So... God Gave us Trump?

Have you seen the new Trump Adoration video? It's a total rip-off of the famous 1978 Paul Harvey speech, "So God Made a Farmer," of course, and it's a doozy.

In addition to being full of things God would never say, it's full of comical contradictions, such as Trump coming home hungry - in the dark, as he's seen in this picture - but having to wait for Melania to finish lunch "with friends, and then tell the women to come back real soon - and mean it."  

There are other mismatches between the video and the script; you might need to sit through it a couple of times to catch them all.

I took the opportunity to edit the script; if I had the talent and patience, I'd create a video to go along with it, but I'm pretty sure you'll get the picture - all of the pictures, in fact. 

And on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need a charlatan” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone who will play tennis and baseball while stricken with bone spurs, and use those bone spurs as a reason to avoid fighting for his country,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said “I need someone who will party all night and then get up in the morning and spend all day lying about his business prowess, talking about his money, and showing off his gold-plated toilet,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone who will salivate over his own daughter, relentlessly promote her sexy body, and suggest that if only she weren’t his child, he’d be dating her,” so God gave us Trump.

Inexplicably, God said, “I need someone who will get up before dawn and cheat on his first wife with his second, his second with his third, and his third with sex workers,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone who will mock and denigrate women, boast about sexually assaulting them, say because he’s rich he can get away with it, and buy a beauty pageant so he can prowl the contestants' dressing rooms unabated,” so God gave us Trump.

At some point, God said, “I need to test the capacity of Americans to take their civic duty seriously, and to do that we need a celebrity blowhard who used to call into radio shows using fake names to promote himself to run for the president of the United States,” so God gave us Trump. 

And then God said, “I need someone rude enough, with arms strong enough to push his way through a group of world leaders to get in the front for the picture, and stupid enough to share the nation's secrets with people willing to pay to spend time with him," so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone strong enough to suck up to dictators like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping, and bold enough to talk about how much he admires their strength, their total control over their people, their intelligence, and the pageantry of their military parades,” so God gave us Trump.

Again, inexplicably, God said, “I need someone who’s not afraid to lie about belonging to a church, who says the Bible is his favorite book, is unable to mention even a single passage he’s fond of, who will hold the Good Book upside down for a photo op as protestors are cleared from My house, and autograph copies for his adoring fans,” so God gave us Trump.

And speaking of adoration, God said, “I need someone who doesn’t represent anything I stand for, to gloat while others lay hands on him, proclaim him their Savior, and shout his praises from the pulpit,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need a patriot who’s unafraid to maul and grope the United States flag as if it was one of his sex workers, to hug it and kiss it while making lewd faces, as a crowd of people who despise many of the freedoms the flag stands for cheer him on,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need someone so self-centered he will mock our war heroes when they disagree with him, call them losers, say he doesn’t like people who were captured and tortured by our enemies,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need a leader to tell Americans to ‘get over it’ when faced with yet another school shooting, to proclaim he had the tallest building in New York City after terrorists attacked and destroyed the tallest buildings in New York City, and to comfort natural disaster victims by tossing rolls of paper towels to them,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need someone who will quote the vile language of evil leaders who came before him, taking the words as his own, knowing that others will immediately rise to his defense and take the words as their own,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need someone who will lie about everything, who will steal from charities, and who will raise children who do the same,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, "I need someone who will ignore the law when it suits him, and face dozens of civil and criminal charges; someone who will proclaim immunity no matter what, even murder; who'll talk about 'his judges' as if they swore an oath to him, not to the Constitution, and who will, even now, refuse to commit to accepting the results of an election," so God gave us Trump.

And God said, ‘I need someone who will surround himself with people who believe everything he says, twist and turn his worst ideas into action plans, help strip rights away from anyone who disagrees with or has nothing to offer him, and who are willing to go to the ends of the earth in service to him, but not me,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God shook his head and said, “Holy cow, they actually fell for that?”

TGIF 2/22/19

Count me among the folks who are happy that this week is over, and hopefully things can get back to normal starting tomorrow, whether I knock off that bottle of wine tonight or not!

Let's see how some other folks did, starting in the sports world.

We got news (I saw it last Saturday, so it counts for this week) that a confidential settlement had been reached by Colin Kaepernick and the NFL, which resolves the second most hated man in football's collusion lawsuit. Whether or not it leads to a job on an NFL team -- he hasn't played since the 2016 season - remains to be seen, but there are a number of teams that might as well take a chance on him as not. Some have speculated that maybe the Pats would take a chance on him, and that's probably the most logical since they're the most hated team in the NFL.  Maybe hate plus hate could be a match made in heaven?

Speaking of the Pats, news broke today that the team's owner, Robert Kraft, had been caught in a South Florida sting and is being charge with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting a prostitute. Rumor has it there's video - but rumor also has it that there are bigger fish to fry in the sting, which may include sex trafficking, although I've seen nothing long those lines mentioned in reference to Kraft. Categorical denials are coming from his people.

Also on the seedy side of the street? Singer/producer R Kelly has been charged with multiple counts of aggravated sex abuse. Kelly has been getting new attention for prior bad acts, it seems, after a six-hour documentary, Surviving R Kelly, recently aired. If the allegations are true, he deserves whatever punishment he gets.

Wondering on Wednesday (v156)

There was mourning, and retrospection, and celebration today, as we paused, for a couple of hours, for the state funeral of President George Herbert Walker Bush, #41. And there was also wondering, it being a Wednesday.

I found much of the funeral very moving, but I was struck more by the comments of his pastor than I was by those of President George W. Bush. I think I tend to be more shocked by deeply personal comments from someone who has an 'official' role than I am by a family member, where it would be more shocking if those comments were missing.

As to any wondering about today's events, I do have to wonder why the medial seems so stuck on talking about president Trump and how he managed to sit next to President and Mrs. Obama without there being some kind of incident. I can only surmise that they missed the antagonistic tweets they're accustomed to seeing all day long.

Also on the wondering today? USA Gymnastics has filed for bankruptcy, apparently to protect their finances in a way that they never protected the hundreds of girls and young women who were victimized by Larry Nassar. According to Kathryn Carson, the chair of the organization's board,

Our organization is a financially solid going concern but for the hundred lawsuits that we do have out there. That is the primary reason that we made the filing, to use the Chapter 11 process as a vehicle for resolving those claims.

The organization's official statement noted, in part,

This filing will enable USA Gymnastics to continue to support its athletes, to fully operate and meet its responsibilities to the entire membership and to expeditiously resolve the claims made by the survivors of sexual abuse perpetrated by Larry Nassar.  

We owe it to the survivors to resolve, fully and finally, claims based on the horrific acts of the past and, through this process, seek to expedite resolution and help them move forward... 

I honestly wonder whether this will be better for the victims, who truly deserve to have these cases resolved once and for all, or if it will be better for USA Gymnastics.  I'm hoping it's the former.

Democracy is collapsing in Wisconsin - again - as the Republican majority passed legislation in the wee hours of the morning that limit the incoming Democratic governor. You know, that whole "will of the people" thing that Republicans have no problem ignoring when it suits them. Just ask Merrick Garland, right?

Among the changes they approved, and that lame duck gov Scott Walker has said he'll sign, are a cut in the early voting time period. I have to wonder why it is that those pesky Dems take so darn long to vote.

Why are they doing all of this?

We do not believe that any one individual should be able to come in and with the stroke of a pen eliminate things that went through the legislative process as a result of listening to the people of Wisconsin.

Those people of Wisconsin, they can apparently only be listened to once, it seems. So I wonder, why did they even bother having an election?

There's more wondering out there, of course -- but we'll have to save it for another Wednesday.

I Have Never Forgotten

I haven't written anything in a few days, mostly because I've been struggling with the topic of the day - the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, and the allegations of  sexual assault that have been lodged against him.

I can talk about it in a detached sort of way, as I have on social media in reaction to questions or comments - that's relatively easy:

• prior FBI background checks would not have been likely to delve into this type of thing, particularly since, from all appearances Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life as an adult
• having an additional investigation by the FBI at this point should only help Kavanaugh, if he's innocent, and I wonder why he was so afraid to ask for one on his own, or even say that he wanted one, when asked. It seemed odd to me, that exchange with Senator Durbin.
• neither being first in your class nor being a virgin for many many many years have anything to do with sexual harassment, and those seemed like odd defenses to have raised, either in an interview on the friendliest possible network or at a Senate hearing 
• if he's not on the Bench by tomorrow, surely the world won't come to an end; we have concrete proof of that thanks to Mitch McConnell
• no Democrats were going to vote for him, unless out of a desire for self-preservation as Dems in Trump country, and the investigation will not change that. 
• Kavanaugh's performance at the hearing on Thursday seemed to be exactly that: a performance, driven by Trump's comments about his temperament during the Fox News interview than anything else. 
• Dr. Blasey Ford's account sounded plausible, and I found her testimony about the event both compelling and horrifying.

But really talking about it, or writing about it, has been very difficult.

Because I have been the under-aged drinker at parties with no parents around, or with parents who looked the other way.

Because I have been the girl in the bedroom, being drunkenly and aggressively fondled by a 'friend' when I was clearly, drunkenly, unable to give consent.

And I was not the only one, back in the 70s, as a small-town teenager trying to navigate high school.

We didn't have a fancy country club. We had back roads and drinking spots and the Kissing Bridge and other make-out spots and I saw many times those became one and the same, a natural progression, if you will. We had dances at school, with plenty of dark and out of the way spots like parking lots and playgrounds and athletic fields. And there were parties.

I remember one particular party - I was not in attendance - the rumors and gossip and tales of drunken exploits were so rampant that the school principal got involved, urging discussions on under-aged drinking and personal and parental responsibility and things along those lines.

The drinking age was 18; the purchasing age was lower, or there were older friends willing to help out in a pinch. Or there was stealing booze, or there was the basement keg. It was easy.

And, one time, for me, things got out of hand, and could have gotten really out of hand, had someone not knocked on the door. Not out of concern, mind you, but because he wanted the room.

Back then, it wasn't considered sexual assault; I don't know that anyone in high school ever reported it to anyone. We were awkward and nervous and afraid. Afraid to participate, and afraid not to. Alcohol was cool, and liberating. Choices were made, sometimes regretted.

I didn't tell my parents about any of this, about the drinking, or about that time when things got out of hand, because I was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, and so it was my fault.

They found out about the drinking, of course, but that's a whole nother story. I don't believe they knew about that time when things got out of hand, and could have gotten really out of hand.

I don't have a calendar from high school; somewhere, I have my high school yearbook, not sure exactly where it is. But I know my yearbook, like Brett Kavanaugh's, has references to parties, and drinking, and a whole host of things I'm admonished to never forget.

And like Dr. Blasey Ford, I have never forgotten.

Sunday School 8/19/18

I ducked into two classrooms today, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, to hear from the Bishop of Pittsburgh, and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to hear from Mick "pay me and I'll listen to you" Mulvaney, Trump's Budget Director and head deregulator of the CFPB.

If you're interested, you can check out Chuck Todd's interviews with former CIA Director John Brennan and with Rudy Giuliani, if you can stand that last one, on Meet the Press.

I'll start with Mulvaney, who was on the show to tell us that things with the economy will continue to be great. For example, when asked to talk about changes from the Congressional Budget Office on the sustainability of Trump's economic growth,he said the people who challenge the numbers have a "vested interest" in seeing Trump fail. And, he explained, what the Trump administration has done - deregulation, and taxes, are not a sugar high. 

It's fundamentally changing the way we create wealth in the country.

No one can disagree with him on that, I don't think. It's true that corporations, their executives, and their shareholders have seen a terrific boom from the changes that have occurred; much less so, from everything I've seen, for the people who work for the companies. Here's just one article talking about wages and inflation, which notes that buying power hasn't really moved in decades.

You can read the rest of what he had to say, about the upcoming budget negotiations, Trump's now cancelled military parade, and more in the link above.

Moving on to the horrific report that some 300 priests in Pennsylvania sexually abused more than 1,000 victims over some seven decades, we hear from Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, who has been the bishop of the Pittsburgh diocese since 2007. He began by offering three key messages:

First of all we need to have a - a deep sense of empathy for all the victims who have suffered so much; as I apologize to them we need to continue with looking for efforts to help their lives become better.

Second of all, I can well understand the rage that people have in reading this report. I feel that rage  as well too. 

And third of all, I want to offer my support to the very faithful priests and deacons who served our people so faithfully.  

He was less charitable, if that's the right word, about allegations of a cover-up. He said there wasn't one in Pittsburgh, that all allegations were turned over to the appropriate authorities and that they have responded to every allegation in the report, and those responses are public.

Stephanopoulos referenced a specific item from the report that suggested a cover-up involving Zubik, including a confidentiality agreement.

It says the testimony of the victim of Monsignor Raymond Schultz who testified that he was abused or raped 10 to 15 times, and he describes a meeting with you (Zubik) where you offered to pay for college tuition for his children, counseling as well.

But the victim says he refused the offer because the Diocese followed up and said this - I want to put it up on the screen - "you're going to have to meet with our lawyer and sign these documents that basically said you are done with, you can't come after us, it's over, no public, your mouth is closed."

Zubik denied the suggestion of a cover-up.

No, I think first of all, George, that was an allegation that was brought forward after the person who was alleged to have committed the abuse was in face deceased. I think that we have taken a position, the Diocese of Pittsburgh since 2002, not to do any confidentiality agreements. But we needed to be able to assert whether or not the alleged behavior did in fact occur.  And that was part of the discussion that took place in that particular case.

Next, Stephanopoulos asked Zubik about comments from the Survivors of the Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), show below, and he asked for Zubik's response.

(SNAP) is calling for tough action against your diocese. It says Catholics should stop donating to Bishop Zubik's diocese until he steps down or takes proven steps to protect kids. Such a boycott may be the best way to cut through the persistent denial of Pittsburgh's church hierarchy. 

Zubik disagrees.

I want to go back to when I became the bishop of the diocese of Pittsburgh in 2007. I can honestly say that we have followed every single step that we needed to follow to be responsible in our response to -- to the victims. First of all, we've listened to them carefully. Second of all, we've removed priests from ministry. Third of all, we have in fact turn it over to the district attorneys of the appropriate counties. Fourth of all, we have engaged the independent review board to assess and take a look at the allegations and whether or not a person would be suitable for ministry again.  

And we have in fact informed the - the people in our parishes about those allegations as well as put our press releases accordingly. So I think that that behavior and the steps that we've consistently taken since 2007 really works against SNAP's calling for my resignation.

Asked what he'd say to the many Catholics who feel betrayed by the church hierarchy,  Zubik focused mostly on the past, with a nod to the future.

We have to be able to to continue to look at the things that -- that we have done to really correct the issue. The church of Pittsburgh today is not the church that's described int he grand jury report. And if I could indicate, you know, starting with - with 1988 when Bishop Wuerl became bishop of Pittsburgh, one of the first acts that he had to confront was an abuse of two brothers by three priests. He was very passionate about addressing... sexual abuse. 

And what happened is that we began to develop stringent policies around sexual abuse. He was very direct with the priests in 1988 to tell them if they knew anything they had to come forward. We established an independent review board to assist the bishop to be able to assess allegations. Fourth of all, we established a diocesan assistance coordinator. It was a position that - that meets specifically with victims. 

And we both first encouraged people who were victims to go forward to report their allegations and then we followed up on that as well, too. Those were some of the things that we've done in the past to try to -- to show people that we had been doing things over the course of the years. And we can't stop there.

We have to look for new ways to be able to eradicate sexual abuse in the church, but to work together with all of society to eradicate from society in general. 

Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington DC and a key ally of Pope Francis, is facing calls to resign after the grand jury report said he had shielded abusive priests; a petition to remove his name from a prominent Catholic school the the Pittsburgh Diocese has gotten over 6,000 signatures, aiming for 7,500 as the next threshold.  He has withdrawn as a speaker at a conference in Ireland.

Zubik has admitted "a few priests" named in the report are still in the ministry, because the church was not able to substantiate the allegations against them.

See you around campus.

A New York Thing?

I've tried off an on all day to try and wrap my arms around the Schneiderman debacle, and I've not been very successful. I guess that's not a bad thing, because I don't know how successful many others are being, either.

For example, do you think New York is a breeding ground for sex offending Democratic politicians? Eliot Spitzer. Anthony Weiner. And now Eric Schneiderman. I heard that several times today, the punditry getting all giddy trying to fill time waiting until the president's announcement about the Iran nuclear deal. There was a lot of time and a lot of chances for stupid to occur.

So, are there similarities between Spitzer, Weiner and Schneiderman? Well, sure, I guess.

• All three were Democrats.
• All three were politicians representing some group of New Yorkers.
• All three were driven out of office for reasons related to sexual misbehavior.

However, the similarities seem to end there. 

• Weiner sexted young women; the other two did not. He probably thought, at one point, that he wouldn't be caught - or, maybe, he wanted to be caught. Mostly, though, he sexted young women while he was married to one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides. Had he not been married to Huma Abedin, he would have been much less notorious, don't you think? He'd still be a slime ball, but he'd be much more of a footnote than a headline outside of New York.

• Spitzer patronized prostitutes, while he was married. And, not only while he was governor, but while he was the Attorney General, too. He probably thought he wouldn't get caught; men cheat on their wives all the time, some with prostitutes, some with coworkers or underlings or people they meet in bars. Paying for it just seems all that much more icky (as does keeping on his socks), but it's not a New York thing. 

• And Schneiderman? What he described - role-playing, consensual sex - is not what the women he dated described. His was not a 50 Shades kind of thing. His was a drunken, abusive while not having sex type of thing, as well as a drunken, abusive while having sex kind of thing. His was a power thing, a control thing, a threatening thing. It was not a Weiner thing, nor a Spitzer thing, not a Democrat thing, not even a New York thing.

What's worse, of course, is Schneiderman's history of being a strong supporter of women, of the #MeToo movement. His office was involved in trying to make sure that victims were compensated when Harvey Weinstein's company was sold. His office was investigating the Manhattan District Attorney for failing to do anything about Weinstein back in 2015 when victims first filed reports.

And now, that District Attorney's office will be investigating the assault allegations against Schneiderman.

Now, that seems like a New York thing right there.

The Irony Board:What Month Is This, Again?

president Donald J. Trump Proclaims April 2018 as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month

During National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, we remain steadfast in our efforts to stop crimes of sexual violence, provide care for victims, enforce the law, prosecute offenders, and raise awareness about the many forms of sexual assault. We must continue our work to eliminate sexual assault from our society and promote safe relationships, homes and communities.

I moved on her, and I failed. I admit it...  I did try and f--- her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.

Sexual assault crimes remain tragically common in our society, and offenders too often evade accountability. These heinous crimes are committed indiscriminately; in intimate relationships, in public spaces, and in the workplace.

I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab the by the p----. You can do anything.

We must respond to sexual assault by identifying and holding perpetrators accountable. Too often, however, the victims of assault remain silent. They may fear retribution from their offender, lack faith in the justice system, or have difficulty confronting the pain associated with the traumatic experience.  My administration is committed to raising awareness about sexual assault and to empowering victims to identify perpetrators so that they can be held accountable. We must make it as easy as possible for those who have suffered from sexual assault to alert the authorities and to speak about the experience with their family and friends.

Jessica Leeds

Kristin Anderson

Cathy Heller

Temple Taggart McDowell

Karena Virginia

Bridget Sullivan

Tasha Dixon

Mindy McGillivray

Rachel Crooks

Natasha Stoynoff

Jennifer Murphy

Jessica Drake

Ninni Laaksonen

Summer Zervos

Cassandra Searles

Karen McDougal

Stormy Daniels

When victims seek help, responses must be carefully tailored to the context in which the sexual assault occurred and the unique needs of each victim. To better assist victims, the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women has developed the Sexual Assault Victim Intervention Services Technical Assistance Center (SAVIS TAC). This new resource will help community officials and organizations appropriately respond to sexual assault by expanding the understanding of the type of support likely to be effective in each unique circumstance. Participants in the SAVIS TAC initiative will use available funds to provide intensive training and resources to service providers.  With these resources, service providers, including rape crisis centers and other sexual assault and domestic violence organizations can build organizational and staff capacity for providing comprehensive sexual assault victim intervention services.

Together, during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we recommit ourselves to doing our part to help stop sexual violence. We must not be afraid to talk about sexual assault and sexual assault prevention with our loved ones, in our communities, and with those who have experienced these tragedies. We must encourage victims to report sexual assault and law enforcement to hold offenders accountable, and we must support victims and survivors unremittingly. Through a concerted effort to better educate ourselves, empower victims, and punish criminals, our Nation will move closer to ending the grief, fear, and suffering caused by sexual assault. The prevention of sexual violence is everyone’s concern.

The people of this country, in a decisive election, supported president Trump, and we feel like these allegations have been answered through that process.  The American people knew this and voted for the president, and we feel like we're ready to move forward in that process.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 2018 as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. I urge all Americans, families, law enforcement, healthcare providers, community and faith-based organizations, and private organizations to support survivors of sexual assault and work together to prevent these crimes in their communities.

Well, the funniest is that before a show, I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure everything is good. You know, the dresses. 'Is everyone OK?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everyone OK?' And you see these incredible-looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Wondering on Wednesday (v112)

How's everyone doing tonight?  Anyone wondering about anything in particular?

Maybe you're wondering why the president would retweet a fake video, causing trouble with our closest ally?  Yeah, me too.

I wonder, where is General Kelly and why isn't he keeping the lid on the child that is the tweeter in chief? I thought he was supposed to be exerting control over this mess? He seems to have clipped Jared's wings pretty quickly.

Maybe you're wondering how a person who has been accused of sexual harassment by a dozen or so  women  and who was recorded talking about assaulting women, forcibly kissing them, groping them, would (again) manage to carve out a slice of higher ground from which to attack others facing similar accusations?  That's right -- the president used the abuse of women by men in power to attack NBC for 'fake news'. Here's just one of today's examples; the other promoted a (long-solved) 'mystery' that is clearly fake news.

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too.

And, by the way, have you seen the reports where Trump pretends the voice on the tape that he apologized for is not his? Here's how Access Hollywood responded:

We wanted to clear something up that has been reported across the media landscape (said Natalie Morales). Let us make this perfectly clear: the tape is very real. Remember, his excuse at the time was 'locker room talk'. He said every one of those words.

I swear, this man has some serious issues.

Maybe you're wondering about Angela Lansbury's comments on sexual harassment?  Here's what she said in an interview with the British company Radio Times.

There are two sides to this coin. We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us - and this is where we are today. 

We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it's awful to say we can't make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped.

Whoa.  I wondered about that one myself.

Men abuse women because the women try to make themselves attractive? Is that why priests abuse altar boys? Teachers abuse students? Doctors abuse patients? If that were the case, wouldn't the 'average' abuse victim be a Victoria's Secret model?

She continued (fortunately, I think.)

Should women be prepared for this? No, they shouldn't have to be! There's no excuse for that. And I think it will stop now -- it will have to. I think a lot of men must be very worried at this point.

I don't have to wonder about that last part - I think she's as right about that as she is about women "must sometimes take blame" for being harassed, assaulted or abused - in the workplace or any other place. The victim is not the person of power in harassment situations  - whether it's the priest, the teacher, the doctor -- and these situations about power, not physical attraction. 

And as to blame, my husband has said that a woman could be drop dead gorgeous, stark naked walking down the middle of the street, and that's STILL not a reason to sexually assault her.  I hope there's no wondering about that.

And finally, I'm wondering about a piece of fairly late breaking news.  Would it surprise you to learn that the Trump administration's new opioid czar is none other than Kellyanne Conway?

In 2016, 50,000 Americans lost their lives to the opioid epidemic, according to the federal government’s preliminary count. That’s more than the number of Americans killed in combat in Vietnam, or that died during the worst year of the AIDS crisis, or that die annually from car accidents or gun violence.

In response to this mass death, public-health advocates have implored the Trump administration to mount a more comprehensive effort to the opioid crisis. One of their proposals was for the president to appoint an opioid “czar” — an official with the time and expertise to coordinate the federal government’s response to the worst drug-overdose epidemic in American history.

The administration has decided to honor this request. In a gesture meant to convey just how seriously President Trump takes his responsibility to combat the opioid emergency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Wednesday the appointment of America’s first opioid czar — Kellyanne Conway.

Yep -- I have to say, I'm now speechlessly wondering. 

Need the Address for A Special Place in Hell?

I last wrote about "a special place in hell" about a year and a half ago, when some prominent feminists let me know that as a woman I was obligated to help another woman - Hillary Clinton - get elected, otherwise I'd end up in that special place.

At that time, I identified some of the people I thought deserved such a place.

People who harm children. People who kill animals, like the two most heinous recent cases in my neck of the woods one involving a horse, another a family's dog. Pedophile priests. The folks who put Bruce Springsteen and Beethoven on Muzak. The people who 'gummied' the world. Those who prey on senior citizens. The people who make up drug names. Whoever it was who decided that sagging pants and side boob are fashion statements.

Ivanka Trump apparently agrees that people who harm children, particularly child predators, belong in that special place. In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month, the president's special advisor said this of the controversy swirling around Alabama Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore:

There's a special place in hell for people who prey on children. I've yet to see a valid explanation, and I have no reason to doubt the victims' accounts.

Her comment is laudable and remarkable, particularly given it is in sharp contrast to her father's statements, including a recent bout of indecision on whether he would actually campaign with Moore.

I'll be letting you know next week. But I can tell you, you don't need somebody who's soft on crime, like Jones.

Well, the president let us know today - or, he had his mouthpiece let us know - his plans in that regard.

Q: Thanks, Sarah. On the Senate race in Alabama. Does president Trump plan to campaign for Roy Moore?

A. The president is not planning any trip to Alabama at this time. And, frankly, his schedule doesn't permit him doing anything between now and Election Day. 

Q. Over the weekend, the president weighed in about this race on Twitter. Does the president continue - does he have plans to continue his campaign against the Democrat in Alabama, Doug Jones?

A. Look, I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth from the podium. As you know, I've declined that opportunity many times. But I can tell you that the president obviously wants people to make America better -- to improve our education system, to grow our economy, to continue to fight against ISIS, continue growing the economy. Those are the president's priorities, and he wants people in place that are going to help and support those priorities.

Between announcing his indecision before Thanksgiving, and now letting us know he wouldn't be going on the campaign trail with Moore, the president didn't have any issues campaigning for Moore on Twitter.

So - back to that special place in hell Ivanka mentioned? Well, it's clear her father has an idea where it is: East Capitol St NE & First St SE, Washington, DC 20004.

TGIF 11/10/17

Anyone else happy this week's coming to an end?  I know I am.

The change from Daylight Savings back to Eastern Standard time has made a mess of things, for sure. Compared to some, though, I had a pretty good week.

Louis CK probably is glad this one's over. His fall from grace was pretty spectacular, after five women came forward, four of them brave enough to give their names, and exposed CK for the horrible person he was.

And maybe is, for all we know.

At least he didn't run off to some really expensive, beautifully landscaped sex addiction clinic like Kevin "Is this a good time to come out?" Spacey and despicable Harvey Weinstein supposedly did. Because nothing says "I understand that being a powerful person doesn't give me the right to abuse, debase, and humiliate women" like pretending that you've got a sex addiction. (I'm confident they're receiving treatment here, because the link came from the Trump News Network and is the only network that is not #FakeNews.)

Voters in most states are probably glad this week is over, too, particularly if their candidates won. Or if they vote in a state with hotly contested races. We'll see more of those when we have Trump's midterm election, but for some this was probably plenty bad enough. The race for mayor here in my neck of the woods brought robocalls from NY pols, from Joe Biden, who has well-known ties to Syracuse, from Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, as well as appearances by DNC officials and mention of this race as a plug for the DNC's efforts at the local level.

Why? I have no idea; I look at our mayoral race as a local thing and one that doesn't have any national implications. The Dem candidate lost, by the way. I'm sure it won't be counted against the DNC , and there'll be enough basking in the afterglow from the more important races they did win to keep them busy.

Diverse candidates kicked butt across the country, which is a good thing -- especially in the age of Trump, where support and appreciation for ethnic and gender diversity is, well, limited.

This week also brought us the first anniversary of the president's bigly victorious victory - and I for one am happy he was traveling in Asia rather than, oh, I don't know -- going on national television and telling us how much #winning we are doing that's #MAGAing us from here to the moon and back. Or signing an Executive Order proclaiming himself to be the greatest president since Lincoln. Or some other worthy celebratory event.

TGIF.

Quick Takes (v22):Fueling Rape Prevention

Quick Takes

Rick Perry is making news today, in ways that perhaps only he could.

Perry, who as a candidate for president back in 2012 famously forgot which government departments he would eliminate, is now in charge of one of them.  And it was in his role as Energy Secretary that he lit up the media with a comment about fossil fuels and rape prevention.

Seriously - take a look.

Now, as a Texan and as head of the Energy Department under Trump, I would expect him to be a full-bore fossil fuel supporter - heck, it's in both his DNA and his job description. But, as head of the Energy Department, he has to understand that there's more to energy than the stuff we bring up from the ground, right?

And he should understand that maybe it would be at least an option to consider renewables in Africa, instead of suggesting they import fossil fuels from the US? We're talking about people who are reading by the light of a fire, which suggests they probably don't have a boatload of money to spend on energy imports.

Heck, even the young girl who told him right to his face about not having "those fumes literally killing people" seems to understand this whole energy thing better than Perry.

Putting all of the crazy misguided energy stuff aside, though - do we really need to use rape, or even rape prevention, as a sales pitch - for anything - even something that's going to #MAGA?

Wondering on Wednesday (v108)

Below is a copy of the post from tonight on the veritable pastiche Facebook page. I'm not wondering at all, tonight. There is no question, no doubt, in my mind.

From the column by John Pavlovitz:

"Revelations about Donald Trump surfaced well before the Presidential election, and 62 million Americans armed with this information—summarily responded by elevating him to the highest position of leadership in this country. They chose the “grab them by the p*ssy—move on her like a b*itch” dude. Their vote then nullifies their outrage now."

While Pavlovitz does not name anyone who both supports Trump and condemns Weinstein, we really have to look no further than Fox News - the network of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, of whom Trump said "he's a good man" and "I don't think he did anything wrong" - they've been pretty vocal about Weinstein, less so about their own predators.

The bottom line is this behavior has to stop. It has to stop. We kid ourselves if we think it's just Hollywood, or that it's just billionaires behaving badly.

It's small business owners and doctors and pastors and accountants and sports stars and tech people and insurance agents and restaurant owners and teachers and school administrators and musicians and agents and lawyers and judges and scientists and politicians and newspeople. And yes, it's Bill Clinton - of course it includes him. But the fact that it includes him does not relieve Trump of accountability for *his* actions or his words.

Bill O'Reilly didn't do anything wrong in Trump's eyes ($13,000,000 in settlements notwithstanding) and Trump dismissed his own actions as "locker room talk." Harvey Weinstein is allegedly receiving treatment for sex addiction - what a crock. He is addicted to power, not sex.

They are not the same thing, and we do everyone - adult men and women,and teenagers, and children, a disservice if we pretend they are, just as we do everyone a disservice if we pretend that this is 'just talk' or that it's OK, or that it's part of doing business, or somehow, that it's the victim's fault.

It has to stop.

You Don't Get to Support Donald Trump and Be Outraged at Harvey Weinstein

… Continue Reading You Don’t Get to Support Donald Trump and Be Outraged at Harvey Weinstein

JOHNPAVLOVITZ.COM

Wondering on Wednesday (v107)

Boy oh boy - I'm sitting in Wonder Land tonight, for sure -- I even wonder where to start, there's so much to wonder about.

Let's tackle "doing something about guns" in the aftermath of yet another act of domestic terrorism, the mass shooting in Las Vegas.  Whenever we have one of the heinous acts, the initial and forceful reaction from both sides of the aisle is that we do something.

On the one hand - let's call it the left/middle hand - there is a desire to make it harder (but not impossible) for people to get their hands on guns and ammo. On the right/middle hand, there's a corresponding desire to maintain the status quo, because laws won't stop people from doing bad acts, so more laws won't make us safer.  (On the fringes, left and right, the positions are more extreme, of course.)

So, it was interesting to hear that even the NRA was OK with some kind of action on 'bump stocks,' the thing used by the killer in Vegas to make his semi-automatic weapons function more like automatic ones. Now, before you get all excited, the NRA would not support a ban on those things, mind you, but they would be amenable to 'regulating them differently.'  Meaning, as Paul Ryan clarified,

We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix.

Which really means, he has no intention of having House members have to go on the record supporting additional gun controls, and he has no problem pinning the action on the president.  And that makes me wonder, which two existing gun regulations will face the firing squad to allow for the new one on bump stocks to be put in place?

Let's segue to another major issue of people behaving badly: immigration. The president announced a list of DACA tradeoffs that many Dems (and even some Reps) have identified as deal breakers, including funding the beautiful, well-endowed see-through wall, and cracking down on sanctuary cities.

I do wonder whether Trump the deal maker thinks this is a good way to start negotiations, or if he simply forgot that he's got to finish his first term before he needs to run for his second (which I wonder regularly, truth be told). But more than that, I wonder why the answer on immigration is not "cracking down and enforcing the existing laws" instead of trying to get new laws - and that multi-billion dollar wall -- on the books?

I mean, if that answer is good enough for when dozens are killed and hundreds are wounded at a concert, or when school children and teachers are murdered, or when members of a bible study group are murdered - by Americans, by the way - why wouldn't it be the answer when a bunch of illegal immigrants come here to steal American jobs?

Moving on, how hard must it have been, I wonder, for Hillary Clinton to issue her statement about Harvey Weinstein? I mean, after going through what she did with Bill...?

And finally, what are the Boy Scouts up to, I wonder? On International Day of the Girl, they decide to announce that girls can become Boy Scouts, including Eagle Scouts?

Donald Trump Jr is wondering about that one, too.

What's got you wondering?

Trump in Transition (v22)

The photo for today's TiT post is larger than usual, on purpose.

It represents the size of the president's IQ, which, we're to believe, is way more bigly higher than that of Rex Tillerson.

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the president's sense of humor, which, we're to believe, is what the whole "my hands are way more bigly than Rex Tillerson's" tweet was all about.

Oh wait -- did I say hands? I meant IQ. I meant IQ!

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the frustrationburger the president is eating because he's not being bigly recognized enough for what he's doing for Puerto Rico. After all,

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the sigh of relief that the president has sighed, as he's not really been called upon to comment on the Harvey Weinstein thing. Oh sure, Trump said

I've known Harvey Weinstein a long time. I'm not at all surprised to see it.

But that was about as far as things went, other than declaring again that locker room talk is nothing to worry about.

No one called upon him, as a leader, to condemn Weinstein's actions, as they have called upon Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others to do. And while Weinstein was a Democratic donor, not a GOP donor, should that matter?

Shouldn't the president champion protecting women from all sexual harassment, and all harassers, whether it's  Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly or Donald Trump? And shouldn't he do that without prompting?

Or, maybe, it represents the size of the ego that a person has to have to think that this administration, this president, and Republicans generally, are not getting their fair share of TV time on the late night shows. Look:

Shouldn't he know that when they're talking about him, constantly, it would be almost impossible for him to have more time? Shouldn't he be aware that Fox News is the 24/7 pro-Trump network (a few words from Shep Smith notwithstanding)? And that no one else - no elite Hollywood star, no other politician, no other social media star, has such a thing working in their favor?

In fact, when you consider the amount of coverage Trump gets, it seems that the late night hosts and the Dems should be begging for more time.

What does all of this have to do with Trump transitioning from something into a president? Nothing, I guess -- and everything.

I can't count how many times he told us all he was all about America First, but every day, he does his goodgoddamnest to show us how important it is that he put himself first.

Transitioning away from that might take a while longer.

50 Shades of Disbelief

After a few days of "boys will be boys" and "it was just locker room talk" and "they all talk like that" and "we know he's boastful and a braggart so why would you believe what he said about women, you know it's just talk" and similar reactions to the 2005 audio of Donald Trump talking to Billy Bush about how he treats women, today my Facebook feed is full of references to 50 Shades of Grey as it relates to the Trump situation. I kid you not, I saw it six times this morning as soon as I signed on.

I could belabor the obvious, that the book is fiction and Trump has said we're living in the real world; that the characters in the book existed in the author's imagination and that Trump is an actual person; that the book is about consenting adults (or so I've been told, never read them) and that Trump says he assaults women without their consent, he just moves in, doesn't wait. 

And that, we know, is not fantasy, because he never lies or makes things up. Or so he has told us.

If I were interested in writing them all down, I could probably list close to 50 Shades of Orange, comments that Trump has made about women, towards women, about his own daughter, about women in the media, women on the Apprentice, women on the Celebrity Apprentice, Rosie O'Donnell, women who have been divorced, women who have small breasts, women who keep their husband's name when they get divorced, women who are not bleeding from their eyes but could be bleeding from other places, women who breastfeed, women who are ugly inside and out, how important is to have a young and beautiful piece of ass around, and on and on and on and on. 

Instead, let's do this. Pretend you were one of the women Trump groped between the legs; is it a funny meme now?

Pretend you've got a son in high school or college. And let's say he's all excited to tell you that at a party he forced some kisses on female students who had not consented to being kissed. Do you laugh it off, Dads? Chip off the old block, is he?  And what about you moms out there? Would you be proud of your son? Is that what you how you want him to treat women?

Are you still laughing when he tells you that he went even further than forcing a kiss, that he grabbed her between the legs? Still laughing? Is this the point where you and your son sit on the couch reminiscing about passages in the 50 Shades trilogy where women enjoy being raped, beg to be raped and so on? Maybe thumb through the pages looking for a really good section, maybe something he can try when he goes back to school?

How hard are you laughing when he gets charged with assault? Thrown out? Registered as a sex offender? Are you going to respond like the father of the Stanford kid, the one who lamented his poor son's life being ruined for 20 minutes of action?  Would you give even a passing thought to the victim (because that's what she would be), or would you think back to the book and say, well all women want that, it was right there in the book and it sold 80 million copies?

Or maybe, it's your daughter, your perfect princess, the light of your eyes. How hard, exactly, are you laughing when SHE comes home and tells you that some star athlete or rich kid tossed back a couple of Tic Tacs, forcibly kissed her, and groped her between the legs? Would you pull the books out then, and talk about how it's OK because all women want that?

The answer is no. You're not laughing.  You are a million times more likely to be crying your eyes out, and then heading for the school or the boy's parents or maybe even the local police than you are to be looking for the books to remind yourself that deep down, she really welcomed the behavior.

Because, all fantasies aside, the last thing you would ever want is for your daughter to be on the receiving end of a person who thinks "because he is a star" that it's OK to sexually her. The last thing you would ever want is to read an article about your daughter's sexual assault and see, in the same article, the athletic statistics of the person who assaulted her. Or, how famous her attacker was, how many buildings have his name on them, or how rich the parents are, or any of the rest of it.

Because at that exact moment you find out your child has been assaulted, nothing else matters.

More than two years ago, I posted about comments Republicans have made about rape, all the different ways they describe it to make it seem like it's OK. At that time, I noted that we are not our sexual fantasies, we don't enjoy being raped. 

The same thing is true, obviously, that we don't enjoy being groped, either. And yet, here we are in 2016, using a sexual fantasy meme to justify not what Trump thinks, but what he said he does. I'm dumbfounded.

I'll close with this last piece of mind-boggling dissonance, which I think is the perfect illustration of everything that is wrong with all of this.

Watch this video and see Scottie Nell Hughes, a mom, a Republican, and a Trump defender, ask the other Republicans on the CNN panel to stop using the P-word, the word Donald Trump used to describe the location he likes to grope.

Because her daughter is watching the show.