Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 919
December 18, 2015
“I am NOT J.J. Abrams”: Twitter users spoil “Star Wars” for weatherman with slightly similar name
“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is the first edition of the franchise to have been released since the advent of Twitter, giving fans the opportunity to give direct feedback to director J.J. Abrams.
Turns out J.J. Abrams doesn’t have a Twitter, but Justin Abraham—producer and meteorologist at The Weather Channel—does. And he’s getting an onslaught of feedback—positive and otherwise—for the job he didn’t do on “The Force Awakens.”
https://twitter.com/jjabraham/status/...Abraham appeared on The Weather Channel to clarify the situation.
“A majority is positive reviews about the movie,” Abraham told “Weather Center Live” anchors. But “[t]here is a minority that really hates it.”
“The whole movie has been spoiled for me,” Abraham continued. “I know what happens, all the big moments.”
Watch Abraham’s appearance below:
(h/t Yahoo! Movies)
“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is the first edition of the franchise to have been released since the advent of Twitter, giving fans the opportunity to give direct feedback to director J.J. Abrams.
Turns out J.J. Abrams doesn’t have a Twitter, but Justin Abraham—producer and meteorologist at The Weather Channel—does. And he’s getting an onslaught of feedback—positive and otherwise—for the job he didn’t do on “The Force Awakens.”
https://twitter.com/jjabraham/status/...Abraham appeared on The Weather Channel to clarify the situation.
“A majority is positive reviews about the movie,” Abraham told “Weather Center Live” anchors. But “[t]here is a minority that really hates it.”
“The whole movie has been spoiled for me,” Abraham continued. “I know what happens, all the big moments.”
Watch Abraham’s appearance below:
(h/t Yahoo! Movies)“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is the first edition of the franchise to have been released since the advent of Twitter, giving fans the opportunity to give direct feedback to director J.J. Abrams.
Turns out J.J. Abrams doesn’t have a Twitter, but Justin Abraham—producer and meteorologist at The Weather Channel—does. And he’s getting an onslaught of feedback—positive and otherwise—for the job he didn’t do on “The Force Awakens.”
https://twitter.com/jjabraham/status/...Abraham appeared on The Weather Channel to clarify the situation.
“A majority is positive reviews about the movie,” Abraham told “Weather Center Live” anchors. But “[t]here is a minority that really hates it.”
“The whole movie has been spoiled for me,” Abraham continued. “I know what happens, all the big moments.”
Watch Abraham’s appearance below:
(h/t Yahoo! Movies)“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is the first edition of the franchise to have been released since the advent of Twitter, giving fans the opportunity to give direct feedback to director J.J. Abrams.
Turns out J.J. Abrams doesn’t have a Twitter, but Justin Abraham—producer and meteorologist at The Weather Channel—does. And he’s getting an onslaught of feedback—positive and otherwise—for the job he didn’t do on “The Force Awakens.”
https://twitter.com/jjabraham/status/...Abraham appeared on The Weather Channel to clarify the situation.
“A majority is positive reviews about the movie,” Abraham told “Weather Center Live” anchors. But “[t]here is a minority that really hates it.”
“The whole movie has been spoiled for me,” Abraham continued. “I know what happens, all the big moments.”
Watch Abraham’s appearance below:
(h/t Yahoo! Movies)“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is the first edition of the franchise to have been released since the advent of Twitter, giving fans the opportunity to give direct feedback to director J.J. Abrams.
Turns out J.J. Abrams doesn’t have a Twitter, but Justin Abraham—producer and meteorologist at The Weather Channel—does. And he’s getting an onslaught of feedback—positive and otherwise—for the job he didn’t do on “The Force Awakens.”
https://twitter.com/jjabraham/status/...Abraham appeared on The Weather Channel to clarify the situation.
“A majority is positive reviews about the movie,” Abraham told “Weather Center Live” anchors. But “[t]here is a minority that really hates it.”
“The whole movie has been spoiled for me,” Abraham continued. “I know what happens, all the big moments.”
Watch Abraham’s appearance below:
(h/t Yahoo! Movies)“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is the first edition of the franchise to have been released since the advent of Twitter, giving fans the opportunity to give direct feedback to director J.J. Abrams.
Turns out J.J. Abrams doesn’t have a Twitter, but Justin Abraham—producer and meteorologist at The Weather Channel—does. And he’s getting an onslaught of feedback—positive and otherwise—for the job he didn’t do on “The Force Awakens.”
https://twitter.com/jjabraham/status/...Abraham appeared on The Weather Channel to clarify the situation.
“A majority is positive reviews about the movie,” Abraham told “Weather Center Live” anchors. But “[t]here is a minority that really hates it.”
“The whole movie has been spoiled for me,” Abraham continued. “I know what happens, all the big moments.”
Watch Abraham’s appearance below:
(h/t Yahoo! Movies)
It’s not about party, it’s about hunger for war: 19 percent of Democrats also said they’d bomb fake country from “Aladdin”
There are few things more predictable in mainstream American politics than blind, dogmatic partisanism. Liberal-leaning polling agency Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a study today that found that 30 percent of Republicans would support bombing Agrabah, the fictional nation from the Disney movie "Aladdin." The media went wild with the story. It was reported in countless web sites, newspapers, and blogs. Yet virtually everyone is missing the larger point. What was almost completely ignored was the fact that PPP also asked Democratic primary voters if they would bomb Agrabah. 19 percent said they supported it. https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/6... Yes, 36 percent of surveyed Democrats said they opposed it, but 19 is still a huge number — and not that far off from the Republican figure of 30 percent. Moreover, when you adjust for the 45 percent of Democrats who did not provide a yes or no answer, it means 35 percent of Democrats who gave a specific answer to PPP supported bombing a fictitious Arabic-sounding country. The media has, predictably, turned this study into a vacuous partisan cause célèbre, while ignoring the larger implications of the poll: Both parties are violent and hawkish. Democrats have started and overseen plenty of wars. Obama's presidency has been no exception. The Obama administration reduced Libya to rubble in the catastrophic 2011 NATO bombing campaign spearheaded by Hillary Clinton, destroying the government and plunging the nation into chaos. Obama extended the disastrous war in Afghanistan twice — breaking his many promises that he would end it. The secretive drone war drastically expanded under Obama has killed thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians, while terrorizing average people in Pakistan and beyond. While Israel brutally bombed Gaza in the summer of 2014, killing more than 2,250 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians, destroying hospitals, schools, homes, shelters, mosques, and churches in what human rights organizations called war crimes, the Obama administration wholeheartedly stood behind Israel, boosting military aid and sending more weapons. For eight months, the Saudi-led coalition has been raining bombs on Yemen, killing thousands and carrying out more war crimes. Obama has, once again, stood behind the coalition, which the U.N. says is responsible for two-thirds of civilian casualties. The Obama administration has also supported, expanded, and backed wars in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Mali and more. Democrats have said virtually nothing about these policies. Why? Because they are being carried out by a Democratic administration. These are wars that have left hundreds of thousands of people dead and displaced millions, fueling the worst refugee crisis since World War II. But there has been little dissent from American liberals. It is no surprise, then, that roughly one-third of Democrats who responded with a yes or no to PPP said they would support bombing the fictional country from "Aladdin." Clearly Republicans are much more hawkish than Democrats, but Democrats are already incredibly hawkish to begin with. Instead of framing the poll in terms of fatuous dogmatism, we should reflect on the fact that it shows just how violent and hawkish both hegemonic U.S. political parties are, and work toward a more peaceful — and sensible — foreign policy.There are few things more predictable in mainstream American politics than blind, dogmatic partisanism. Liberal-leaning polling agency Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a study today that found that 30 percent of Republicans would support bombing Agrabah, the fictional nation from the Disney movie "Aladdin." The media went wild with the story. It was reported in countless web sites, newspapers, and blogs. Yet virtually everyone is missing the larger point. What was almost completely ignored was the fact that PPP also asked Democratic primary voters if they would bomb Agrabah. 19 percent said they supported it. https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/6... Yes, 36 percent of surveyed Democrats said they opposed it, but 19 is still a huge number — and not that far off from the Republican figure of 30 percent. Moreover, when you adjust for the 45 percent of Democrats who did not provide a yes or no answer, it means 35 percent of Democrats who gave a specific answer to PPP supported bombing a fictitious Arabic-sounding country. The media has, predictably, turned this study into a vacuous partisan cause célèbre, while ignoring the larger implications of the poll: Both parties are violent and hawkish. Democrats have started and overseen plenty of wars. Obama's presidency has been no exception. The Obama administration reduced Libya to rubble in the catastrophic 2011 NATO bombing campaign spearheaded by Hillary Clinton, destroying the government and plunging the nation into chaos. Obama extended the disastrous war in Afghanistan twice — breaking his many promises that he would end it. The secretive drone war drastically expanded under Obama has killed thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians, while terrorizing average people in Pakistan and beyond. While Israel brutally bombed Gaza in the summer of 2014, killing more than 2,250 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians, destroying hospitals, schools, homes, shelters, mosques, and churches in what human rights organizations called war crimes, the Obama administration wholeheartedly stood behind Israel, boosting military aid and sending more weapons. For eight months, the Saudi-led coalition has been raining bombs on Yemen, killing thousands and carrying out more war crimes. Obama has, once again, stood behind the coalition, which the U.N. says is responsible for two-thirds of civilian casualties. The Obama administration has also supported, expanded, and backed wars in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Mali and more. Democrats have said virtually nothing about these policies. Why? Because they are being carried out by a Democratic administration. These are wars that have left hundreds of thousands of people dead and displaced millions, fueling the worst refugee crisis since World War II. But there has been little dissent from American liberals. It is no surprise, then, that roughly one-third of Democrats who responded with a yes or no to PPP said they would support bombing the fictional country from "Aladdin." Clearly Republicans are much more hawkish than Democrats, but Democrats are already incredibly hawkish to begin with. Instead of framing the poll in terms of fatuous dogmatism, we should reflect on the fact that it shows just how violent and hawkish both hegemonic U.S. political parties are, and work toward a more peaceful — and sensible — foreign policy.There are few things more predictable in mainstream American politics than blind, dogmatic partisanism. Liberal-leaning polling agency Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a study today that found that 30 percent of Republicans would support bombing Agrabah, the fictional nation from the Disney movie "Aladdin." The media went wild with the story. It was reported in countless web sites, newspapers, and blogs. Yet virtually everyone is missing the larger point. What was almost completely ignored was the fact that PPP also asked Democratic primary voters if they would bomb Agrabah. 19 percent said they supported it. https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/6... Yes, 36 percent of surveyed Democrats said they opposed it, but 19 is still a huge number — and not that far off from the Republican figure of 30 percent. Moreover, when you adjust for the 45 percent of Democrats who did not provide a yes or no answer, it means 35 percent of Democrats who gave a specific answer to PPP supported bombing a fictitious Arabic-sounding country. The media has, predictably, turned this study into a vacuous partisan cause célèbre, while ignoring the larger implications of the poll: Both parties are violent and hawkish. Democrats have started and overseen plenty of wars. Obama's presidency has been no exception. The Obama administration reduced Libya to rubble in the catastrophic 2011 NATO bombing campaign spearheaded by Hillary Clinton, destroying the government and plunging the nation into chaos. Obama extended the disastrous war in Afghanistan twice — breaking his many promises that he would end it. The secretive drone war drastically expanded under Obama has killed thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians, while terrorizing average people in Pakistan and beyond. While Israel brutally bombed Gaza in the summer of 2014, killing more than 2,250 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians, destroying hospitals, schools, homes, shelters, mosques, and churches in what human rights organizations called war crimes, the Obama administration wholeheartedly stood behind Israel, boosting military aid and sending more weapons. For eight months, the Saudi-led coalition has been raining bombs on Yemen, killing thousands and carrying out more war crimes. Obama has, once again, stood behind the coalition, which the U.N. says is responsible for two-thirds of civilian casualties. The Obama administration has also supported, expanded, and backed wars in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Mali and more. Democrats have said virtually nothing about these policies. Why? Because they are being carried out by a Democratic administration. These are wars that have left hundreds of thousands of people dead and displaced millions, fueling the worst refugee crisis since World War II. But there has been little dissent from American liberals. It is no surprise, then, that roughly one-third of Democrats who responded with a yes or no to PPP said they would support bombing the fictional country from "Aladdin." Clearly Republicans are much more hawkish than Democrats, but Democrats are already incredibly hawkish to begin with. Instead of framing the poll in terms of fatuous dogmatism, we should reflect on the fact that it shows just how violent and hawkish both hegemonic U.S. political parties are, and work toward a more peaceful — and sensible — foreign policy.
Sanders campaign now threatening to sue DNC over “stolen” voter files
Vowing to not allow the Democratic National Committee to "sabatoge" their campaign, senior Bernie Sanders campaign operatives announced Friday afternoon that they planned to sue the Party if it continued to lock out the campaign from its own voter files. The DNC is "actively attempting to undermine our campaign," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver charged during a press conference in Washington, D.C. this afternoon. "If the DNC continues to hold our data hostage, and continues to try to attack the heart and soul of our campaign, we will be in federal court this afternoon seeking an immediate injunction," Weaver threatened. This morning, the DNC took the unprecedented step of sanctioning the Sanders campaign for violating a breach in the firewall of the proprietary voter data files of the Hillary Clinton campaign, maintained by a third party vendor who exposed the breach when it attempted patchwork on the software earlier this week. Sanders' national data director has since been fired for the incident and the DNC has launched an investigation into the matter, denying the Sanders campaign access to its own 50-state voter database until it can prove that any and all Clinton-related documents have been destroyed. According to CNN, the Sanders campaign said it planned to seek an injunction against the DNC Friday afternoon, "claiming irreparable harm and seeking immediate access to the voter file system." The dramatic change in tone from the Sanders campaign comes after further reporting on Friday revealed that four staffer accounts accessed Clinton's lists of its likeliest supporters in 10 early voting states, including Iowa and New Hampshire, during the over 30 minute security breach on Wednesday. More from Bloomberg:
Though the Sanders campaign initially claimed that it had not saved Clinton data, the logs show that the Vermont senator’s team created at least 24 lists during the 40-minute breach, which started at 10:40 a.m., and saved those lists to their personal folders. The Sanders searches included New Hampshire lists related to likely voters, "HFA Turnout 60-100" and "HFA Support 50-100," that were conducted and saved by Uretsky. Drapkin's account searched for and saved lists including less likely Clinton voters, "HFA Support CNN, the Sanders campaign said it planned to seek an injunction against the DNC Friday afternoon, "claiming irreparable harm and seeking immediate access to the voter file system." The dramatic change in tone from the Sanders campaign comes after further reporting on Friday revealed that four staffer accounts accessed Clinton's lists of its likeliest supporters in 10 early voting states, including Iowa and New Hampshire, during the over 30 minute security breach on Wednesday. More from Bloomberg:Though the Sanders campaign initially claimed that it had not saved Clinton data, the logs show that the Vermont senator’s team created at least 24 lists during the 40-minute breach, which started at 10:40 a.m., and saved those lists to their personal folders. The Sanders searches included New Hampshire lists related to likely voters, "HFA Turnout 60-100" and "HFA Support 50-100," that were conducted and saved by Uretsky. Drapkin's account searched for and saved lists including less likely Clinton voters, "HFA Support
Sorry, Catholic schools: Discriminating against gay people in the name of “religious freedom” just got harder
Did you just feel an icy chill, homophobes who think hiding behind your religion will protect your right to be discriminatory and hateful? It's called the wind of change, and it's going to get a lot stronger. A Massachusetts judge this week has ruled that a Milton all-girl Catholic prep school broke the law when it withdrew a job offer to a gay man. I suspect you'll be seeing a lot more of that from here on in, America. You might want to get used to it. Matthew Barrett says that in 2013 he accepted the position of food services director of the Fontbonne Academy — a school that prides itself on "strong gospel values" including an "ongoing commitment to love God and neighbor without distinction," and instruction in "human concerns such as discrimination, oppression, and poverty." Okay, if you say so! All was well and good until Barrett put his husband's name on his emergency contact form. Then things got awkward. He says that two days later the job offer was rescinded, and that the head of the school "said the Catholic religion doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, and that was her excuse." She reportedly told him, "We cannot hire you." Similar stories have over the past few years become increasingly common, as gay and lesbian workers have found themselves fired or had job offers withdrawn, on the flimsiest of religious grounds. Two years ago, Michael Griffin, a French and Spanish teacher at Holy Ghost Preparatory School in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, lost his job of twelve years when he told school officials he and his partner were applying for a marriage license — even though Griffin says the administration had long known he was gay. The same year, a Minnesota high school teacher lost her job after telling her coworkers she was in a relationship with a woman — just months after the school's president was forced to resign for acknowledging his relationship of 20 years. In schools across the country, gay people have been fired after making wedding announcements or acknowledging their partners in obituaries. But these punitive, humiliating measures have been met with strong criticism — last year, Omaha students drew over 100,000 signatures for a change.org petition after a beloved speech teacher was fired from Skutt Catholic after revealing his engagement to another man. As Mic reported back in June, there are still 28 states in the U.S. that do not offer job protection for LGBT men and women. But guess what — Massachusetts isn't one of them. And in his suit, Bennett claimed the school had discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation and gender. In his ruling this week, Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins noted, "As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message. It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesman for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex marriage." And in applauding the decision, Bennett Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who represented Barrett in the case, called it "an important decision for equality and dignity across Massachusetts and across the country." But the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts unsurprisingly feels differently, calling it "a frontal assault on religious freedom, an appalling subordination of the First Amendment to the Massachusetts gay rights law, and a victory by homosexual activists in their campaign to coerce Christians into compliance with same-sex marriage." Squicked out as certain segments of the population continue to be at the reality that not everyone in the world is hetero, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue with a straight face that a person's private life is somehow going to conflict with the moral obligations of, say, being a food services director, or that working with people means they're going "coerce" you into "compliance" with their legally recognized unions. And if you claim you're teaching kids to fight against discrimination while actually practicing it, I'm sure would Jesus would have quite the laugh over that one. As Bennett Klein explains, "Marriage equality has been the law of Massachusetts for over a decade and it is now the law of the land. But you can’t have equality if you can get married on Saturday and fired on Monday." 
Disgrace in Saudi Arabia: U.S. ally set to behead third teenager for attending a protest
Abdullah al-Zaher was 15 years old when he was arrested for attending a protest in close Western ally Saudi Arabia. Human rights advocacy organization Reprieve said he was beaten on the spot by police and was subsequently tortured. Now al-Zaher, who is part of Saudi Arabia's Shia religious minority, is 19, and is likely about to be beheaded by the absolute monarchy. Reprieve told the British newspaper the Independent that al-Zaher "was the youngest in a group of juvenile offenders put on death row as part of a ruthless crackdown on political dissent in the conservative kingdom." Al-Zaher is the third youth to face execution in the past several months. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr — a 17-year-old activist and the nephew of a prominent Shia dissident who was also sentenced to death — was arrested by Saudi authorities in 2012 for attending a peaceful pro-democracy protest. The teen was allegedly tortured, before the Saudi regime ordered him to be beheaded and crucified. Dawoud al-Marhoon was also 17 when he was arrested for participating in a protest. Earlier this year, al-Marhoon was sentenced to death by beheading as well. These three teens join a long list of dissidents set to be executed by the Saudi regime. In November, Saudi Arabia sentenced Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh to death for renouncing Islam and cursing the absolute monarchy. Although a close Western ally, Saudi Arabia — which has the planet's second-largest oil reserves — is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. An authoritarian theocratic monarchy that bases its laws on an extreme interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law), it has frequently been compared to ISIS. In a November op-ed in the New York Times, Algerian journalist Kamel Daoud described Saudi Arabia as "an ISIS that has made it." The Saudi regime has also been described by scholars as "the fountainhead" of Sunni Islamic extremism. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham called radical Salafi groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda "a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money, and Saudi organizational support." Moreover, U.S. cables leaked by WikiLeaks show government officials like Hillary Clinton admitting that al-Qaeda and other extremist groups are supported by rich Saudi businessmen and even some members of the royal family. Despite this, the State Department insists "Saudi Arabia’s unique role in the Arab and Islamic worlds, its possession of the world’s largest reserves of oil, and its strategic location make its friendship important to the United States." The State Department even goes so far as to call the Saudi monarchy "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." In September, the U.S. State Department said it "welcomed" the news that Saudi Arabia would be heading a U.N. human rights panel, noting "We're close allies." The Obama administration has done more than $100 billion in arms deals with the Saudi regime in the past five years. Less than three days after the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, the U.S. government sold another $1.3 billion of bombs to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime has used these weapons to arm extremist groups in the Middle East, including in Syria's civil war, and bomb Yemen, where human rights organizations say the coalition it leads is committing egregious war crimes, creating chaos that is helping al-Qaeda and ISIS take new territory. Every four days, on average, the Saudi monarchy kills someone for drug-related offenses, even while its own princes are caught with thousands of pounds of illegal drugs in foreign airports. Even though extremist Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia imprison or sentence to death anyone who challenges the regime, Western countries see them as important allies, primarily because of their enormous oil reserves. 
I posed question that proved GOP is nuts: 30 percent of Republicans say they’d bomb country from “Aladdin”
For a Twitter addict and political junkie like myself, making jokes on social media during a Republican debate is its own reward. But once in awhile, you get the added bonus of being prescient. Which is what happened to me this week, after I tweeted this during Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN: 
For a Twitter addict and political junkie like myself, making jokes on social media during a Republican debate is its own reward. But once in awhile, you get the added bonus of being prescient. Which is what happened to me this week, after I tweeted this during Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN: For a Twitter addict and political junkie like myself, making jokes on social media during a Republican debate is its own reward. But once in awhile, you get the added bonus of being prescient. Which is what happened to me this week, after I tweeted this during Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN:
Well, ask and you shall receive, apparently from the good people at Public Policy Polling.Idea: Let’s come up with a fake country with a vaguely Arabic name and poll GOP voters on whether or not we should bomb it.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) December 16, 2015
30% of Republican primary voters nationally say they support bombing Agrabah. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin. #NotTheOnion — PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) December 18, 2015I'm not taking credit for anything here. The poll was over December 16-17, which means that the chances that my random joke in the overcrowded joking-during-the-debate department was almost certainly not the inspiration. Still nice, once in awhile, to wish for something and have the universe just magically provide. #blessed The poll results, gathered from 532 Republican primary voters, are funny but also, you know, concerning. Because not only did 30 percent of Republican voters want to bomb a fictional country, but only 13 percent of those polled opposed blowing Aladdin and Princess Jasmine to smithereens. The rest were unsure, possibly waiting for more information on the "terrorists" and their magic carpet technology before deciding. (Just kidding. To be clear, the people polled were not told "Agrabah" was a fake country.) Other poll results found that a full 1 in 4 Republican voters wants to ban Islam completely in the U.S. and over half want to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. This kind of idiocy is why a school district in Virginia had to close down classes to deal with a parent who got it into her head that writing a sentence in Arabic calligraphy — as part of a world religions course — would somehow contaminate the children. The assignment was on par with a Muslim child learning about what Christians believe by examining crucifixion imagery, but this woman seems to think that merely engaging with the artifacts of a faith does some witchcraft on you or something. Let's just all hope that these folks don't find out most school libraries have a copy of "One Thousand and One Nights." We'll never stop hearing about how liberals are indoctrinating your kids through Scheherazade.
For a Twitter addict and political junkie like myself, making jokes on social media during a Republican debate is its own reward. But once in awhile, you get the added bonus of being prescient. Which is what happened to me this week, after I tweeted this during Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN: Well, ask and you shall receive, apparently from the good people at Public Policy Polling.Idea: Let’s come up with a fake country with a vaguely Arabic name and poll GOP voters on whether or not we should bomb it.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) December 16, 2015
30% of Republican primary voters nationally say they support bombing Agrabah. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin. #NotTheOnion — PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) December 18, 2015I'm not taking credit for anything here. The poll was over December 16-17, which means that the chances that my random joke in the overcrowded joking-during-the-debate department was almost certainly not the inspiration. Still nice, once in awhile, to wish for something and have the universe just magically provide. #blessed The poll results, gathered from 532 Republican primary voters, are funny but also, you know, concerning. Because not only did 30 percent of Republican voters want to bomb a fictional country, but only 13 percent of those polled opposed blowing Aladdin and Princess Jasmine to smithereens. The rest were unsure, possibly waiting for more information on the "terrorists" and their magic carpet technology before deciding. (Just kidding. To be clear, the people polled were not told "Agrabah" was a fake country.) Other poll results found that a full 1 in 4 Republican voters wants to ban Islam completely in the U.S. and over half want to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. This kind of idiocy is why a school district in Virginia had to close down classes to deal with a parent who got it into her head that writing a sentence in Arabic calligraphy — as part of a world religions course — would somehow contaminate the children. The assignment was on par with a Muslim child learning about what Christians believe by examining crucifixion imagery, but this woman seems to think that merely engaging with the artifacts of a faith does some witchcraft on you or something. Let's just all hope that these folks don't find out most school libraries have a copy of "One Thousand and One Nights." We'll never stop hearing about how liberals are indoctrinating your kids through Scheherazade.
For a Twitter addict and political junkie like myself, making jokes on social media during a Republican debate is its own reward. But once in awhile, you get the added bonus of being prescient. Which is what happened to me this week, after I tweeted this during Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN: Well, ask and you shall receive, apparently from the good people at Public Policy Polling.Idea: Let’s come up with a fake country with a vaguely Arabic name and poll GOP voters on whether or not we should bomb it.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) December 16, 2015
30% of Republican primary voters nationally say they support bombing Agrabah. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin. #NotTheOnion — PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) December 18, 2015I'm not taking credit for anything here. The poll was over December 16-17, which means that the chances that my random joke in the overcrowded joking-during-the-debate department was almost certainly not the inspiration. Still nice, once in awhile, to wish for something and have the universe just magically provide. #blessed The poll results, gathered from 532 Republican primary voters, are funny but also, you know, concerning. Because not only did 30 percent of Republican voters want to bomb a fictional country, but only 13 percent of those polled opposed blowing Aladdin and Princess Jasmine to smithereens. The rest were unsure, possibly waiting for more information on the "terrorists" and their magic carpet technology before deciding. (Just kidding. To be clear, the people polled were not told "Agrabah" was a fake country.) Other poll results found that a full 1 in 4 Republican voters wants to ban Islam completely in the U.S. and over half want to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. This kind of idiocy is why a school district in Virginia had to close down classes to deal with a parent who got it into her head that writing a sentence in Arabic calligraphy — as part of a world religions course — would somehow contaminate the children. The assignment was on par with a Muslim child learning about what Christians believe by examining crucifixion imagery, but this woman seems to think that merely engaging with the artifacts of a faith does some witchcraft on you or something. Let's just all hope that these folks don't find out most school libraries have a copy of "One Thousand and One Nights." We'll never stop hearing about how liberals are indoctrinating your kids through Scheherazade.
Enjoy your beard now, hipsters. Paul Ryan has grown one, so it’s defintely no longer cool
This is a message for hipster dudes, geek chic dudes, and urban dads who might be a little soft in the middle but still know they got it because they bought that Father John Misty record this year: Enjoy your beard while you can. Enjoy the ladies who love rubbing their faces on it. Savor those artisanal beard grooming products you'll get for Christmas this year. Take the time to stroke it lovingly, basking in that feeling of being a mountain man as you peruse the organic kale selection at your local farmer's market. Because, by this time next year, it might all be over for you. That is because Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has grown a beard. This might seem a small, insignificant development to you. But the sad fact is that once a trend goes Republican, its days are quickly numbered. Within a very short amount of time, that trend will be associated with the deeply unhip and eschewed by anyone who wants sex with the lights on in their future. And you, being one of those people (which is why you grew the beard in the first place, if you're being honest with yourself), will have to shave your luscious and lovingly tended chin pubes off. If you're skeptical of this, consider the last time the hairy ape look was this fashionable amongst the hipster set: the late '60s and 'early 70s. It was a time for long hair, for beards, for impressive sideburns, all to be worn with your loudest paisley shirts. It bespoke a wildness and rejection of the short-haired gray flannel suit conformity of the 1950s. It was, like now, a time for folk rock and a rough-hewn sort of sexiness. And then Republicans started growing thick sideburns and wearing loud patterns. Granted, being conservative, they had a more conservative take on the fashion, such as Donald Rumsfeld's Nixon-era sideburns. Or the dreadful way that patterns that were once "hippie" made their way into the ties of members of the Ford administration. Is it any surprise that the hip young folks of the city took one look at that, changed their hair and wearing slim black pants and skinny ties? It may not seem like it now, but Paul Ryan has opened the floodgates. Conservative men are going to start growing beards en masse. There's already a widely shared piece at the Federalist titled "With A Beard, Paul Ryan Exudes Manliness," which is half a call to arms and half erotic fanfic about Ryan's beard. "Take a cue from our speaker and embrace your masculinity," Nicole Russell writes, going on to rant about "politically correct" so-called "beta males" and other bizarre right wing obsessions stemming from their hang-ups about gender. Right now, that piece is getting passed around and guffawed at because Russell doesn't seem to grasp that the beard is, by and large, still a signal that you are one of those "politically correct" liberal men she hates. I mean, there are those "Duck Dynasty" guys, but they are cartoons. Most people still see a beard and think of bicycles, canvas bags full of organic foods, marijuana, and a vinyl collection. Laugh away, fools, because Russell's piece is not bone-headed, but prescient. This is the natural order of trends. First, the urban hipsters do it. Then it goes broad with the mildly hip but still very liberal crowd. Then conservatives start doing it. Then it's over. It happened to glam rock in the '80s, and then to "alternative" rock in the '90s. Remember how everyone thought rap rock might be a thing, due to the success of the Beastie Boys? That didn't survive much past the reactionary, Republican-friendly music of Limp Bizkit, the Insane Clown Posse and 311, did it? And it also happens in fashion. In 1978, bright neon colors were the height of punk fashion, as evidenced by the cover of "Germfree Adolescents" by the X-Ray Spex. A decade later, those same colors were a stand-in for corporate culture and the cool kids were wearing plaid flannels and ripped up black band T-shirts. Nothing gold can stay. And so the shifting sands of time will take away your beard. You may think you are above such petty concerns as trendiness and fashion, of course. But once women start swiping left on Tinder because they see a beard and think "Republican," the siren call of the razor will beckon. You may think that your face looks fuller and more manly with a beard. That may be so, but it now also looks more like Paul Ryan's, and nobody wants that. 
This is a message for hipster dudes, geek chic dudes, and urban dads who might be a little soft in the middle but still know they got it because they bought that Father John Misty record this year: Enjoy your beard while you can. Enjoy the ladies who love rubbing their faces on it. Savor those artisanal beard grooming products you'll get for Christmas this year. Take the time to stroke it lovingly, basking in that feeling of being a mountain man as you peruse the organic kale selection at your local farmer's market. Because, by this time next year, it might all be over for you. That is because Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has grown a beard. This might seem a small, insignificant development to you. But the sad fact is that once a trend goes Republican, its days are quickly numbered. Within a very short amount of time, that trend will be associated with the deeply unhip and eschewed by anyone who wants sex with the lights on in their future. And you, being one of those people (which is why you grew the beard in the first place, if you're being honest with yourself), will have to shave your luscious and lovingly tended chin pubes off. If you're skeptical of this, consider the last time the hairy ape look was this fashionable amongst the hipster set: the late '60s and 'early 70s. It was a time for long hair, for beards, for impressive sideburns, all to be worn with your loudest paisley shirts. It bespoke a wildness and rejection of the short-haired gray flannel suit conformity of the 1950s. It was, like now, a time for folk rock and a rough-hewn sort of sexiness. And then Republicans started growing thick sideburns and wearing loud patterns. Granted, being conservative, they had a more conservative take on the fashion, such as Donald Rumsfeld's Nixon-era sideburns. Or the dreadful way that patterns that were once "hippie" made their way into the ties of members of the Ford administration. Is it any surprise that the hip young folks of the city took one look at that, changed their hair and wearing slim black pants and skinny ties? It may not seem like it now, but Paul Ryan has opened the floodgates. Conservative men are going to start growing beards en masse. There's already a widely shared piece at the Federalist titled "With A Beard, Paul Ryan Exudes Manliness," which is half a call to arms and half erotic fanfic about Ryan's beard. "Take a cue from our speaker and embrace your masculinity," Nicole Russell writes, going on to rant about "politically correct" so-called "beta males" and other bizarre right wing obsessions stemming from their hang-ups about gender. Right now, that piece is getting passed around and guffawed at because Russell doesn't seem to grasp that the beard is, by and large, still a signal that you are one of those "politically correct" liberal men she hates. I mean, there are those "Duck Dynasty" guys, but they are cartoons. Most people still see a beard and think of bicycles, canvas bags full of organic foods, marijuana, and a vinyl collection. Laugh away, fools, because Russell's piece is not bone-headed, but prescient. This is the natural order of trends. First, the urban hipsters do it. Then it goes broad with the mildly hip but still very liberal crowd. Then conservatives start doing it. Then it's over. It happened to glam rock in the '80s, and then to "alternative" rock in the '90s. Remember how everyone thought rap rock might be a thing, due to the success of the Beastie Boys? That didn't survive much past the reactionary, Republican-friendly music of Limp Bizkit, the Insane Clown Posse and 311, did it? And it also happens in fashion. In 1978, bright neon colors were the height of punk fashion, as evidenced by the cover of "Germfree Adolescents" by the X-Ray Spex. A decade later, those same colors were a stand-in for corporate culture and the cool kids were wearing plaid flannels and ripped up black band T-shirts. Nothing gold can stay. And so the shifting sands of time will take away your beard. You may think you are above such petty concerns as trendiness and fashion, of course. But once women start swiping left on Tinder because they see a beard and think "Republican," the siren call of the razor will beckon. You may think that your face looks fuller and more manly with a beard. That may be so, but it now also looks more like Paul Ryan's, and nobody wants that.
This is a message for hipster dudes, geek chic dudes, and urban dads who might be a little soft in the middle but still know they got it because they bought that Father John Misty record this year: Enjoy your beard while you can. Enjoy the ladies who love rubbing their faces on it. Savor those artisanal beard grooming products you'll get for Christmas this year. Take the time to stroke it lovingly, basking in that feeling of being a mountain man as you peruse the organic kale selection at your local farmer's market. Because, by this time next year, it might all be over for you. That is because Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, has grown a beard. This might seem a small, insignificant development to you. But the sad fact is that once a trend goes Republican, its days are quickly numbered. Within a very short amount of time, that trend will be associated with the deeply unhip and eschewed by anyone who wants sex with the lights on in their future. And you, being one of those people (which is why you grew the beard in the first place, if you're being honest with yourself), will have to shave your luscious and lovingly tended chin pubes off. If you're skeptical of this, consider the last time the hairy ape look was this fashionable amongst the hipster set: the late '60s and 'early 70s. It was a time for long hair, for beards, for impressive sideburns, all to be worn with your loudest paisley shirts. It bespoke a wildness and rejection of the short-haired gray flannel suit conformity of the 1950s. It was, like now, a time for folk rock and a rough-hewn sort of sexiness. And then Republicans started growing thick sideburns and wearing loud patterns. Granted, being conservative, they had a more conservative take on the fashion, such as Donald Rumsfeld's Nixon-era sideburns. Or the dreadful way that patterns that were once "hippie" made their way into the ties of members of the Ford administration. Is it any surprise that the hip young folks of the city took one look at that, changed their hair and wearing slim black pants and skinny ties? It may not seem like it now, but Paul Ryan has opened the floodgates. Conservative men are going to start growing beards en masse. There's already a widely shared piece at the Federalist titled "With A Beard, Paul Ryan Exudes Manliness," which is half a call to arms and half erotic fanfic about Ryan's beard. "Take a cue from our speaker and embrace your masculinity," Nicole Russell writes, going on to rant about "politically correct" so-called "beta males" and other bizarre right wing obsessions stemming from their hang-ups about gender. Right now, that piece is getting passed around and guffawed at because Russell doesn't seem to grasp that the beard is, by and large, still a signal that you are one of those "politically correct" liberal men she hates. I mean, there are those "Duck Dynasty" guys, but they are cartoons. Most people still see a beard and think of bicycles, canvas bags full of organic foods, marijuana, and a vinyl collection. Laugh away, fools, because Russell's piece is not bone-headed, but prescient. This is the natural order of trends. First, the urban hipsters do it. Then it goes broad with the mildly hip but still very liberal crowd. Then conservatives start doing it. Then it's over. It happened to glam rock in the '80s, and then to "alternative" rock in the '90s. Remember how everyone thought rap rock might be a thing, due to the success of the Beastie Boys? That didn't survive much past the reactionary, Republican-friendly music of Limp Bizkit, the Insane Clown Posse and 311, did it? And it also happens in fashion. In 1978, bright neon colors were the height of punk fashion, as evidenced by the cover of "Germfree Adolescents" by the X-Ray Spex. A decade later, those same colors were a stand-in for corporate culture and the cool kids were wearing plaid flannels and ripped up black band T-shirts. Nothing gold can stay. And so the shifting sands of time will take away your beard. You may think you are above such petty concerns as trendiness and fashion, of course. But once women start swiping left on Tinder because they see a beard and think "Republican," the siren call of the razor will beckon. You may think that your face looks fuller and more manly with a beard. That may be so, but it now also looks more like Paul Ryan's, and nobody wants that.
December 17, 2015
Carly Fiorina is a liar: And everyone should finally just say it — loudly
Carly Fiorina is unique among all the candidates in the Republican presidential field for her visceral, aggressive hatred for anything resembling truth. Other candidates lie, of course, but they at least go to the trouble of dressing up their lies with weasel words and other forms of qualifying language that allow them to squirm their way out of fact checks. Fiorina doesn’t care about any of that. She makes firm, declarative statements that are unquestionably inaccurate, and when confronted with inarguable facts that prove her wrong, she insists against all evidence that she is correct and bristles at the very notion that anyone might challenger her. She does not care. She does not pretend to care. As far as Fiorina’s concerned, the fact that she said it is what makes it true. Up until this week, the prime example of this phenomenon was the Planned Parenthood video she claimed to have seen showing “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” That video doesn’t exist, and when confronted with the truth, she insisted her lie was true and lashed out at her critics with wholly un-righteous umbrage. “I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist.” That already egregious example of gross fibbery has, implausibly, been supplanted by an even larger whopper. At this week’s Republican debate, Fiorina listed off a number of retired generals – “Petraeus, McChrystal, Mattis, Keane, Flynn” – whom she would “bring back” into service. “Every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn't want to hear,” she said. Citing David Petraeus made absolutely no sense – he retired because Obama nominated him as CIA director, and then he resigned because of a security breach related to the extramarital affair he was having. But invoking Gen. Jack Keane was the real howler of the bunch, given that he retired in 2003, a full five years before Obama was elected president. Keane confirmed to Fox News that he’s never even spoken to President Obama, and that Fiorina’s assessment was “not accurate.” The easily checked historical record says Fiorina was wrong. The person she name-dropped said without qualification that she was wrong. It doesn’t get any clearer cut than that. And yet, Fiorina insists she was correct: 
Carly Fiorina is unique among all the candidates in the Republican presidential field for her visceral, aggressive hatred for anything resembling truth. Other candidates lie, of course, but they at least go to the trouble of dressing up their lies with weasel words and other forms of qualifying language that allow them to squirm their way out of fact checks. Fiorina doesn’t care about any of that. She makes firm, declarative statements that are unquestionably inaccurate, and when confronted with inarguable facts that prove her wrong, she insists against all evidence that she is correct and bristles at the very notion that anyone might challenger her. She does not care. She does not pretend to care. As far as Fiorina’s concerned, the fact that she said it is what makes it true. Up until this week, the prime example of this phenomenon was the Planned Parenthood video she claimed to have seen showing “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” That video doesn’t exist, and when confronted with the truth, she insisted her lie was true and lashed out at her critics with wholly un-righteous umbrage. “I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist.” That already egregious example of gross fibbery has, implausibly, been supplanted by an even larger whopper. At this week’s Republican debate, Fiorina listed off a number of retired generals – “Petraeus, McChrystal, Mattis, Keane, Flynn” – whom she would “bring back” into service. “Every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn't want to hear,” she said. Citing David Petraeus made absolutely no sense – he retired because Obama nominated him as CIA director, and then he resigned because of a security breach related to the extramarital affair he was having. But invoking Gen. Jack Keane was the real howler of the bunch, given that he retired in 2003, a full five years before Obama was elected president. Keane confirmed to Fox News that he’s never even spoken to President Obama, and that Fiorina’s assessment was “not accurate.” The easily checked historical record says Fiorina was wrong. The person she name-dropped said without qualification that she was wrong. It doesn’t get any clearer cut than that. And yet, Fiorina insists she was correct:
Talking with reporters Wednesday after a town hall [in Nevada], Fiorina was asked if she misspoke about Keane given the timing of his retirement. “No, I didn’t misspeak,” she said. “But he has been someone of great experience who has been highly critical of the way this administration has not taken threats seriously and unfortunately he hasn’t been listened to. I would listen to him.”The irony here is that Fiorina is at this very moment not listening to Gen. Keane, because he’s trying to tell her she’s wrong and Fiorina is having none of it. I’m fascinated by this pathological commitment to dishonesty, and also by the treatment it receives from the press. Reporters tend to be gun-shy when it comes to labeling untrue statements from politicians as “false” or “lies” because it’s assumed to be a form of improper editorialization. But in an instance like this, there is no way to plausibly interpret what Fiorina is doing as anything other than lying. And yet, the press still dances around the unquestionable dishonesty on display here. CNN reported on Fiorina’s stubborn mendacity with the hilarious headline: “Despite facts, Carly Fiorina stands by claim about retired generals.” ABC News reported: “Carly Fiorina Digs in on Claim That General's Retirement Was Due to Obama Dispute.” Just call it false! Call it a lie! That’s what it is. The best headline I’ve seen on this story came from Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, who wrote: “Carly Fiorina Really Likes to Make Shit Up.” That’s an accurate, concise explanation of what’s going on here, and no one should hesitate to call Carly Fiorina a liar when there is no doubt that she’s lying.
Carly Fiorina is unique among all the candidates in the Republican presidential field for her visceral, aggressive hatred for anything resembling truth. Other candidates lie, of course, but they at least go to the trouble of dressing up their lies with weasel words and other forms of qualifying language that allow them to squirm their way out of fact checks. Fiorina doesn’t care about any of that. She makes firm, declarative statements that are unquestionably inaccurate, and when confronted with inarguable facts that prove her wrong, she insists against all evidence that she is correct and bristles at the very notion that anyone might challenger her. She does not care. She does not pretend to care. As far as Fiorina’s concerned, the fact that she said it is what makes it true. Up until this week, the prime example of this phenomenon was the Planned Parenthood video she claimed to have seen showing “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’” That video doesn’t exist, and when confronted with the truth, she insisted her lie was true and lashed out at her critics with wholly un-righteous umbrage. “I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist.” That already egregious example of gross fibbery has, implausibly, been supplanted by an even larger whopper. At this week’s Republican debate, Fiorina listed off a number of retired generals – “Petraeus, McChrystal, Mattis, Keane, Flynn” – whom she would “bring back” into service. “Every one was retired early because they told President Obama things that he didn't want to hear,” she said. Citing David Petraeus made absolutely no sense – he retired because Obama nominated him as CIA director, and then he resigned because of a security breach related to the extramarital affair he was having. But invoking Gen. Jack Keane was the real howler of the bunch, given that he retired in 2003, a full five years before Obama was elected president. Keane confirmed to Fox News that he’s never even spoken to President Obama, and that Fiorina’s assessment was “not accurate.” The easily checked historical record says Fiorina was wrong. The person she name-dropped said without qualification that she was wrong. It doesn’t get any clearer cut than that. And yet, Fiorina insists she was correct: Talking with reporters Wednesday after a town hall [in Nevada], Fiorina was asked if she misspoke about Keane given the timing of his retirement. “No, I didn’t misspeak,” she said. “But he has been someone of great experience who has been highly critical of the way this administration has not taken threats seriously and unfortunately he hasn’t been listened to. I would listen to him.”The irony here is that Fiorina is at this very moment not listening to Gen. Keane, because he’s trying to tell her she’s wrong and Fiorina is having none of it. I’m fascinated by this pathological commitment to dishonesty, and also by the treatment it receives from the press. Reporters tend to be gun-shy when it comes to labeling untrue statements from politicians as “false” or “lies” because it’s assumed to be a form of improper editorialization. But in an instance like this, there is no way to plausibly interpret what Fiorina is doing as anything other than lying. And yet, the press still dances around the unquestionable dishonesty on display here. CNN reported on Fiorina’s stubborn mendacity with the hilarious headline: “Despite facts, Carly Fiorina stands by claim about retired generals.” ABC News reported: “Carly Fiorina Digs in on Claim That General's Retirement Was Due to Obama Dispute.” Just call it false! Call it a lie! That’s what it is. The best headline I’ve seen on this story came from Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, who wrote: “Carly Fiorina Really Likes to Make Shit Up.” That’s an accurate, concise explanation of what’s going on here, and no one should hesitate to call Carly Fiorina a liar when there is no doubt that she’s lying.
R.I.P., GOP: Party of old, disillusioned white people is dying a slow death
No matter who wins the nomination battle, the Republican Party has a much bigger problem: demographics. A new report released by the Center for American Progress analyzed the demographic advantages for Democrats in 2016 and beyond and the results are overwhelmingly positive. And this should surprise no one. Observers on both sides have long questioned the Republican Party’s viability in an increasingly progressive and less white America. With every national election, it becomes more obvious that the GOP’s “Southern Strategy,” which exploited racial and cultural resentment for votes, has finally backfired. As The Nation’s William Greider wrote in October: “The GOP finds itself trapped in a marriage that has not only gone bad but is coming apart in full public view. After five decades of shrewd strategy, the Republican coalition Richard Nixon put together in 1968 – welcoming the segregationist white South into the Party of Lincoln – is no devouring itself in ugly, spiteful recriminations.” Greider was responding to the resignation of House Speaker John Boehner, who left on account of the nihilistic Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party extremists in Congress, like the social conservatives who supported them, are part of a reactionary movement of cultural discontents whose only purpose is to negate and obstruct, and they've proven that in office. This movement, which has consumed the Republican Party, consists primarily of old and disillusioned white people who are rejecting a world that, in many respects, has passed them by. The nativism, the xenophobia, the social hysteria, the religious demagoguery – this is what defines the GOP now, and it stems from the party’s cynical plot to capitalize on cultural angst nearly fifty years ago. Although it worked in the short and medium-term, the “Southern Strategy” is now the most likely cause of death for the Republican Party. Republicans still hold 31 of 50 state governorships and they control most state legislatures, but that’s not the problem. Today and moving forward, the GOP will find it harder and harder to compete for national elections. By appealing to the fears of culturally isolated white people, the Republican Party has created an intractable demand-side problem: Gradually, their platform has become dominated by social and religious issues which alienate nearly everyone outside of their base. Given the shifting demographics in this country, this portends doom for the GOP. From the Center for American Progress report:
“Recent social trends present significant headwinds for Republicans, particularly as they relate to demographic shifts in the country. For years, Republicans could rely on white voters—and, in particular, working-class whites—to constitute a decisive proportion of the electorate and deliver victory. This is no longer the case. As documented in the 2014 “States of Change” report—published jointly by the Center for American Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brookings Institution—the percentage of white voters in the actual electorate dropped 15 percentage points, from 89 percent in 1976 to 74 percent in 2012. The percentage of white working-class voters dropped even more, decreasing by 26 points over the same period. Future projections in the “States of Change” report suggest that the percentage of eligible white voters in the American electorate will drop to 46 percent by 2060…The decline in the white percentage of the electorate has coincided with stronger Democratic identification and voting patterns among nonwhite voters, as well as increasingly more liberal social views among higher-educated white professionals.”The writing is on the wall, in other words. In its current form, the GOP can’t survive, not if these projections are even remotely accurate. It will become a regional party, propped up by parochialism and gerrymandered districts. None of this means the Republicans can’t win in 2016. What it does mean, however, is that they’ll have to overcome a significant demographics disadvantage, a disadvantage that will only grow over time. For the Democrats, the landscape is far more encouraging. Virtually all of the numbers favor a Democratic candidate in 2016:
“If the Democrats receive their 2012 levels of support among these three groups in 2016—an 11-point deficit among white college graduates; a 22-point deficit among white working-class voters; and a 64-point advantage among minority voters—the party will easily win the popular vote by a 6-point margin. If support for the Democrats among minorities declines to our more conservative estimate of 78 percent, they would still win the popular vote by 4 points. If, on top of that diminished minority support, white working-class support replicates the stunning 30-point deficit congressional Democrats suffered in 2014, while support among white college-graduates remains steady, the Democratic candidate would still win the popular vote—albeit by a slender margin. If, however, white college-graduate support also replicates its relatively weak 2014 performance for the Democrats—a 16-point deficit—Republicans would win the popular vote by a single point.”The popular vote won’t decide the election, but it’s an indication of where the country is politically. The Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential campaigns – that trend will continue and, eventually, it will translate into more and more electoral votes. In 2016, all the Democrats need to do is hold on to the Obama coalition, and even that’s not entirely necessary. As the CAP report notes, the "sobering reality for Republicans is that the Democratic candidate will be able to absorb mild levels of defections or lower levels of turnout from its core voters in the general election and still capture an Electoral College majority." Because of its over-reliance on white male voters, however, the GOP can’t win a national election unless turnout is historically low for the Democrats. And they still have to appeal to a cross-section non-ideological working-class voters. But the anger and the bitterness pulsating through their base at the moment will surely turn moderates and independents off, and the GOP can’t afford that. Whatever happens next year, it's clear that the GOP is slowly pandering its way into oblivion. The country has changed demographically, culturally, and politically - and the Democrats have changed with it. The Republican Party has not. And if Donald Trump's present success is any indication, it's headed in the wrong direction.No matter who wins the nomination battle, the Republican Party has a much bigger problem: demographics. A new report released by the Center for American Progress analyzed the demographic advantages for Democrats in 2016 and beyond and the results are overwhelmingly positive. And this should surprise no one. Observers on both sides have long questioned the Republican Party’s viability in an increasingly progressive and less white America. With every national election, it becomes more obvious that the GOP’s “Southern Strategy,” which exploited racial and cultural resentment for votes, has finally backfired. As The Nation’s William Greider wrote in October: “The GOP finds itself trapped in a marriage that has not only gone bad but is coming apart in full public view. After five decades of shrewd strategy, the Republican coalition Richard Nixon put together in 1968 – welcoming the segregationist white South into the Party of Lincoln – is no devouring itself in ugly, spiteful recriminations.” Greider was responding to the resignation of House Speaker John Boehner, who left on account of the nihilistic Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party extremists in Congress, like the social conservatives who supported them, are part of a reactionary movement of cultural discontents whose only purpose is to negate and obstruct, and they've proven that in office. This movement, which has consumed the Republican Party, consists primarily of old and disillusioned white people who are rejecting a world that, in many respects, has passed them by. The nativism, the xenophobia, the social hysteria, the religious demagoguery – this is what defines the GOP now, and it stems from the party’s cynical plot to capitalize on cultural angst nearly fifty years ago. Although it worked in the short and medium-term, the “Southern Strategy” is now the most likely cause of death for the Republican Party. Republicans still hold 31 of 50 state governorships and they control most state legislatures, but that’s not the problem. Today and moving forward, the GOP will find it harder and harder to compete for national elections. By appealing to the fears of culturally isolated white people, the Republican Party has created an intractable demand-side problem: Gradually, their platform has become dominated by social and religious issues which alienate nearly everyone outside of their base. Given the shifting demographics in this country, this portends doom for the GOP. From the Center for American Progress report:
“Recent social trends present significant headwinds for Republicans, particularly as they relate to demographic shifts in the country. For years, Republicans could rely on white voters—and, in particular, working-class whites—to constitute a decisive proportion of the electorate and deliver victory. This is no longer the case. As documented in the 2014 “States of Change” report—published jointly by the Center for American Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brookings Institution—the percentage of white voters in the actual electorate dropped 15 percentage points, from 89 percent in 1976 to 74 percent in 2012. The percentage of white working-class voters dropped even more, decreasing by 26 points over the same period. Future projections in the “States of Change” report suggest that the percentage of eligible white voters in the American electorate will drop to 46 percent by 2060…The decline in the white percentage of the electorate has coincided with stronger Democratic identification and voting patterns among nonwhite voters, as well as increasingly more liberal social views among higher-educated white professionals.”The writing is on the wall, in other words. In its current form, the GOP can’t survive, not if these projections are even remotely accurate. It will become a regional party, propped up by parochialism and gerrymandered districts. None of this means the Republicans can’t win in 2016. What it does mean, however, is that they’ll have to overcome a significant demographics disadvantage, a disadvantage that will only grow over time. For the Democrats, the landscape is far more encouraging. Virtually all of the numbers favor a Democratic candidate in 2016:
“If the Democrats receive their 2012 levels of support among these three groups in 2016—an 11-point deficit among white college graduates; a 22-point deficit among white working-class voters; and a 64-point advantage among minority voters—the party will easily win the popular vote by a 6-point margin. If support for the Democrats among minorities declines to our more conservative estimate of 78 percent, they would still win the popular vote by 4 points. If, on top of that diminished minority support, white working-class support replicates the stunning 30-point deficit congressional Democrats suffered in 2014, while support among white college-graduates remains steady, the Democratic candidate would still win the popular vote—albeit by a slender margin. If, however, white college-graduate support also replicates its relatively weak 2014 performance for the Democrats—a 16-point deficit—Republicans would win the popular vote by a single point.”The popular vote won’t decide the election, but it’s an indication of where the country is politically. The Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential campaigns – that trend will continue and, eventually, it will translate into more and more electoral votes. In 2016, all the Democrats need to do is hold on to the Obama coalition, and even that’s not entirely necessary. As the CAP report notes, the "sobering reality for Republicans is that the Democratic candidate will be able to absorb mild levels of defections or lower levels of turnout from its core voters in the general election and still capture an Electoral College majority." Because of its over-reliance on white male voters, however, the GOP can’t win a national election unless turnout is historically low for the Democrats. And they still have to appeal to a cross-section non-ideological working-class voters. But the anger and the bitterness pulsating through their base at the moment will surely turn moderates and independents off, and the GOP can’t afford that. Whatever happens next year, it's clear that the GOP is slowly pandering its way into oblivion. The country has changed demographically, culturally, and politically - and the Democrats have changed with it. The Republican Party has not. And if Donald Trump's present success is any indication, it's headed in the wrong direction.
2015: A game-changing year for transgender representation in television and film
From Caitlyn Jenner announcing her transition to the increased popularity of Sophia played by Laverne Cox in Orange is the New Black, 2015 saw transgender people given a public platform in a way previously unseen.
.jpg){kind=link}
