Marjorie Taylor Greene the Purposeful Pornographer

 

It amuses me that some Republicans pretend that Trump indictments are somehow detracting from Biden scandals, when it really looks to me like Biden pretend scandals only exist to detract from the fact that the GOP has placed their ONLY HOPE in Dopey One Kenobi, the twice-impeached one-term wonder who is facing all kinds of legal jeopardy in his post-presidency. They have absolutely no faith that anyone else on their bench could get on the field and play. They pretend that striking Trump down with indictments is only going to make him stronger, but, um. 

That totally feels like a Jedi mindtrick, and that does not work on anyone but the weak-minded. That's why I'm pretty sure that rhetoric is meant for, you know. Republicans. 

So, I get that the whistleblower stuff was mostly just a platform for MTG's stunt--wasn't it? Because it's what we're going to remember. right? Sure, Rep. Jamie Raskin debunked the bullshit that got put out today, but the star of today's clownshow was Marjorie Taylor Greene, inexplicably allowed to be on committees, who brandished a printout of a Hunter Biden selfie from his laptop to pretend that Hunter Biden was doing on purpose porn. 

You know who demonstrated intent to distribute said porn? Not Hunter Biden--Marjorie Taylor Greene. She just waved that stuff about in a committee hearing like Whoa! And frankly, there's no indication he (Hunter Biden) intended to distribute anything on the laptop or licensed the use of his image in any way. And that laptop was illicitly obtained as far as I know.

Look, MTG is all about the prurience. She made a big deal out of "Fang Fang"  not long ago, like all gutter GOP do, and frankly, the allegations made her smile, and I understand why. She needs to feel sanctimonious about something. And my god--Democrats fuck! And coming from a Crossfit gym trampoline, we will accept that criticism from her for exactly what it's worth!

Katie Hill and the Fuckery

The RedState editor who published nude photos of Rep. Katie Hill ID'd herself as an incoming "campaign manager" for one of Hill's 2020 challengers, @calebecarma reported yesterday.

Here's a copy of that email, and a few additional nuggets of info:https://t.co/Ak1aJ9bgY2

— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) October 30, 2019

So wait? The death by revenge-porning of Katie Hill's House career by way of loads of pics happens to have been political and not just the fuckery of an abusive ex?

I am an "old"--it just never would occur to me to send nudes to people because whoa! the difference to me! hits me like I was online at a time when I already had a good job and never wanted the hassle of so much drama occurring where it could be forwarded to someone inconvenient. (Notwithstanding I have written so much fanfic porn.) It's just bad operational security from my POV. But I have a simple rule--body-shaming and selfie-shaming are out of bounds. It doesn't matter if that person is a young lefty or an old righty. It is never okay to rip someone for having a body that is sometimes naked that you want to share with someone you think cares about you. That vulnerability is something we all experience. I keep my nekkidness off the internets for the most part, but it isn't wrong to have a body. Or to share pictures of it. It isn't wrong to have consensual relationships even if they aren't conventional pairings.

It is kind of weird that formerly jailed Russian-influenced personage George Papadopoulos is now seeking Katie Hill's seat. Like he sort of knew fuckery would eliminate the main opponent. Weird, right?

I call what happened to Hill straight-up fuckery. It should not have been this way--and she should not have felt like she had to resign in order to prevent nameless others from fucking about with her naked images.

I don't know who she has to sue, but I genuinely hope some motherfucker gets their ass sued off over this.

Jeff Bezos Does Not Have Time For You, Pecker

On some level, I think the epic news that AMI (the media company that is David Pecker's joint, which includes the National Enquirer, which could have been fuxxored over Trump bullshit but apparently is staying on their bullshit,) actually this late in the game, even thought of trying it with the richest man in the world (give or take) is some amazing commitment to the business model. I mean, seriously?

Is AMI trying to screw with Bezos because of Trump's regular war with Washington Post  and competent journalism in general or is it because they are being ink for hire for MbS because WaPo naturally has an interest in the death of Jamal Khashoggi? It doesn't freaking matter and Jeff Bezos doesn't freaking care about anything but guess what--you picked the wrong guy. 

Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? (On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI, and how they needed to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake.)

In the AMI letters I’m making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.”

And long story short, you can display pics of Jeff Bezos' dick all you want, but no camera can encompass the size of his balls. He told his representation to look into this shit but to not even preoccupy him with it because that wasn't even his biggest concern.

I don't love your labor actions always, Jeff Bezos, but for telling the blackmailers to go eat shit you have my admiration, because sextortion is the lowest of the low, and no one should put up with that shit and watching Bezos end the National Enquirer for just being shitsacks is entirely my brand of "here for it".

Stating my Possibly Unpopular Opinion Re: Rep. Barton

There are a couple of things about l'affaire Barton that I think, just being a reasonable person, don't seem all that scandalous. He divorced in 2015. He had some consenting relationships with adult women. He sent them communications of a sexual nature. One of the women seems to have felt some way about having competition, and shared material that was intended to remain private. He advised her beforehand that this was a bad idea and not without repercussions.

Here's the thing--releasing a graphic video or photos of someone in an intimate situation because it screws with them when that person did not want it out and about is called "revenge porn". It is a crime in many states, and a damn nasty trick to pull on someone. All things considered, if he and the individual who released the material had a relationship that was cool and consensual at one point, and he felt like opening up in this way, turning around and using his vulnerability against him is just not cool, whether he is a US Congressman or a total political hack or has garbage opinions about the environment or health care, or any other thing totally not related to a naked video of Rep. Joe Barton making the rounds on social media.  He's a person who has a right to not have his private shit thrown out in the street like this.

I also have a problem with the body-shaming comments getting made about a video that was not ever made for mass consumption--also not cool, not necessary, not really an apt criticism. A dude in his 60's with a mostly desk-related job might not be your idea of pleasing to the eye. Got it. But he never made that for you. He made that for someone he thought would appreciate it and not actually release it to the broader public, because why in the hell would someone do that?

Which is kind of where judgment does come into this situation. When you send any material digitally to someone else, you run the risk of it being reproduced or forwarded to who knows how many other people. Being a person in his political position, he should have been well aware of the risk to his reputation if it ever came out--but he was being trusting. He just didn't think. Things being what they are, though, one always has to be thinking.  And I guess I can see where social conservatives may see this in a different light than I do.

There is precious little overlap between me and Barton politically, but I think he's getting some blowback about this story and its framing that is not entirely fair. It's not about him--it's about whether this is ever a way anyone should try to screw over a romantic/sexual partner if things end poorly. And I say this is not OK. If he's in jeopardy related to his job, it should be because he's said dumb stuff about wind being a finite resource or that we should apologize to BP over the Gulf oil spill, or has nonsense ideas about workers' rights and minimum wage and other right wing claptrap. It should be at the ballot box he gets his, and not over this.

Unless it turns out he sent that to be creepy or abusive to someone who never wanted it or some garbage like that. But the story so far doesn't seem to make him out to be that guy.

UPDATE: I guess it might be a factor in considering Barton's overall ethics that he was likely still married when he began his relationship, but this really still wouldn't have any bearing on whether it's appropriate to digitally pimp someone's business.