The problem is with us.

Rebecca Solnit at the Guardian says exactly what’s been on my mind since the election: the problem is not that Hillary Clinton wasn’t a good enough candidate. She was not a sub-par candidate who had the Democratic primaries rigged in her favor. (I can’t believe this is actually a thing I’m hearing from otherwise reasonable people.) She was an outstanding candidate and the climate surrounding the general election was unfairly stacked against her in tactics going back decades. Rebecca explains:

You can flip that and see that Trump was such a weak candidate it took decades of scheming and an extraordinary international roster of powerful players to lay the groundwork that made his election possible. Defeating Clinton in the electoral college took the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act by Republican appointees to the supreme court. It took vast Republican voter suppression laws and tactics set in place over many years. It took voter intimidation at many polling places. It took the long Republican campaign to blow up the boring bureaucratic irregularity of Clinton’s use of a private email server into a scandal that the media obediently picked up and reheated.

Continue reading

What are we eating for dinner?

florida-peanut-crusted-chicken-with-carrot-cucumber-salad_recipe

I feel like the country was all seated in a giant dining room, hungrily waiting for our dinner to be served, and the restaurant manager came out and told us: “We can only cook one dish for everyone, so we’ll choose based on which option gets the most requests. There are two meal options, so the vote will be simple. One option is a chicken entree. The other option is a heaping bowl of toxic waste garnished with broken glass.”

The outcome is that we’re all going to spend the next four years (hopefully not eight) eating toxic waste and broken glass because too many people couldn’t be bothered to ask for chicken.

 

Nov. 8th was the longest night of 2016

To the rest of the world: Progressive America is just as appalled as you are. That may be small comfort, but there are still some sensible people here and we’re doing our best to hold the place together. Please don’t give up on us.

I’ll have more coherent thoughts later, but, for now: the reason why Donald Trump just won the Presidential election is that too many people could have voted for Hillary Clinton, and didn’t.

We can go back and forth about why it worked out that way, but, on balance, if you are someone who is able to vote in the United States, and you did not vote for the Clinton/Kaine ticket, you are part of the problem.

I’d say “move to Canada,” except they don’t need your apathetic, ambivalent asses up there taking up valuable oxygen. Stay here in the States, sleep in the bed you’ve made, and do better in the future.

 

Maximum fauxpology in minimum word count.

Di Tzeitung, the Brooklyn Hasidic newspaper that Photoshopped Sec. of State Clinton from an important photograph, expects us to swallow this:

The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ’00, and when she was re-elected in ’06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc. We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.

Boilerplate spin-doctoring, how dare you accuse our religion of sexism, our peeps totally voted for Sen. Clinton for both her terms, and so on.

In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.

Now let’s parse this out a bit.

In accord with our religious beliefs, 

Because religion has been invoked, we are supposed to turn our brains off and accept that it’s all nice and fine. We wouldn’t want to criticize a religion, now would we? It’s not civil. We need to watch our tone.

we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status.

They do publish photos of men, however, so erasing the women from those images simply acts like they shouldn’t exist. Out of sight, out of mind.

Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical board.

The newspaper avoids responsibility by invoking the Rabbinical board, while trusting that we not dare criticize the board for its editorial policies.

Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, 

It’s fine to publish pictures of men, but images of women are immodest. Because they’re women, after all.

and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention.

How does one define “disparaging to women” so that acting like they weren’t there doesn’t fit?

We apologize if this was seen as offensive.

And they close with the classic, never-fails faux-pology! They’re so sorry they tried being quietly misogynistic and got called out for it.

Hats off, Di Tzeitung! Packing that much bullshit into so few words takes a lot of practice!