Free Speech, Responsibility, and a Caution

 

I take potshots at VP JD Vance, as is my right as an American, and I do so only with a little guilt that he's a barrel of fish--a target-rich environment. All the same, something about him irritates me right in the patriotism.  I have described him as being if chewing on tin foil with a mouthful of fillings was a person, and I am not backing down from that. 

Take today as an example--he weighed in on Margaret Brennan asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio (a man chained in a dungeon of his own making, performing Trump's foreign policy while I guarantee you knowing better at any instance) if there was anything amiss in Vance's Munich speech regarding the "enemy within" and meeting with AfD where "free speech" led to the Holocaust. 

I' m going to help everyone out by stipulating that the Nazis were not big fans of free speech. They banned books, you know. "Un-German" books regarding different races, people who were considered deviant, people who were liberal or Communist. They would have really hated DEI. 

The Liberty Mommies Got Too Comfortable (UPDATED)

 

The Hamilton County chapter of Moms for Liberty's first newsletter, which was posted on Facebook last night, quoted Adolf Hitler. Here's what you need to know. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/vCW9wfzJyM

— IndyStar (@indystar) June 22, 2023

They apologized*, but it wasn't an accident. It was an accident on purpose to just let the mask slip and see who responds.  The SPLC is right, they aren't any different from the Proud Boys (who they do hang with). And leaving aside the Orwellian name (whose "Liberty" is anti-LGBT book banners for?), the idea that any child's mind is "owned" is appalling. They complain about indoctrination in schools--they only want their own special kind of indoctrination.

Only fascists and complete imbeciles would think they are good faith actors. 

UPDATE: I wanted to get back to what constitutes an apology*, though: the organization Tweeted that the newsletter should not have quoted Hitler without condemning him, but it's the fault of the lying media that it was presumed that their quote was intended favorably. I mean, really? Because Mary Miller used that very same quote saying "Hitler was right about one thing..." and used it to say the unspoken bit aloud: yes indoctrination, but our indoctrination. This isn't even the first time for the mommies.

Climbing One Hill After Another

 

A Florida School Has Banned the Poem Read at Biden’s Inauguration

Amanda Gorman’s The Hill We Climb is restricted after just one parent complained about it.https://t.co/AMLRSaUSOA #BannedBooks #IStandWithTheBanned

— PEN America (@PENamerica) May 23, 2023

There is some back and forth over what we count as a "ban" for purposes of conversation--so let's go with "restriction". One parent complained about this poem. One confused parent, who thought it was written by Oprah Winfrey (which right there is a bit of a red flag--no?) And so it was decided on the basis of one opinion that maybe the younger ones would be "confused" or "indoctrinated" by a poem that was read at a presidential inauguration for all the world to hear. 

So, let's talk about the parent--who apologized for promoting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a notorious anti-Semitic hoax that still has a lot of play among a certain set of conspiracy theorists. She admits she's not much of a reader. One could argue what sort of thinker she is. But the point is--she's one person.

And she has the ability as a parent to restrict her own's kids' reading. I can wonder about what sort of strange, unwell bonsai her kids' curiosity might be pruned to as a result. But my own parents pulled messy romance novels and Mad Magazine out of my sweaty little hands as a kid--it was their right. At issue is whether a very few, and possibly very cranky few at that, should have veto power over all the kids' reading. 

After all, just eleven people filed most book bans across the country. Maybe these people need new hobbies, because that sounds like an industry, if not its own agenda.

I can't say age restriction is wholesale bad--I definitely question things of a sexually explicit nature being in the hands of kids and think maturity restrictions do make sense, in context. But, for example, nudity was used as a reason for banning the graphic novel "Maus" in a context that had no sexual conten. And I can see where there are challenges to LGBT+ content on the basis of "sexual references" where nothing is explicit. (I want to put out there that not all "coming of age" novels are for the people who are coming of age themselves, but for people who have also been through it.)  But also, just because something is contentious doesn't mean it's wrong, as in the case of, I dunno, the grand sweep of American history.

Those decision aren't one hill to climb--but one after another. And shouldn't be lightly decided just because school officials can't be bothered to fend off random cranks.

The Un-Woke Mind Virus

 

Consider if you will, unwoke Ron De Santis--the bland Florida man at war with Disney and Dylan Mulvaney. (Do I need to tap the scoreboard on old Ron?) making his pitch to the American people and the world he's ready to fight for them because...he's mad at Disney and mad at Bud Light, and mad transgender people exist and also still mad about CRT which has never been taught at K-12 and probably mad that Gitmo prisoners both threw up on him and remember his face. He's cautioning against the "woke mind virus."

Who knows if he actually gives a fuck about any of that--the bandwagon exists and the man has feet. I didn't know who Dylan was myself until the Bud Light kerfuffle and now want to protect her like she was my own daughter. If someone thinks it's okay to demonize someone just trying to live their life and be enthused by stuff, surprise--you are the weirdo. Hating someone for their gender expression makes you the hater. That's how it works. Supporting Dylan, or supporting so-called "wokeness" isn't a virus, it's basic decency. I share a planet with other people and we need to coexist. It costs me exactly nothing to respect someone else's pronouns, and it actually enriches me to know that human experience is diverse. 

Just the other evening, Elon Musk sat down with Bill Maher and they talked about the "woke mind virus."

Night of Elon Knives

 

So, I can co-exist with the best of them, and I won't Tweet this link out on Twitter because I think I understand the new rules, but apparently, if you are a journalist who mentions Elon Musk, Twitter isn't your home anymore. 

Now, it feels kind of thin-skinned, and it is. After all, Musk once talked about something like free speech maximalism, and this is definitely not that. 

He took not his worst critics, but his truest critics, and shat them out the airlock. Maybe he didn't want them to leave voluntarily--but he was fine with them getting bounced. 

Of course, the right wing folks he's been sucking up to love this, because they don't understand the terms of service, they just think that if conservatives anywhere get banzored, then liberals everywhere should be banzored. How else would life be fair? It doesn't sit right with me because I was following basically all of those guys and they were doing the work. 

Now, I have no social media skills (nor 44 billion to buy social media skillz, amirite?) so I don't think I'm big enough to get bounced for my lil Elon parody songs, or whatevs.  But there's the principle of the thing--do I stay when free speech is no longer the point, when the conversation palls, when the party isn't over, but the hosts are worn out and the food sucks?

Yeah, I stay. I don't quit Twitter, it quits me. Because I was here before Musk took over. Because I was a bullied queer kid and am used to hostile environments. Because Musk came to journalism central and tried to gatekeep truthtellers in a world where we all have been gatekept by the dastardliest. 

He had knives out for some of our best--and will need to expect people to want to do their worst. 

He will shut down the servers before he shuts down this roast. Because we operate this spit and the coals and Elon is very high profile and very roastable. He doesn't have a discourse, the discourse has him. 

That's the parasocial relationship Musk developed with actual hyperliterate assholes. It was a bad idea. We like Mars and electric cars, but we will find options. Will he? 

Defining the GOP

 

Is that a pizza menu Rep. Elise Stefanik holds in her hand in the picture above? Why, no, it is the Republican party's plan to define itself ahead of the midterms! Many GOP legislators, we are assured, worked long and hard to boil down what the party plans to do in their Commitment to America, and while I think what's on offer is long on goals and short on policy specifics, I can already envision what the party will do, because they have been telling us.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, I think, has done the best job of defining the party: it's about a federal abortion ban.  He has literally said the words "defines our party" regarding this issue, and I sure as heck don't disbelieve him, because even if they can't manage it federally, you can be sure GOP governors and state houses are ready to exercise their "states' rights" to take away the rights of people who can become pregnant. 

They have goals regarding crime and inflation, and also oversight of the White House. I think we can predict fairly well what House Republicans would do with their opportunity--pretty much nothing useful for the economy (tax cuts for the rich and "cutting waste" really won't accomplish much) and maybe they are only concerned about crime regarding some people, but as long as Biden is president, they have a great incentive to not make things better and to, I dunno. Try impeaching him for something. Anything, really. 

They say they want to protect Social Security and Medicare, and Sens. Rick Scott and Ron Johnson have given us a good window into their thinking about that--they are going to destroy the village to save it. 

From the skimpy pamphlet that GOP House leadership brandished, to the video that contained a lot of stock footage from...Russia (Really? A national party won't foot the bill to contract a videographer to shoot B-roll out in Indiana or wherever?), you can really see the loving, thoughtful work that has gone into their messaging. 

Even the comments of their probably-planted concern-mommy let you really know what they are all about:

"Critical race theory; diversity, equity, and inclusion; gender identity ... anti-bullying programs ... These are all Marxist-style programs targeting our children."

— A mom at the House GOP's "Commitment to America" agenda rollout, as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy nods along pic.twitter.com/AiLhVvX07f

— The Recount (@therecount) September 23, 2022

So, you understand, they will defeat classroom communism with a commitment to be....pro-bullying, anti-inclusion, and definitely crack down on that diversity and equity stuff. You bet! In sum, f you want a party that stands for culture war, inaction on kitchen table issues, the Big Lie, book-banning and making kids carry their rapists' baby to term, well, the GOP have well and truly demonstrated who they are! 

MTG and Entropy

 

The funny thing with the recent Tweet I want to highlight from perpetually aggrieved Rep. MTG is that she right off the bat starts with the most obviously offensive thing that liberals actually don't defend. She writes:

"If you are defending pedophile priests and those that protect them, groomer teachers & Disney LGBTQ propaganda, Drag Queen story time, saying it's not Satan convincing women to abort their unplanned child, and that children can be mutilated to change their gender, you're wrong."

While I'm in favor of freedom of religion, I've long deplored the Catholic Church's cover-up of pedophilia in the clergy and would not ever defend it, and many people would tend to agree with that--particularly former Catholics and people who define themselves as atheist, agnostic or "none of the above" religiously. If anything, the Church's protection of perhaps 2-5% of clergy in those hopes of preserving its worldly reputation and self-defense against outside criticism has displayed the rot of an organization closed to debate. 

Where she goes from there is a peculiarly tightening circle of pronouncements of less certainty--groomer teachers? Sure, I think teachers like Mary Kay Letourneau or Pamela Joan Rogers or Debra Lefave are deeply troubling, but it seems to me that this is not exactly what Greene is referring to. She appears to be considering simply being LGBTQ-affirming with being a groomer, and with being Disney "propaganda".  

The common understandings of words like "groomer" and "propaganda" have negative connotations and she is employing those negative connotations to distort the impression of the actual things many teachers (like a teacher recently censured for putting up rainbow stickers in her classroom) might do without any malicious or nefarious intent or what Disney had done (mildly support LGBT people).

To put it bluntly, she's trying to make people agree with her wildly false interpretations of the world. And no, Marge--I know a lie when I see one. Sorry. 

She also throws in Drag Queen story time which is a thing that amuses me--wearing women's clothing isn't a problem when I (cis-gender female) do it, but suddenly becomes a problem when men do it? So weird! And yet, I imagine there's considerable overlap between the people who would consider a man wearing women's clothing wrong and who would definitely ask a woman "What were you wearing?" if she were sexually assaulted, so I guess there's that. But there's nothing really disturbing about reading by a drag performer in a well-attended public setting vs what quite normally-attired, heteronormative persons have gotten up to when quite out of sight.

Maybe her real problem is people being exposed to books in the first place. There is a GOP war against schools and libraries, after all. 

The Satan part is entirely "creation by Marge" in that she recently said women were consorting with Satan in hopes of entrapping a man with their foul ensnarements and chemical conjurings...which is some wild Malleus Maleficarum throwback which I find fairly extraordinarily on-the-nose. And last of all, her comments regarding surgery or mutilation don't display that she understands anything about the subject at all. 

But of course, people who disagree with her POV, however uninformed it might be, are the ones who are wrong. This is how a person ends up spouting weird things about Jewish space lasers--a closed system choking on its own decay. It's a fascinating thing to see so concisely within one Tweet the range from epistemic closure to entropy rapidly increasing in a thick skull.

Not That I Care About Joe Rogan

 

Joe Rogan has deleted his birther tweet. pic.twitter.com/sEClihi5H9

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) January 25, 2020

I really have been keeping out of the Joe Rogan thing because I don't fucking care about podcasts, but this is what I see: When I saw the same thing from Breitbart, I wrote "Show Me The Plane Ticket" because this was literally the dumbest thing set before me for my rational mind to reject. A person whose backstory was meticulously washed(allegedly) to not make him seem like he was born anywhere but the United States, is caught admitting to being Kenyan for the sole purpose of selling books, because whatever? No. That's not proof of anything. That's dumb. The people promoting it are racist and dumb. Barack Obama is an American-born son of an African man and a White American woman. He's Black all day because that's how society treats him and American forever.

Critical thinking isn't dead, but it isn't exactly being loved, cherished and obeyed by people who could really stand to take up the practice. Anti-vaccination and anti-mask views are bad science championed by "outsiders" because their contrarian behinds got thrown out for making the same arguments that keep getting debunked. They aren't rebels and underground scientists. They are fuck-ups. They've just discovered they can get paid for saying fucked-up things so they do.  Edgy! Far out! 

Of Maus and Men, or America is Inclusive or it is Bullshit

 

The Mcminn County School board in Tennessee just voted to ban a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust

The vote was 10-0https://t.co/kpgjoLZQq9 pic.twitter.com/liMpSKJHYS

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) January 26, 2022

The best slogan regarding feminism I ever came across was from Flavia Dzodan: My Feminism will be Intersectional or it will be Bullshit. I am here for anyone who is against the kyriarchy or who finds the kyriarchy is against them. This is my politics as well, and my aspiration for my country. I want America to be a refuge. My America is Inclusive or it is Bullshit. And that means the stories of everyone are welcome here. We don't exclude them or ban them. We can accept their truth, even if the story is lived experiences we can't or haven't all shared. 

I don't understand people who can look at a graphic novel like "Maus" and count swear words and look for prurient content and miss literally everything else about it. How one could fail to see the qualitative education that transcends the basic reading/vocabulary skillset. I don't understand why anyone might view that rendering the Holocaust isn't necessary for people living in the 21st century. I don't understand why we shudder to teach our own history regarding slavery and the Civil War. I think the same onus exists for both things--we need to be honest about the perpetrators and the victims of history. 

And it will be uncomfortable for everyone, because bad things are bad and sad things are sad. But what it doesn't need to be is about guilt. You can feel bad for what others experience, but you only feel guilt for what you have played a part in. And to be white and not even try and defend whiteness is a kind of freedom. I don't have white guilt, I have awareness. I feel free to acknowledge it and how it means that the trauma of the 21st century is something I only know 2nd hand. 

Where's Your Dr. Seuss, Now?

 

Texas school district pulls 400 books from libraries after state GOP lawmaker's inquiry https://t.co/YFZ3PoP9VI pic.twitter.com/gn68pUEnTi

— The Hill (@thehill) December 7, 2021

Before I freak entirely out:

Many of the books on Krause's list center around abortion, teen pregnancy, sex education, LGBTQ narratives, the Black Lives Matter movement and anti-racism. Some of the popular titles on the list are "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood, "The Confessions of Nat Turner" by William Styron, "The Cider House Rules" by John Irving, and "We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy" and "Between the World and Me," by Ta-Nehisi Coates. 

"Most of those are appropriate and will stay on our library shelves as is, however, some may contain content that needs further review to ensure the books are accessible based on age appropriateness," Aubrey Chancellor, executive director of communications for the school district, said in a statement obtained by NBC. "For us, this is not about politics or censorship, but rather about ensuring that parents choose what is appropriate for their minor children."

Look, I feel like it's thought-policing the kiddos to limit their choices based on what adults think is age-appropriate because I can not begin to tell you what my hyperlexic reading list was about when I was like, 10 or 11, and my dad gave me a dollar to not read Pearl S. Buck's Pavilion of Women when I already had reread it a few times. (This logically drew me to want to read D.H. Lawrence, James Joyce, and other verboten authors--and I still don't know exactly what made my dad find that one fraught because it isn't exactly a well-known title and I don't know if he skimmed it and went "whoa!" or what. My baby brain never saw the "Whoa!" bit.) 

Hey, Check Out Book-Banning Becky!

 

Was it really just the beginning of this year that conservatives were all over the place whining about how cancel-culture was ruining Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head? And now, GOP VA gubernatorial hopeful Glenn Youngkin is hoping to win his race by featuring the "powerful story" of....

A book-banner, Laura Murphy. Her nearly-college age son was assigned a book in his AP English class which he totally could have opted out of reading, but because it gave him bad dreams (so the story goes) she wanted to have a talk with, uh. The manager of books, I guess. Which is all around a really weird reaction to a Pulitzer prize winning novel that is often read in high school classrooms, but probably wasn't really written for young Blake.  Or at least, not specifically, and maybe that's what really ground Ms. Murphy's gears. 

Now, the lad was hardly scarred for life by the book, but I don't know. Having his mommy tell everyone he was reduced to night terrors to promote a political agenda feels like he may have other issues in his life. But let's say the book truly did disturb him--what is a parent to do?

How about: talk to your kid? See, this is what bothers me about the whole "anti-CRT" movement as well while we're here. You are raising kids to be adults that will live in a real world where bad things happen. Schools can provide a place of physical safety, but they can't always protect from emotional discomfort. Of course, history and literature have tragic and uncomfortable aspects. But if a parent wants to guide their kid, instead of limiting exposure to difficult topics, how about--talking to them! 

But back to the irony--well, there isn't any, really. Youngkin is just reaching for culture war content in the hopes that it nails the race down for him. Sure, you could infer that there's something a little hypocritical about conservatives decrying cancel culture and complaining about woke snowflakes who need safe spaces, when actually, conservatives are fine with cancelling content that makes them uncomfortable and impinges on the safe spaces of white privilege. But that would just be critical thinking on your part.

The culture war wants nothing to do with that, thank you. And unfortunately, an ad where McAuliffe is the bad guy for not sparing young Blake and his concerned mom from the horrors of the icky book might even be sadly effective. I think it's pitiful, because this tells you nothing about Youngkin--other than he thinks this is a winning message, but as policy, it amounts to "Something something schools, something something, I'll let parents pick what books we don't teach."  Which honestly doesn't seem ideal at all. 

Maybe You Just Bite

It's time to stand up against the muzzling of America https://t.co/rrTrtfrYZn via @nypost

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) January 25, 2021

Is there anything conservatives love more than pretending they are being free-speech martyrs and being depicted with their mouths all duct-taped? It's a fetish. But no, Josh, "America" is not being "muzzled", anymore than, say, when Trump is impeached, all of his voters are being impeached. It's called personal responsibility. Conservatives could look into it, if they wanted to.

First of all, Josh Hawley represents Josh Hawley, not "America". The little stunt of trying to throw out my vote here in Pennsylvania was pure ambition, even if he wants to pretend that all of his Missouri constituents are so, so concerned about the constitution of our commonwealth. Josh Hawley needs to shut up, but that's not "cancel culture". That's shunning, because he fucked up. Dozens of police officers were injured and people died because Josh Hawley is an ambitious little liar. He shares this ignominy with other conservatives like Ted Cruz, but they are not being muzzled, even if they are a bit like mad dogs.

So no, America doesn't have a "social credit" problem. Hawley has a "He shit the bed and wants to sit here and polish the shit" problem. But it still smells.

How Now, "Mad at Cow"?

One of Trump's especially dumb toadies, Rep. Devin Nunes, had the extraordinary stupidity to file a suit against parody accounts purporting to be his cow and his mom, and for some reason, he also sued Liz Mair, because they said mean things about him. The parody accounts, as a result of the attention from the lawsuit, did not in fact die, but became more powerful (followed) than Nunes anticipated (see "Streisand effect"). It was recently determined that there was no real way to find out who Devin Nunes' cow actually was, and a recent ruling decided that Twitter was not to be held liable for what randos post there.

This isn't exactly a case of Nunes suing an internet cow and losing. It's more like, because he's a weird conservative conspiracy theorist, he thinks being criticized on the internet is some kind of ploy against him. But no, it's just...speech. Which, like a dumb fuck, he has called attention to in such a way that statements like "Devin Nunes is suing an internet cow" and "Devin Nunes is losing to an internet cow" can be made.

But the grotesque little point to his exercise is twofold: to purport that social media habitats are biased against conservatives because, I guess, accounts critical of them exist? And to try to shift bias rightward.

I have been following the foofaraw about Section 230 for a minute, and have some feelings.  I have existed as a semi-anonymous pseudonymous personage online for over 20 years, at this point, for a dozen on this blog. I think anonymity for non-public figures helps enable free speech without individual penalty and the toll to an internet persona should be reputational for that persona. Providing critical content, even derogatory content, shouldn't be censored so long as it isn't a threat of actual material harm (beyond hurt feelings or whatever). If you are stalking, making terroristic threats, are a straight-up criminal--okay--that's different. But just saying mean stuff? Give me a break!

Conservatives have been alleging "liberal media bias" for as long as I can remember, so claiming social media bias isn't a big shocker. But knowing how the internet or social media works, it means they are kind of pointing out that they aren't actually that popular and are getting a lot of push-back, and when they explain they are going to flounce off to Gab or Parler or whatever, it's kind of like "Welp, let's fuck off to wherever they banished the neo-Nazis to." Because  the thing where people get kicked off of social media? It's not for bias, it's usually for being a damaged tool that that can't even play well with others.

So anyway, am I saying Devin Nunes is definitely a damaged tool? Well, I'm not not saying that! But his district should seriously consider whether a person with a lot of time on his hands to fuck around about internet cows has any bandwidth left for his constituents.

An Historical Mistake

We made a mistake.

As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration. pic.twitter.com/VTWOS4R7GY

— US National Archives (@USNatArchives) January 18, 2020

The US National Archives has apologized for a mistake that seems of timely importance--they prominently featured a licensed display that blurred out the messages of signs carried during the 2017 Women's March. In the messages being blurred out in a selective way that eliminated the name "Trump" and blurred out "controversial" references to female anatomy, these amendments significantly lost the meanings those signs very much intended to convey:

One of the photos of the Washington march, taken by Mario Tama, a photographer for Getty Images, showed a sea of protesters holding signs criticizing Trump, The Post reported.

The National Archives, which featured the photo in its exhibit, blurred Mr. Trump’s name on a sign that originally read “God Hates Trump.” Another sign “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” also has the word Trump blurred out, The Post reported.

A sign with the word “vagina” was also blurred and the word “pussy” was erased from another sign. The references to the female anatomy were a rebuke of Mr. Trump’s comments about women in a 2005 recording that captured him boasting how he used his celebrity status to force himself on women, even groping their private parts.

Those words were altered because the museum has many young visitors and there was concern they might be inappropriate, Ms. Kleiman told The Post.

The Women's March came about as a reaction to Trump's election as a multiply-accused and self-described sexual assaulter, and as a politician who was certain to appoint judges who would rule against necessary women's healthcare and other legislation that protects our bodies, our self-determination, our access to equal opportunities and compensation. The words that were supposed to be potentially inappropriate for young museum-goers are either correct anatomical terms or vernacular words used by the president himself, for organs roughly 51% of people happen to have, which should make them commonplace enough not to offend anyone in a rational society.

Many people marched in many parts of the world that day because they wanted to establish that the voices of women mattered--a very good reason for a display depicting those demonstrators to render those words accurately, not blur them, because those words were what the march was about! It simply is not possible to divorce that march, or the following marches, from the politics of our time, and doing so seems like the exact opposite of what history should be for. A faithful archive of the conflicts of moments in time.

I don't want to assume that the Archive's act of "forgetting" was at political direction (is a FOIA pending, though?) because I think sometimes, institutions can be guilty of shying away from controversy in the vague idea of being inclusive, and inadvertently excluding people whose truths are uncomfortable in a way that reinforces a dominant narrative. This isn't a case, necessarily, of the US National Archive silencing a minority voice to support a dominant narrative though--it really seems to me like they messed up and muted a dominant voice (the diverse and multicultural Women's March contingent) to pacify the minority narrative of people who would complain loudest at the idea that "Trump" is a dirty word for some, and "vagina" is not.

The Trump government will not have the last word on our history. The US National Archive should reflect that. Censorship is a kind of lie.

Hey Kids! Lookit the Wacky Fun Enemies List!

Whoo-hoo! That's quite a normal thing for a White House press secretary to put out on social media! See, it's all in good jokey fun. It creates the narrative that the media is full of lugenpresse and traitors, but in a way that is back-slapping and relatable. In other news, Trump's campaign is trying to blacklist his critics from news programs, which is a slightly less jokey way of playing the same game, you guys! What a neat coordination of messages!

Ha, Teamwork makes the dream work, right?

And Now Donald Trump is POTUS

It's something from the "They said it couldn't happen" files: Donald Trump, real estate baron, reality show celebrity, conspiracy theorist and tabloid news regular, has been sworn in as the United States' 45th president. There was no last-minute intervention from earthly or celestial forces to spare the dissatisfied and disappointed from this event, because that isn't how our democracy works. Although Trump's failure to divest himself of his various holdings (such as the DC hotel lease which, as an elected official, he is now in violation of) reflect a conflict of interest (or Constitutional crisis, depending upon how you look at things) that could result in impeachment proceedings (sure, with a GOP congress?) and the investigation into potential correspondence between his presidential campaign staff and Russia may turn up something devastating--Trump is now the president, and will be, very likely, for the next four years.

What does it mean? Well, gosh, it's only just begun, but going from the brief but emphatic inaugural speech--which sounded like the campaign spiel he'd been giving all along, he's doubling down on America First--for a definition of America that I'm pretty sure doesn't mean all of us. I think his depiction of the current state of the country sounds awfully "homeless vets, foreign debts, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz"-- a valid criticism of the 1980's, but not really as accurate a picture of today's America. He says he's for the forgotten man, but I don't even know what his cabinet picks or policies will necessarily do for a soul. I'm a little put-out that anyone at all is chuffed enough just to feel name-checked.

As for the festivities themselves, well, it's a rainy Friday in DC, with a president-elect with an historically low approval rating. It was bound to be poorly-attended, relatively speaking.

I Stand with Atena Farghadani Even if I'm a Crap Artist

 

Twelve years is an awfully long sentence for a cartoonist to face for sketching out the truth as she saw it. The Guardian offers a means of solidarity--sharing one's own cartoon regarding the issue. Iran is supposedly a kind of democracy--but without free speech, this is a useless exercise. If political leaders can't be criticized, then anything they do is pre-emptively sanctioned.

I tooled about for five minutes in MS Paint, and I admit, I wouldn't have sketched much better. But my little contribution is to say that images don't hurt anyone--they might be a smidgen snarky, but that doesn't harm anyone or damage society.  But sentencing caring and eloquent and talented people because they care, because they are eloquent, because they have something to say--damages society in every way. This cartoonist should not lose such a chunk of her life. No. The political figures being mocked should understand that this criticism is a part of their job. They may not like it--who would? But if they do not like to be depicted as asses, the ideal solution would be to perform as less of an ass, not to punish the person who points it out.

Comedy Central killed the whole episode--you bastards!

This is Parker and Stone's comment on the whole thing:

"In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."

Intimidation and fear? Sounds like there was a moral there that got "eated". Too bad.

AC360: South Park Creators Face Death Threats over Mohammed Depiction

I like what Ayaan Hirsi Ali expresses towards the end--if more people speak out, it will become increasingly difficult for radicals to target individuals for blasphemy--because who should they target?

The problem with answering criticism, or even ridicule, or especially ridicule, with violence, is that it really isn't an "answer", it's just a bloody reaction. One could be pissed off over being corrected for one's....grammar, and shoot the would-be language instructor, but still be absolutely wrong about when to use "whom." And when the shot is over a joke?

SCENE:

"Say, what did that guy shoot Bob over?"

"Oh, some satire...."

"Really--how *good* was it?"



Because really, who's shot over a flop?

Or for any bit of art, this idea might apply. I read Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses specifically because of the fatwa, in rather the way I'm drawn to any book banned somewhere else. I also viewed Van Gogh's Submission for the same reason--to see what the controversy was about. It's not just murderous and immoral to attack people over such criticism, it's terribly counterproductive.

(Also I'm rather glad they never did get around to Rushdie. I finished reading Shalimar the Clown yesterday and it was about as good a novel as I've ever read.)