Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 819
March 31, 2016
It was Republicans who killed the GOP: Stop trying to argue that anyone else is to blame
The ascendance of Donald Trump has proven vexing for conservative pundits. They were once so enthused by the GOP’s 2014 midterm gains and “deep bench” of White House hopefuls, but now they’re having trouble explaining how it is that Trump and Ted Cruz (and, perfunctorily, John Kasich) are the last men standing in the 2016 race. The answers to these questions are painful, as they require recognition that the toxic Republican politics of the last eight years were cheered along by the conservative media right up to the point that Trump won New Hampshire. So rather than grapple with tough, introspective analysis, they’re settling on a shallower, more viscerally satisfying explanation: it’s Barack Obama’s fault. The latest conservative writer to try his hand at this genre of punditry is the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger, who Thursday offers up a fine summary of Republican dysfunction during the Obama era, but lays ultimate responsibility for it on Obama and the passage of the Affordable Care Act. “He is now close to destroying his political enemies,” Henninger writes of Obama, “the Republican Party, the American conservative movement and the public-policy legacy of Ronald Reagan.” Arriving at this thesis required Henninger to modify his existing opinions of Obama and the ACA, which up to this point he’d treated as an existential threat to the political health of the Democratic Party. Henninger has called the Affordable Care Act “the greatest fiasco of [Obama’s] presidency.” He’s written about it in forward-looking historical terms as the political cancer that will kill the Democrats. “When 50 years from now historians search for evidence of when the Democratic Party’s decline began,” Henninger wrote in the aftermath of the 2014 elections, “they’ll fix on this famous blurting of the truth about ObamaCare by House Speaker Pelosi: ‘We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.’” As the ACA stumbled through its calamitous rollout in 2013, Henninger prophesied: “Forty years from now, the millennials who in 2008 and 2012 believed in and voted for the progressive ideal – limitless, mandated, state-led goodness – can tell their grandchildren they watched it fall apart in 2013. This is the glitch that failed.” As for the political bedlam that sprung from the ACA’s passage, Henninger has written about it as a symptom of Obama’s incompetence, as opposed to a political calculation intended to “destroy” his enemies. “Cynics and conspirators believe that the ever-clever Obama White House has sucked the oxygen out of the budget negotiations so that the Republicans would shut down Washington, alienate independents and lose the House in 2014,” Henninger wrote just as the 2013 Obamacare-inspired government shutdown was getting started. “But I don't think this president is that smart. His skills at conducting presidential politics in Washington are minimal. This chaos is the result.” Now, it turns out, the Affordable Care Act was actually a political trap that Obama deviously lured the Republicans into opposing. And, according to Henninger’s revised future history, it will the undoing of the GOP. Henninger writes today:
History may quibble, but this death-spiral began with Barack Obama’s health-care summit at Blair House on Feb. 25, 2010. For a day, Republicans gave detailed policy critiques of the proposed Affordable Care Act. When it was over, the Democrats, including Mr. Obama, said they had heard nothing new. That meeting was the last good-faith event in the Obama presidency. Barack Obama killed politics in Washington that day because he had no use for it, and has said so many times. The Democrats survived the Obama desert by going to ground. But frustrated Republicans outside Congress eventually started tearing each other apart.This is a bizarre diagnosis of political dysfunction in the Obama era. A better start date for the GOP death spiral would be January 20, 2009 – the first day of the Obama administration, when top Republicans in Congress met in secret and decided on a strategy of all-out obstruction aimed at denying Obama any legislative victories and squashing his reelection hopes. The party decided to act as bad-faith obstructionists long before the first draft of the Affordable Care Act was put together. They painted every action by the Obama administration as an existential threat to the country, to the Constitution, and to the notion of American identity, and they set themselves up for failure by promising voters they would undo the entire Obama agenda. Barack Obama and his legislative accomplishments can be credited for the implosion of the modern Republican Party to the extent that he was in office when Republicans made the collective decision to give up on governing. Conservative pundits like Henninger recognize the rot that’s taken over their party but remain determinedly blind as to its source and prefer to default to the accepted right-wing view that everything bad that happens in Washington is ultimately the fault of the Democratic president. But it is not and never was Obama’s responsibility to make sure that the GOP didn’t behave like self-destructive clowns.The ascendance of Donald Trump has proven vexing for conservative pundits. They were once so enthused by the GOP’s 2014 midterm gains and “deep bench” of White House hopefuls, but now they’re having trouble explaining how it is that Trump and Ted Cruz (and, perfunctorily, John Kasich) are the last men standing in the 2016 race. The answers to these questions are painful, as they require recognition that the toxic Republican politics of the last eight years were cheered along by the conservative media right up to the point that Trump won New Hampshire. So rather than grapple with tough, introspective analysis, they’re settling on a shallower, more viscerally satisfying explanation: it’s Barack Obama’s fault. The latest conservative writer to try his hand at this genre of punditry is the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger, who Thursday offers up a fine summary of Republican dysfunction during the Obama era, but lays ultimate responsibility for it on Obama and the passage of the Affordable Care Act. “He is now close to destroying his political enemies,” Henninger writes of Obama, “the Republican Party, the American conservative movement and the public-policy legacy of Ronald Reagan.” Arriving at this thesis required Henninger to modify his existing opinions of Obama and the ACA, which up to this point he’d treated as an existential threat to the political health of the Democratic Party. Henninger has called the Affordable Care Act “the greatest fiasco of [Obama’s] presidency.” He’s written about it in forward-looking historical terms as the political cancer that will kill the Democrats. “When 50 years from now historians search for evidence of when the Democratic Party’s decline began,” Henninger wrote in the aftermath of the 2014 elections, “they’ll fix on this famous blurting of the truth about ObamaCare by House Speaker Pelosi: ‘We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.’” As the ACA stumbled through its calamitous rollout in 2013, Henninger prophesied: “Forty years from now, the millennials who in 2008 and 2012 believed in and voted for the progressive ideal – limitless, mandated, state-led goodness – can tell their grandchildren they watched it fall apart in 2013. This is the glitch that failed.” As for the political bedlam that sprung from the ACA’s passage, Henninger has written about it as a symptom of Obama’s incompetence, as opposed to a political calculation intended to “destroy” his enemies. “Cynics and conspirators believe that the ever-clever Obama White House has sucked the oxygen out of the budget negotiations so that the Republicans would shut down Washington, alienate independents and lose the House in 2014,” Henninger wrote just as the 2013 Obamacare-inspired government shutdown was getting started. “But I don't think this president is that smart. His skills at conducting presidential politics in Washington are minimal. This chaos is the result.” Now, it turns out, the Affordable Care Act was actually a political trap that Obama deviously lured the Republicans into opposing. And, according to Henninger’s revised future history, it will the undoing of the GOP. Henninger writes today:
History may quibble, but this death-spiral began with Barack Obama’s health-care summit at Blair House on Feb. 25, 2010. For a day, Republicans gave detailed policy critiques of the proposed Affordable Care Act. When it was over, the Democrats, including Mr. Obama, said they had heard nothing new. That meeting was the last good-faith event in the Obama presidency. Barack Obama killed politics in Washington that day because he had no use for it, and has said so many times. The Democrats survived the Obama desert by going to ground. But frustrated Republicans outside Congress eventually started tearing each other apart.This is a bizarre diagnosis of political dysfunction in the Obama era. A better start date for the GOP death spiral would be January 20, 2009 – the first day of the Obama administration, when top Republicans in Congress met in secret and decided on a strategy of all-out obstruction aimed at denying Obama any legislative victories and squashing his reelection hopes. The party decided to act as bad-faith obstructionists long before the first draft of the Affordable Care Act was put together. They painted every action by the Obama administration as an existential threat to the country, to the Constitution, and to the notion of American identity, and they set themselves up for failure by promising voters they would undo the entire Obama agenda. Barack Obama and his legislative accomplishments can be credited for the implosion of the modern Republican Party to the extent that he was in office when Republicans made the collective decision to give up on governing. Conservative pundits like Henninger recognize the rot that’s taken over their party but remain determinedly blind as to its source and prefer to default to the accepted right-wing view that everything bad that happens in Washington is ultimately the fault of the Democratic president. But it is not and never was Obama’s responsibility to make sure that the GOP didn’t behave like self-destructive clowns.
Amy Schumer reveals Jon Snow’s fate (well, sort of) in “Game of Thrones”-style preview
"Inside Amy Schumer" teased its April 21 return with a "Game of Thrones"-style promo, purporting to reveal the fate of GoT's Jon Snow, who died last season. Or did he? "No spoilers, but Jon Snow is definitely alive," Schumer says. "'Cause he said no to doing our show." She's in a foggy forest, flanked by two pelt-clad villagers, and styled like a cross between Sansa Stark and Daenerys Targaryen. She's on horseback. "And fame hasn't changed me," she adds. "This is just the Uber that picked me up." Watch the full preview below: "Inside Amy Schumer" teased its April 21 return with a "Game of Thrones"-style promo, purporting to reveal the fate of GoT's Jon Snow, who died last season. Or did he? "No spoilers, but Jon Snow is definitely alive," Schumer says. "'Cause he said no to doing our show." She's in a foggy forest, flanked by two pelt-clad villagers, and styled like a cross between Sansa Stark and Daenerys Targaryen. She's on horseback. "And fame hasn't changed me," she adds. "This is just the Uber that picked me up." Watch the full preview below:
Fox News’ Andrea Tantaros concocts insane conspiracy theory to defend Donald Trump’s extreme anti-abortion position(s)
Not sure if I should blame this one on Sarah Palin -- for lowering the standard of intellectual curiosity required for one of the highest offices in the land so much so that asking a question is somehow an attack -- or Sean Hannity -- for so intensely training his one-track, anti-Hillary Clinton zealotry throughout Fox News consistently from the 2007 "Stop Hillary Express" days all the way through seven years of Obama Derangement Syndrome. In either case, it came as little surprise to hear that a Fox News anchor rushed to the defense of Donald Trump's supposed "misspeak" on the potential punishments for women who seek abortions once Trump outlaws the procedure, or even that the perennial conservative boogeyman, Clinton, was evoked in the process. But that, in the mind of Andrea Tantaros, Trump's answer to a simple yes or no question is part of a larger liberal conspiracy orchestrated by Clinton as part of a "gender war" -- well, now, that's shockingly funny. Of course, Tantaros engenders near daily groans as the co-host of Fox News' "Outnumbered," espousing such well thought out conspiracies like, campus rape investigations are actually a “war on boys," and school nutrition programs are "causing mental problems." “What he did was he walked into exactly what Hillary Clinton wanted him to walk into, which is a trap,” Tantaros explained of Trump's abortion comments on Thursday, somehow blaming Clinton for Trump's response to MSNBC's Chris Matthews' question during a town hall on Wednesday. "Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?" Matthews plainly asked the Republican presidential frontrunner who earlier tried to evade the question. "The answer is there has to be some form of punishment," Trump begrudgingly responded, only to flip back-and-forth on the matter in hours. Tantaros argued that the entire exchange was somehow orchestrated by Clinton and the Democratic Party so that “they can get their upcoming gender war, which is exactly what they want." Behold the sweet, twisted conspiracies that come from an entanglement of Trump-levels of blind devotion and toxic, dedicated anti-Clinton rage, via Mediate:
March 30, 2016
America’s next sexual frontier: The “nipplegasm”
They can be flicked, kissed and sucked; pierced or painted. You keep them close, but often covered. Though their appearance may change, they almost always show up in the same place. They’re your nipples, and apparently, they want in on your orgasm. The nipple-assisted orgasm, or nipplegasm, refers to an orgasm delivered by nipple stimulation alone. Of course, not everyone has encountered that kind of pleasure. Sexologist Carol Queen suspects those who have are likely armed with two specific skills: the ability to get very aroused and the willingness to explore sex as a full body practice. Queen reminds us, “Not everybody relates to sex that way… People who have intercourse for a few minutes and then roll over and go to sleep are often going to miss out on this aspect of the sexual journey.” So no, not everyone is interested in the nipplegasm. But are we all outfitted with the same potential to dive into orgasm, nipple first? When Barry Komisaruk, a psychologist at Rutgers University, paid 11 women $100 each to sit in a brain-scanning machine and diddle themselves for science, he wasn’t surprised to see a correlative reaction taking place in thebrain. When the genitals are stimulated, an area known as the genital sensory cortex lights up. But he was surprised to see the spot responding to nipple stimulation as well. "This could be the basis for many women saying that nipple stimulation is erotogenic," he told LiveScience. “It stimulates the same area as the genitals.” Komisaruk’s experiment isn’t the only instance we’ve seen nipples and orgasm collide. “One reason we know that nipple stimulation can lead to orgasm is that there are cases of women who’ve had the experience while breastfeeding,” says Queen. She adds, “It is a neurological reflex that some women seem prone to.” According to a study conducted by Herbert Otto, 29 percent of women report having experienced a “breast orgasm” at least once in their life. Otto goes so far to say the nipplegasm is the second most common form of orgasm among women. While we’re rolling with the science, it’s worth noting that a separate studypublished in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that in comparison to the other erogenous zones on a woman’s body, the nipples are among the most sensitive to pressure and vibration. Still, there seem to be plenty of women who don’t relate. According to Men’s Health, around 7 percent of women say that nipple stimulation actually decreases their arousal. “For some women, the nipple is about as arousing as the elbow. It just doesn’t do it for them,” says sex educator and author Carlyle Jansen. Though, perhaps that isn't so surprising. Queen says, “Let’s remember that not all women like clitoral stimulation either.” When it comes to matters of sex, few adages seem more applicable than, different strokes for different folks. In a breast-obsessed culture, it can be hard to escape the eroticization of the nipple. Jansen says, “I think that a lot of our sexuality and what we find erotic is learned.” And when expectations are set and left unmet, problems can occur. “It can almost make women who don’t find that kind of stimulation pleasurable feel like something is wrong with them,” says Jansen. Of course, a nipple doesn’t have to have a breast behind it to crave some stimulation. In his study, Komisaruk noted that nipple stimulation causes the “genital brain regions” to light up in men as well. “Male sexuality is understood by most as so penis-focused that when men begin to have erectile issues, they often just give up on sex. That’s not a cultural scenario in which a fellow would discover great pleasure from his nipples,” says Queen. She says the exception is "in the BDSM world, where it is well-accepted that the whole body can be the source of erotic and exciting sensory experiences.” That bit might help explain the popularity of the nipple clamp (which, by the way, are now offered in vibrating form). Still, it’s not as if everyone is going to run with that information to the nearest sex shop. Those most likely to experience different forms of orgasm are those who have expressed in interest in experimentation. “I’d say that the more a person is engaged with sexual activity as an open-ended adventure in which to explore sensory possibilities, the easier it will be to become orgasmic via nipple and breast stimulation,” says Queen. “The first step may simply be knowing that it’s possible.”
They can be flicked, kissed and sucked; pierced or painted. You keep them close, but often covered. Though their appearance may change, they almost always show up in the same place. They’re your nipples, and apparently, they want in on your orgasm. The nipple-assisted orgasm, or nipplegasm, refers to an orgasm delivered by nipple stimulation alone. Of course, not everyone has encountered that kind of pleasure. Sexologist Carol Queen suspects those who have are likely armed with two specific skills: the ability to get very aroused and the willingness to explore sex as a full body practice. Queen reminds us, “Not everybody relates to sex that way… People who have intercourse for a few minutes and then roll over and go to sleep are often going to miss out on this aspect of the sexual journey.” So no, not everyone is interested in the nipplegasm. But are we all outfitted with the same potential to dive into orgasm, nipple first? When Barry Komisaruk, a psychologist at Rutgers University, paid 11 women $100 each to sit in a brain-scanning machine and diddle themselves for science, he wasn’t surprised to see a correlative reaction taking place in thebrain. When the genitals are stimulated, an area known as the genital sensory cortex lights up. But he was surprised to see the spot responding to nipple stimulation as well. "This could be the basis for many women saying that nipple stimulation is erotogenic," he told LiveScience. “It stimulates the same area as the genitals.” Komisaruk’s experiment isn’t the only instance we’ve seen nipples and orgasm collide. “One reason we know that nipple stimulation can lead to orgasm is that there are cases of women who’ve had the experience while breastfeeding,” says Queen. She adds, “It is a neurological reflex that some women seem prone to.” According to a study conducted by Herbert Otto, 29 percent of women report having experienced a “breast orgasm” at least once in their life. Otto goes so far to say the nipplegasm is the second most common form of orgasm among women. While we’re rolling with the science, it’s worth noting that a separate studypublished in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that in comparison to the other erogenous zones on a woman’s body, the nipples are among the most sensitive to pressure and vibration. Still, there seem to be plenty of women who don’t relate. According to Men’s Health, around 7 percent of women say that nipple stimulation actually decreases their arousal. “For some women, the nipple is about as arousing as the elbow. It just doesn’t do it for them,” says sex educator and author Carlyle Jansen. Though, perhaps that isn't so surprising. Queen says, “Let’s remember that not all women like clitoral stimulation either.” When it comes to matters of sex, few adages seem more applicable than, different strokes for different folks. In a breast-obsessed culture, it can be hard to escape the eroticization of the nipple. Jansen says, “I think that a lot of our sexuality and what we find erotic is learned.” And when expectations are set and left unmet, problems can occur. “It can almost make women who don’t find that kind of stimulation pleasurable feel like something is wrong with them,” says Jansen. Of course, a nipple doesn’t have to have a breast behind it to crave some stimulation. In his study, Komisaruk noted that nipple stimulation causes the “genital brain regions” to light up in men as well. “Male sexuality is understood by most as so penis-focused that when men begin to have erectile issues, they often just give up on sex. That’s not a cultural scenario in which a fellow would discover great pleasure from his nipples,” says Queen. She says the exception is "in the BDSM world, where it is well-accepted that the whole body can be the source of erotic and exciting sensory experiences.” That bit might help explain the popularity of the nipple clamp (which, by the way, are now offered in vibrating form). Still, it’s not as if everyone is going to run with that information to the nearest sex shop. Those most likely to experience different forms of orgasm are those who have expressed in interest in experimentation. “I’d say that the more a person is engaged with sexual activity as an open-ended adventure in which to explore sensory possibilities, the easier it will be to become orgasmic via nipple and breast stimulation,” says Queen. “The first step may simply be knowing that it’s possible.”
The dark side of “visibility”: How we slept on trans people becoming the new scapegoats of the right
I was happy to hear about the International Trans Day of Visibility two years ago. I agreed with the sentiment that the Transgender Day of Remembrance in November being the only trans holiday was morbid and depressing and that celebrating happy, healthy trans lives was a positive goal. I was happy to be one of many allies pushing awareness of March 31 as a “day of visibility” last year. Which is why I was surprised when one of my close friends, who is trans and who hadn’t heard of the holiday, responded with a scowl when I told her about it. “My goal isn’t visibility, my goal is survival,” she said. “The Jews were extremely visible in 1930s Europe, how much good did it do them?” Since then I’ve been thinking about the relative shallowness of “visibility” as a goal in and of itself, especially since the past two years have been one long performative celebration of trans visibility. Caitlyn Jenner became a magazine cover girl in the name of “visibility” and has continued to do highly visible things like
Stop killing off TV’s lesbians: This depressing trope limits storytelling about queer women
Television might be getting more inclusive, but when it comes to lesbian and bisexual characters, the small screen remains a graveyard. In a recent report from Autostraddle, the queer-centric website ran the numbers over the past four decades and found that queer women were the most likely characters to die on TV: Since 1976, 11 percent of television shows have featured a lesbian or bisexual character, and of those programs, 65 percent have a deceased queer female character. Of lesbian characters no longer on television, 31 percent have bitten the dust. Just 11 percent have been allowed to have a happy ending that doesn’t in tragedy or death. The phenomenon is so storied that it even has a name: TV Tropes calls it “Dead Lesbian Syndrome.” This tendency is similar to what the website calls “Bury Your Gays,” in which LGBT characters are more likely to meet their maker than heterosexual cisgender (non-trans) ones. The trend began in earnest in the late 1970s and 80s on shows like “Cell Block H” and “Casualty.” The Hollywood Reporter notes that “Executive Suite,” a short-lived CBS soap opera that ran from 1976-77, marked TV’s first lesbian casualty: “a lesbian character chases her love interest into the street only to be run over by a truck.” This pattern would be repeated ad nauseam throughout the years—of lesbian characters routinely punished for coming to terms with their sexuality or pursuing their desires. A famous example is Joss Whedon’ “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” In “Seeing Red,” Tara (Amber Benson) reconciles with Willow (Alyson Hannigan), her on-again-off-again girlfriend. Although intercourse between the two was largely implied, the episode marked the first time the couple—the only same-sex pairing on the show—were shown in bed together. (They mostly hug a lot.) Shortly after, Tara is shot by a stray bullet and dies. The trope of killing off lesbian or bisexual characters recently had its moment in the spotlight when the CW’s “The 100,” a show about post-apocalyptic warrior teens, killed off Lexa (Alycia Debnam-Carey), its most popular character. On the show, Lexa finally consummated her long-simmering romance with Clarke (Eliza Taylor)—a popular ‘ship among the show’s fanbase—only to end with Lexa being shot by, you guessed it, a stray bullet in the same scene. Around the same time, “The Walking Dead” offed Denise (Merritt Wever), who at least had the decency to be killed with a stray arrow—y’know, for variety’s sake. Debnam-Carey, who is a regular on AMC’s “Fear the Walking Dead,” was always going to be a temporary presence on “The 100.” Scheduling conflicts likewise led to the recent demise of Rose (aka Sin Rostro) on “Jane the Virgin.” The actress who plays the scarlet-haired criminal mastermind, Bridget Regan, is also appearing on TNT’s “The Last Ship.” Those behind-the-scenes explanations and contract minutiae didn’t help quell fan outcry: Following the deaths of Lexa and Denise, the hashtag #LGBTFansDeserveBetter trended nationally on Twitter. Jason Rothenberg, the showrunner for “The 100,” was even obliged to apologize. It’s easy to see why fans were so upset. Shows have varied as “Northern Exposure,” “Private Practice,” “Skins,” “House of Cards,” “Jessica Jones,” “Scream Queens,” and “Pretty Little Liars,” have all offed their queer female characters in ways that feel both gratuitous and unnecessary. (“Boardwalk Empire” even did it twice—killing off both Angela and Louise.) In the case of “The Walking Dead,” what made Denise’s death particularly sting is that in the comics on which the show is based, the Grim Reaper came for someone else: Abraham (played by Michael Cudlitz) was the one killed by an arrow. This means “TWD” murdered a queer character in place of a straight one, a move unlikely to win favor among LGBT fans of the program. You might be saying to yourself: “Who cares? It’s just a TV show! People on ‘The Walking Dead' die all the time. It is a show about zombies, after all.” That’s true, but shows where “Anyone Can Die” actually account for just a fraction the problem. Autostraddle did the math and tabulated that of the 68 shows with dead lesbians or bisexual women, only 35 (or just over half) viewed other characters as equally expendable. In fact, Autostraddle reports that around 40 percent of queer female characters appeared in less than a quarter of their show’s entire run—meaning they were killed off pretty quickly. On TV, queer women die so that everyone else can live. What message does this send to LGBT audiences? For many, it indicates that the stories of queer characters—and especially women—are disposable. “We comprise such a teeny-tiny fraction of characters on television to begin with that killing us off so haphazardly feels especially cruel,” Autostraddle’s Marie Lyn Bernard writes. This is especially true at a time when LGBT people are fighting for greater representation on television. The small screen has made enormous strides in the past decade—between inclusive shows like “Transparent,” “Faking It,” “How to Get Away With Murder,” and “The Fosters”—but there’s clearly a lot of work to be done. Otherwise, queer storylines wouldn’t keep hitting the cutting room floor. On a greater level, representation matters because many still yearn for greater opportunities to see their lives positively depicted in popular media. “LGBT viewers long to see their own happy endings reflected back to them,” the Hollywood Reporter writes. “Underrepresented groups—from people of color to people with disabilities to LGBT people—who are denied that kind of positive representation in our shared culture naturally have a harder time imagining it for their own lives. When death, sadness and despair are the predominant stories we're told, particularly for younger viewers, it can seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy.” The way to fix this problem is that shows simply need more imagination when it comes to LGBT representation. When it comes to characters like Lexa and Denise, what led to their demise was not homophobic malice. Writers’ rooms and producers often can’t imagine other storylines for queer people that don’t revolve around their sexualities, meaning that when they finally get what they want (i.e., love or sex), they’re no longer necessary. Television might be a dangerous place to be queer, but there’s nothing more deadly than a medium that still doesn’t know how to treat LGBT people with basic humanity.
When is a band not itself anymore?: As bands age and line-ups shift, fans get to decide
On this year's Grammy Awards, the surviving members of the Eagles joined up with Jackson Browne to perform "Take It Easy" in honor of Glenn Frey, who passed away in mid-January. In the aftermath of the tribute appearance, Eagles drummer/co-vocalist/co-founder Don Henley told BBC Radio 2 the performance was "very difficult and very emotional," and added, “That was the final farewell. I don’t think you’ll see us performing again. I think that was probably it. I think it was an appropriate farewell.” That Frey's death has apparently put the Eagles to rest is respectful to both fans and the group's body of work. However, calling it a day is an increasingly rare gesture: Losing a key member is frequently not a deterrent to established bands moving forward and continuing their touring and recording schedules. The most notable recent example of this phenomenon is AC/DC, which postponed the remainder of a tour amidst frontman Brian Johnson's hearing problems, and then pledged to finish out the dates with a new vocalist. (Rumored, weirdly enough, to be Axl Rose, whose own band, Guns 'n' Roses, is embarking on tour dates featuring original members Slash and Duff McKagan.) Heavy metal legends Black Sabbath, meanwhile, have embarked on their final tour without drummer Bill Ward, amid accusations (and subsequent denials) that he couldn't handle the physical demands of the tour, while new Rock & Roll Hall of Famers Cheap Trick have toured with drummer Daxx Nielsen in place of Bun E. Carlos for years now. And then there's the reactivated At The Drive-In, which just started a tour without co-founder/vocalist/guitarist Jim Ward, whose sudden and unexpected absence was announced on Facebook long after concerts had been announced. Of course, lineup changes aren't necessarily fatal to bands or their creative output. R.E.M. kept going after Bill Berry left the group in 1997, while Alice In Chains eventually regrouped with vocalist William DuVall assuming the lead vocal spot in place of the late Layne Staley. Death Cab for Cutie has soldiered on without core member Chris Walla, whose instrumental and production contributions shaped the beloved indie-rock group's sound, while Wilco leveraged early lineup turmoil for creative benefit. And it's not just rock band dealing with lineup instability, either: R&B troupe Destiny's Child weathered lineup changes back during its heyday, while En Vogue currently tours as a trio with two original members. Yet for loyal fans, any substitutions are often dealbreakers: A Dallas Observer piece on ATDI's switch called the announcement "a big cheat to fans who looked forward to the return of all the main forces" and asked, "How is this any different from the projects that Bixler-Zavala and Rodriguez-Lopez have done together without [Ward], including De Facto, the Mars Volta, Antemasque and their solo records?" R.E.M. fans still argue about the band's output pre- and post-Bill Berry. In Cheap Trick circles, meanwhile, there are purists who refuse to see the band without Carlos behind the kit, while even the mere possibility of Rose fronting AC/DC has angered countless fans (especially those with tickets to the postponed shows). The ire is understandable: New lineup configurations often do change a group's chemistry, and an act is often greater than the sum of its parts: It isn't just the music, but also who performs those songs, that makes a band a band. Yet the sheer number of classic and hard rock bands aging and potentially staring down retirement, as well as the ongoing popularity of reunions, has made upholding this black-and-white mindset more difficult. In fact, it's made the concept of band identity akin to a series of philosophical questions: At what point does a group performing under a certain name not actually have enough core members to be allowed to use the moniker? Which band members are essential to a group's success—and which can be replaced with no repercussions? Who gets to choose or define when a band performs under a particular name? When is it acceptable for bands to use their names, despite having mostly non-original (or recognizable) members? These questions are quickly becoming non-theoretical. Due to co-founder Mick Jones' health problems, Foreigner has done some tour dates in recent years without him, meaning the group was performing with no original members. The current lead vocalists of hard rockers Quiet Riot and Warrant have done time in the groups Love/Hate and Lynch Mob (respectively), while Ratt and Survivor have gone the opposite route and now have significantly younger lead vocalists: The latter's singer is 21-years old, while the former's frontman said at a recent concert he was a year old in 1985, meaning he was born the year Ratt's "Round & Round" was a hit. And Blackfoot's Rickey Medlocke and Revolting Cocks' Al Jourgensen sent their respective bands out without them in recent years, leveraging a new lineup and name recognition for notoriety. Swapping players in and out has certainly been a common practice in classic and hard rock circles for years: Journey has cycled through several lead singers since Steve Perry left the group in the '80s, while Lynyrd Skynyrd regrouped in 1987, a decade after the devastating 1977 plane crash that killed frontman Ronnie Van Zant and guitarist/vocalist Steve Gaines. But more and more, the genre seems like it's on a path where bands are becoming franchises—a name brand with interchangeable players rather than a specific, recognizable group of musicians. At the moment, Ratt counts only drummer Bobby Blotzer as a golden-era member—and while the band sounded strong and note-perfect at a recent live show, the overall experience felt like going to see a well-oiled tribute band rather than the real thing. The idea of an entertainment entity being a franchise has precedent, of course. In book publishing, the practice of having series authors cede to ghostwriters and multiple writers is a common one, as evidenced by Ann M. Martin ("The Baby-Sitter's Club") and Francine Pascal ("Sweet Valley High"), while Carolyn Keene (the "Nancy Drew" mysteries) was always a pseudonym. TV shows—and not just soap operas—also often have characters drop in and out. Yet it's a discomfiting experience applying that same concept to a band: Loving someone's music is a far more personal experience, as band popularity is often predicated on the personalities of the individual players. Loyalists aren't (usually) idolizing an idealized, fictional character, but relating directly to the real person behind the stage persona. Assuming that fans will automatically warm to (or push aside) those sorts of personal connections because the music trumps all is somewhat insulting. Band names shouldn't be in air quotes. Reunions are a slightly different animal because there are more factors contributing to lineup configurations. Still, it's often good enough these days to have most of a group's core/preferred lineup involved. Sometimes this is out of necessity: Dreampop group Lush has recruited Elastica drummer Justin Welch for their reunion, as original drummer Chris Acland committed suicide in 1996, while Slim Dunlap couldn't take part in the Replacements' reunion due to severe health problems. Of course, the latter group is no stranger to lineup shuffling—original guitarist Bob Stinson was out of the band in 1986—and Bob Mehr's new biography, "Trouble Boys," noted that Dunlap gave his blessing to the recent 'Mats reunion, which featured original members Paul Westerberg and Tommy Stinson. That 'Mats reunion tour didn't feel incomplete or insincere, which underscores just how subjective band identities can be: One person's sham is another person's transcendent experience. And on one level, it's hard to fault bands for wanting to push forward and perform beloved songs for eager fans, even if things aren't the exact same way they used to be: There's nothing like hearing a hit single or a moving song performed live, and the financial benefits of the concert industry are tough to turn down or push away. In the coming years and decades, it's clear the very essence of music—and the boundaries delineating and defining bands—are poised for some potentially seismic shifts.
Donald Trump says he wants to punish women who have abortions, making him just like every other “pro-life” politician
Donald Trump once again managed on Wednesday to send shockwaves through the media with his blunt, vicious mouth, this time admitting out loud that he wishes to "punish" women who get abortions. After asked by Chris Matthews about abortion during an MSNBC town hall set to air in full Wednesday night, Trump reiterated the bog-standard Republican opinion that he is "pro-life" and that he would like to return to an era when abortion was banned. But then the wheels fell off the whole thing when Matthews pushed Trump on what would happen to women who got illegal abortions under the proposed Trump abortion ban. After wiggling a little, Trump caved and answered, "There has to be some form of punishment." "For the woman?” Matthews pushed. "Yeah," Trump replied. Trump is clearly not conversant in the disingenuous posturing about abortion expected of all anti-choice politicians. If he was, he'd know the official stance that Republicans are supposed to take is that women are victims of abortion and therefore cannot be held responsible for it. Yes, it's true that women pick up the phone, make the appointment, talk through their decisions with medical professionals, sign paperwork and then either take a pill or let the doctor perform an abortion, but none of this should be taken, in conservative eyes, as evidence that women are the people responsible for the abortion happening. Women are regarded by conservatives as fundamentally incapable of making grown-up decisions. If they choose abortion (and by implication, if they choose sex), it's because they poor dears were misled. Yes, the same people that conservatives treat as literally too stupid to understand what making a medical decision entails are then expected to raise children. One doesn't want to give Trump too much credit here for his mistake in talking about women like their brains function on a level past that of a 3-year-old. It's not like he has some kind of respect for women's intelligence. It's just that he hasn't been briefed, likely out of personal disinterest, on the fact that the right's official stance is no longer that women are murderers. The newer, softer talking point is that women are idiots. But let's be quite clear here that the "women are idiots" line that Trump failed to absorb is a millimeter-deep posture. While everyone is tearing their hair out about Trump saying he wants to punish women, Republican legislators nationwide are showing with their actions that punishing women for even thinking about abortion is what they want to do. The latest example is out of Utah, where the governor signed a law literally forcing women to ingest dangerous, debilitating, medically unnecessary drugs — drugs that can actually kill you — as punishment for their abortions after 20 weeks. The official claim is that he's just so worried that the fetuses can feel pain that he just needs doctors to give women anesthesia in order to prevent that, but that claim is hard to buy, since the prevailing research shows that the earliest a fetus could possibly feel pain is around 29 to 30 weeks. But as punishment for an abortion, putting someone under works great. It's expensive, requires a lengthier hospital visit, and makes the patient feel like she's nursing a hangover after a 3-day bender. And that's if everything goes well. After all, one reason doctors prefer not to use heavy anesthesia for procedures like abortion is it raises the risk of death substantially. And that's just but one example. Really, the vast majority of abortion restrictions boil down to a desire to punish women. Mandatory ultrasounds add expense and time, and require enduring a lengthy vaginal probe. Closing down clinics with medically unnecessary regulations is about making women drive for hours and pony up money for hotel and childcare. Mandatory counseling is about shaming women and telling them lies about how they'll die of breast cancer if they do this. Now Indiana is forcing women to pay for cremation or burial of embryos removed during abortion, a clear attempt to send the message that an embryo that is the size of a pencil eraser is a child that you killed. It's all about punishment. It was always about punishment. If they can't do it with jail time, they'll just make the whole process as miserable as possible. Trump's only mistake was saying the quiet part out loud. Update: Trump's campaign has released a statement embracing the standard Republican talking points on this.
If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.So instead of believing that women who get abortions are violent criminals, he has shifted to the apparently more acceptable belief that they are drooling idiots who cannot be trusted with something as simple as a medical decision regarding their own body. Why this is better continues to be a mystery.
This could be the first bona fide sex scandal of the 2016 election
On her show Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow detailed the early-2000s case of Washington, D.C., madam Deborah Palfrey. The proprietor of high-end escort service Pamela Martin & Associates, Palfrey was convicted in 2008 of money laundering and racketeering. Palfrey and her lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, fought to release the company's phone records to corroborate claims that it operated legally. They ultimately released some of the info to the media. What ensued was the so-called "D.C. Madam Sex Scandal" that outed Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's extramarital activity. Facing up to 55 years in prison, Palfrey committed suicide in 2008. Sibley subsequently inherited full ownership of the remaining records, but has been under a court-issued gag order since 2007. Sibley has reemerged, however, threatening to defy the gag order within the next two weeks, telling WTOP that the records "may be relevant to the upcoming election." Pamela Martin & Associates operated from 1996 to 2007. Watch Maddow's segment below: On her show Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow detailed the early-2000s case of Washington, D.C., madam Deborah Palfrey. The proprietor of high-end escort service Pamela Martin & Associates, Palfrey was convicted in 2008 of money laundering and racketeering. Palfrey and her lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, fought to release the company's phone records to corroborate claims that it operated legally. They ultimately released some of the info to the media. What ensued was the so-called "D.C. Madam Sex Scandal" that outed Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's extramarital activity. Facing up to 55 years in prison, Palfrey committed suicide in 2008. Sibley subsequently inherited full ownership of the remaining records, but has been under a court-issued gag order since 2007. Sibley has reemerged, however, threatening to defy the gag order within the next two weeks, telling WTOP that the records "may be relevant to the upcoming election." Pamela Martin & Associates operated from 1996 to 2007. Watch Maddow's segment below:
Why Hollywood isn’t the hero for shutting down Georgia’s anti-LGBT bill
On Monday, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that would have legalized discrimination against LGBT people in the name of religious freedom. It was a big win for gay rights in the conservative South. Some of the credit might go to Hollywood, thanks to The Walt Disney Co. and subsidiary Marvel Studios strongly suggesting they would pull production from the state if the bill became law. I’m certainly glad that he vetoed it. But Hollywood is no hero. The reason that so much television and film, from The Walking Dead to The Hunger Games, is made in Georgia is because taxpayers provide them with huge sums of corporate welfare. If a company spends at least $500,000 on production or post-production on one or more projects in Georgia, the state hands out a 20-percent tax credit. It throws in “an additional 10 percent tax credit if the finished project includes a promotional logo provided by the state.” And Georgia’s logos include a delicious peach! This has cost the state more than a quarter of a billion dollars, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Such programs are worth every penny, says the Motion Picture Association of America. “Pure and simple,” according to the MPAA, “film and tax incentives create jobs, expand revenue pools and stimulate local economies.” Critics on both the left and right disagree. In Massachusetts, the secretary of housing and economic development reports that the state’s embattled tax credit created 1,351 jobs, but “only 730 went to Massachusetts residents at a cost of nearly $100,000 per local job.” The credit costs the state $80 million every year, according to the progressive Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. And it’s not just forgone tax revenue. States with “refundable” tax credits actually end up cutting checks too: “When a film’s tax liabilities are below its allotted refundable credits, taxpayers end up directly paying film companies the difference,” writes Jared Meyer, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Other state’s credits are “transferable,” meaning that if the liability is below the allotted credit, they can sell that credit to some other state taxpayer. That’s how it works in Georgia. The number of states offering film tax credits mushroomed from four to more than forty between 2002 and 2012, according to Governing. Since then, however, multiple states have gotten wise to the swindle, ending or curtailing their programs. But tax-credit corporate welfare is still the cornerstone of economic development nationwide. Of 4,200 economic development incentives granted in 14 states analyzed by the advocacy and research group Good Jobs First, large companies received 90 percent of the more than $3.2 billion. This comes at a time when many states continue to reel from recession shortfalls, compounded by austerity-minded Republican governors. In Louisiana, one of the nation’s greatest economic basket cases thanks to former Gov. Bobby Jindal, the department of revenue reports that “the state has paid out $210 million more in tax credits and rebates to corporations so far this year than it has collected in corporate income and franchise taxes.” It's great that Hollywood lobbied against Georgia’s bigoted bill, and that Disney threatened to pull out. But it’s unlikely they would have done so if other states weren’t waiting with open arms and wallets. Business is used to playing its mobility against the states. But usually, it’s for nefarious purposes. In Maryland, the production company behind "House of Cards channeled Frank Underwood himself when it threatened to “break down our stage, sets and offices and set up in another state” if the they didn’t get more credits. Hollywood did the right thing because LGBT activists, to their great credit, have built political power that can no longer be dismissed, even by a Republican governor. Those activists are the heroes.
