I’m putting LGBTQ Rainbow Pride Heart Stickers on ALL Nazi swastika graffiti I see. Join me to fight hate with love.
Order rainbow heart stickers here.

Product Placement
tumblr dot com
occasionally subtle

bliss lane

shark vs the universe

Kiana Khansmith
Interview Vampire Daily

@theartofmadeline
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
Misplaced Lens Cap

oozey mess
Claire Keane

PR's Tumblrdome
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

gracie abrams
YOU ARE THE REASON

pixel skylines
The Bowery Presents

Discoholic 🪩
seen from United States

seen from Ukraine
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Vietnam

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Palestinian Territories
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
@snarke
I’m putting LGBTQ Rainbow Pride Heart Stickers on ALL Nazi swastika graffiti I see. Join me to fight hate with love.
Order rainbow heart stickers here.
I can’t believe how long it took me to realize that the “nagging wife” sitcom stereotype is literally just “useless husband is incapable of doing his share of the housework despite being repeatedly asked” framed to demonize the woman
Talk about Aleppo. Cry for them like you cried for Paris. Cry for them like you cried for New York. Talk about them. Our silence is killing them. They are people, PEOPLE. Are they not important because they’re arabs? because they’re Syrian? Do their lives matter less than the life of a French or an American? People from Aleppo are posting their goodbye messages on the internet as a final massacre is expected to happen any time soon and we are SILENT. We have been silent for over five years. Some children in Aleppo don’t know life without war. Imagine living in a city of ruins and having to fear for your life every instant. Hospitals, churches, houses, restaurants are bombed on the daily and hundreds are killed every single day. Yet we are silent. Remember them. Honor them. We’ve allowed a mass genocide to happen before our eyes for years. It’s burning is a testament of our moral failure. Talk about Aleppo, please.
No! Bad MSNBC!
WARNING FOR FAMILY TYPES: Post contains f-bombs. You’ve been warned.
When she was still alive my paternal Grandmother loved to watch a show called Club Dance. It was her favorite show and she would keep her television set tuned to TNN (or whatever the network was called then) all day to make sure she didn’t miss any of the 4+ episodes that would air during the day. Every single time an episode would start, my Grandma would say the same thing:
“I just love this show. I know all the dancers. I know who’s seeing who and who got in a fight with who and sometimes I get up and try to do the dances and my gosh, I just love this show.”
It was adorable and is something that we still giggle about.
A (long) while ago, on a phone call with my Mom, I was complaining about one of my favorite MSNBC hosts, Ronan Farrow, losing his show. I had opinions about this change in lineup and was ranting about how Farrow’s show was axed but another host’s show was still going strong even though it was infuriating and poorly researched.
“You sure do have a lot of opinions about a television channel.” My Mom said.
“Well sure, I love MSNBC! I turn it on in the mornings to get the headlines and then I’ll watch this host’s show and that host’s show and then I know I can take a break because these couple of hosts are awful but I need to be back in time to see these other hosts because they always do a good job. I like to keep up.”
“Okay Grandma.” My Mom said and started laughing.
And you know what? Guilty. I’ve always been open about the fact that most of the time I have MSNBC on as background noise during the day. It’s the only news channel that doesn’t make me want to set my hair on fire. I know that this is because they often tend to have a liberal lean to their reporting (it’s hard to hate reporters who agree with you) which is why I like to get my headlines from them but follow it up with my own research. I also like that, typically, MSNBC anchors aren’t afraid to fact check or challenge their interviewees in real time. I mean, my god, have you ever watched Chris Matthews do an interview? There’s a reason he has a reputation for shouting. And Rachel Maddow is a goddamn national treasure and I will fight you if you try to disagree with me about this.
But then last night’s dumpster fire “Commander in Chief Forum” happened. I had such high hopes for this event. I was looking forward to substantive questions and real answers. And even when it came down that Matt Lauer (whose name is going to be a dirty word in my house for a while) would be hosting instead of someone more qualified, I thought: “It’s MSNBC. They do good work. It’ll be okay.”
It was not okay.
If we’re being completely honest here (and why not), I am still livid about how the event was conducted. Holy fuck, what a disaster.
The clips from the forum are up on YouTube so you can watch the event yourself. I won’t go into specific quotes or anything like that because honestly? The candidates’ responses weren’t really news. They were mostly predictable. What makes me angry--angry all the day down into the depths of my soul--is that last night’s forum really highlighted just how differently Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are treated by the press.
It’s a thing I’d noticed sometimes in passing, sort of in the larger “Jesus Christ, what does Hillary have to do to make you people happy?!” sense but last night was different. Last night Matt Lauer didn’t even try to look like he was approaching the candidates equally.
During Hillary’s half hour at the microphone, Matt Lauer repeatedly interrupted her, tried to cut her off, disagreed with her and even patronized her. Hillary was trying to give thoughtful and substantive answers to important and complex questions and Lauer wasn’t having any of it. He focused almost half her time on her emails instead of on military issues (though he did bring up her vote for Iraq).
When Donald came up to bat, it was all smiles and easy questions. He let Trump go on at length about his secret plan to fight ISIS and why he was keeping it secret. Lauer didn’t say a single word when Trump mansplained a woman’s question and got his numbers wrong. And his questions—first year middle school journalism students would come up with better stuff. “What are you reading to prepare?” REALLY?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, LAUER?
There are rumors about Lauer being chosen instead of any of the infinitely more qualified journalists on the NBC networks because Trump wanted to make sure he wouldn’t get any tough questions. Even so—does Matt Lauer live in Trump Tower or something? Did Trump promise him a position in the cabinet if he wins? I do not understand how or why he conducted the forum last night the way he did. Even thinking about it makes my blood all boily.
I had hoped that today’s MSNBC shows would help soothe the irate beast that was rising up within me but, um, not so much. Now, granted I slept badly and woke up late so I wasn’t in the best of moods anyway but today on my beloved MSNBC I saw hosts say things like “If Hillary behaves toward Donald Trump in the debates like she did last night, he’s going to win.” And “She really should use a softer touch with him” And can I just say?
NO SHE FUCKING SHOULDN’T. THE MAN WANTS TO LEAD THE GODDAMN FREE WORLD. HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT NEED TO SOFTEN DOWN. DONALD TRUMP NEEDS TO TOUGHEN UP.
There were hours of air time today devoted to talking about the lie Donald Trump keeps telling about his support for the Iraq war. This is a subject that has now been debunked dozens of times, but it got more air play than all of the other completely and outrageously terrible lies he told last night put together.
I watched as Chuck Todd, someone I usually think does an okay job, not only allow his male guests completely trample is lone female guest but encourage them. Every time they interrupted her, Todd would shift his focus to them and follow up on what the interruptor said. There wasn’t a single “hold on, let her finish” or anything of the sort.
And then! Then! Chuck Todd devoted an entire segment of MTP Daily to whether or not Donald Trump would legally be allowed to run his businesses from the oval office. It turns out? That legally speaking, he is allowed to remain at the head of his organizations. And there was zero pushback from Todd. This is about when I started yelling at my TV set because GAH! THE HYPOCRISY!
Hillary Clinton, a woman who never let the work of the Clinton Foundation interfere or inform her work as Secretary of State (we’ll talk more about this at a later time because I have VIEWS) has been under tremendous pressure not just to step down from that foundation but to abolish it altogether.
The pundits have all agreed: to avoid any appearance of potential pay for play, one of the greatest and most successful humanitarian organizations in modern history has to be completely destroyed. A few have relented slightly to say, basically, “okay the Clinton Foundation’s work can still exist but it can’t be called the Clinton Foundation and nobody who has anything to do with the family should be able to have anything to do with the foundation if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency. Because optics.”
Contrast that to: “Yeah, he can totally keep running his businesses, I mean he’d have to be careful not to play favorites, but legally it’s fine.” So a woman who has followed all the rules and done nothing wrong has to destroy one of the best things she helped build or she can’t be President because it will prove that she’s corrupt. But the man who has been proven to use his organizations to buy his way out of legal trouble with high ranking officials in multiple states can totally keep doing that even if he wins the election? And it’s fine?
How the flying fuck is this fair?!
How can these stories be run within days of each other and the pundits still claim that they aren’t holding Hillary Clinton to an absurdly different and impossible standard than Donald Trump?
Why is it that Hillary Clinton is condemned over and over again for her lack of omnipotence while Donald Trump is heaped with praise for finally learning how to read a teleprompter and not taking a dump on the stage?
ARGH.
MSNBC, I’m disappointed in you.
Like this? Follow me on Twitter! And, if you’d like to support my writing and election coverage, here’s where you can do that!
Doing My Due Diligence: A Blog in Two Parts
Part One
Everybody pull up a chair or scootch closer to your standing desk because I'm about to let you in on one of the hardest things about my new indie-journo adventure. Ready? Here it goes: FOMO is real, yo. And it is fierce.
Most of us think about FOMO (it means "Fear Of Missing Out" Mom) in the social sense, the second verse of Ennui sense. It comes from a very real pressure to feel like we are a part of things all the time. And when you're covering a thing that is as fast and rambunctious as this election, that FOMO gets real intense real fast.
Just as I feel like I've gotten a handle on an idea well enough to write about it, suddenly everybody is talking about this other thing and I don't want to be left out so I drop what I'm doing to go learn about that thing and then there's a whole new thing but what about that first thing I was going to write about? Are we still talking about that at all? No? Well, poop.
I mean, I guess I'm lucky in my current topic (which I'll talk about in a sec), because that goddamn Hillary Clinton email scandal is never going away.
FOMO is why I haven't been better at keeping up this space. I don't want to write "hot takes" or whatever we're calling them these days. I want to dig into a topic and understand it and then tell you about it because I know you're confused too. And because I have VIEWS and I want to make sure my VIEWS are founded and not just a knee jerk/privilege-based reaction to a situation.
At the same time I want to build up this audience and really do something (God, how many times have I said that before? Shut up). And that means choosing between "here's five more words that say pretty much the same thing as everybody else is saying" and fear of "wait, I thought we stopped caring about that at least yesterday already. God, keep up!"
So, most of the time I sit and I do nothing because ugh. Choosing between which annoying is the least annoying is just the worst.
And that brings us too...
Blog Part B
Last week the FBI put the notes from it's investigation into Hillary Clinton's email servers and Hillary Clinton's own interview up on their public vault. Anybody who wants to can sort through those pages (and there are dozens of them) to learn what the FBI learned and to see why Director Comey decided not to recommend pressing charges.
Here's the TL;DR version: So far? Everything Hillary Clinton has been saying about her use of a private email server and the way she and her staff decided on how to classify (or not) documents has been right on the money. She did nothing wrong. Her biggest problem? Was trusting her team to do their jobs correctly and if you think putting trust in a team is a bad thing for a Presidential Hopeful to do? You're wrong.
No. No "what about?"s or "but sometimes..."-es. You are wrong. The President is the ultimate Decider in Chief but he or she relies on a vast network of experts and professionals for advice and assistance. It's called the cabinet, and ambassadorships, and a gorram staff, people. Look it up.
Kevin Drum wrote an excellent rundown of some of the bigger a-ha moments in the reports over at Mother Jones (and a follow up is here).
And Jim Wright wrote an excellent run-down of how the classification system works and what the different levels mean here on Facebook (you should follow him if you haven't already, he's great.)
For my part? If you want me to dig into policy and other details I totally will. If that's a post y'all want to read, I'm happy to write it. For now, though, I want to talk about a few things, in the general sense, that caught my eye.
Hillary Clinton Didn't Create the Server
The server was originally created in 2007 for President Bill Clinton's post-presidency work related stuff. Hillary only asked for the IT team to set up an email address after she was instated as Secretary of State.
The Clintons’ IT Team Sucks
And they suck hard. Things seemed to be going swimmingly in the beginning when the server was kept, managed, and administered on-site. The two guys responsible for the building of the servers (the original one got replaced by a better system in 2009) did a pretty good job of keeping everything running and everyone happy.
Then in 2009, security and administration were outsourced to a third party firm. And they? Turned out to be your basic nightmare of an IT team. Seriously. Requests went unanswered for months. They said they couldn't encrypt emails (so that only recipients could read them) because it would interfere with troubleshooting problems that might come up, they lost or never delivered hardware, seriously. They'd say "oh sure I did that" and then not do that. Ugh.
Clinton's Admin/Legal Team Not Much Better
Let's just put it all on the table. If you do not have any expertise in IT, you should not attempt to do IT-expertise related things. Period. You definitely shouldn't have someone try to talk you through a process over the phone and then lose the hardware that you were using for that project and then lie about it. ("I gave that to her" "Nope" "Oh wait, I still have it. That's right." paraphrasing mine.)
And the team responsible for archiving and sorting her emails? Not much better. Secretary Clinton gave her lawyers explicit instructions that anything that could be seen as even remotely work related be turned in at the end of her tenure.
Secretary Clinton Is Not A Happy Tech Person
I don't think any of us blame her for not wanting to try to juggle two devices when the one she was already using was already such a thorn in her paw. She didn't like having to learn new systems, often asking her staff to switch out a new blackberry for an older model that she was more familiar with. And it looks like whenever the device went remotely buggy or slow, it didn't get repaired or have troubleshooting run on it, it simply got replaced. I think that's understandable. The Secretary of State's Blackberry probably shouldn't be sent out for repairs, y'know?
Beyond that point, there is the issue of sending and receiving emails. Kevin Drum touches on this too, but I want to make sure you readers really grok this. According to the FBI report, only about 13 people had direct contact with Secretary Clinton via email. With all of the emails being archived and dug through? That is a teensy number of people.
This means that Secretary Clinton received far more emails than she sent and it doesn’t look like she sent anything that could be potentially sensitive, she only received it. But "people were emailing her like crazy but she rarely responded directly or even at all" doesn't play well as "30,000 emails sent and received by the Secretary" now does it?
And that brings me to this final point. Maybe. Unless you decide you want in-depth analysis.
What you see being reported on and shouted about on the news seems stupid because IT IS. This report proves over and over again that Secretary Clinton did nothing wrong. She didn't subvert the system. She didn't manipulate the system. She used what she had to the best of her ability to do so within the confines of law and policy and to keep the process as transparent as possible and she instructed her staffs to do the same. She is in the clear here. But after so many months of speculation and spin, saying "oh. okay. yeah. She's totally cool. Nothing to see here." Doesn't play well on the airwaves.
But seriously: she's cool. There's nothing to see here. If you want to get worked up about this "scandal" aim your ire at the people who keep trying to smear her with it instead of letting the issue die so we can all move the frig on.
Like this? Follow me on Twitter! Or on Facebook! And if you are so inclined and would like to support an indie journo’s milkshake habit, here’s a handy link to my donations page!
Finally! Some Hillary!
Oh Hillary, you are a soothing balm on my Trump-scraped soul.
So. Today sure happened, didn't it.
When I got up this morning I was all set to let loose with a post about the AP and the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton pile-on and oh, y'all. I have VIEWS. Shouty shouty VIEWS. But then? Today’s speeches happened.
Today Donald Trump gave a speech to his followers in New Hampshire. I just finished watching the video and there's nothing new to report. It was more of the same basic stuff: "I'm awesome, Hillary is evil, here are a bunch of examples I'm exaggerating and a few more that I have completely made up and even a couple that prove I didn't do the reading. Outlandish thing!!! Genuinely scary thing. Yada yada yada.”
Yes. I just yada yada'd Trump.
But! Today wasn't an all-Trump day. Not even a little bit. Because? Hillary Clinton also gave a speech--her first public rally speech in a while--and what a speech it was. I don't know if it was just the contrast with all the Trump I've been watching, but Clinton's speech? Was PERFECT. It was everything a good speech should be, especially one that is taking on not just Donald Trump but the entire alt-right and their trollish, dickish ideas.
GIF source: Giphy.com
Hillary Clinton was calm. She was measured (metaphorically). The speech was much less a rally cry than very much a "Mofos, THIS is how you address the nation and Make Them Pay Attention."
Here's the full transcript.
Here's the video.
Please please, even if you aren't a big fan of political stuff, watch this speech if for no other reason than an example of what real leadership looks like.
Like this? Follow me on twitter: @snarke! And/or click here to kick a few bucks into my "I want to buy a Hillary Clinton baseball hat" fund!
So Much Trump
I've been watching a lot of Trump speeches over the last few weeks.
It's my own fault. Nobody is making me watch these speeches and interviews and rallies. Outside of your incredibly generous donations (thank you!) nobody is paying me to spend this much time focused on a crusty rug with a bad attitude. I'm watching because I want to and because I think watching and paying attention (as barfy as it makes me) is important. Donald Trump is saying quite a lot in the little that he actually says and, while it's fun to watch him try to talk and read a teleprompter at the same time, so far I have yet to hear him say anything that doesn't terrify me.
If you've caught even just thirty seconds of domestic news over the last couple of weeks, you've undoubtedly heard some of Trump's latest greatest hits:
Barack Obama is "literally the founder of ISIS" (he isn't) along with Hillary Clinton (nope).
Hillary Clinton is a bigot (I doubt it).
The Obama Administration paid $400 Million in ransom to Iran (nu-uh, and I'll talk about this more later this week).
That Hillary is physically and mentally unfit for office--and that she's harboring some weird secret illness. (*sigh*)
He "regrets" saying the wrong things and causing personal pain (followed up by going back to saying and doing exactly what he's been saying and doing all along).
He (Trump) will be able to get 95% of the black vote by 2020, he guarantees it.
We all talk a good game about how there are only lies and nothing of real substance in his stump speech, but if you pay attention? There's some super scary sh*t in there and nobody seems to be covering it. Probably because it isn't quite as outlandishly delivered or ignorantly conceived as what I listed above.
For example, while everybody else is mad because Trump keeps insisting that Hillary Clinton is a bigot who uses black people as pawns, they're overlooking a statistic he's repeated a few times since then:
"58% of African American youth are unemployed."
Notice the inclusion of the word youth. This is not an accident. He has used this quote in a few different speeches now, varying it once in a while to make it look like he's trying to talk directly to the Black community: "half of your youth are unemployed!"
What, exactly, does he mean by "youth"? Does he mean teenagers who can get work permits? Younger? And why is the unemployment rate of African American youth such a big sticking point for him?
In one speech he even went so far as to say that Hillary Clinton would “rather bring in a refugee or an illegal to take a job than have one of the African American youths do it.” (paraphrasing mine)
Think about the stereotype surrounding jobs typically performed by refugees and undocumented workers. Is he saying that we should be sending in kids--black kids in particular--to do those jobs instead? Because that's problematic, even for a guy who supposedly has a (white, of course) twelve year old running his Colorado campaign office.
Then there's his whole thing about ideological testing. A lot of news coverage has been given to Donald Trump's plan to impose some sort of ideological test on people who want to immigrate to this country (because nobody would ever lie on one of those, I'm sure). What this coverage leaves out is how far and how invasive he'd like this testing to be. Here are quotes from just two of the speeches he’s given recently:
“On immigration, we will temporarily suspend immigration from any place where adequate screening cannot be performed. All applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties to radical ideology, and we will screen out anyone who doesn’t share our values and love our people. [...] If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society, our values and our tolerant way of life. “ --Charlotte, August 18 (bolding mine)
“This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society. Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.” --Youngstown, August 15 (bolding mine)
These are not the only scary ideas that he's not-so-subtly projecting. There is also the language about "Americanism not Globalism" and the advocation of eliminating nation-building:
“If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam.All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.”--Youngstown, August 15
He talks about using "military, financial and cyberwarfare" to defeat terrorists. What does that even mean?
It's easy to laugh and point at Donald Trump and to wonder how on earth a candidate who has no concrete plans to accomplish any of this promises got so far. But if you really listen, there are incredibly scary messages included in his speeches and they are why he should never ever have any power.
Like this? You can follow me for more on twitter at @snarke and/or click here to toss a couple bucks into my “milkshakes to counteract Trump exposure” fund.
Donald Trump Steps In It. Again.
Hold on to your butts, folks. We're already at that point in the election cycle where, even if you do your best to steer clear, you cannot totally avoid hearing about the election. IN AUGUST.
Something something marathon not a sprint joke.
If you are alive, you have probably heard about Donald Trump's most recent awful gaffe (until tomorrow anyway). In case you're one of the lucky few (or dead?!) who managed to escape it, here's the short version:
Donald Trump "accidentally" called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That is a thing that happened. Here's how it went down.
The Trumpster was giving a speech in North Carolina--off script because that's always a good idea--and was trying to talk about how important it is that Hillary not be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices because she wants to repeal the second amendment and blah blah trump trump yuck yuck yuck. But then! Oh then. He said this:
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. "
Now, look: I watched that whole Trump speech. On purpose even. And as much as I loathe the guy I don't honestly think he was calling for the assassination of his political opponent. I think he's a terrible speaker and is not nearly the off-the-cuff master of oration he seems to think he is. His verbal inner monologue approach to these speeches gets him in trouble because he is allergic to facts and in love with bluster. I think some of his campaign spokespeople are probably right: he was talking about NRA lobbyists and activists who are so good at getting powerful people to do their bidding getting in the way of an anti-NRA justice's approval.
But words, y'know. They're hard and stuff.
And the spokespeople saying Trump was kidding? They can bite all of us.
The problem isn’t that Trump’s campaign is trying to walk this back using two conflicting stories, making it even harder to ferret out what he really meant.
The problem is that there are people who believe in Donald Trump so whole heartedly and take him so literally that they will decide that he does want them to try to go after Hillary Clinton. This is a huge problem, not just for Trump and Hillary, but for the Secret Service Agents whose jobs are literally to put themselves between gunfire and the candidates.
The other problem is that "just kidding" is not rhetoric you want a President to think is a perfectly acceptable go-to when he or she says something inflammatory and carelessly causes an international crisis. Why? Not just because it is in poor taste. But because it signals that he doesn't take himself or his responsibilities seriously.
Scary as it is, Trump's words have real power and authority now. And that he either doesn't get or, worse, doesn’t care about the responsibility that comes with that? That's scary.
The other annoying thing about this whole did he/didn't he two step is that it completely ignores what he said a little bit later:
"If you – we can add I think the National Rifle Association, we can add the Second Amendment to the Justices – they almost go – in a certain way, hand in hand."
THE NRA AND SCOTUS GO HAND IN HAND?!? WHAT. THE. FREAKING. FRACKING. FRICK.
(I can't drop the actual F-bomb, yall. My Mom reads this!)
If you want to read a transcript of the whole speech, you can find it here. I don't recommend it. I do recommend sending the transcriptionist a fruit basket, though, because wow. Wow. This isn't word salad. This is a guy who is trying to make a word smoothie but never remembers to put the lid on the blender.
Like this? Want to help me do more independent reporting? This is a handy link to my support page!
And here’s a handy link to my Twitter, where I talk about this stuff all day!
Moar Politics? Okay!
Before I do anything else, I need to say THANK YOU to everybody who kicked in to help support my coverage of the Republican and Democratic primaries! Y'all are the greatest and helped make it possible to focus on the events instead of only being able to half listen while I churned out other work. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
In case anybody was wondering, I'm not going to stop covering this election. I'm going to continue tweeting it and, scary as it is, blogging it. That's right. I'm going to be sharing my opinions on the Internet. Yes, I want to hide under my bed and away from my laptop until this urge passes. BUT I WON'T. This election is too important and the shenaniganry indulged in by those twin barge fires who prefer to be called The Trump Campaign and the (Militant) Bernie or Busters (I not-so-affectionately call them “Uber Boobers”) there is a f*ck-ton of misinformation being slung around and taken as gospel. I'm sick of it. I have VIEWS, people. EDUCATED AND INFORMED VIEWS.
I'm still working out the catch-all hashtag for the general election. I was going with #Election2016 but the US isn't the only country having elections this year so that could get confusing. #USElection2016 feels too clunky. Eh, I'll figure it out soonish. In the meantime, if you want to avoid the heck out of all of my political stuff, you should mute any/all of the following hashtags:
#HillaryClinton #DonaldTrump #BernieorBust #GOP #DNC #RNC #POTUS #SCOTUS #US Congress #US Senate
I'll do my best to hashtag everything, but if I miss something, definitely let me know!
And if you want to follow or keep up with my coverage, follow me here and on Twitter (@snarke)!
And now for some actual coverage/reporting. No, it isn't about Donald Trump wigging out over the Khan family. Instead, I thought I'd start with something positive! Yay! Positivity! Woo!
Earlier today, Warren Buffet endorsed and introduced Hillary Clinton at a political rally in his home district (Nebraska's 2nd). But that's not all he did! First, he used actual math and real numbers to talk about how the top earners got there and why "trickle down" economics is a big fat scam (okay fine, I'm calling it a big fat scam. He was far more measured and eloquent). This is not something that usually happens at these rallies. Wages, inflation, deficits, etc. tend to get talked about in vague estimations. I don't think I've ever heard anybody actually use the acronym "GDP" correctly at a political rally before. I hope this is becomes a trend.
Then, because using actual facts at a political rally wasn't revolutionary enough, Buffet used the rally to officially launch Drive2Vote.org.
Drive2Vote is a fantastic website. In addition to providing information about how people can register to vote, the site serves as a portal that matches up people who will have a hard time getting to their polling places on election day and volunteers who want to help them out by giving them a ride. Warren Buffet said that he has pledged to offer rides to *at least* 10 people on election day. And then he made a couple of jokes about selfies.
Currently, Drive2Vote.org is focused solely on Nebraska's 2nd District (which could very well being the deciding district of the 2016 election). But when I asked about the potential for it's expansion to other districts/states, a representative of the organization said in an email, "Our initiative is specific to Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. I'm sure Warren would want to encourage others throughout the country to do the same!"
That's right. I emailed a representative for comment on a story. I feel like a real reporter now!
Like this? Here's a handy link you can use to help support more indie journalism here at Snarke.net!
hey here's some facts about the DNC leak
1. The DNC reported a hack of its emails by a Russian server a month ago.
2. A cybersecurity company agreed with the identification of the hacker as Russian and noted that one of the hacking groups involved was operated by the Russian military intelligence service.
In mid-June the company announced that the intruders appeared to include a group it had previously identified by the name “Cozy Bear” or “APT 29” and been inside the committee’s servers for a year. A second group, “Fancy Bear,” also called “APT 28,” came into the system in April. It appears to be operated by the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, according to federal investigators and private cybersecurity firms.
3. From the same article: Pro-Putin Russian hackers have been a thorn in the side of American cybersecurity for years now.
The first group is particularly well known to the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence unit, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies. It was identified by federal investigators as the likely culprit behind years of intrusions into the State Department and White House unclassified computer system.
4. Wikileaks, along with publishing the emails, published unredacted credit card numbers, passport numbers, social security numbers, and home addresses of hundreds of Democratic donors. They called this “not an error.” This is known as doxxing, and it is illegal in US jurisdictions.
Doxing is always illegal, whether it is done against a federal employee, a state employee, or a regular person. There are federal and state laws that specifically address doxing government employees. With regular citizens, doxing falls under various state criminal laws, such as stalking, cyberstalking, harassment, threats, and other such laws, depending on the state. Since these doxing threats and activities are made on the internet, the law of any state may be invoked, though most often an investigator will look to the state in which the person making the threat is located, if this is known, or the state in which the victim is situated. A state prosecutor can only prosecute violations of the laws of his or her own state, and of acts that extend into their state. When acts are on the internet, they extend into all the states. Misinformation was spread that doxing is legal. I am not sure how or why anyone fell for that misinformation. Surely, people must understand instinctively, even if they were misled about the law, that if they are threatening someone or putting them at risk, or tormenting or harassing the other on the internet, that this must be illegal. Common sense would tell you that bullying or jeopardizing another would be illegal in some way. So yes, doxing is illegal, no matter who the target.
5. Wikileaks has offered support to the racist, sexist agitator and Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos after his ban from Twitter for inciting hate mobs. This support was not merely a tweet or two extending a hand: it was an offer to build an entire new social network fine-tuned to Yiannopoulos’ needs.
6. Milo is a vocal Trump supporter and headlined an event at the RNC.
7. Wikileaks is run by Julian Assange, an accused rapist, who has for years taken a paycheck from Russia Today, the English-language propaganda arm of the Kremlin.
8. Trump, blacklisted as he is from borrowing form most US banks, has enticed mostly investors from Russia to prop up his floundering enterprises.
After his bankruptcy and business failures roughly a decade ago Trump has had an increasingly difficult time finding sources of capital for new investments. As I noted above, Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.
9. Trump is pro-Putin to the point where he would not defend other NATO member nations against Russian attacks.
10. Trump’s right hand man, Paul Manafort, was for almost a decade an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the ousted president of Ukraine who now lives in exile in Russia and is a major Putin ally. Trump’s other top staffers tend towards supporting the Russian government/elite in various ways.
11. There is nothing in the DNC emails that indicates breaking of any laws.
12. Bernie Sanders only declared himself a Democrat this election cycle. The DNC was not obligated to support him, and yet they did - there are emails where staffers complain about bending over backwards for the Sanders campaign. There’s also a memo from the Sanders campaign demanding a private jet to be paid for by the DNC after Bernie had reached the point where it was mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination. (They also called Lin-Manuel Miranda a baby for not doing a fundraiser on his off day, which is frankly hilarious.)
12c. Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination by 3,775,437 votes. He lost badly among registerd Democrats, black Democrats, and Latino Democrats. If the DNC is incompetent enough not to secure their servers against hackers, they are sure as shit not capable of stealing nearly four million votes.
13. Hillary Clinton does not have mind-control powers and is not responsible for every single word typed in a private DNC email server.
14. The release of the emails was timed for when Trump would have a large amount of goodwill - the “convention bump,” as noted in several large-scale polls by reputable organizations - and before the Democrats/Hillary would have a chance to respond to the bump at their own convention.
15. Trump has engaged in much worse political ratfucking of his same-party opponents than the DNC did in its emails, in public, and it is widely known that the RNC has been attempting to sabotage him for months.
16. It ain’t like Putin hasn’t done shit like this before. He killed a journalist with plutonium. I could go on about what he does inside his country, but I’m not super familiar with it, and frankly "sitting head of state ordered the assassination of a journalist in exile by means of nuclear material" is fucked up enough.
Conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from these facts:
1. Wikileaks, whatever its intentions in the past, is not a neutral whistleblower and cannot be, given the money their founder draws from the Russian government.
2. The DNC did not engage in any political ratfuckery beyond what is normal for any and especially this cycle, nor did they break any laws.
3. Wikileaks is not a progressive actor, given its support for both Milo Yiannopoulos and Vladimir Putin.
4. The hackers sat on the material for more than a month, and the reveal of the documents was timed to hurt Hillary Clinton and buck up Trump.
Other conclusions that can be drawn:
1. Trump and Putin colluded somehow on this hack job.
2. Putin wants Trump in the White House because Trump has, among other things, publicly stated that he will not defend NATO states bordering Russia if Russia invades, and is willing to sponsor illegal activity to make this happen.
Conclusions the FBI has drawn:
The FBI is publicly saying that they suspect the Russian government did this. Several unnamed US officials suspect this was “a deliberate attempt to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, according to five individuals familiar with the investigation of the breach.”
(Also, on that note - the DNC is not gonna accuse a foreign state of trying to influence the election via cyberterrorism without some cold hard proof. That’s not an accusation you throw around lightly, especially when you represent one of the two largest parties in America.)
TL;DR
Debbie Wasserman Schultz complaining about an independent tanking her anointed candidate should not make you mourn the death of American democracy. What should be making you furious - and terrified, honestly - is that a foreign state, led by an autocrat with a history of human rights abuses, has used a “pro-transparency” organization to achieve its goal in installing a malleable strongman and has committed cyberterrorism in the process.
Please don’t vote third party this election. Please.
Covering the Conventions
Last week I covered the Republican National Convention on Twitter. This week I’m covering the Democratic National Convention on Twitter. Next week, I’m going to start posting longer content about the conventions and about the general election race in general. I’ll be posting that longer content here and, if I can get my profile set up in time, on Medium.
Here’s a link to my Twitter!
If you’d like to help support my indie journo stuff here are a couple of links for that!
Support via Square
Support via PayPal
Feel free to share the crap out of this!
Is it only bodyhacking when men do it?
By Sunny Moraine
Rose Eveleth’s piece for Fusion on gender and bodyhacking was something I didn’t know I needed in my life until it was there. You know how you’ve always known something or felt something, but it isn’t until someone else articulates it for you that you truly understand it, can explain it to yourself, think you might be able to explain it to others – or, even better, shove the articulation at them and be all THAT RIGHT THERE, THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. You know that kind of thing?
Yeah, that.
Eveleth’s overall thesis is that “bodyhacking” isn’t new at all, that it’s been around forever in how women – to get oversimplified and gender-essentialist in a way I try to avoid, so caveat there – alter and control and manage their bodies (not always to positive or uncoercive ends), but that it’s not recognized as such because we still gender the concept of “technology” as profoundly masculine:
Men invent Soylent, and it’s considered technology. Women have been drinking SlimFast and Ensure for decades but it was just considered a weight loss aid. Quantified self is an exciting technology sector that led tech giants such as Apple to make health tracking a part of the iPhone. But though women have been keeping records of their menstrual cycles for thousands of years, Apple belatedly added period tracking to its Health Kit. Women have been dieting for centuries, but when men do it and call it“intermittent fasting,” it gets news coverage as a tech trend. Men alter their bodies with implants and it’s considered extreme bodyhacking, and cutting edge technology. Women bound their feet for thousands of years, wore corsets that altered their rib cages, got breast implants, and that was all considered shallow narcissism.
As a central personal example, Eveleth uses her IUD, and this is what especially resonated with me, because I also have one. I’ve had one for about seven years. I love it. And getting it was moderately life-changing, not just because of its practical benefits but because it altered how I think about me.
The insertion process was not comfortable (not to scare off anyone thinking of getting one, TRUST ME IT IS GREAT TO HAVE) and more than a little anxiety-inducing ahead of time, but I walked out of the doctor’s office feeling kind of cool. I had an implant. I had a piece of technology in my uterus, that was enabling me to control my reproductive process. I don’t want children – at least not right now – and my reproductive organs have never been significantly important to me as far as my gender identity goes (probably not least because I don’t identify as a woman), but managing my bits and what they do and how they do it has naturally been a part of my life since I became sexually active.
And what matters for this conversation is that the constant task of managing them isn’t something I chose. Trying to find a method that worked best for me and (mildly) stressing about how well it was working was a part of my identity inasmuch as it took up space in my brain, and I wasn’t thrilled about that. I didn’t want it to be part of my identity – though I didn’t want to go as far as permanently foreclosing on the possibility of pregnancy – and it irked me that it had to be.
Then it didn’t have to be anymore.
And it wasn’t just about a little copper implant being cool on a pure nerd level. I felt cool because the power dynamic between my self and my body had changed. My relationship between me and this set of organs had become voluntary in a way entirely new to me.
I feel like I might not be explaining this very well.
Here: Over thirty years ago, Donna Haraway presented an image of a new form of self and its creation – not creation, in fact, but construction. Something pieced together with intentionality, the result of choices – something “encoded.” She offered a criticism of the woman-as-Earth-Mother vision that then-contemporary feminists were making use of, and pointed the way forward toward something far stranger and more wonderfully monstrous.
The power of an enmeshing between the organic and the technological lies not only in what it allows one to do but in what it allows one to be – and often there’s no real distinction to be made between the two. We can talk about identity in terms of smartphones, but when we come to things like technologies of reproductive control, I think the conversation often slips into the purely utilitarian – if these things are recognized as technologies at all.
Eveleth notes that “technology is a thing men do,” and I think the dismissal of female bodyhacking goes beyond dismissal of the utilitarian aspects of these technologies. It’s also the dismissal of many of the things that make it possible to construct a cyborg self, to weave a powerful connection to the body that’s about the emotional and psychological just as much as the physical.
I walked out of that doctor’s office with my little copper implant, and the fact that I no longer had to angst about accidental pregnancy was in many respects a minor component of what I was feeling. I was a little less of a goddess, and a little more of a cyborg.
Sunny Moraine is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Maryland and a fiction author whose work has appeared in Clarkesworld, Lightspeed, Shimmer, Nightmare, and Strange Horizons, as well as multiple Year’s Best anthologies; they are also responsible for both the Root Code and Casting the Bones novel trilogies. Their current dissertation work concerns narrative, temporality, and genocidal violence. They blog at Cyborgology, where this post originally appeared, and can be followed on Twitter at @dynamicsymmetry.
the oompa loompas are a greek chorus
First of all, I hate this so much. Second of all, imagine if the two switched places. (Veruca falls into the trash chute) Chorus: Pray thou no more; for mortals have no escape from destined woe. Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness; and reverence towards the gods must be inviolate. Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows… (Oedipus stabs his eyes out) Oompa Loompas: Oompa loompa doopity do I’ve got another riddle for you What do you get when you sleep with your mum? A curse on your kids for decades to come~
I want a story about a king whose son is prophesied to kill him so the king is like “whatever what am I supposed to do, kill my own kid wtf is wrong with you” so he just raises him as normal, doesn’t even tell him about the prophecy, and instead of some convoluted twist of events that leads to the king’s murder the son grows up and when the king is very old and dying and in excruciating pain the kid is just like alright I'mma put him out of his misery.
The king’s son becomes the new king, and is prophesied to defeat evil and bring an age of prosperity. His generals and knights all crack their knuckles but he pretty much ignores them and focuses on strengthening the infrastructure of his kingdom. Forty years later he is old and sick but still hearing his subjects’ grievances, and a general’s like “how will you defeat the prophesied evil now? You’re old and weak.” Another visitor, a teenager fresh out of the kingdom’s public education system, looks at the general like he is an ignoramus. The king eradicated poverty, housed the homeless, taught the ignorant, ended class exploitation by abolishing the nobility and imprisoning the corrupt, and established a highly respected guild of doctors that recently figured out how to cure the plague. There are no brigands because there is enough wealth for everyone to live comfortably; hiding in the woods and taking trinkets from people simply doesn’t make any sense for anyone but the desperate, and the people are not desperate. Evil is a weed, explains the teenager. It grows in cracked roads and crumbling houses and forgotten corners, rooted in indifference and watered by suffering. But the king demands that broken things be mended and suffering people be made well.
No evil lives in this kingdom, says the teenager. It starved to death before I was born.
Oh yes.
LOVE THIS.
As someone with OCD I honestly think OCD is up there with some of the most misunderstood mental illnesses by the general public because so many times I’ve seen that even when people get that it’s not just like “oh I organized all my Buffy DVDs today, I’m so OCD”, they honestly, well-meaningly, genuinely think that it’s just that kind of thing but taken to the level of a disorder? That it is just an obsession with making things tidy or free of germs to the point of it interfering with their everyday life.
But that’s simply not true; OCD is an extremely complex mental illness which manifests in myriads of different ways for different individuals, with primary symptoms being severe, repeated intrusive thoughts which are extremely emotionally distressing to the individual (called “obsessions”, although it’s not an on-purpose obsession— the individual doesn’t want to be having these thoughts, but they won’t leave) and a specific kind of impulse control disorder.
People with OCD develop really specific “rituals”, often related to their intrusive thoughts (for example, Repeated mental image of loved ones dying → Feels compulsed to text their loved ones literally every five minutes and ask if they are okay, the whole day). Since these “rituals” are almost always self-destructive (for example, many people with OCD develop a ritual of self-injury) or destructive to relationships or jobs or hobbies or other aspects of a person’s life, these actually do nothing to quell the anxiety, and in fact make it worse, but the person with untreated OCD feels literally unable to stop. Additionally, almost all people with OCD experience some degree of magical thinking and for many people (including myself) OCD includes various degrees of psychotic symptoms. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg; OCD can manifest in everything from motor control to executive functioning.
It’s a severely complex illness and it’s sad that it goes so often misunderstood and underdiagnosed. I think OCD awareness is really important!
Seconding this SO MUCH!
LET THE BEES GET HER
Mad Max told a story about sexual violence and survivorship without relying on rape scenes to impress upon the audience how *serious* things were.
instead of watching the abuse on screen, we hear about it through the interactions between the wives. they tell us what happened, and in that way they take control of their own narrative.
rather than being voyeurs witnessing the wives’ trauma played out onscreen, we were an audience listening to their story.
and that makes a world of difference.
THIS THIS THIS.
So instead of showcasing the specific treatment we were told of it, which is the contrary philosophy of most filmmaking (show, don’t tell)
or they made the decision to not sensationalize and fetishize the rape and brutalization of women. and in doing so spared the feelings of thousands of trauma survivors in their audience.
but whatever, film theory 101.
“Show don’t tell” is for FUCKING AMATEURS.
This statement:
“So instead of showcasing the specific treatment we were told of it, which is the contrary philosophy of most filmmaking (show, don’t tell)”
demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea behind “show, don’t tell.” I would argue that Mad Max: Fury Road DOES show us how the Wives were treated by Immortan Joe. However, it chooses not to do so in the obvious way (which would be showing the abuse), but rather by showing us in other ways.
We’re shown the message the Wives leave behind: “We are not things,” from which we can infer that’s exactly how they’ve been treated for God knows how long.
We’re shown that they wear flimsy white fabric that leaves their bodies on display, unlike pretty much everybody else in the film.
We’re shown them using boltcutters to rid themselves of chastity belts, devices which pretty much exist solely to remove a woman’s ability to choose her sexual partners.
We’re shown rage from the Dag when, even though time is of the essence, she takes the time to run back and kick one of the discarded belts as hard as she can before running back to join the others at the War Rig.
We’re shown Angharad using her pregnant body to shield Max and Furiosa from Immortan Joe, because she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt he won’t shoot her or her unborn child because he still views her as his property.
We hear Furiosa’s “Remember me?” before she kills Joe, and there’s so much fury and anger in those two words that you know she was a Wife before she was an Imperator.
We ARE shown what happened to the Wives. The issue lies in thinking that the only way to show that they were abused is to show the abuse itself. And as MM:FR demonstrates, that isn’t the case.
Let’s not forget how absolutely important this is when applied to real life though. Being able to carry on a successful and believable plot where women are trying to escape abusive relationships not shown to the audience is exactly what happens in real life. Too often do we have to hear women’s cries for help with “SO never seemed abusive” or “I never saw a problem” (just see Johnny Depp’s domestic abuse coverage). Instances such as in Mad Max Fury Road where the audience is expected to believe in an abuse they don’t see makes it all the more believable in real life. Maybe with enough of a push through the media, people will be more receptive to women standing up to their abusers without crying out for visible evidence of the attacks.