Kate McKinnon is the star of this.
Kate McKinnon is the star of this.
Per WaPo, "Donald Trump now says 'a global power structure' is out to stop him."— Andrea (@nonsequiteuse) October 14, 2016
We are, but most people just call us women.
A brilliant line by a self-described feminist gadfly in Houston.
Speaking Thursday at a rally for Hillary Clinton in Manchester, New Hampshire, First Lady Michelle Obama eviscerated the Republican nominee for president without mentioning his name. As my friend Robert Naylor said, this was "another master class in political discourse." I cried as I watched her speak. This impassioned speech is one of the most powerful I have seen. Brava and thanks to her for this needed voice of passion and decency. We can do this.
John Oliver on Last Week Tonight, among other things, points out that the would-be strongman who is the Republican nominee for president wants to fill Guantánamo with prisoners and doesn't care about questions of constitutionality.
I just heard about the stunt. Trump couldn’t give a fuck about any of those women, or what they alleged. Perhaps they even realize that.— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) October 10, 2016
Excellent speech by Michelle Obama in which she talks about why she is inspired by Hillary Clinton.
Cher calls out trans-exclusionary group of so-called "feminists" https://t.co/QNvwe2zDfT— huffpostqueer (@huffpostqueer) September 6, 2016
Cher criticizes trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs. Good for her. As for the person who wrote the HuffPost headline putting "feminists" in quotes and preceding it with "so-called," I do not see what is accomplished by suggesting that a feminist with offensive views is on that account not really a feminist. That is like saying music you dislike is not really music, which many said about rap.
Instead of wasting our time on fruitless gatekeeping, we should focus on persuasion, on making our case and connecting with people. This is not easy. But the alternative is name-calling. Getting to change requires going through uncomfortable encounters, challenging one another, listening and learning. When we make the struggle about which group is going to be excluded, we evade the essential work.
Update: The tweet that was automatically generated for this message on GLAA's Twitter account, @glaadc, included a link to this blog entry generated using Google URL Shortener. Our friend Julius informed us that clicking on the short link produces this error message:
http://goo.gl/fb/5v1paH – this goo.gl shortlink has been disabled. It was found to be violating our Terms of Service. Click here and here for more information about our terms and policies respectively.
Really, Google? What term offended you. "Trans-exclusionary"? "Feminist"? This is absurd.
When you or I cough, it's allergy season. When it's Hillary, people lose their minds.
This piece is nasty, but it has the following factual statement:
Schlafly didn't like immigrants, working women or gay rights. (Even though her son is gay.) She didn’t think that sexual harassment in the workplace was a problem. She was against sex education. She argued that climate change wasn’t real. She denied that marital rape was even possible. She claimed that the atomic bomb was a gift from God.
There is an old saying, "Progress follows the hearse."
Wayne Grudem, a Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, writes at the conservative website Townhall.com about why he supports Donald Trump. His article, "Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice," acknowledges several of Trump's character and behavioral flaws and then says it doesn't matter if the alternative is worse. He goes into a long list of issues on which he claims that Trump is better than Hillary Clinton.
I could not disagree more with Professor Grudem, so here I will respond to several of them. Given the enormous gulf between the candidates with regard to experience and qualifications, this election should not be close. The fact that the race is close should be a stark reminder not to treat the frightening prospect of a Trump presidency as something to dismiss lightly. Perhaps you may find some of my arguments useful in making the case to friends and family members who are sticking with Trump despite his almost daily barrage of appalling statements. Here goes, for what it's worth.
Abortion. I am sick of the religious bullying on this issue. The utter contempt for people making different choices in this area is very disturbing. I am personally troubled by abortion, and think that the ideal situation is for unwanted pregnancies to be prevented through contraception. But the question of whether to continue or end a pregnancy is not my decision. It is up to the woman. You can say a thousand times that this makes me pro-abortion, but that is not true. Respecting people's right to make a different choice than mine does not mean I agree with that choice. The point is that IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
As for contraception, the Catholic Church, in which I was raised, is stoutly opposed to it. A leading anti-choicer, former senator Rick Santorum, has made it clear that he does not just want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized contraception for married couples, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which did the same for single women. I find it stunning that people in this day and age are willing, much less determined, to mind their neighbors' business in such an intrusive way. The constitutional separation of church and state protects everyone by prohibiting us from imposing our religious dictates on one another.
Hillary Clinton wears Suffragist white as she accepts the Democratic nomination for president.
My new Blade column gapes at Trump's fascist rally in Cleveland, as well as the growing scandal over Russian interference in the American election. And I examine the sharp contrast between the two parties' vice presidential candidates. Have a gander while you watch self-defeating leftists trying to sabotage the proceedings in Philadelphia.
Our friend John Becker writes on Facebook (reprinted here with permission):
SHAME -- The chants of "lock her up!" from the delegates and speakers at this week's Republican National Convention are disgraceful and baseless and chilling enough, but now we have a surrogate for and adviser to Donald Trump going even further: he's calling for Hillary Clinton's execution.
That's right, they're calling for the execution of their political opponents now. That's something that happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
Republican friends, let me be perfectly clear: if you do not immediately, explicitly, unequivocally, and loudly condemn and repudiate this hateful ugliness, you are tacitly condoning your party's dangerous slide into the evils of authoritarian fascism. Period.
There can be no hedging on this, no sitting on fences. How you choose to respond will reveal whose side you are on. I'll be watching.
The Tina Fey of 2016 has emerged, and it is our best girl, @LauraBenanti. Now I have something to look forward to during the rest of this campaign. Brava, Laura. You nailed it. My favorite moment is her squinting at the teleprompter.
Meanwhile, on a wooden deck beside woods, one of Bernie's smarter supporters torches her Elizabeth Warren t-shirt. Just the latest example of the odd tendency of arsonists to burn down their own neighborhoods.
Thank you, Mr. President. #ImWithHer
An excellent speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
If Ted Cruz can announce a running mate, so can I.
My running mate will be Mrs. Danvers. She is loyal to a fault, meticulous, and can talk people into jumping out of windows. This latter skill will be invaluable in my administration. She promises she will not set the place on fire unless she is seriously disappointed. You wouldn't want to disappoint her, would you?
This piece in Roll Call treats Donna Edwards like a fully realized person, while Chris Van Hollen is reduced to a stick figure. The substantial support he received from black leaders in MD is treated as an obvious betrayal, with not a word spent on acknowledging his accomplishments or considering that anyone might have a non-contemptible reason for supporting him. He is not allowed to be a real person; Julianne Malveaux actually referred to him as part of the "Master Plan" in a FB post. Scornful reference to "The Establishment" is treated as magically vanquishing any argument. As with Clinton vs. Sanders, those of us who care about actually getting something done are treated as part of the problem, as sellouts, by definition. I should not have to point out that, in my 36 years as a DC voter (having moved here from the MD 8th District which Van Hollen now represents), I have supported and worked productively with a great many African Americans and women.
Georgetown students invite Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, to speak on campus -- and a cardinal objects. https://t.co/fQKOK8I7UU— Wash Post Faith (@washpostfaith) March 8, 2016
Multiple choice. Who wrote this: "For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
A. Cardinal Donald Wuerl on Georgetown University
B. The Founder of Trump University
C. Thomas Jefferson on the University of Virginia
D. The host of Romper Room
Interesting perspective. Excerpt on Hillary:
Hillary's record as First Lady, alone, tells you all you need to know. From Vital Voices, which spurred women in politics internationally, to the Children's Health Insurance Program, The Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997), The Department of Justice's Violence Against Women office, the Foster Care Independence bill, and of course the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in China in 1995 -- she has led the struggle. This is a remarkable story.
Yet, throughout the 90s, as First Lady, Hillary was routinely attacked for her leadership, because she was a woman, pushing her unelected weight around, as they saw it, and the men hated it. They branded her a socialist for her health care push, which she doggedly dragged forward, taking on big pharma and the health insurance industry. How dare she? They sued over her even being involved as First Lady. And so began a now decades-long smear campaign to discredit and disempower her, with not a single finding of wrong doing, despite millions spent on special prosecutors and investigations.
And on Bernie:
He's been a lone-wolf his whole life, crying the beautiful call of economic justice from the woods of Vermont and the Senate floor. But this is not a winner-take-all election. This is not a theoretical government. His campaign is all theory and no plan. That is a recipe for conflict: the wrong kind of conflict. Obama got a lot done, despite the ferocious racists rebuke, because he was smart, not angry. Wise, not adversarial.
My latest Blade column takes a historical view of how public policy is changed. We must honor the struggle, not avoid the work by indulging in magical thinking. Here's an excerpt:
Chez Pazienza of The Daily Banter put it well: "If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears." Bernie Sanders has yet to face the brutal assaults of the GOP war machine in the way Secretary Clinton has for decades. Indeed, the Republicans want Sanders to get the nomination.
Brett Arends of MarketWatch compiled a list of the terrible things Hillary is accused of doing. My favorites are #12, "Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat," and #44, "She's really ambitious and calculating, unlike all the other people running for president." Bob Woodward says Hillary is too loud. Really? Has he heard Senator Sanders? Susan Sarandon slams Hillary for not endorsing marriage equality until 2013. Is Sarandon aware of the global LGBT rights initiative Hillary launched in December 2011?
Sanders opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 on states' rights grounds. He endorsed marriage equality in 2009; but in 1982 he described marriage as "a lifelong commitment between husband and wife." Granted, that was typical for the time. Few gay activists then focused on marriage. In 1981, AIDS had hit American cities, and D.C.'s first attempt to repeal its sodomy law was blocked by Congress. That was the year I came out to my family. I didn't have my first argument with a politician on same-sex marriage until 1994, fifteen years before D.C. enacted marriage equality.
D.C.'s marriage equality victory resulted not from revolution but from strategizing, researching, organizing, drafting, negotiating, messaging, and electioneering. It required careful preparation, coalition building, and long-cultivated relationships with public officials. It ripened via sustained work that began long before the final bill was written.
Those seeking change must honor the struggle, not just the result.