Signal boosting: Don’t fuck someone whose political views fuck you

Hanna Brooks Olsen has some advice for feminists dating Trump supporters: Break the fuck up.

A partner who voted for and continues to support a candidate who undermines your humanity does not respect your humanity.

It’s important, too, to remember what a privilege it is to “agree to disagree,” young (probably) white feminist. Your peers who are more marginalized bear the brunt of your connivance. Continuing to date someone who undermines you (and them) tacitly permits these views to exist.

Young person, there are people in the world (of all genders!) who not only agree with your political views, but agree with your fundamental belief that you are a human being who is worth loving. There are people in the world that you can be in a relationship with who don’t make you feel like you’re “too sensitive” for getting upset over an executive order, who don’t need to be asked not to call refugees “illegals,” and who will support you in your various causes.

In short, young person, I hope you at least remember this: Don’t fuck someone whose political actions could fuck you.

Wurd.

-Shiv

That’s a very odd definition of “safety”

I’m sure exactly zero people need to be reminded of the sheer volume of misdirection coming out of the White House, but Joe Sands has a pretty on-point review comparing Sean Spicer/Trump’s statements regarding safety to the regulations the Republicans are about to strip.

Contrast Trump:

We’re going to put the safety of Americans first, we’re not going to wait and react, as I said in the statement, the president is going to be very proactive in protecting this country.

With Trump’s plan:

We have Superfund sites that have been operating for years, decades even, where the entire mission is to clean up the downstream pollutants. Superfund sites are reactionary. Much like disallowing visas from Saudi Arabia would be, after the attack on September 11, 2001. A mining company comes in, legally pollutes the land and waterways, and then leaves or goes bankrupt, and the government (the EPA) is left holding the bag. The citizenry of the United States pays billions of dollars a year to clean up the environmental damage to our water and land.

Much like the current administration states that the “extreme vetting” refugee rules are proactive, rather than reactive, an argument that can be proven (and debated) on its merits, they also say that the “mission of the EPA is to protect (should be read: proactively) our air and water.”

But Congress is now using the Congressional Review Act to completely eliminate that rule, rolling back the proactive protections of our environment, going back to only worrying about the permitted areas, or at least removing the protections from regulatory oversight, making it easier for a mining company to circumvent responsibility for polluting our downstream waterways.

If your sanity can handle it, read more here.

-Shiv

ThinkProgress dedicates an entire column to Trump’s Gish Gallop

ThinkProgress is starting a series called “This Week in Trump’s America,” where they summarize the fountain of manure flooding forth from the White House. The editor noted:

There is a concept in the debate world called “spread.” You just throw out as many arguments as possible to overwhelm the opposition.

Trump is operating a spread presidency. Much of what he does is sloppy, dishonest and unpopular. But there is lots and lots of it.

It is hard to keep track of, even when IT IS YOUR FULL TIME JOB TO KEEP TRACK OF IT.

What about everyone else?

That’s why we’ve created this series. Each week, anyone can spend a few minutes and find out what Trump was up to.

You can read the positively dizzying summary of Week 1 in Trump’s America here. Unenforceable, illegal executive orders; a god damn Nazi speech; Spicer lying to a degree that even the Beltway media can’t be obsequious to; global gag rule on healthcare organizations that even mention abortion; closing the borders to countries whose citizens haven’t actually committed terrorist acts on Americans; conflicts of interest–the list goes on. And on.

And on.

-Shiv

Trump is slated to purge Energy Department employees who worked on climate change

Although it is entirely ordinary for the management positions of government administration to rotate when new governments are elected, over here in sane Canuckistan, most low- to mid-level administrators keep their positions. This is in part because they are hired to follow orders rather than issue them, so the logic there is that an administrator whose job is to spellcheck a report will still need to spellcheck reports regardless of who they come from.

Apparently that’s not good enough in Trumpland, because the transition team is asking the Energy Department to “provide a list of employees and contractors who attended United Nations climate meetings and worked on key Obama administration climate policies, including the social cost of carbon.”

Which is a pretty fucked up request. It’s one thing to turf the reality-based management of the EPA and the Energy Department, because the new administration is allergic to reality and a government is well within its rights to do so (regardless of how regrettable said action is). But for fuck sake, the employees who attended? The god damn minute-takers and personal assistants gotta go too?

I guess I just haven’t fully comprehended how much reality the incoming Trump administration is prepared to pretend doesn’t exist.

-Shiv

The Vultures of False Equivalency Descend

I really shouldn’t be surprised that even the much beloved Humans of New York decided it was Trump supporters who needed to be humanized in the wake of at least ~700 hate crimes committed since Nov 8.

 

Okay, so, I have some thoughts.

Commentators rushed forth to declare that the working class had been unheard, and that this justified the package deal that came with Trump. The mistake is immediately apparent: “Class issues” has never and will never be separable from the minority’s struggle, as if the middle class somehow has a monopoly on “economic anxiety.”

Poverty manifests in discrimination and it’s minorities of all stripes who are disproportionately represented in the working class–the ungainful labour kind. Marxist analysis is critically useful here: No picture painted merely with the “economic anxiety” brush is complete unless it acknowledges that no member of the proletariat is immune to it, and no proletariat’s struggle is without this anxiety. That includes the weird proletariat.

Of course the proletariat has gone unheard. That’s what the bourgeoisie do, their entire raison d’etre, is to effortlessly coast through life on the backs of the silent. And when you start to smarten up about who is on the other end of the leash, they throw a juicy bone to their shock troops–the middle class, the still-proletariat-but-with-extra-bones–to distract us. Those men bring women with them. And so it goes.

The problem isn’t merely that we are in this position–it’s that the shock troops will accept their mistreatment at the hands of the handlers as long as they keep getting juicy bones, or at least more juicy bones than we do. So along comes someone like me, a Marxist, a feminist, a queer trans woman, and she says “your handler starves you to trick you into thinking its bones are generous.”

How many handlers will take that for an answer? Their juicy bones are at stake! Sure, I could point out that he has the supply of bones and us hounds could take them for ourselves, change the system so they are not given to us at the whim of our handlers. But that terribly inconveniences the handlers, so they wave a bone, point at me, and command “sic em!”

Two problems solved at once. The uppity Marxist is too preoccupied with the snarling in her face, and the hound who might’ve won some dangerous ideas is enticed by the bone in his immediacy. No vision or foresight to question from whence the bone comes.

There needn’t be any discussion of class struggle without minorities. They are inextricably linked. If this is truly your chief concern, however, you will need to abandon any benefits you receive to be the bourgeoisie’s shock troops. You’ll never be one of them, but they’ll tempt you by offering you superiority over someone else. The rest. The other. Enough of you will take that bait, dooming us all to try and survive the infighting while our handlers gorge themselves on fat and meat, chuckling as they prepare the next bones to throw to us. It means putting away the petty hatreds, the racisms and homophobias and transphobias. No, it’s not symmetrical. We weren’t ever the shock troops to begin with, at least not to any appreciable scale, because by definition as minorities we did not have enough bodies to fill out a legion.

This is what I referenced when I said reactionaries didn’t need to benefit from humanization. They’re the pup willing to take an extra bone to kill us. They’re willing shock troops for the bourgeoisie. Sure, some of them are insecure, or at least feel that way, and some may even try to feel bad about being told to attack you. But we would be making a mistake not to recognize the capacity for distraction in the systemic nature of discrimination the rich tolerate and perpetrate. This, in my experience, is the more common reaction. If you can corner a “not sexist/racist” Trump supporter and drill to the core of their issue, they’ll inevitably parrot out something about jobs. And what about jobs of the black in their midst? The gay, the queer, the non-Christian? Who will be awarded our jobs once discrimination is legalized by “religious freedom”–yet another bone for their shock troops?

Why do you accept this dilemma when it is our handlers that deprived us of the nourishment we need to begin with?

Why have you accepted the lie that there aren’t enough bones to go around, even though you can clearly see them stuffed in your handler’s pocket?

Have you no ambition?

-Shiv

A few Canadian candids captured during the results of the US Election

I was tuned in to CBC while the results were rolling in and shortly before Clinton’s campaign manager came onto the stage to send everyone home, Mark Critch (right hand side) popped up on the TV screen wearing this expression:

Screencap from CBC

There’s not much to laugh at regarding this election, but Critch nonetheless got a room of giggles amidst speculation on which civil or human right would be the first to go.

-Shiv

Million-Woman March on Trump’s Inauguration

Washington, DC residents and folks who can get there, take note: There are some murmurings of a march on Trump’s inauguration in support of women’s rights, which the Republican platform is set to erode.

According to preliminary plans posted on Facebook, the march will take place on Saturday, January 21, the day after Trump is sworn in as America’s 45th president. The details of the event are not yet final, but organizers have launched individual Facebook groups in key states to help women make arrangements to be at the demonstration.

Over the past 24 hours, the organizers wrote that more than20,000 people have signed up to attend. “This is an INCLUSIVE march, and EVERYONE who supports women’s rights are welcome,” they added.

Connect with point people in your state here. And if you’re feeling furious, don’t boo—march. (Or do both. Doing both works, too.)

I’ll keep an eye out and signal boost the finer points when they’re settled.

USA, you’re going to need your #BlackMonday.

-Shiv