Although I have tried most of my life to be an optimist, the last dozen years have pushed me in to cynicism and depression. My husband and I were talking about a variety of topics this afternoon, everything from the Eagles' game to the Kavanaugh situation. Clearly both of those topics are depressing but since neither of us is a diehard team fan we found some hope in the Eagles loss to Tennessee. If the path to the Super Bowl doesn't look assured, it always is more interesting.
The Kavanaugh debacle is a different matter. Both of us expect nothing at all to come from any FBI investigation of Kavanaugh. There are too many restrictions on the search. NBC reported that Trump had restricted the investigation to only Ford and Ramirez but Trump rebutted that reportage to say that NBC was spreading fake news again. Then the White House had to admit that Don McGahn, whose last day was supposed to be today, had told the FBI that they couldn't widen the investigation to include any other witnesses, regardless of whether those witnesses were for sexual assault or alcoholic abuse. McGahn is supposed to be the biggest insider pushing Kavanaugh so it's plausible that he is responsible, but the mere fact that Gorsuch got chosen over Kavanaugh implies that there are problems with Kavanaugh.
In any case, both my husband and I fully expect the FBI questioning to be fruitless. Even if a dozen witnesses testified that Kavanaugh had been stumbling drunk with his penis out of his pants on numerous occasions both in high school and at Yale, he will be confirmed.
All that means is that women who have daughters need to educate those daughters early. If anyone, male or female, tries to abuse you, raise your voice. Do it loudly and do it proudly. We cannot fight back if we don't report; we cannot stop abuse if we don't expose; we must stand up to bad behavior.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Kavanaugh
I couldn't force myself to watch all of the spectacle of the various Kavanaugh hearings. From my point of view there was little up-side to any of the proceedings. Watching various senators posture and preen turns my stomach regardless of which side of the aisle the senator sits. So I don't know how much of what is available as information online was revealed in the testimony. For example, did Kavanaugh explain why it was all right for him to admit to underage drinking (the drinking age in Maryland was raised from 18 to 21 when Kavanaugh was still 17 so he could not have been legal at any point in high school)? Did anyone ask him what was meant by, "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep?" We all understand what that means when it is a reference to Las Vegas but does it mean the same for pubescent boys in suburban DC?
Anyway, long after Kavanaugh was a teenager, when he was a mid-30 something lawyer in Bush's White House, he helped organize a summer sailing trip with men friends through a concatenated series of emails. After numerous tasteless jokes of sexual innuendo involving multiple topics the trip happened and the final email, after the sailing was over, was "...a note from Kavanaugh himself: “Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant [with regard to] confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses.”
Perhaps Republicans can be persuaded that the bacchanal wasn't one and that Kavanaugh and company discussed state secrets, but that is not what that email says to me. How about you?
Anyway, long after Kavanaugh was a teenager, when he was a mid-30 something lawyer in Bush's White House, he helped organize a summer sailing trip with men friends through a concatenated series of emails. After numerous tasteless jokes of sexual innuendo involving multiple topics the trip happened and the final email, after the sailing was over, was "...a note from Kavanaugh himself: “Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant [with regard to] confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses.”
Perhaps Republicans can be persuaded that the bacchanal wasn't one and that Kavanaugh and company discussed state secrets, but that is not what that email says to me. How about you?
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Clueless
Last year when Trump spoke at the UN he said he was tired of other countries laughing at the United States. This year the leaders of those other countries laughed at him and he just didn't get it. Probably tomorrow after someone explains to him what really happened, he will probably send out angry tweets or threaten someone.
Friday, September 21, 2018
When I Was 15
When I was 15 I was in high school with a bunch of boys, not at a tony girls' private school, but the behavior was not much different from what is reported as the norm in Maryland. Do I believe Dr. Blasey Ford over Kavanaugh. Yes, but it's not because I think he is a slimy liar. It's because as the Texas GOP mother said on camera yesterday, "That's what boys do." I don't mean all boys. I am positive my husband never behaved that way when he was 17 because he didn't behave that way when he was 19 and 20 when I met him AND he never drank--still doesn't.
But when I was 15 I was one of the few girls in my class who actually needed to wear a bra. I was a 34C and very conscious of that fact. If I wore anything even remotely low cut, say showing some collarbone, the boys all acted as if I had a "Kick Me!" sign on my butt. One morning before math class a boy in the class tried to throw wadded up paper down my front and grabbed at my chest. The teacher was not in the room yet but when he did come in he saw all the red marks on my neck and chest and asked me if I was all right. Everyone in the room had seen this kid, being an aggressive jerk so I certainly had witnesses and possibly support. And it's that "possibly" that is the sticking point even now when I think back about it. I didn't even want to have breasts at 15 and the thought of having to go to the office and tell the male principal and male vice-principal what had happened seemed too punitive to me, the innocent party. I would have done anything to avoid that scenario so I lied and said something about a rash.
Years later my mother played bridge with this kid's mother for the first time. The woman, who back when I knew her couldn't have melted butter in her mouth, told my mother that her son had such a crush on me but I was too sophisticated and mature for him. Oddly enough, that boy and I were the two youngest students in our grade because we had been promoted. We were both 15 and 16 as juniors in high school and 16 and 17 as seniors. Some sophistication.
But when I was 15 I was one of the few girls in my class who actually needed to wear a bra. I was a 34C and very conscious of that fact. If I wore anything even remotely low cut, say showing some collarbone, the boys all acted as if I had a "Kick Me!" sign on my butt. One morning before math class a boy in the class tried to throw wadded up paper down my front and grabbed at my chest. The teacher was not in the room yet but when he did come in he saw all the red marks on my neck and chest and asked me if I was all right. Everyone in the room had seen this kid, being an aggressive jerk so I certainly had witnesses and possibly support. And it's that "possibly" that is the sticking point even now when I think back about it. I didn't even want to have breasts at 15 and the thought of having to go to the office and tell the male principal and male vice-principal what had happened seemed too punitive to me, the innocent party. I would have done anything to avoid that scenario so I lied and said something about a rash.
Years later my mother played bridge with this kid's mother for the first time. The woman, who back when I knew her couldn't have melted butter in her mouth, told my mother that her son had such a crush on me but I was too sophisticated and mature for him. Oddly enough, that boy and I were the two youngest students in our grade because we had been promoted. We were both 15 and 16 as juniors in high school and 16 and 17 as seniors. Some sophistication.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Unhinged
When Trump took office he average 4 lies a day for a while (the first 100 days), but apparently he was having so much fun he decided to up that ante, for what specific reason is unclear but for the most part he hasn't turned off his base. On September 7th, he made an astonishing 125 false or misleading states in 120 minutes. But his average of lies per day is now over 30 and he has broken the 5000 lies mark since taking office.
So? That's apparently what the typical Trumpette asks when reading true statements like those but it is also a question I want to see answered. Today he tweeted that Democrats have made up an elaborate lie about the deaths from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico last summer. He says the 2900 estimated deaths attributed to the hurricane and its aftermath are completely bogus and that the researchers and statisticians from George Washington University who compiled the numbers are simply counting old people who died.
Now as I have written previously, I have been through a couple of hurricanes and my old hometown of Corpus Christi went through several in the 45 years that my parents lived there so I understand that sometimes deaths attributed to hurricanes can be a little confusing. Do you count the guy who had a heart attack when the tree fell on his house even though the tree didn't hurt him? Do you count the fellow who was electrocuted when the live power line fell in his yard and he cut it with a power saw? How about the car accidents that the slick roads and high winds contribute to? And in Maria's case, there were many people who were left without electricity and died of heat exposure, or kidney failure because the dialysis machines were inoperable or unreachable. There were premature babies who died because the hospitals could not get supplies. Whether Trump likes it or not, all those deaths are hurricane deaths even if they happen after the storm passes and even if they aren't death by high wind or high water.
People died. People who had families, people who would have lived at least a little longer if Maria had not hit Puerto Rico. Don't let Trump diminish the impact of that.
So? That's apparently what the typical Trumpette asks when reading true statements like those but it is also a question I want to see answered. Today he tweeted that Democrats have made up an elaborate lie about the deaths from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico last summer. He says the 2900 estimated deaths attributed to the hurricane and its aftermath are completely bogus and that the researchers and statisticians from George Washington University who compiled the numbers are simply counting old people who died.
Now as I have written previously, I have been through a couple of hurricanes and my old hometown of Corpus Christi went through several in the 45 years that my parents lived there so I understand that sometimes deaths attributed to hurricanes can be a little confusing. Do you count the guy who had a heart attack when the tree fell on his house even though the tree didn't hurt him? Do you count the fellow who was electrocuted when the live power line fell in his yard and he cut it with a power saw? How about the car accidents that the slick roads and high winds contribute to? And in Maria's case, there were many people who were left without electricity and died of heat exposure, or kidney failure because the dialysis machines were inoperable or unreachable. There were premature babies who died because the hospitals could not get supplies. Whether Trump likes it or not, all those deaths are hurricane deaths even if they happen after the storm passes and even if they aren't death by high wind or high water.
People died. People who had families, people who would have lived at least a little longer if Maria had not hit Puerto Rico. Don't let Trump diminish the impact of that.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Memories
Here is an old photo I thought folks would like. The Museum of American Folk Art doesn't exist as it did then but I have no idea what happened to this particular treasure.
That's me on the left standing way closer to this top than anyone should have been allowed, but this visit to NYC was back before the now demolished new building went up. You can see the heart embroidered on the elephant trainer's uniform. That's the foundation for my theory about the quilt. I did make this quilt several years ago and what fun I had doing so.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
What Are You Going To Do?
"I think it's embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you don't even know which side the protesters were on," Trump said.
"But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their
lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly — I think it's an
embarrassment."
Would it matter which side the protesters were on? Could the side they espouse determine the response? It certainly does at Trump rallies where anyone from the other side gets manhandled and muscled out of the space. But should it matter that someone who disagrees with a government official shows up to protest that person?
Of course the answer lies in the Constitution and in the behavior of the protestor. Each of us is granted by the Constitution the right to address the government (in whatever shape or form that takes be it in person or by mail or electronic means, for redress of grievances). The Constitution is vague on what grievances so it has been generally understood to be any form of disagreement. But the Constitution says that the address itself should be peaceable, so no weapons nor threat of violence. It doesn't say one cannot protest. It doesn't say one must be polite.
If we had not protested the English crown's treatment of the colonies, we would not be the country we are. Protest is at the heart of our nation's birth and it's at the heart of our hope for the future. We know what kind of country, what kind of government we expect. Or at least we used to.
Would it matter which side the protesters were on? Could the side they espouse determine the response? It certainly does at Trump rallies where anyone from the other side gets manhandled and muscled out of the space. But should it matter that someone who disagrees with a government official shows up to protest that person?
Of course the answer lies in the Constitution and in the behavior of the protestor. Each of us is granted by the Constitution the right to address the government (in whatever shape or form that takes be it in person or by mail or electronic means, for redress of grievances). The Constitution is vague on what grievances so it has been generally understood to be any form of disagreement. But the Constitution says that the address itself should be peaceable, so no weapons nor threat of violence. It doesn't say one cannot protest. It doesn't say one must be polite.
If we had not protested the English crown's treatment of the colonies, we would not be the country we are. Protest is at the heart of our nation's birth and it's at the heart of our hope for the future. We know what kind of country, what kind of government we expect. Or at least we used to.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Where's A Good Lawyer When You Need One?
Trump upended the norms yet again today in his tweets. It has long been understood, probably because so many of our presidents have had legal training, that interfering in ongoing prosecutions is unwise if not outright forbidden. Trump not only castigated the attorney general of the US but tied current prosecutions of two congressmen to the elections.
You know who does that? Leaders of banana republics. While I don't expect all the Trumpettes to stand up in protest to Trump upending the common understanding of the legal system, I can hope that the Republican lawyers in government condemn these statements. Even they understand that our common reliance on normal behavior in the legal system supports and strengthens our country. If they don't decry Trump's tweets, we are doomed. Are the two congressmen guilty? That's up to the legal system including juries to determine. Does Trump behave irrationally when he wants his justice department to hold off prosecuting people for purely political reasons? Consider what would happen if the judge asked each defendant what his political affiliation was before he made any determination.
You know who does that? Leaders of banana republics. While I don't expect all the Trumpettes to stand up in protest to Trump upending the common understanding of the legal system, I can hope that the Republican lawyers in government condemn these statements. Even they understand that our common reliance on normal behavior in the legal system supports and strengthens our country. If they don't decry Trump's tweets, we are doomed. Are the two congressmen guilty? That's up to the legal system including juries to determine. Does Trump behave irrationally when he wants his justice department to hold off prosecuting people for purely political reasons? Consider what would happen if the judge asked each defendant what his political affiliation was before he made any determination.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
Shameful
John McCain's Washington memorial happened today and Fox News reported that Meghan McCain and Barack Obama had both insulted Donald Trump. Seriously, that was the headline from Fox--that the daughter of the man who had just died and a man who had been invited to eulogize him had insulted Donald Trump.
How fragile is his ego? How fragile is Fox's ego?
What were the grievous errors that Fox (such a reliable arbiter of sense and sensibility) identified? Meghan McCain said that her father would not stand for anyone who didn't understand that the United States had always been great, had always stood for values. Barack Obama warned against relying on demagogues who use rhetoric to inflame public opinion to the danger of everyone. Neither of them named a target but Fox has gotten so sensitive (little snowflakes) that as soon as someone stood up for the true values of the United States, Fox ran for the hedges and the scurrilous response.
I have just been reading an article in the London Review of Books about the BBC radio broadcasts during WWII. It makes fascinating reading because of the clear comparisons to demagoguery and propaganda.
Apparently no one at Fox ever took Latin--De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.
How fragile is his ego? How fragile is Fox's ego?
What were the grievous errors that Fox (such a reliable arbiter of sense and sensibility) identified? Meghan McCain said that her father would not stand for anyone who didn't understand that the United States had always been great, had always stood for values. Barack Obama warned against relying on demagogues who use rhetoric to inflame public opinion to the danger of everyone. Neither of them named a target but Fox has gotten so sensitive (little snowflakes) that as soon as someone stood up for the true values of the United States, Fox ran for the hedges and the scurrilous response.
I have just been reading an article in the London Review of Books about the BBC radio broadcasts during WWII. It makes fascinating reading because of the clear comparisons to demagoguery and propaganda.
Apparently no one at Fox ever took Latin--De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)