#our government is the definition of pompous ass

[gay-vampire-with-a-violin]

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

Im Australian and I want to start by saying that our own political system is by no means perfect in fact far from it so this isn’t coming from a place of “we are better” but I’ve noticed a key difference and just interested in your point of view. From the outside in it seems like most Americans idolise your President like really put a lot of faith in them and view them as a saviour almost? Which seems insane because America is a big ass country and soooo complex with soooo many states and walks of life and to put it all on one person seems crazy. I look at Trump and Kamala and wouldn’t trust either of them so would never idolise or put all of my hopes and dreams in their hands. It also seems so divided like blue vs red and no in between. Over here we definitely have different parties and beliefs and policies but we kind of view the government and our leadership as working for or with us like, we are all in it together you know? Obviously not all of the time for example a big stuff up by the Victorian leader during Covid and what happened there. But we look at them as normal ass people who are (hopefully) trying to help us. The US Presidents are like big celebs who are untouchable and seems impossible to get close to or relate to, yet people absolute worship them. Why do you think that is? Please understand I’m not having a go or trying to offend. 🫶🏻

you’re not offensive at all! i would hope people can understand that there are some fundamental differences as to how politics are handled and viewed across countries. and yes, i do understand where you’re coming from, and i actually believe this is precisely why donald trump is president. i’m putting my rant/explanation under a page break because it’s long lol

the american people have, at least in modern times, frequently assessed a candidate’s electability based on the average person’s likelihood of wanting to “have a beer” with them. relatability to the average joe has been a huge metric in american politics, to the point that candidates who are incredibly out of touch get caught in “gotcha” moments trying to seem regular when they are clearly unable to relate to any middle class or impoverished person. donald trump is a mega-wealthy, pompous asshole who has had everything handed to him, but he speaks in a way directly to the american people that appeals to working class americans who sadly are on his communication level. there is a reason he has said he “loves the poorly educated”. there’s a huge identity crisis happening in american politics right now; democrats are not appealing to working class, blue-collar workers the way they are supposed to, considering a primary liberal value is supposed to be uplifting the poor and middle class, protecting union workers, etc. there is no reason poor people in midwestern states should be shifting to donald trump, except democrats have fucked up their messaging and started to hang their hats on trying to control people socially and police/cancel/disappear anyone with dissenting opinion, which has polarized and radicalized folks who were otherwise moderate or even once considered progressive. a great example of this is PA senator john fetterman who outright stated he no longer considers himself such, and it’s because progressives have moved the goal post too far for many average folks whose motivations don’t center around identity politics.

whether my counterparts can accept and admit it or not, america has fully rejected this at every level with this election; donald trump has won the popular vote decidedly. vast majority of people don’t want to argue about pronouns and men in women’s sports or burning flags/shouting death to america at protests, they want someone to help them get ahead and be able to pay their rent/mortgage, buy groceries, be able to afford to visit their doctor and enjoy literally any luxuries beyond just surviving. the average american is not politically engaged enough to do a deep dive on why trump is never going to do that, they just know that it isn’t happening under the current administration and they’re angry and desperate. to the average american, the optics are that trump represents the every man who cannot articulate all that well, is a bit crass and uncouth, and is laughed at by liberal elites who want to cancel them for saying something they perhaps didn’t even realize was offensive. and this country is not ready for a woman president, much less a black one. sadly we have a long, long way to go. i sincerely hope the party i support gets their shit together so this country has a chance to move forward from this chapter, eventually.

[tindez]

In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.” [...] I found Romney filled with what seemed like righteous indignation about the president’s misconduct—quoting hymns and scripture, expressing dismay at his party, and bracing for the political backlash. [...] “I get that a lot—‘Be with the president,’” Romney told me, sounding slightly perplexed. “And I’ll say, ‘Regardless of his point of view? Regardless of the issue?’ And they say yes. And … it’s like, ‘Well, no, I can’t do that.’”

While I disagree with Mitt Romney on many things, I find it heartening to see a Republican who definitely thought this through and stuck to his convictions. Country over party! Kudos to him and to Utah.

So, I’m sharing this with y’all. Stay optimistic! Sometimes those we disagree with can still get work done alongside us.

(full article under the cut for those without access to The Atlantic)

POLITICS How Mitt Romney Decided Trump Is Guilty Comparing the president’s behavior to that of an autocrat, the Republican senator explains to The Atlantic why he’s voting to convict him. MCKAY COPPINS 2:03 PM ET Mitt Romney didn’t want to go through with it. “This has been the most difficult decision I have ever had to make in my life,” he told me yesterday afternoon in his Senate office. Roughly 24 hours later, Romney would deliver a speech announcing that he was voting to convict President Donald Trump on the first article of impeachment—abuse of power. For weeks, the senator from Utah had sat silently in the impeachment trial alongside his 99 colleagues, reviewing the evidence at night and praying for guidance. The gravity of the moment weighed on him, as did the pressure from members of his own party to acquit their leader. As his conscience tugged at him, he said, the exercise took on a spiritual dimension. Romney, a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, described to me the power of taking an oath before God: “It’s something which I take very seriously.” Throughout the trial, he said, he was guided by his father’s favorite verse of Mormon scripture: Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good. “I have gone through a process of very thorough analysis and searching, and I have prayed through this process,” he told me. “But I don’t pretend that God told me what to do.” In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.” According to Romney’s interpretation of Alexander Hamilton’s treatise on impeachment in “Federalist No. 65”—which he says he’s read “multiple, multiple times”—Trump’s attempts to enlist the Ukrainian president in interfering with the 2020 election clearly rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” (He told me he would not vote to convict on the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.) Romney’s vote will do little to reorient the political landscape. The president’s acquittal has been all but certain for weeks, as Republicans have circled the wagons to protect Trump. But the Utahan’s sharp indictment ensures that at least one dissenting voice from within the president’s party will be on the record—and Romney seems to believe history will vindicate his decision. He also knows his vote will likely make him a pariah on the right. Already, he says, he’s experienced firsthand the ire of the base. At an airport recently, a stranger yelled at him, “You ought to be ashamed!” During a trip to Florida with his wife this past weekend, someone shouted “Traitor!” from a car window. Eight years ago, he was the leader of the Republican Party, its nominee for president. Today, he has become accustomed to a kind of political loneliness. Romney famously opposed Trump’s candidacy in 2016, and while the rest of his party has fallen in line since then, he has remained stubbornly independent—infuriating Trump, who routinely derides him in public as a “pompous ass” and worse. As I wrote last year, this dynamic seems to have liberated the senator in a way that’s unlike anything he has experienced in his political career. Still, when the senator invited me to his Capitol Hill office yesterday, I was unsure what he would reveal. Romney had been largely silent throughout the impeachment proceedings, giving little indication of which way he was leaning. I half-expected to find a cowed and calculating politician ready with a list of excuses for caving. (His staff granted the interview on the condition that it would be embargoed until he took to the Senate floor.) Instead, I found Romney filled with what seemed like righteous indignation about the president’s misconduct—quoting hymns and scripture, expressing dismay at his party, and bracing for the political backlash. Romney confessed that he’d spent much of the impeachment trial hoping a way out would present itself: “I did not want to get here.” In fact, that was part of the reason he wanted former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify about what Trump had told him. “I had the hope that he would be able to say something exculpatory and create reasonable doubt, so I wouldn't have to vote to convict,” Romney said. Still, he found the case presented by the president’s defense team unpersuasive. Romney had a hard time believing, for example, that Trump had been acting out of a desire to crack down on corruption when he tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Bidens’ alleged conflicts of interest may have been “ugly,” Romney said, but it was never established that they warranted a criminal investigation. “No crime was alleged by the defense, and yet the president went to an extreme level to investigate these two people … and for what purpose?” The only motive that made sense, he determined, was a political one. Romney was similarly unmoved by the Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz’s contention that a president who believes his reelection is in the national interest can’t be impeached for pursuing a political advantage. “I had Professor Dershowitz for criminal law in law school,” Romney said, “and he was known to occasionally take his argument to its illogical conclusion.” Nor was the senator swayed by the theory that a president can be impeached only for breaking a statutory law. “To use an old Mormon hymn phrase, that makes reason stare,” he said. “The idea that Congress would have to anticipate all of the offensive things a president could possibly do, and then make them a statute?” Romney posed a hypothetical: What if the president decided to pardon every Republican in prison nationwide, while leaving every Democrat locked up? “There’s no law against that!” he said. “So it’s not a crime or misdemeanor. But it’s obviously absurd.” When I asked Romney why none of his fellow Republicans had reached the same conclusion, he attempted diplomacy. “I’m not going to try and determine the thinking or motives of my colleagues,” he said. “I think it’s a mistake for any senator to try and get in the head of another senator and judge them.” But as he discussed the various rationalizations put forth by other Republican senators, he seemed to grow exasperated. He took particular issue with the idea—currently quite trendy in his caucus—that Trump’s fate should be decided at the ballot box, not in the Senate. “I would have liked to have abdicated my responsibility as I understood it under the Constitution and under the writing of the Founders by saying, ‘Let’s leave this to the voters.’” But, he said, “I’m subject to my own conscience.” When I asked how it felt to be formally disinvited from this month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, he laughed and noted that he hadn’t attended the conference since 2013. But it seems clear that his journey from GOP standard-bearer to party supervillain has been jarring. “I was under the misimpression that what brought Republican voters together was conviction in a certain number of policy points of view,” Romney said. He recalled a political strategist during one of his early campaigns explaining how to court the three main factions of the GOP coalition—social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks. Much of Romney’s career since then has been spent trying to win over ideological purists on the right. In 2012, he said, some Tea Party activists refused to support him, because he didn’t have a plan to balance the federal budget within a single year. Now the conservative movement is ruled by a president who routinely makes a mockery of such litmus tests. Deficit reduction? “There’s no purchase for that,” Romney said. Foreign policy? “The letters with Kim Jong Un didn’t seem to frighten people away … The meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House right after the election didn’t seem to bother people.” Somehow, Romney said, he is the one constantly being told that he needs to “be with the president.” “I get that a lot—‘Be with the president,’” Romney told me, sounding slightly perplexed. “And I’ll say, ‘Regardless of his point of view? Regardless of the issue?’ And they say yes. And … it’s like, ‘Well, no, I can’t do that.’” For now, Romney said, he is bracing for an uncertain political future. He said he can’t predict whether Trump will emerge from the impeachment battle emboldened or constrained, but he doubts the experience has shaken him: “I think what’s fair to say about the president is that he doesn’t change his ways a lot.” Nor is he expecting that their relationship will be easily repaired. (“We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it,” he joked.) Romney acknowledged that his vote to convict may hamper his own ability to legislate, at least for a while. “I don’t know how long the blowback might exist or how strenuous it might be, but I’m anticipating a long time and a very strong response.” Though he said he won’t make an endorsement in this year’s presidential election, Romney was clear that he will not cast a ballot for Trump. But, he said, “under no circumstances would I vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to become president of the United States.” In 2016, he wrote in his wife’s name, and he told me, “She’ll probably get [a] second vote.” For months, Romney’s detractors on both the right and the left have searched for an ulterior motive to his maneuvering, convinced that a secret cynicism lurked beneath his lofty appeals to conscience and principle. Just last week, the Washington Examiner ran a story speculating that the senator might be positioning himself for a presidential run in 2024. When I asked Romney about the report, he erupted in laughter. “Yes! That’s it! They caught me!” he proclaimed. “Look at the base I have! It’s going to be at least 2 or 3 percent of the Republican Party. As goes Utah, so goes the nation!” The truth is that Romney’s decisive break with Trump could end up hurting him even in Utah, a red state where the president is uncommonly unpopular. What that means for his reelection prospects, the senator couldn’t say. (He doesn’t have to face voters again until 2024.) But as he thought about it, another hymn came to mind. “Do what is right; let the consequence follow,” he recited. “And I don’t know what all the consequences will be.” We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com. MCKAY COPPINS is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of The Wilderness, a book about the battle over the future of the Republican Party.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

The Shape of Water review

Last year saw the release of an utter travesty of filmmaking: Beauty and the Beast. It is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life; it lacked everything that made the original Disney film great. The side characters were all dull, Gaston was a fucking bore, the Beast was a bland CGI furry, and Emma Watson as Belle gave the most lifeless, miserable, atrocious performance of her entire career. And it sucks, because we DESERVE a good Beauty and the Beast film, we deserve a love story where the monster is more human than the human suitor, with sympathetic characters and an interesting antagonist… and visionary genius and absolute madman Guillermo del Toro gave us just that, with the Shape of Water, a film that is easily one of the greatest love stories ever told.

This film has been memed to Hell and back, what with the basic premise – a woman bones a fishman – being particularly amusing to the internet for obvious reasons. But to the shock of absolutely no one, the film is so much deeper than the sex – in fact, you don’t even get to see the sex, and I’ll get into why later in the review. For now, let’s start with a plot summary:

It’s the early 60s, and the Cold War is at its peak. Elisa Esposito is a mute janitor working at a government lab with her black BFF Zelda. One day, she discovers a creature being held at the government lab that the superiors are calling “The Asset.” An amphibious fishman from the Amazon, she finds herself intrigued by this being and soon finds herself befriending it. Not long after, the government plans to vivisect the creature, but Elisa ain’t having any of that shit, and so with her old man artist friend Giles plots to get the Asset free. But all this is easier said than done… can they free the Asset, or is the man running the show, Richard Strickland, going to catch on?

I’m gonna be doing a lot of comparing and contrasting to Beauty and the Beast, because these films do follow the same sort of basic structure and have a lot of the same archetypical characters and themes, such as “the real monsters are prejudiced humans” and “strong female who feels alienated from her society.” The latter is particularly relevant here, and not just for Elisa; del Toro has stated that the movie is meant to reflect on how he feels as an immigrant in America, and the feelings of isolation and being an outsider are major parts for every single one of the film’s sympathetic characters. Elisa is a mute, as is the Asset (though the Asset is also, you know, an Amazonian fishman); Zelda is a black woman in the early 60s; Giles is an elderly gay man; and Dimitri is a communist scientist undercover at the government facility. Unlike in Beauty and the Beast, which has such a dull and unappealing supporting cast (save for Lefou), this movie’s supporting cast all have deep stories to them that are intricately woven into their characterization and reflect some of the core themes of the film. It really is impressive when a character who is a proud communist is sympathetic, likable, and heroic; Dimitri is to this movie what Stronheim is to Battle Tendency, to put it in the most bizarre way possible. Every single actor does a fantastic job, and it’s pretty easy to believe any of these characters could be a person’s favorite of the film.

But what is a Beauty and the Beast story without a Gaston? I hated the Gaston in the Disney remake, as he was a bland, unappealing, and uncharismatic waste of a good actor. None of that is a problem here; Michael Shannon (who you may know best as General Zod from Man of Steel) is playing Strickland, and it is just as fantastic a performance as the rest of the cast. He’s arrogant, pompous, and honestly kind of disgusting – even before his fingers start rotting he pisses all over the bathroom floor because he doesn’t hold his dick when he pees, and then he doesn’t wash his hands, oh and he’s also racist, prejudiced, and harasses Elisa – but he’s also the poster child for idyllic 60s life. He has a home with a wife, two kids, he buys himself a fancy new car… unlike our heroes, Strickland’s life is picture perfect, like the families in old timey ads. This is a stark contrast to the less perfect lives our heroes lead, but it is an important part of the film, as it showcases that true humanity doesn’t simply come from fitting the mold of the what people think humanity is, it is who we are when no one is looking, who we are when we are in a bad spot and help others, who we are when we are truly selfless. Strickland is not selfless; in fact, he is an utter bastard. And yet for all the world he seems nothing but your normal perfect white 60s husband, while the heroes are a ragtag assembly of the sort of people who would be most shunned in that time period.

Of course, one of the most essential parts of this sort of story is the leads themselves; Beauty and the Beast had a lifeless CGI doll that drifted into the uncanny valley every other shot as the leading man, and Emma Watson giving one of the blandest, most lifeless performances this side of Jennifer Lawrence in an X-Men movie as our leading lady. Needless to say, they fucking blew. But here, HERE we have Elisa and the Asset, two very unconventional leads. You’d think a character being mute would be a huge hindrance, but as movies like The Little Mermaid show, you can be strong and interesting even without a voice, and Elisa is definitely both of those things. She is so expressive even when not using her sign language, you can always get a really good feel for what’s on her mind at any time, and actress Sally Hawkins just really nails it, especially in a ll her interactions with the Asset. And the Asset himself, played by Doug Jones, is perhaps the greatest leading man in romantic history. Leave it to a master like Doug Jones to truly sell you that this massive walking fish creature is the perfect romantic lead. Frankly, I’m a bit miffed he didn’t get an Oscar nomination for this performance, because despite not speaking and despite being an amphibious beast, he really delivers a compelling performance, above and beyond what you’d expect. And as you would expect of any del Toro monster, the Asset is gorgeously designed and really appealing to look at despite being a big fish creature. And guess what? Unlike the Beast, the Asset utilizes a lot of practical effects and isn’t just a nonstop CGI dummy the whole film!

It’s interesting to note that the actual romance and the infamous fishman sex do not occur earlier in the film; it happens more towards the midway/final third of the film. But this is a good thing, because it does give us proper buildup and leads to the attraction feeling natural rather than forced and rushed. You see the two build a connection with each other, these two outsiders no one else truly understands connecting with each other because, in their eyes, the other is not the flawed, broken being that others see them as. To each other, they are perfect. And this leads me into talking about the sex scene, and why we don’t see it: we don’t see it, because doing so would turn something beautiful into nothing but cheap titillation. Let me explain further: the only sex we see in the film is the awkward, bland, missionary position sex between Strickland and his shiny, idyllic housewife. During sex he shoves his bleeding fingers in his wife’s mouth as she moans in pleasure so he can shut her up and imagine Elisa. The sex is awkward, uncomfortable, and almost disturbing to watch. There’s no passion, no love, there’s nothing there. It’s basically a million other sex scenes in a million other movies. The love between Elisa and the Asset, on the other hand, is beautiful, passionate, intimate… we shouldn’t be allowed to see it. We shouldn’t reduce the love of these two, this beautiful romance, down to some sleazy masturbatory visual extravaganza. What they had together is something truly special, and I believe it was truly the right thing to leave their lovemaking to the imagination; it is not our place to intrude on and gawk at true love being consummated.

This is the Beauty and the Beast movie we all deserve. It’s The Creature from the Black Lagoon movie we deserve. This is easily del Toro’s best and strongest film, better than Hellboy II, better than Pan’s Labyrinth, better than Pacific Rim… and make no mistake, saying that is REALLY SAYING SOMETHING, as all those films are absolutely fantastic. I absolutely loved this movie, it really was everything I could have possibly hoped it would be and more, and there is absolutely no way I could live with myself if I didn’t recommend this wholeheartedly to everyone. Honestly, even if it’s not my favorite film of 2017, I would have put this as the #1 best movie of last year regardless, because from an objective standpoint, it IS the best movie of 2017. If you’re looking for a weirder sort of romance film, if you’re looking for a movie where the monster finds love, if you’re looking for a 2017 Beauty and the Beast movie that doesn’t absolutely suck ass, this right here is the movie for you. 

[go-redgirl]

Bill Hagerty Is No Mitt Romney (and That's Fine by Trump)

From a distance, Bill Hagerty seems eerily familiar.  

The businessman made his money in private equity, turned his mind to foreign affairs, and now talks about his faith, his family, and the international threats to his country. All of it in the sincere but calculated tones characteristic of a business consultant. Minus the impeccably coiffed hair and the trademark Donald Trump skepticism, one might mistake Hagerty for Utah Sen. Mitt Romney.  

But again, from a distance.  

After business pedigrees and foreign policy expertise, the similarities end. Hagerty is one Republican that the leader of the GOP desperately wants in the upper chamber, so much so that the president endorsed Hagerty before he announced his U.S. Senate bid. If Hagerty wins the race in Tennessee, squint a little and he may start to look a little like a #MAGA version of Mitt.

For the Senate run to happen, Hagerty first had to quit a job he was quite good at. Trump appointed him ambassador to Japan, a post he held for two years as he became arguably the most effective of the administration’s diplomats. Hagerty helped hammer out an international trade deal with Japan and assured the Japanese government of U.S. steadfastness as ballistic missiles from North Korea blasted over the island nation. All the while, Hagerty monitored closely the actions of China. Trump and Hagerty evidently became close, but eventually the president wondered if his ambassador would consider serving him closer to home. Sen. Lamar Alexander had said he would not seek another term. Would Hagerty run?

“It had come up actually during golf,” Hagerty told RealClearPolitics hours before attending a Christmas party at the White House and before clarifying that there were several conversations off the fairway. “He just knew my heart, and he knows how much I love Tennessee. In fact, that’s how he opened his endorsement.”  

This is true. “Tennessee loving Bill Hagerty, who was my Tennessee Victory Chair and is now the very outstanding Ambassador to Japan, will be running for the U.S. Senate,” Trump tweeted out of the blue one afternoon. “He is strong on crime, borders & our 2nd A. Loves our Military & our Vets. Has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”  

The endorsement came on July 12. Hagerty announced he would resign four days later, on July 16; he officially launched his campaign on Sept. 9.  

In Hagerty, the president sees a future senator whose loyalty he can count on. “He wants somebody that is capable of working closely with him to secure our borders, to stand strong against crime, and all the things he said about me in his endorsement,” Hagerty said.  

“The president reminded me of this the other day,” he said with pride. “I am the only member of his administration who he has endorsed to be on the ticket with him in 2020 -- I am the only member of the executive branch.”  

Hagerty helped deliver a 26-percentage-point victory for the president in Tennessee as Victory chair for Trump. He then joined the transition team, working with Trump “to help him select his Cabinet.” After Trump settled into office, the nod came for ambassador.  

Hagerty had to handle the journey delicately, even diplomatically, because, like so many other Republicans, Trump was not his first choice. He had served as a Jeb Bush delegate before throwing his support behind Sen. Marco Rubio when the other Floridian flamed out. Was there something that those two had that Trump did not? Perhaps they had better foreign policy chops than a real estate tycoon from New York?  

“My focus early on was on winning this election for Republicans. I have always supported our nominee and, as soon as it became clear that Donald Trump had what it took to win, that’s when I came on board,” Hagerty said, sidestepping a question about policy to give an answer about party loyalty. That trait has continued in the Trump era. If the two men see the world differently, the former ambassador won’t say. He has a clear definition of the diplomatic duties of an ambassador, and it doesn’t include public disagreements with the president.  

“Our job as his representative and the representative of the United States is to carry that policy forward. He is the commander-in-chief of the United States,” he explained. “Were we to differ on issues, I know how to do that and it’s by speaking with him directly, not by issuing a press release or going on TV to voice my differences but to have a direct conversation.”  

This approach didn’t lend itself to splashy headlines. For most of his time in Tokyo, Hagerty flew under the media radar. But abroad, the ambassador was very much in the middle of several tense international moments of the Trump presidency. After North Korea launched a pair of intercontinental ballistic missiles and detonated a hydrogen bomb, Hagerty traveled to the Hermit Kingdom with his family.  

With his wife and four children watching, Hagerty crossed into the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea in January of 2018. The message to the Japanese, the only people to ever be on the receiving end of a nuclear weapon, was deliberate: “I was able to say with complete confidence that the men and women of our U.S. military are capable of protecting and defending me and my family,” he said, “just like they are capable of protecting and defending that peninsula and just like they are capable of protecting and defending the people of Japan.”  

A year and a half later, Trump became the only sitting U.S. president in history to step on North Korean soil. Hagerty praised that visit as “brilliant.” Although he cautions that “we still aren’t where we want to be,” he insisted to RCP that the presidential courtship of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “has completely changed the dynamic.” After RCP's interview with Hagerty, however, North Korea said publicly that it sees no reason to continue its self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing and promised that the world would soon see it unveil “a new strategic weapon.”  

Developments in Japan have been more positive, as the country with the third largest economy in the world recently signed a trade deal with the United States. The agreement cuts tariffs on agriculture and manufactured products, easily making it the crowning achievement of Hagerty’s tenure in Japan.  

“My effort for a year and a half -- and I worked my heart out on this -- was to get the Japan trade deal through. A big aspect of that agreement is agriculture, and what I articulated to the Japanese is that our farmers were carrying the brunt of the trade war with the Chinese,” Hagert recalled. “I asked the Japanese to please step up and help us because they are going to benefit too.”

It was particularly good news for Tennessee, where farmland makes up over 40% of the landscape. A trade deal offers some much-needed relief for those who make their living in agriculture, the first casualties of the Trump trade war with China.  

Send him to the Senate, he says, because his experience with Trump and his business background will enable him to hit the ground running -- “no on-the-job training required.” He wants to “build the wall,” defend the Second Amendment, and “stand strong on crime.” He also wants to “stand up against radical Islamic terrorism,” “stand up to China,” and “certainly stand with Israel.” Meanwhile,  Hagerty promises to stand with Trump.  

The former ambassador is galled by the impeachment effort, which he says complicates diplomacy abroad. “Any time we create a sense in the minds of our negotiation partners that there is a chance of removal other than an election, it weakens us,” he said. His frustration isn’t reserved for House Democrats, who voted to impeach Trump just five days after the interview. He can’t abide disloyalty to Trump from his party’s own ranks.  

“The norm is Democrats, but when Republicans join into that discussion in any way, it causes significant further deterioration in our negotiation posture. This is what has upset me when I’ve seen that behavior,” Hagerty said.

Anyone in particular?

“When Mitt Romney talks about impeachment, he falls into that rhetoric,” Hagerty replied. “I think that is damaging for our interests overseas.”  

It is an answer consistent with his own political persuasions, and one that might play well with voters already inclined to support the president. It is also a little awkward, as Hagerty served as a national finance chairman for Romney's 2008 presidential campaign.  

The former presidential nominee has become a pariah to the current president. Romney interviewed unsuccessfully for the job of secretary of state and, after that fell through, won his Senate race in Utah. Now one of the Republican Party’s most vocal critics of Trump, he recently rebuked Trump for his “brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.” Trump responded by calling Romney “a pompous ass.”

A Romney spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, but if Hagerty wins his race the two men would be Senate colleagues. Some awkwardness would be inevitable, especially after Hagerty promised to make a priority of opposing “the Republicans who tend to side with Democrats from time to time against our president.”  

Making a senator out of one of his former ambassadors would no doubt delight Trump. He would have a foreign policy voice in the upper chamber, one with sterling credentials and, this time, unfailing political loyalty.  

_______________________________________________________________________

OPINION:  Well, its good news to hear that Bill Hagerty is no Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney is a ‘traitor’ to the Republican Party and not to mentioned that he’s a weak human-being.

The sooner Mitt Romney is voted out of the Republican Party it will become stronger than the party has been over the past few years.  

No Republican in this country should ever vote for Mitt Romeny because he’s weak, a traitor to the Republican Party and cannot be trusted.  Never, ever allow Mitt Romney to be in any meetings withe the Republicans when you’re meeting on highly confidential and sensitive information.  Because Mitt Romney will surely ‘leak’ it to the Democrats.  

In fact, never allow Mitt Romney to even know that the Republicans are having a meeting, because he just may be wearing a ‘listening devise’ so that his Democrat buddies can listen in on the confidential information.

In fact, just exclude Mitt Romney from all Republicans meeting and that along, will seal up all the ‘leaking’ to his Democrat Buddies.  In fact, Mitt Romney could be an inside ‘spy’ for the Democrats.

Don’t trust Mitt Romney even if you’ll looking directly at the ‘weasel’ of a human being.

[roidespd-blog]

Chapter Seventeen : FRANCE IN THE BEFORE

This ain’t no punk ass patriotic bullshit about our supposedly great country. Just breathe. For the next three days, we’re talking how the country of the bread, the cheese and the Love handled its queers and how it can improve. Today, it’s all about the past. Tomorrow, an important milestone. The Day after Tomorrow, we’re talking present and future.

First and foremost, I urge you to read a little book called “Le Rose et Le Noir”, written by Frédéric Martel (1996), which explains in deeper ways the journey LGBTQ+ People went through in this land. Every single Queer French individual should read it once. That being said, let’s dig in. Beware, There’s a LOT a dates.

THE REVOLUTION

The Nation was never in favor of homosexuality. I know, it sound obvious but it needs to be written. Voltaire said of homosexuality “a disgusting abomination and an attack against the laws of nature”. A fellow 18th century writer was quoted calling it the “abominable lust” and argued the death penalty for the guilty, comparing it to bestiality, prostitution and incest. With the French revolution of 1789 and the adoption of the Penal Code, homosexuality was no longer considered a crime per say BUT (and it’s a big butt) sodomy was still illegal (and will stay illegal for quite a while). A special police force was put together around that time. They created a dossier of every known homosexual, gay prostitutes and transvestites (I’m surprised transvestites were a thing back then) living in or around Paris, calling it the “registre des pédérastes”. Up until 1981 (important date, remember it), that dossier was used by the police to blackmail homosexuals. In 1942 — I know, flashforward, we’re on the fast lane — the Vichy regime implemented a new twist to the law, stating that the legal age of consent ought to be 13 (changing to 15 a few years later) for people having sex with someone of the opposite gender, and 21 for citizens having sex with people of the same sex as them. The adult in this situation could take as much as three years of prison and a 6000 francs fine. The fine grew to 15 000 francs after a new amendment signed by the Général De Gaulle.

Nevertheless, the first French homophile association called Arcadie was created in 1954. Their purpose was to “present homosexuals as respectable, cultured and dignified individuals deserving of greater social tolerance”. It went on to have its own publication of the same name, until its end in 1982.

To put it briefly, although homosexuality was not a crime, every christian moral codes were protected through very intelligent maneuvers from french governments, keeping homosexual on a leach and in fear of constant consequences for their actions. Example, Donatien Alphonse François de Sade, or Le Marquis de Sade wrote numerous times about homosexual acts (120 journées de Sodome, 1785, Philosophie dans le Boudoir, 1795) and he spent thirteen years in prison.

THE SECOND REVOLUTION (BUT FIRST ONE FOR THE QUEERS)

1968, France. Strikes. Manifestations. Social changes. 1969, New York. Stonewall Riots. Birth of the Gay Rights Movement.

1971, France. Creation of the Front Homosexuel d’Action Révolutionnaire, or FHAR (pompous French queers). To many, a very controversial association mostly because it did not make a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles, leaving these said pedophiles many occasions to speak out and plead their case. To that, I say Fuck. You. FHAR. On the political side , The Right considered homosexuals as perverts. The Left was unofficially okay with them as long as it stayed an undisclosed private matter. The workers were against them. The Communists were against them as well. Not. A. Great. Start. No one was taking them seriously. When one member of FHAR asked a question to Jacques Duclos, Leader of the French Communist Party, he responded “How dare you asking me a question, faggot ? Go get some help (…) men are supposed to love women”.

In 1972, Le Nouvel Observateur published an article written by young writer-to-be Guy Hocquenghem in which he publicly came out. It is considered to be the homosexual version of the “Appel du 18 Juin”. Hocquenghem is a very face-slapping figure in the gay social movement in France. I covered his life in a post from last year and even then, I wasn’t sure he deserved it that much. That guy was always looking for the wrong words that would ignite the fire even bigger.

But for that gesture of bravery on January 10, 1972, I salute him.

In order to survive, FHAR went hand in hand with another brand new association called the MLF (Mouvement de Libération des Femmes) which included a certain amount of lesbian women. FHAR was present during the first official MLF manifestation of November 1971. Soon enough, a new fringe movement called “Les Gouines Rouges” would distance themselves from the MLF and would prove to be a disruptive force in the political scape.

The public’s acknowledgement of LGBTQ+ people were slowly but surely growing. In 1973, “La Cage aux Folles” became a theatre sensation and a special issue of Recherches called “Three Billions of Perverts” was published — the editor of the magazine would later be condemned for “Outrage aux bonnes moeurs”.

By February 1974, FHAR was dead, replaced by the Groupe de Libération Homosexuel, or GLH. One of the historical figures of this group went on to be writer Jean-Louis Bory, who is the author of my favorite queer quote of all time “Je n’avoue pas que je suis homosexuel parce que je n’en ai pas honte. Je ne proclame pas que je suis homosexuel, parce que j’en suis pas fier. Je dis que je suis homosexuel parce que cela est.”. That quote is the perfect example of philosophical differences between FHAR and GLH. While FHAR was trying its best to be showy, outrageous and getting recognition through provocation, GLH was calling for the right to indifference. Also, GLH was smart enough to distance itself from the Pedophiles subgroups and to that, I say good for you, GLH. Bory committed suicide in 1979.

On June 25th, 1977, the first Gay pride was organized, through the support of the MLF. Seeing the rise of the gay rights movement, politicians weren’t bending. Most of the gay magazines created during the 70s were banned by the Ministre de l’Intérieur in 1978. The movement didn’t bend either. The following year was created the magazine “Gai Pied”, an institution that would last until 1991.

As the world was changing and the gay movement was growing, equal rights and recognition from the government became a key factor in the 1981 presidential election.

During his presidential campaign, François Mitterrand announced that his future government would implement changes to the treatments of homosexuals in France. First, the special police put together by the government decades ago to surveil homosexuals would be disbanded for good. Second, the dossier linked to that special brigade would continue to exist but only in a limited form. Third, homosexuality would no longer be considered as a mental illness by the OMS. Fourth, presidential pardon to every homosexual crimes to previous felons.

Mitterrand was elected in May of 1981. By August, all of those promises were kept. But don’t go and cheer for that sweet man. He later became guilty of the same crime as his american counterpart of the time, Ronald Reagan, and ignored the AIDS epidemic for way too long. I’m not trying to spit on his memory but let’s be real : he used our people to get elected and then let them die in a corner. That’s the tea. It wouldn’t take long for those crimes for as of December 31, 17 cases of HIV/AIDS infections were found in France.

THE AIDS EPIDEMIC IN FRANCE

While the Association des Médecins Gays was putting together seminars to form doctors on how to deal with the new disease and GHL created an alert system to keep inform as many homosexuals as possible, 31 new cases were announced by the end of 1983, 92 by December 1984. Meanwhile, the government did little to nothing to prevent the spreading of the disease. Despite the OMS’ advice of implementing blood transfusion safety procedures, one of the 80s’ greatest scandals showed its face : L’Affaire du Sang Contaminé. It would later be denounced as a major crime from the government and multiple heads would fall and condemned for “involuntary main slaughter”.

The non-profit organization AIDES was created in 1984 by Daniel Defert after the death of his partner Michel Foucault (who was a founding member and regular contributor of Gai Pied). It became an urgency to have a platform dedicated to prevent but also inform and help patients with HIV/AIDS. By December 1985, 959 french citizens were diagnosed with HIV. The government, now with Jacques Chirac as Premier Ministre, was still not contributing in any way shape or form.

We had to wait until April 27, 1987 to see the first first government prevention campaign. “Le Sida ne passera pas par moi”. By then, over 4000 french people were infected.

Just like in the rest of the world, LGBTQ+ people were left to die, silenced by their own “cancer”. By the end of the century, 51400 cases of HIV/AIDS were found in the country. Even with the creation of ACT UP in 1989, the numerous efforts of Aides and the sudden realization by the french government that their citizens were in mortal danger, it was too little too late.

MEANWHILE IN PARTNERSHIP AREAS

What ? Did you think HIV/AIDS was just an 80s problem ? Bish, please. While people kept dying and activists kept fighting, many non Aids-related decisions were being made.

In 1989, The court of cassation refused all recognition of homosexual partnership in the eyes of the law. From that moment on, every year a new development in a Civic Union Partnership would be talked about or offered to the Parliament. The Petit Robert dictionary adapted its definition of “Love” from “relationship between a man and a woman” to “relationship between two individuals” in 1993. Nice. In 1994, The European Parliament advised all members of the E.U. to adopt anti-discriminations legislations in order to protect every citizen’s rights, no matter their sexual orientations. (SPOILER ALERT : It would take 10 years for France to wake the fuck up) In 1995, Tétu launched its first issue while Canal+ aired “La Nuit Gay” one full evening about homosexuality. In 1998, the term PACS (or Pacte Civil de Solidarité) appeared on the news. Equal but separate, a first step towards actual civil rights. The Laws of Commission adopted the law in September, but the Assembly rejected the proposal, mostly due to the lack of support from the Right and some much absentee deputies from the left that day. Fucking cowards. In December, the law is offered again to the assembly and passed after 64 hours and 30 minutes of debate. On January 30, 1999, over 100,000 people got to the street to oppose the PACS proposal. Christine Boutin is their unofficial leader, with slogans like “PACS=PD” or “LET’S BURN THOSE FAGGOTS”. In March, the Senate rejected for the first time the PACS. The Law would go to the Senate four times until October of the same year to be approved, after a change is its legislation that would not explicitly talk about homosexuals but would open the PACS to everyone. 

On October 13th, with 315 votes yes and 249 for a no, the PACS is approved. It became a law on November 15th, 1999. The First PACS was signed on November 22nd. 28,000 will follow in the spam of five months. In case you didn’t know, a PACS contract afforded you most of the legal protections, rights and responsibilities of marriage, except when it comes to actually calling it marriage or adopt or use artificial insemination. Also, until 2005, you couldn’t file a joint tax returns — the only real benefit of marriage, by the fucking way.

Very quickly, The Parliament added sexual identity to the protected grounds of discrimination in French Law in July of 2012. Yes, sexual identity. We are only protected and able to sue against discrimination based on our sexual identity for the past seven years. And Lawmakers controversially used “sexual” identity instead of “gender” identity. Because fuck those transgender people ? More on that later. All of that followed an 2004 amendment making homophobic comments illegal with maximum penalty of 45,000 euros fine and/or 12 months imprisonment.

Finally, In the 2008–2009 school year, a policy fighting all forms of discriminations, including homophobia, in schools was announced and implemented. And now, everything is fine.

Oh, and yes, Faggots kept on dying, whether through complications due to AIDS, suicide or violence towards them.

Tomorrow, we’ll go deep into 2012–2013, such a fun time to be Queer in France. Until then, bye.

[anthonybialy]

Big Jerk, Bigger Country

The country is bigger than the president. The last two pompous dopes to hold the job prove it. I should apologize for insolently suggesting that election results are not determined by divine right. Yet I'm skeptical enough to think the person who makes it to the top in Washington is not only no better than the rest but also a phony suck-up. If you seek confirmation, check who's won.

Those we let be in charge tend to be as crummy as the average human with the additional charming aspect of messianic arrogance. Take the present and previous presidents, who have more in common than they'd care to admit. Each has accomplished much if getting factions to blindly follow counts, which it does not. At least one of the two is not the savior by definition, so we better worship neither to be safe.

It's hard to sign bills while running a cult. Both the current executive and his predecessor combine to spend more time in charge of their fan clubs than the government. I blame democracy. It's our fault leaders suck, and that's no fun. The devotion to severely flawed politicians is a worse reflection on the zealous zombies than their leaders, although the heads are as diseased. Whatever the guy I voted for does is right, according to those who are really into representative democracy. Pouting leaders must be thriving at consensus if they expect wholesale allegiance.

Decreeing by whim is a true sign of loving America. The rules are all written down, you know. The most prominent elected official ought to at least skim the document. Strolling to the Archives would be a good way to get fresh air after a stressful day. A true leader would reduce his burden by discovering he's not supposed to be doing this much work. Tap on the nuclear suitcase whenever in a room with foreign leaders to remind them who's not to be messed with, and let the economy purr on its own.

But presidents who think they can will prosperity into existence set poor examples. Look how much both Barack Obama and Donald Trump have made off crummy books to see why they misunderstand how wealth is created. I blame anyone who bought a horrendous copy by either for enabling. Did you not know there are other tomes available? Including ones that don't have presidential titles like Think Big and Kick Ass?

Happiness needs to be commanded into existence. Executive orders are for wannabe strongmen who can't get the legislature to agree. If recent presidents were as charismatic as they believed, they should be able to attract congressional votes.

Two men whose respective egos are wrapped up in claims they can get puny humans to bend to their wills sure get frustrated easily. Different methods don't conceal identical strategies. One used ingratiating charm with the other relying on slimy browbeating, but both view themselves as rulers elected by fate to save us riffraff.

It might be more convincing if they had better ideas. Both Obama and the followup act see government as the solution to the problem of life. Trump has retained much of what was installed by the pushy guy who last held the job, which is part of his effective fearless outsider shtick. We're still going to be sunk by Social Security if you were looking forward to enjoying retirement.

Things are still fine. Sort of. I mean, we'd be evicted if we had the government's credit rating, and the same spendthrift putzes extend control over lives they think they're qualified to run, namely everyone else's. But a secret sect of underground Americans are still ticked off about being hassled.

The fact we’re not defined by who was voted to the most obnoxious office is a blessing. Some ingrates stubbornly refuse to treat it as such. Properly loathing the president would require admitting politics shouldn’t dominate our lives, which would be an intolerable admission for a disturbingly large percentage of our fellow citizens.

Quit acting like we're being bossed around by a royal no matter the party. Ending a childish argument would be a good start. Noting Trump is “Your president” is a classy taunt reflective of the times. Sure, those who deny the claim are as petulant as Spike Lee after not winning an Oscar. But the opposite is also untrue in a sign that contemporary binary thinking leads to two rotten choices.

Those proud to claim any president as their own personal governmental savior are truly a credit to independence. Stop seeing the executive as the person in charge of your life or the country. The bumbling jerk occupying the chair is the head of state in a deliberately divided government. Conflating said government with the country presumes America's power lies with what we're told to do. The genuflection toward coercion is a particularly noxious belief for those who claim to be opposed to federal overreach. Silly orders don't become okay if you voted for the person issuing them.

[anthonybialy]

Critical Drinking

We don't give a rat's ass who approves of our opinions.  That's the textbook term, at least if this column is being used in schools as it should.  People ticked off by both parties are free to speak their minds.  This sucks.  There you go.  An election that was supposed to stick it to the establishment reinforced it.  The bright side is how fun it is to bitch.

Every complaint ticks off the executive branch.  There's your specific fun. An independent challenge is just what the president doesn't want, which means it's necessary. Bitching about whatever the government does is the fourth branch, so serve your constitutional role.  Let me suggest some snarky phrases to use on Twitter in reply to the White House account.

The boss needs more training.  Yelling at Donald Trump when he screws up like a trainee is how we hold insiders like him in line.  He shouldn't have even been promoted to unpaid intern.  The next-best thing is yelling at the addled CEO.

Be as stingy with praise as is comfortable.  Like most of the good things Trump does, his positives are inadvertent. Still, he should semi-credit him for stumbling into correct decisions.  Bill Belichick became a genius because the president's pal Tom Brady, which I note only to infuriate Patriots fans, happened to get a shot.  But he still gets the dang wins.  If the president signs a bill because a random Republican reminds him who he's portraying, then it counts as half-credit.

Trump's roulette number only comes up so often.  You'd think he could've exploited that in Atlantic City.  Blame the utter unwillingness to have thought out anything ever. Shia LaBeouf looks stable by comparison, which should motivate the alleged actor's next protest to be spoiled by 4chan. The incumbent's erratic nature keeps things fresh, which is the consolation prize for everything being criminally stupid.  Still, it'd be nice if he'd go crazy and remember he's pretending to be familiar with the Constitution.

Irked conservatives can't just consult the checklist.  But at least it's a chance to remember why we signed up for this.  Those loyal to ideas have to think out each position. Oh: so that's why I think that.  Thanks, I guess, Mister President. The Wheel of Misfortune means not automatically cussing at him even if he probably deserves to be scolded for something.  It's a pleasant surprise when he does something right, which makes it like life.

Parties are not cults despite them being treated as such.  Like gender, modern definitions don't change indisputable truths.  Modern men exacerbate their idiocy by deciding that everyone who came before was Biden-level obtuse.  Technology just makes people dumber more quickly.

Sorry to be insolent, but the president may deserve criticism.  I can hear the guillotine being sharpened.  Nonetheless, this is not a time for reflexively thinking an amateur White House is acting professionally.  We may have voted for members of the same ostensible party in a previous euphoric life where we dreamed that debt may someday spiral downward. But past performance doesn't guarantee future results.  At the same time, we can pat on that legendary pompadour the occasional times he gets something right.

Both defenders and attackers are repulsive, which is the closest we get to bipartisanship these days.  Presuming that a pompous twit who backed his way into fame and semi-success is the ideal conservative won't make it so.  But keep acting confused on social media.  By comparison, liberals compensate for how often he thinks like they do by flailing their limbs with extra vigor. Michelle Obama is pleased by the movement.

Judging him by each issue is one way to make the news less despondent.  Think through why, probably, the incumbent just did something unfortunate. If he managed to blunder into success, then acknowledge like an adult.  He could use the example.

Independence is now conservative.  It's different from how liberals think everything they hold is centrist, which is how they ostracize everyone who disagrees as an equality-hating Hitler-hugger.  Find a Democrat pleased that, say, there's still a law that insurers must sell their product for a rare instance if intellectual honesty.

The president should remember he's in the party that was once vaguely welcoming to those who liked making money.  Or he should learn. Those already familiar are naturally ticked that he's making it harder to elect future Republicans.  Voters now presume every right-winger is a sullen fan of massive spending and exhausting orders.  Praise him on the intermittent occasions when he remembers what side he pretended to join out of exploitative convenience in order to encourage more.  Now there's a deal he understands.

There are a finite number of ways to cope with everybody fighting for the same dumb goals.  Those who hope vainly federal spending could actually decrease fear that our booze tolerance may rise above the level of consumption.  Even the most experienced political observers can only do so many shots in a row.  It's hard to keep sharp when dullness is the cure to the disease that is politics.  Having to think if we agree is how to keep brain cells active.