now keeps us alive, and we’ll go on making more.

The Republican Party doesn’t look like it will learn those same lessons, at least, not easily and not any time soon. It is suffering its own perfect storm: personalities overwhelming reason and emotional maturity; decades of deregulation and failures to hold corporations accountable have left Americans paying for them both literally and figuratively; and a growing number of Americans are realizing, at long last, that a party representing the extremes of selfish behavior cannot and should not represent them.

Which brings us to last Wednesday’s final event, which was Texas Senator Ted Cruz flying his family to a luxury vacation in warm and sunny Cancun while many of his constituents suffered, froze, and died.

The memes may make us feel a little better for how little we know we can do for Texans right now, but they also point to a deep, systemic problem in both this country and the present day Republican Party, both of which Ted Cruz sadly represents. Like Trump, Limbaugh, Abbott, and the right wing social media industries they have fed with lies and scapegoating, Cruz is aggressively selfish, an extremist cloaked behind a term that hasn’t represented the Republican Party in generations: “conservative”.

To be conservative, properly conservative, is to be cautious. It is to avoid going too far, too fast in any direction. It is to protect what exists, and not merely because it represents where we came from but because we should not go forward blindly abandoning the safety of our society for the benefit of a few. This is important to us, as important as the ability to make and learn from mistakes, because it is part of the same process.

This Wednesday, February 24th, 2021, with Texas still struggling to recover from its literal and figurative storms, and the country having passed 500,000 mostly avoidable, confirmed deaths from Covid-19, the America Conservative Union will hold its annual conference, CPAC. Like its star attraction, Donald Trump, and those, like Abbott and Cruz, seeking its attendees’ approval, donations, and votes, it is “conservative” in name only.

If you tune in, you’ll hear a lot of speakers at CPAC eulogizing Rush Limbaugh for “popularizing conservative values”, for literally giving them a voice, but the values he preached and profited from were anything but conservative, not in any meaning of the word.

The themes of the conference will be those pushed by Rush Limbaugh in his life right up through those last, failing months: that the perfect world is one in which you need not be accountable to anyone but everyone must still be accountable to you; that the values that make America great, such as creating and exploiting imbalances of power and not having to give a damn about people weak enough to be struggling to survive a winter storm, should be shared openly and loudly and without shame; and that those beliefs are a god-given right that should be protected by any means, including violence, because to win is to be in a constant state of war.

You won’t hear talk of failure in any of these speeches, not of the failures in Texas, not of the failures in the White House or in Congress, not of failures in Covid deaths, not of failures that led to the attack on the Capitol and its police, and certainly not of failures in the 2020 election. That, you will be reminded again and again and again, was stolen.

The closest they’ll get to it is talk of disloyalty and the scapegoating of representatives and senators who voted for Trump’s impeachment and conviction. Don’t worry, the hypocrisy of people decrying “cancel culture” urging people to cancel people disloyal to Trump will be completely lost on them.

That would be denial blending with bargaining and anger, cycling through them again and again and again. Like a movie studio, they will attempt to repeat the success of their surprise hit without understanding why it actually succeeded, going for the big and loud bits, with failure after failure after failure only making them try harder the same way. They can’t learn if they can’t see the mistake.

No, the great irony of failure is how it can often stem from success. The right wing has succeeded over the past half century in pulling this country into its toxic, increasingly unsustainable world view.

Industries that once held memories of the dangers of instability and speculation now once again function around denying those dangers. Politicians who courted fascism and white supremacists were once shamed and ostracized by those who remembered fighting against them, but now they flaunt their support openly because those have become their most rabid fans and campaign donors. Fear mongers and grifters, once expelled for their crimes to wander the political wilderness, have now won so many elections under the Republican banner that it’s hard to remember when they weren’t its brand.

Is this merely a return to form? A week ago, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, some who have left the party and some who keep threatening to, got together to discuss the possibility of starting a rival party for disaffected political moderates. Don’t hold your breath.

This isn’t a new discussion. They come back every few years to blow off steam and then do nothing. This time, they seemed more concerned with coming up with a good party name than anything else. Perhaps they’re waiting for more than a few thousand voters to leave the Republican Party to make theirs viable. They can’t count on Democrats leaving theirs, not when they’ve finally gotten Congress back and with such narrow margins. Such are the calculations of these honor-bound political moderates.

If they have any intention of reclaiming the Republican Party of their youth, they’ll have to start by trying to reclaim that word, “conservative”. To do that, they’ll have to acknowledge their complicity in allowing the right wing to gain so much power and influence in our country. They’ll also have to rid themselves of grifters and abusers of power, because to be properly conservative you must be neither.

Again, that’s unlikely. More likely is that they, like someone who has literally just lost power on a cold, winter night, will try to deny their newfound lack of power by finding someone else to blame, choosing to live in the fantasy of overcoming that scapegoat rather than the reality they face.

That’s certainly what Trump and Limbaugh’s fanbase at CPAC will be doing, huddled together in their auditorium, proudly not wearing masks, sharing crackpot conspiracy theories, and making fun of the same “liberal elites” and “socialists” now raising money and gathering supplies for the people of Texas.

And why not? It’s worked for them for years.

- Daniel Ward

15 notes · View notes

songtoyou · 4 years ago

Text

Mr. Evans and the Congresswoman - Part 2

Paring: Chris Evans x Politician Reader

Rating: PG

Word Count: 1,858

Warnings: Political topics such as Biden, Harris, our current White House occupant and the current administration.

Description: It is the week of the DNC and Chris is once again interviewing you for A Starting Point.

A/N: The DNC inspired me to write a second part for this story. This is pure fiction as I do not know what Chris believes when it comes to politics and policy issues. This is a complete work of fiction.

I do not permit my work to be to be posted on any other site without my permission.

Note: Updated for grammar and punctuation edits.

"Hi, Congresswoman Y/L/N?" Chris Evans asked with a smile.

He was once again interviewing you for ASP. This time it was during the week of the Democratic National Convention. Chris and Mark had already talked to other politicians such as Senator Cory Booker and Representatives Ro Khanna and Alma Adams. You were the last elected official he was slated to interview to wrap up the DNC week.

Truthfully, Chris was happy to get the chance to talk with you again. Your previous interview for ASP was such a hit that it garnered a lot of attention from fans and the media. However, it was not because you helped bring more legitimacy and attention for ASP, but instead, Chris found himself genuinely admiring you.

"Hi," you said to Chris, giving a small wave through the Zoom screen. "I told you to call me by my first name."

"I know, but I still want to show respect," Chris responded with a teasing smile. Was he mildly flirting with the congresswoman? Yes, but he had no shame in doing so. "How are you? You are looking well."

"I am doing well. Thank you. How about you?"

"Same. Just trying to stay sane through everything. I'm actually currently in London. Working on a project." Chris admitted.

"Uh oh. You better be staying safe and following the right procedures and protocols," you lightly reprimanded him.

"My fans ratted me out. They found where I was just by the hotel door. Can you believe that? That is some FBI-level investigating, right there. I'd be impressed if I weren't also terrified of the lengths some of these fans will go to scout my location," Chris ranted. He did not understand why he was sharing this with you, but a part of him felt comfortable doing so.

"That…is quite impressive, I must say. Creepy. Scary. But impressive. You need to learn how to put in a Zoom background. It would solve all of your problems," you suggested to him.

"I would, but I'm technology deficient. Maybe I should look up some Zoom tutorials on how to do it. Give it a try."

"There is no try…only do," you advised cheekily.

"Now you're quoting Yoda. A woman after my own heart," Chris replied. He knew he needed to refocus. "So, as you can tell, Mark won't be joining us for this interview. I'm going to hit record if that is okay?"

"Okay. I'm ready when you are," you said.

When the record notification appeared on screen, Chris introduced you and immediately went into the first question.

"How do you think the DNC is going so far, particularly how this year is more of a virtual setting rather than in-person due to COVID-19?"

"Despite not having the big in-person celebration/gathering, I think the virtual setting is working very well. Better than I expected, actually. It gives off a more inclusive and intimate vibe to the DNC that we haven't felt before. I like the whole documentary approach and feel to it," you replied honestly.

"Were you excited that Joe Biden chose Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate?" asked Chris.

"Oh my God! I was so happy that Vice President Biden chose Senator Harris as his running mate. Like, my staff and I were beyond ecstatic. There is no one better to be Biden's running mate than Harris. She is amazing. Such an inspiration. I'm not going to lie, but I'm really excited for the debate between her and Pence."

That made Chris laugh. "Yeah, me too. Senator Harris really knows how to pull all the punches. Her nomination as VP has been met with overall positive response. The Trump Administration and Republican pundits appear to have a hard time painting a negative image of Harris. Why do you think Trump and Fox News are struggling to provide a negative image for her?"

"That is an excellent question. The public's overwhelming response to Harris' nomination is because 1.) she is the first black and south Asian woman to be on a major presidential ticket, and 2.) she is likable and charming. She has this exuberant energy that attracts people to her. You know, black and brown women and girls finally have someone that looks like them running for the second-highest office in the land. That is huge!

"I also have to wonder if people have smartened up in the last four years and won't tolerate the…hypocrisy, sexism, and misogyny…in this case misogynoir that is thrown towards Senator Harris from the media, political pundits, social media bots, etc. So, what we are seeing with Trump and Fox News struggling to attack her is because…well…they just aren't smart. All we have seen from Trump in his attacks against her is that she was mean to Kavanaugh when questioning him during his nomination process. But none of what Trump says holds up because we all know that smart, confident women intimidate him," you finished off your point.

"There is also the left…or more of the progressive left who are unhappy with Biden choosing Harris," Chris spoke up and continued, "They say she is a cop and put people away for weed. That she took kids away from parents when the kid didn't show up for school. That Harris is too conservative. What do you say to that?"

"All of that is…you know…. Senator Harris one of the most policy progressive senators we have. Her voting record is more progressive than Bernie Sanders. All people have to do is research her time as a district attorney and Attorney General for California to find out what she actually did concerning policy. But as we both know, people nowadays don't know how to critically think, which scares me. Progressives need to look at the overall big picture. This election in November is crucial. We are in the fight for our democracy, for our country, and for our lives…literally."

"I talk with my brother, Scott, all the time about certain political issues," mentioned Chris. "He is a tad more progressive than I am. I can admit that I tend to be more centrist. The district you represent is a mix of blue and red areas; how do you balance opposing views from your constituents?"

You took in a deep breath before you answered. That was a loaded question. Representing a district that was not solely red, or blue could be difficult from time to time. You wanted to be respectful of the different viewpoints from constituents, but maintaining a neutral balance was hard and frustrating at times.

"The majority of Americans are centrist/moderates. You need a balance of both liberal and conservative policies. Bipartisanship is crucially important when developing and passing laws. We are currently seeing an overt of one-sidedness while sabotaging the other side, which is detrimental to our country's growth. It is important to reach across the aisle to talk with those who may have opposing views than you. At the end of the day, people just want to feel that their concerns are heard and valued. We all want to feel that way. So, as an elected official, I make sure to take the time to talk with those in rural areas, along with urban areas, about their issues and concerns," you shared.

"Do you ever get any pushback from Trump supporters in the red areas?" Chris inquired.

"Well, it is important to note that not all residents in rural areas are Trump supporters. They just tend to keep that to themselves. I have actually talked to Trump supporters in blue areas. We can never and should never assume that one area has this type of person and vice versa. I learned that the hard way when I was campaigning for city council early in my career," you revealed to Chris with a small chuckle. "But overall, my constituents will talk with me and have been respectful. Some of the concerns that have been shared with me do fall under the QAnon conspiracy theories, which do disturb me, I'll be honest. Um…when being confronted with someone who has that extreme of ideals, it is important to remain calm and not to come off combative. Meaning that I have to remind myself that I am not quite dealing with a rational person. The only thing that I can do is calmly talk to the person and respond back with facts. Either they listen or brush me off and call me a radical lefty."

"The majority of people are good, like you said," Chris reminded you.

"That's right. It's a good mantra to live by. I think the American people are tired and have been tired for the past four years with this Administration. We need a sense of normalcy and decency. Compassion and empathy, which were two of the big themes during the DNC. This week was a nice reminder that we, as a country, can have that again."

"I agree. Very well said. You always end on a positive. I appreciate that. Thank you, Congresswoman Y/L/N, for taking the time to talk with me. You always provide great insight into the world of politics and your experience as an elected official," said Chris and ended the recording. "That was really great, Y/N. I know Mark, and I really appreciate you taken the time to do these interviews for ASP," Chris added.

"Oh, it is no problem. Like I said before, I like what you both are doing with the site. Are you happy with how everything turned out?" you asked him.

"Yeah… it's…it took a while to just get the website up and running. I know there is still work that needs to be done. Some areas need to be fixed, but with a project like this, we can adjust. There is more room for improvement and growth," Chris communicated to you.

You nodded in agreement. "Politics is a whole different ballgame. Not many people are willing to venture into the field. It can cause a lot of annoyances and headaches. So, hats off to you, my friend," you said, giving Chris a salute.

"Thank you. Well, I better let you go. I know you must have a million things on your plate."

"Ah yes, I have to go and save the United States Postal Service from corruption. Talk to you later, Chris. Take care," you waved goodbye and signed off.

Chris had to admit, he was in awe of you. There was something about you that fascinated him. None of the elected officials he and Mark talked to for ASP had the liveliness you had. You were not jaded or defeated by the system, at least not yet, since you were still considered a junior member of congress. Chris hoped that the energy and enthusiasm you had for politics and helping people would not diminish. When his Uncle Mike was still a congressman, he shared with Chris that D.C. can cause a lot of strain on a person's values and beliefs. "I have seen too many of my colleagues succumb to the pressures of dirty politics," Uncle Mike once said.

Chris just hoped that you would not succumb to those pressures.

#chris evans #chris evans x reader #chris evans x you

68 notes · View notes