DC Dictator Dictates Dicks in the Damesroom

by Ugh

Or "how the federal government came to 'meddle' in who can pee where in our public schools."

So it seems people might have heard about the Obama Administrations saying schools receiving federal funds that wish to continue to receive them* must treat transgender students in accordance with their gender identity.  Thus, a child born with male genitalia but who identifies as a girl must be allowed to participate on girls sports teams and, pertinent for purposes of this post, use the girl's restroom.  This has caused a little bit of consternation in some quarters, including such statements as Obama is "allowing men to have open access to girls in bathrooms" and that "the Obama administration just destroyed the traditional American public school."  Golly, what a meanie that Obama is.

Setting aside what appears to be certain high-level GOPers not having that high of an opinion of half the population (and in a twist, not the usual half; it also smacks of campus feminists publishing in the campus newspaper all the names of male undergraduates under the heading "Potential Rapists" - strange bedfellows**), you might ask yourself why the federal government is in the business of saying who can use what bathroom in, say, a Des Moines Elementary School.  The simple answer is, of course, Title IX (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688).  Signed into law by raging leftist Dick Nixon (he says, just for fun).  More below.

Title IX's operative provision is quite short, and provides that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...."  This is then followed by several exceptions, including one that states "nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit any educational institution receiving funds under this Act, from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes."  20 USC Sec. 1686. Lest we think "program or activity" does not include bathrooms, section 1687 helpfully notes that "program or activity" includes "all of the operations of" the institution receiving funds.

Thus, absent more, one might conclude that Title IX already outlawed bathrooms for separate sexes at educational institutions receiving federal funds, with the possible exception of those bathrooms in separate living facilities for the sexes, although the public elementary, junior high, or high school that has such facilities is rare ISTM.  Happily (or not, YMMV), the Department of Education's regulations "permit a school to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, and athletic teams, as well as single-sex classes under certain circumstances." (I'm quoting the above linked DoJ and DofEd letter here, not the regs). Thus, an educational institution "may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex."

So, voila, the federal government has been in the business of telling elementary school students in Des Moines who may pee where since either 1972 when Title IX was passed into law or whenever the implementing regulations were promulgated, 1975 it seems.  So, 40+ years.  And yet, all of a sudden, we have OUTRAGE! over the federal government meddling in local education where it doesn't belong (see this again).  Now, it could be there was this same sort of outrage over Title IX's passage and federal meddling, but I doubt it as the vote in the Senate was 88-6 and House 275-125 (at least on the specific provisions, less one sided on the bill that become law) and signed by the aforementioned Pres. Nixon.

And thus like so many other complaints w/r/t sanctity of "federalism" and "states rights", it's not so much a principled objection to federal meddling, but to federal meddling that I don't like.  If you think Title IX and all its associated federal meddling should be repealed, then say so.  Otherwise, something needs to be done about transgender students under the law and regulations as they currently stand, so WWYD?  IMHO this seems a splendid option, at least for restrooms as we design them going forward - that would still leave the, uh, legacy bathrooms (and other areas).  

Also, too, "As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students." (from the letter again).  

*It's unclear if the format in which the Obama Administration issued the guidance is strong enough to have the federal government revoke funds to a school that violates the guidance. 
**Can I object to various Republican's hateful and harmful rhetoric with respect to men and, at least in the case of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-#IcouldabeenacontendawereInotahorriblesnivelingtoad), boys as quoted at TPM?  I'm sure various men's rights organizations will be right on it.  

Comments

[Ugh]

Yeah I fudged on Damesroom. Sue me. :-)

[wj]

Signed into law by raging leftist Dick Nixon (he says, just for fun).

I'm guessing that you are also amused to know (as his devotees clearly do not) that California's (at the time most liberal in the country) abortion law was signed by that flaming liberal/radical leftist Governor . . . Ron Reagan.

Of course neither he nor Nixon could make the grade as a proper conservative in today's GOP. And even status as a RINO would be problematic. Way to liberal, both of them.

[wj]

I really wonder to what extent the current hysteria over bathrooms is driven by fury that they have lost the battle (and the war) over gay rights.

If they can't trash the fags, well at least they still can stigmatize the transgender. Not as many of them, so maybe that campaign can last longer -- which is important for politically-driven parts of the culture wars.

[bobbyp]

I'm guessing that you are also amused to know (as his devotees clearly do not) that California's (at the time most liberal in the country) abortion law was signed by that flaming liberal/radical leftist Governor . . . Ron Reagan.

Opinions differ.

I also wonder if the makeup of the California state legislature at that time left him little choice (snicker) in the matter...would a veto possibly have been overridden?

[bobbyp]

This is what happens when you get old....open tags. Help!

[bobbyp]

Some more background from Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon.

[bobbyp]

Lou Cannon.

sigh....

[Ugh]

IIRC, in The Invisible Bridge, Pearlstein seems to think that Reagan knew what he was doing and then conveniently changed his views when political circumstances dictated.

Although the idea that an ignoramus Reagan was "duped" into signing the bill is not exactly great praise of the man.

[wj]

would a veto possibly have been overridden?

But letting that influence you to sign a bill would be compromise! How could that ever be right???

[wj]

Bobby, fixed those links for you.

[Marty]

If they can't trash the fags, well at least they still can stigmatize the transgender. Not as many of them, so maybe that campaign can last longer -- which is important for politically-driven parts of the culture wars.

This is one of those times where I want to just say f off. This assumes a level of invective and hatred across a very wide range of people that just doesn't exist. It also demeans a whole bunch of peoples legitimate concerns.

This is NOT a Title IX issue as it was conceived at the time. No at the time ever envisioned men in women's locker rooms. Its purposely disingenuous to present it that way, or reinterpret it today.

Mea Culpa for the directness, but this issue is getting stupid. No one who was an adult when Title IX was passed believes this. It passed because the intent was to create equal opportunity for women to participate in all aspects of school life, from academics to extracurricular to athletics. The things that are quoted here were to protect them from being subtly less supported.

I'm pretty certain that LGBTQ issues weren't ever discussed in this context. And Obama IS allowing men, not just transgender women, who are I assume no threat at all, all men, a significant subset of whom have proven to be a threat, open access to women's bathrooms. You can belittle that additional danger all you want, it is a legitimate concern for many.

And yes, most people object to federal meddling when it isn't what they want, in cases like Title IX it was pretty universally supported so who was to object.

States rights only matter when the states and the fed disagree. In this case all the states went, yeah that's a good law. The ACA on the other hand has been challenged in court by most of the states.

I am not sure why that confuses you UGH.

[wj]

Marty, I think there are serious differences of opinion as to whether there are actually legitimate grounds for concern.

Nobody is arguing that there are not men who prey on young girls. When they can. But will this increase their opportunities to any perceptible, let alone significant, degree? I, for one, just don't see it.

No doubt those who are getting worked up about the issue will manage to find a case. Eventually. It is, after all, a big country. But compared to, for example, the number of little girls killed with guns? Which makes it extremely difficult to see the expressed concerns as "legitimate" in any real .

That's not to deny that folks are upset. But it sure looks like a matter of being upset (however justifiably) about the fact that the world is changing, rather than about this specific remote possibility.

[wj]

P.S. Perhaps my memory is having a serious glitch. But as I recall there were substantial objections, at the time, to Title IX's intrusion. Lots of complaints that girls weren't (or shouldn't be) interested in sports that much anyway. So why should schools have to waste money on programs and facilities for which there was no, and would be no, demand?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a case of 20/20 hindsight. It's obvious now that it (Title IX) was the right thing to do. But it sure wasn't then - else it wouldn't have been necessary. Ditto lots of Federal intrusions into states' rights, for as far back as I can remember.

[bobbyp]

"....most people object to federal meddling when it isn't what they want, in cases like Title IX it was pretty universally supported so who was to object.

But they sure don't object when it comes to partaking of that sweet, sweet, federal money, now do they?

This is not meddling. This is laying down rules for those who accept OUR tax monies. Last I heard, at the federal level, that pretty much includes all of us.

[bobbyp]

Here's what real meddling looks like.

[Marty]

"That's not to deny that folks are upset. But it sure looks like a matter of being upset (however justifiably) about the fact that the world is changing, rather than about this specific remote possibility."

You keep going back to this mind reading crap. They are upset because men are able to saunter into a woman's bathroom any time they f'ing feel like it while protected from any questioning, because that would be hate speech.

I will not go look up the statistics but I am betting there are lot more molested girls each year than shot, so whaaat is that point?

I have two daughters, lots of nieces and now granddaughters. If one guy sidles into the restroom because of this law and no one questions him and he catches any one of them in a stall and has his way for 20 seconds, it wasn't worth whatever inconvenience it is solving. ONE, not a thousand, not a hundred. One is too many.

At least if there is a requirement that someone be expressing the appropriate gender there remains some question when someone that presents as a man walks in.

[wj]

I will not go look up the statistics but I am betting there are lot more molested girls each year than shot, so whaaat is that point?

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct. But we also know that the overwhelming majority of molestation cases are by a near relative. Followed by another authority figure (priest, coach, etc.). The number molested by strangers is a small fraction.

So why so much hysteria at that small fraction maybe, maybe, going to increase slightly? Where is the hysteria at the larger parts of the problem, if you care about the problem?

[wj]

And if our criteria is "one is too many", are we going to apply that to any other issue?

I picked guns for a reason -- if one gun death is too many, shouldn't we repeal the 2nd Amendment? Or is there some reason why "one is too many" doesn't apply if someone merely ends up dead?

[Marty]

"So why so much hysteria at that small fraction maybe, maybe, going to increase slightly? Where is the hysteria at the larger parts of the problem, if you care about the problem? "

First, objecting to a change in the law when it is happening or being discussed isn't hysteria, its people having their say on a current issue. Second, I have been a reasonably vocal advocate for protecting children from being molested by anyone for just about my whole life. I am a firm advocate for a number of unhappy consequences for child molesters. I can assure you there is no person more aware of the usual culprits than I am.

The tired gun law shit is again a big red herring, guns exist, there is lots of discussion about them, they have nothing to do with this issue. People here used to thrash Brett for turning every thread into a gun rights thread, but it hasn't stopped since he left.

This is ONE person expanding unilaterally the danger for every young girl in the country by reinterpreting some law that he knows no one will do anything about until he is out of office. One girl hurt is too many to be put at risk by his egomaniacal desire to impose his personal views on everyone else in the country. Discussing the validity or responsibility of his action is not hysteria. I would like to keep the fraction you describe as small as possible.

[Countme-In]

"They are upset because men are able to saunter into a woman's bathroom any time they f'ing feel like it while protected from any questioning, because that would be hate speech.

I will not go look up the statistics but I am betting there are lot more molested girls each year than shot, so whaaat is that point?"

I get the concern. But I thought the concern was that men with bad intent feigning transgenderhood were going to gain access to the ladies and little girl's rooms, a little like Jonathan Winters' ribald old ladies with a snootful.

Not menmen men dressed as men, who are not permitted in labeled ladies' rooms, to my knowledge of the language in the new statutes. The "one guy" qua guy, "sidling into" the women's room is breaking the old law and the new law, to my understanding.

I find it hard to believe that a hetero would-be creep groper is going to wear his sister's duds just to make it into the ladies room for a shot at the brutal main chance, but maybe I don't frequent the right porn sites, but if they are, they've already tried it, since it's not an original gambit.

"At least if there is a requirement that someone be expressing the appropriate gender there remains some question when someone that presents as a man walks in."

There is that question under both legal regimes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And sincerely transgendered men (I hope I have my terms right) who have taken enough hormone therapy and who want to pee in the ladies loo are probably testosterone-deficient enough to not give a crap about the surrounding chicks, except as feeling more themselves peeing adjacent to them.

Now, a trangendered and lesbian woman on the way to being a man, who is attracted to women, might be more of a threat to women in the ladies room, though I doubt it, but I suspect the innocent ones with no ulterior motives would be in peril of assault themselves if they used the men's room, from men qua men.

I don't think too many women living as women and meaning to stay that way would feel threatened by a lesbian woman who chooses also to transgender to manhood but chooses to remain in the ladies' room.

Got that straight? Maybe the movie version will be less complicated.

Denny Hastert would have been less dangerous if he been forced to dress like my Aunt Mab and use the ladies shower room instead of his regular prowling grounds, don't ya think?

[liberal japonicus]

So why so much hysteria at that small fraction maybe, maybe, going to increase slightly?

I would hesitate to even grant that possibility. My take is that in most if not all cases, the cause of molestation/assault is not founded in some sort of sexual cause, but a desire to display/exert power. Is a person who wants to express power through molesting someone who he feels he can exert power over going to 'present' as a woman in order to gain access to a bathroom in order to exert that power? The guy isn't going in there on the pretense that he can claim that his self-image is that of a woman, and if he did use that as his defense (having been caught before anything happened, presumably), he'd have to do a Klinger during the court case. And, of course, it's not like there is some sort of Bathroom Security Admin to check people before they go into a bathroom, so this is seized on because it is a great way to punish anyone who doesn't present in the way their birth gender dictates they 'should'. Which leads to things like this. I'm sure Marty is worried about his daughters, but I'd be (and am) more worried that my daughters are going to get harassed because they don't conform to what someone else feels is the way they should be dressed or wear their hair. And I'm old enough to remember when boys were not supposed to have long hair, though the notion that girls shouldn't wear pants was a bit before my time.

This is further supported by evidence that there may be more sexual assault against men than against women

In January, prodded in part by outrage over a series of articles in the New York Review of Books, the Justice Department finally released an estimate of the prevalence of sexual abuse in penitentiaries. The reliance on filed complaints appeared to understate the problem. For 2008, for example, the government had previously tallied 935 confirmed instances of sexual abuse. After asking around, and performing some calculations, the Justice Department came up with a new number: 216,000. That’s 216,000 victims, not instances. These victims are often assaulted multiple times over the course of the year. The Justice Department now seems to be saying that prison rape accounted for the majority of all rapes committed in the US in 2008, likely making the United States the first country in the history of the world to count more rapes for men than for women.

[Marty]

"Not menmen men dressed as men, who are not permitted in labeled ladies' rooms, to my knowledge of the language in the new statutes. The "one guy" qua guy, "sidling into" the women's room is breaking the old law and the new law, to my understanding."

No it is not against the new law. As with the Charlotte law, there is no effort to define that the transgender person can use the appropriate facility only while presenting as that sex. I'm transgender identified is enough for the law, just saying it.

[Marty]

and, that is the basis for most of the objections. I certainly don't believe that the universe of transgender women creates any additional risk to young girls. So a requirement to use the facility that corresponds to the sex you present precludes almost all of my concern.

[hairshirthedonist]

You keep going back to this mind reading crap. They are upset because men are able to saunter into a woman's bathroom any time they f'ing feel like it while protected from any questioning, because that would be hate speech.

You're mindreading as much as wj is, unless you've mind melded with everyone who shares your stated concerns over trans accommodations. You might argue that, "No, this is what people are saying, so I don't have to read minds." But there is a history of people saying these sorts of things to justify segregation, suppression, ostracization, etc. of whatever group(s) the dislike or are uncomfortable with. It's a familiar pattern.

Why you think typically appearing men are less likely to be challenged going into a women's room as a practical and immediate matter under such laws is beyond me. Men might go unchallenged, of course, but they might go unchallenged regardless of these laws, whether it's because no one notices, cares or wants to get involved. If I were suspicious of a man following someone into the women's room (or the men's room, for that matter), I'd, at the very least, stand outside and ask if my loved one (whether I actually had one in the bathroom or not) was okay. A trans-accommodation law won't change that.

This might surpise you, but LBGT supporters have daughters, nieces, sisters, mothers and such, too. Some, surprisingly enough, might even be those things, themselves. You aren't in some special class in this regard, so your high horse is actually no taller than anyone else's.

Our disagreement is over one of the practical effects of these laws, not whether or not we care about girls being molested.

[Countme-In]

Given the number of men in and out of prison who make all of the rest of us look bad, and who would f*ck a rolling donut given half the chance, maybe the lot of us shouldn't be allowed into pie shops either, even if we self-identify as faithful cake lovers.

I think lj's point about power displays is relevant here.

[wj]

It may be that I'm indulging in mind reading. But I feel like it's more of a case of exrapolating from past behavior. In particular, the fact that every time something changes, we see the same apocalyptic rhetoric about how it is the end of civilization. ("This is the end of the public school system in America!" in this particular case.)

[Countme-In]

What if:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ-md7Fja_c

[Nombrilisme Vide]

So a requirement to use the facility that corresponds to the sex you present precludes almost all of my concern.

A week or so ago you made the sweeping mind-reading claim that the only reason for Charlotte to include both "gender identity" and "gender expression" as protected classes was so men who look male and and act male could claim to be women and use their loo. I didn't object at the time because I'd walked out on ObWi for a couple of days to cool off. But that was, and this is, absurd. Upthread, lj's link precisely demonstrates why gender expression needs to be a protected class: if not, private entities can e.g. require dress codes for bathrooms (which in some facilities, would rise to the level of de facto dress codes for the facility as a whole) or otherwise arbitrarily judge whether a particular person's gender expression is "correct", regardless of the anatomical sex and gender identity. And that's why, while tempting, policing the expression of bathroom users is not the easy solution you present it as.

You're only willing to discuss malicious false positives in the presence of gender expression protection, but malicious false negatives in its absence would very likely be a much larger problem simply because the false positive requires the malicious intruder to conclude that they can gain illicit access to a female/feminine/etc. bathroom for whatever nefarious purposes they desire and get away with it. You seem to ignore this part, and present your hypothetical predators as having no self-preservation, which effectively renders them strawmen. By contrast, malicious false negatives w/o protection for expression require only a licit user to declare that someone isn't "feminine enough" to use those facilities, and they could do so with essentially no negative consequences - which is certainly not the case in the false positive; any behavior on the part of the illicit user claiming feminine identity that would be be objectionable would also be objectionable from a cisgendered anatomical female in extremely feminine clothing. The licit user (or facility management) policing the gender expression of bathroom users would have near impunity to do so in all but the most egregious cases. If they want to establish a "no pants in the ladies'" policy, they'd presumably be allowed to do so unless explicitly circumscribed by legal definitions of feminine gender expression.

[Tony P.]

I think I have met ONE transgender person in my life. It was hard to tell, and I never learned, whether it was a man transitioning to a woman or vice versa.

That person probably got the stink-eye (or worse) in either kind of public bathroom. I am willing to bet it was worse in men's rooms.

On Marty's "once is too much" principle, preventing the harassment of that person would be justification enough for Charlotte's ordinance, Obama's advisory, and any other "statist" diktats that the Statists are on about.

The notion that a would-be molester of girls and women might attempt -- let alone get away with -- ladies' room access by declaring "I'm all woman, honey" while twirling his mustache is just plain ridiculous, of course. But I'd love to see that guy try to sue for "discrimination" or "hate speech" after being challenged, kicked out, or (most likely) laughed to smithereens. Only a jury of determined Obama haters would award him damages.

--TP

[russell]

"They are upset because men are able to saunter into a woman's bathroom any time they f'ing feel like it"

there are places right now where something like what is called for in Obama's guidance is already in effect.

in those places, does what you describe here actually happen?

[Ugh]

I'm not even sure this law would lead to any increase in sexual assault in women's bathrooms by men. It might even make potential criminals think twice by alerting them to the possibility that there might be someone just as strong as them in there, however presented. Right now, they might figure it's all women. Moreover right now it wouldn't take much for them to dress up in drag and walk right in anyway.

My guess is that any increase in sexual assaults from this interpretation - horrible as they are - are likely to be outnumbered (possibly by large margins) by the decrease in assaults, sexual and otherwise, suffered by transgender students.

We might have proof either way in California and other states that have laws in this area already (haven't looked).

[bobbyp]

....men (will be) able to saunter into a woman's bathroom any time they f'ing feel like it"

Question: Under this regulation, is this objectively true? Nobody has addressed this directly.

And what about female predators sauntering into female bathrooms? And homosexual male predators sauntering into male bathrooms? Can Mary Kay Letourneau now 'saunter' into the men's room and pick up and abuse some young male? Why do those who so vociferously object not rail against these types of predatory behavior?

What they object to is another blow against male patriarchy.

[bobbyp]

What they object to is another blow against male patriarchy.

bobby P Karnack, the sortasifificent.

[wj]

there are places right now where something like what is called for in Obama's guidance is already in effect.

in those places, does what you describe here actually happen?

But would that data even be relevant? I mean, maybe those expressing concern have reason to believe that there are more perverts in their areas than are found in degenerate places like California. They would certainly be in a better position to know than we who don't live there.

/snark

[Marty]

Nv, well, the seemingly ignored information in lj's post is that this person had a man follow her into the restroom and accost her, under current law. Preservation is a great motivator, any reduction in the risk that will kick in that instinct makes her experience more likely. So, summarizing, she has one woman shriek at her for being in the wrong bathroom, you suggest we have to fix that issue. She gets accosted by a man and there is just no reason we should consider that.

[liberal japonicus]

You mean like this?
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/thats-the-sht-we-deal-with-texas-woman-films-man-harassing-her-for-dressing-like-a-man/

or this?

http://jezebel.com/police-refuse-to-believe-lesbian-is-a-woman-force-her-1773733431

What licenses them to behave in this way? And isn't it possible that licensing someone to behave in that way is going to encourage them to feel they can exert control over people who don't match up to what they feel is the correct presentation? Are you so confident that what your daughters choose to wear/be is going to match up with what someone else feels they should? Or is it that you are sure they are going to match up with what you think is proper, and therefore, they are never going to have problems?

Maybe you can get in on the market of postcards modeled after these.
http://historyoffeminism.com/anti-suffragette-postcards-posters-cartoons/
Knock yourself out!

[Sig]

Let's assume for the moment that Marty and the Republicans are right, and there's just an army of perverts out there that's been barely restrained from entering our nation's restrooms--restrained, that is, by the rules barring transmen and transwomen from going to the bathroom appropriate for their gender identity. So now the Obama policy will lift the floodgates and there will be a glut of sexual assaults in restrooms across America.

Why does this logic never apply to guns and gun laws? Maybe our lax gun laws are the floodgates that were lifted and which generate uniquely high gun violence rates? Could it be? Could constant mass shootings be a symptom of an army of violent people just slavering for access to a gun?

[Ugh]

Marty - at least you acknowledge that something needs to be done, although I'm not sure you agree with the federal government handling it (do you?).

But the rhetoric emanating from the GOP leadership on this issue is disgusting and poisonous. Such that they either believe that transgender people don't exist, or if they do it's a "lifestyle choice" (like Murphy Brown), or if it's not a lifestyle choice they are nevertheless unworthy of any kind of protection or even acknowledgement - other than to use as a punching bag to inflame the worst kind of invective.

Note that this would have occurred had the Obama Administration implemented your preferred solution of "presents" rather than "identifies." The same people would be saying the same sh1t to similar effect.

[Countme-In]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-alienates-millions-with-incendiary-pro-knowledge-remarks

[Matt McIrvin]

I also have a daughter and a wife and lots of other female relatives. At the moment, going by the incidents that have been reported, I think it is much less likely that some molester will attack them in a bathroom under cover of being transgender, than that some opponent of this rule will attack them for having short hair or dressing in a way that is considered unfeminine.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Preservation is a great motivator, any reduction in the risk that will kick in that instinct makes her experience more likely.

Consider this, Marty: the victim in that article reaches the opposite conclusion you do, despite having previously been subject to the very behavior you insist isn't being considered. So where's her sense of self preservation in this?

Also, you insist that gun laws are red herrings. Why? You're advocating that any increase in risk is intolerable. So why not make it universally illegal to have unsecured firearms in homes with children under 18? Think of the lives saved; wouldn't even one be enough to justify it? Merely in terms of accidents (not suicides or homicides), 83 US citizens needlessly died last year, and 182 more were injured, yet in this case, that's not worth doing anything about; people dying is apparently no big deal. We could do more, but... it's not worth the trouble? Is voyeurism worse than shooting someone? Is sexual assault worse than death? Serious questions, because it sounds like they're being treated as such, which seems utterly typical for Puritan American morality.

And the reason it's being brought up is not because everything is about guns, it's because you're advocating a zero-tolerance attitude for risk in this one case, and arguing the polar opposite of traditional "gun laws don't work" arguments as to how effective "just words" will be to deter criminals intent on crime.

"If a guy was going to commit a crime in a woman’s bathroom, this law isn’t going to invite them to do it, they’re going to do it anyway."

[wj]

What NV said.

(I was trying to draft up something similar. But it wasn't coming out right.)

[Marble]

This kerfluffle over bathrooms is the bitter detritus of the war on same gender marriage. The people who support excluding and discriminating against others from public bathrooms are the same hateful, fearful bigots responsible for "Black" and "white" signs in the 50s, the ongoing war on women, fueled by misogyny and resentment, and repeated, but failed attempts to inculcate hatred in a world that is increasingly loving and tolerant.

[hairshirthedonist]

I don't think everyone who is worried about sexual assaults being more likely in bathrooms where transgender-accommodation laws are in place are hateful bigots. I don't think Marty is. I don't think McKinney is. I just the think their concern is overblown and misplaced, perhaps in part because the idea is being put forth by some who are hateful bigots as an excuse for continuing discrimination.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"I just the think their concern is overblown and misplaced, perhaps in part because the idea is being put forth by some who are hateful bigots as an excuse for continuing discrimination way to GOTV when the GOP presidential candidate is a hot mess"

Remember all those 'anti-gay marriage' things on the ballots in 2004? I sure do.

[Countme-In]

"The tired gun law shit is again a big red herring, guns exist, there is lots of discussion about them, they have nothing to do with this issue."

I don't know, dicks exist too. And there is much discussion about them. I half expect Wayne LaPierre to point out that I can carry a military grade automatic weapon into a ladies room, but I need to check my dick at the door.

Who is more dangerous in a women's restroom:

A guy with a dick, concealed or not, a transgendered dickless man with a gun, or a guy with a dick AND a gun?

Maybe this winner is the most dangerous of all, even in the men's room, and to children, given her record.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html

If she had a sex-change operation to become an anatomical man and entered a men's room I was in, I don't see the danger. I mean, she might clumsily drop her new dick, but it wouldn't accidentally go off and shoot my dick off, or worse.

But if she entered the restroom I was in with a gun (and her child), especially given her boasting carelessness about her weaponry, well, first I'd take her child away from her to a secure spot, and then I'd do this to her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzt82V-xtfA

By the way, I know Marty and MCTX are certainly NOT hateful bigots. It's unfortunate that hateful bigots rarely, if ever, show up here (I'd feel better if I could argue (in my way) without feeling somehow that I think Marty and MCTX are hateful bigots, (Better that the real item could show up and I could make assignations with them to meet up so I could walk their talk all over them) which I don't, but rather the hateful bigots hang about together in public restrooms trying to figure out which stranger to beat the crap out of, probably the guy with the Hillary t-shirt.

[Countme-In]

Mae West knew which was more dangerous:

"Hello big boy, is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"

But then she use to be Snow White, before she drifted.

[Countme-In]

I would be curious to see stats comparing the incidence of women and children being harassed, abused, raped, beaten, and murdered or accidentally killed by someone they know in familiar surroundings/their homes ... and the incidence of same in public ladies' rooms.

Same when guns are involved.

Of course, the stats would have to account for the fact that women and children spend much more time in familiar settings with their familiar predators than in public bathrooms with strangers.

[Countme-In]

"I just the think their concern is overblown and misplaced, perhaps in part because the idea is being put forth by some who are hateful bigots as an excuse for continuing discrimination way to GOTV when the GOP presidential candidate is a hot mess"

Remember all those 'anti-gay marriage' things on the ballots in 2004? I sure do."

Yes, and MCTX pointed out the political stupidity of the Obama Administration throwing red meat to the Republican Party in an election year (though the North Carolina legislature and Governor knew exactly what THEY were doing when they decided to fight the Charlotte ordinance in an election year too).

I agree with MCTX on that point.

Doing the right thing now on this issue could have waited until after the election to help avoid the dangerous and lethal catastrophe that will ensue for millions of Americans if Donald Trump wins.

[wj]

MCTX pointed out the political stupidity of the Obama Administration throwing red meat to the Republican Party in an election year (though the North Carolina legislature and Governor knew exactly what THEY were doing when they decided to fight the Charlotte ordinance in an election year too)

I think the NC legislature and Governor knew (or thought they knew) what the political impact of their actions would be. In North Carolina. I'm not so sure that they were correct in their assessment, but I can see where they could have thought that.

But at the same time, I'm not sure that the political impact of the administration's action, overall on the general election, including the Presidential election, will be bad for the Democrats. If Republicans had just disagreed/objected, even strongly, it might have been. But objecting hysterically (and, at least in what hits the national news, the objections have been hysterically over the top) is likely to have a net negative impact for the Republicans instead.

In general, if you have a case to make you can persuade people. But if your arguments get too worked up, you tend to drive away even those who might have agreed with you on the merits. You do gain the benefit of ginning up your base supporters (assuming you somehow believe that they need to be even more worked up than they already are). But whether the increase in turnout outweighs the loss in swing support? Doesn't seem likely.

[Countme-In]

What are we going to with the dicks in the nation's Republican/conservative radio and TV Trump-outlet studios, who use the airwaves to transmit their deluges of untreated sewage all over the rest of us?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-butlers-source.html

Alex Jones will be made to use a privately designated toilet outfitted with a seat trigger that ignites, via the weight of his fat ass Republican porkbutt, a tactical nuclear up the wazoo that doubles as his mouth, for the specially designed Countme-In Armageddon Enema and House Party.

If Jones et al are entertainers, then
bullets are free speech, the Founders held.

[Countme-In]

We'll renovate the Jones' toilet to include a second stall and thermonuclear flush mechanism for the BERN and some of his followers to relieve themselves:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/05/18/screw-him-and-his-diehards/

[Tony P.]

In general, if you have a case to make you can persuade people.

Nah.

Seriously: I think a friend of mine had it right when he said a few years ago that persuasion is logical argument plus elapsed time.

It's not like a strong argument, today, that leaves people unpersuaded, today, gets stronger over the next few years. It's that the unpersuaded need time to go by so that they can convince themselves it was their idea in the first place -- or at least not something they were wrong about to begin with.

--TP

[liberal japonicus]

MCTX pointed out the political stupidity of the Obama Administration throwing red meat to the Republican Party in an election year

I dunno. After seeing how gay marriage turned out, it seems that the concern over throwing red meat to the Republican Party is a bit overblown, especially after seeing the way evangelicals have flocked to Trump. Sure, it might turn out more people for Republicans, but you are going to get people like this
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/pbs-show-inadvertently-features-trump-supporters-white-power-tattoos
and this
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/donald-trump-white-supremacist-delegate

[dr ngo]

It should perhaps be noted that in North Carolina HB 2, though characterized and argued about as the "bathroom bill," actually contains a number of anti-local, anti-labor, anti-human rights provisions tucked in as well. IMHO it's not unreasonable to suspect that the GOP legislators who rammed this through in one day (!), and the GOP governor who signed it with unseemly haste, saw the bill as a two-pronged attack. One, get out the conservative/terrified/transphobic vote for November; two, weaken as many limits to corporate power as possible. They could - and probably will - "lose" the bathroom battle in the courts and still come out ahead, both in GOTV among right-wingers AND in retaining the anti-labor provisions even if the rest of the bill is overturned. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1158247327559140&set=a.172258649491351.57815.100001216505637&type=3&theater

[Countme-In]

More on dr ngo's point:

https://www.propublica.org/article/why-north-carolinas-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-a-trojan-horse

It's uncanny how Republicans/conservatives point at everyone's crotches as we approach elections and tell us in outrage how we may or may not employ said crotches, and while we are assuming the position, they trot up behind us with their pants down around their ankles and clutching their Bibles and deliver a royal rogering on a worker's ability to make a f*cking goddamned living at a living wage without being singled out for hate because they might be different somehow from the haters, which we are, as in better, and they are going to find out how f*cking different and better and alive we are than them.

Money and governing IS f*cking to them. It's their porn. It's why their spouses aren't getting any at home.

Get armed.

Get busy.

The Founders said so, as Republican filth remind us every day.

lj: If I understand what you are saying, you are saying the appeal to racist, sexist anti-American haters by the Republican Party may not garner the numbers it has in the past, given the success of gay marriage initiatives.

I don't know either, but voter data fascists in the Republican Party, who spend their professional lives rousting out the worst vermin among us on voting day may prove once again that there are plenty more anti-American filth under the floorboards ripe for the getting.

Add in voter suppression of decent humans (see fascist voter suppression artists in Wisconsin and elsewhere, who will be executed one day, when social justice actually makes some headway) who try to get to the polls and 51% seems doable for them.

It's a Trump deal.

Throw in the Sanders nuts who nonsensically will either suppress their own votes or go for Trump to enable him to take away their health insurance, gut the banking regs, and fuck the world via global warming and there you go.

[Countme-In]

I'm pretty sure the literal hate-mongers Trump has assembled during the primaries don't understand the word "virtual". Can you put barbed wire and machine guns atop virtual?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-trump-surrogate-says-border-wall-and-mass-deportation-will-be-virtual

Meanwhile, his primary dumbass followers hate the banks, and now Trump has pickpocketed the former and handed the banks their wallets and mortgages.

He lies to everyone. That's why it's called a "deal". It's the all-American grift. I hope you get the undercoating with that.

He lies to you, and you pay him for the service and then let him place his name on the lie.

Paul Ryan, for example has agreed to rebrand all of his kids and his dog as "Trump".

Chris Christie has sold the ample advertising space on his fat ass for Trump advertising in neon.

You guys and Vlad, all in it together.

[Countme-In]

He told us he loves the uneducated.

[liberal japonicus]

Count, I'm never sure what I am saying, so I don't expect others to understand...

But to try and make something comprehensible out of it, we've seen the speed at which change in attitudes towards gay marriage have occurred, so fast that Obama's earlier statements are held up as evidence for his shiftiness and calculation (usually by those who don't seem to notice any kind of calculation on the other side, strangely enough). If the same dynamic applies here, McT's political advice sounds like Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown in the briar patch.

Small piece of evidence; This Time(!) article
http://time.com/transgender-men-sexism/

If middle of the road Time can see transgender people as normal, I think you might be fighting an tough battle to demonize them.

[Ugh]

Today in proud Big-tent GOP outreach:

The House floor erupted Thursday into a tense, chaotic situation after an amendment to protect members of the LGBT community failed several seconds after it looked like it had enough votes to pass.
...
Maloney's amendment narrowly failed Thursday 212-213 after it looked like it was going to pass 217-206 a few seconds earlier. Republican leaders held open the vote and Democrats say Republicans twisted arms, pressuring members of their conference to switch their votes so that it would fail.
...
After it failed, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, appeared visibly angry and spoke on the floor, pointing out he never saw any Republicans come to the front of the chamber to change their votes.

"I was standing in the well and no one came and no one had the courage to come into the well to change their vote, but notwithstanding that, the vote kept changing. Mr. Speaker, from a parliamentary perspective, how is that possible?" Hoyer said.

According to an aide to Hoyer, Republicans kept the vote open so that lawmakers could change their vote from their seats without approaching the front of the chamber.

Fncking cowards.

[wj]

Ugh, I have to wonder. Do the Democrats (or anybody else) have the names of those half dozen Congressmen who changed their votes? I mean, if they had the original tally (the names, not just the vote total), and then the final votes, that seems like it could be of some use in an election campaign.

[Ugh]

names. Will see what happens.

[Countme-In]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-small-crusade-of-dying-man.html

[Countme-In]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_05/on_bob_bennett_and_donald_trum060598.php

[dr ngo]

And as a reminder of what the real agenda of the GOP legislature in North Carolina is, their next act is to try to cripple wind power and solar energy. No nonsense about bathrooms here, just straight protection of existing fossil fuel businesses

[Countme-In]

Lovely vermin Trump and the big-hate Republican Party have brought out of the woodwork:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/05/20/an-op-ed-a-tweet-about-the-op-ed-and-the-massive-racist-xenophobic-and-anti-semitic-respons/

Here's the victim's Twaffle feed.

https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman

In Oklahoma, where subhuman Republican filth have made the very ground under people's feet and homes tremble with fracking corruption, it's now a bathroom emergency. They've REALLY gotta go, I guess:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oklahoma-bill-bathroom-emergency

Once Trump's Stormfront coalition takes charge in Oklahoma and nationally, no doubt they'll be setting aside separate bathrooms for Jews and Muslims as well.

With surveillance. But no solar power.

The sign for the "Gents" will be an abbreviation for a different age-old hatred.

There are gun stores everywhere in America.

Empty them while there is still time.

[Tony P.]

From The Count's TPM link:

“This directive is Biblically wrong, a violation of our state’s sovereignty and it is a serious public safety issue," he added.

Gun stores and churches are America's frogs and locusts.

--TP

[Countme-In]

Newt Gingrich had better never frequent any bathroom I'm in because if there is one thing I will not countenance it's a guy who shits from his mouth into the sink:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/newt-gingrich-sharia-test-egyptair-crash

[Countme-In]

Bathroom signage in Texas just became rather queer:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grammar-fail-texas-republicans

[Countme-In]

Not that integrity among the Republican elite in Texas hasn't always been so:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/mr-integrity.html

Happily, they are still willing to sell us the military weaponry to take care of business when the time comes:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-nra-endorsement

[hairshirthedonist]

This one's for you, Marty. ;^)

[Countme-In]

Tough call here: whether to put this link on the "Dick" thread, or the new murder mystery thread:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/trumpapalooza-may-23-2016

[Countme-In]

There will be violence in this country unlike anyone has ever imagined once Trump and his pigf*cking Republican faithful get done:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/05/trump_s_secret_plan_to_win_the_presidency_pitting_minorities_against_one.html

And the people who armed them will be accessories to mass murder.

Sarah Death Panel and company will come to appreciate that end-of-life counseling was available to them.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/05/24/information-for-tough-decisions/

[Countme-In]

Vince Foster's life mistake, in my opinion, was killing himself instead using his weapon on the Republican vermin on Capitol Hill and in the subhuman, murderous right-wing media and hate enterprises, which now will lie without consequence and destroy lives once again:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_05/the_cruelty_of_the_vince_foste060634.php

[Countme-In]

Trump's political consortium of corrupt, gleeful, and sadistic right-wing media filth, clergy, and cold-blooded political operatives:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=george+grosz+pillars+of+society&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmadamepickwickartblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fgrosz2.jpg#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmadamepickwickartblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fgrosz2.jpg&action=click

[Countme-In]

Nah, it's just Trump giving the high sign to Roger Stone, who is sitting above in the balcony targeting Clinton's skull with a high-powered weapon:

from Bloomberg via Charles Pierce:

"At one recent meeting with Trump, evangelical leaders noted how he often flashes a signature hand gesture, with a thumb out and a finger point to the sky, as he enters and exits rallies. "You see athletes do it all the time and it's their chance to point to the sky, to thank God for their success," said Pastor Mark Burns, CEO of a Christian television network based in South Carolina. "Trump does this all of the time, too. He's giving reverence to the man upstairs."

I've never seen an athlete point up (whatever "up" is) in gratitude when he or she strikes out, double-faults on a serve, or gets sacked as a quarterback.

God's powers are so limited, apparently.

The thug athletes in Trump's entourage -- Bobby Knight, Mike Tyson, etc --- use hand signals alright, and their middle fingers, fists, and thrown chairs to signal their superiority over the rest of us.

F*ck the Republican Party and kill it.

[wj]

Count, I pray for the day when you can move on to a different gesture:
Hand closed, one finger extended upwards. BUT, it's the little finger, not the middle one.

Meaning: When you don't care enough to send the very best.** ;-)

** Of course, it helps if you are old enough to remember the advertising slogan: When you care enough to send the very best. I think it was greeting cards, but it may have been chocolates....

[Ugh]

It was meth.

[Marty]

No surprise to me hsh. I am pretty sure when you have the freedom to grant every group their most fervent wish at the flick of a pen you will gain popularity. And then, he is getting compared to Trump.

Besides, both his popularity and Trumps come from a deep-seated desire in this country to have a benevolent monarch.

[wj]

No real question that a benevolent monarchy (more generally, a benevolent dictatorship) is the best form of government. And finding someone willing to be dictator is rarely a problem.

But the benevolent characteristic? Nobody's managed to come up with a reliable way to assure that part. The challenge is to communicate that to those who want someone else to take responsibility for taking care of them.

[Marty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQM&feature=youtu.be

[Countme-In]

Here's another theory:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/05/27/baby-wallabies-against-trump/

OK, look, if this female Republican jackass ever enters a public men's room that I'm using and tries to breast feed and diaper her wallaby, well, first of all I'll zip up .... permanently ...., but I'll also agree to mud wrestle both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders on FOX News while Greta Van Susteren upchucks her lunch into a porcelain bowl and then interviews the contents:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-meet-the-trumps-special

Meanwhile, I reference Russell's remark over at Taking It Outside regarding changing our national motto to "Anything For A Laugh", when I see this:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-american-renaissance-2016-conference?utm_content=bufferce941&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

One hopes these Republican, conservative subhuman racist bigots, the very essence of the Republican Party, sought after by that very Gingrich-laden murder syndicate these many decades to be the vanguard of their political bowel movement, are given access by Trump to his advanced comb-over technology as patronage for putting his bald, fat-assed eminence over the top in November.

You like a mystery? Here's one: I presume the State of Tennessee permits its slimy Confederate citizens and their pigf*cker councils to carry deadly force into its State Parks. Then, how is it, I ask you, that all three hundred of them were not gunned down en masse at that park by true American patriots.

Political correctness really is stopping us from saving the country.

I'm beginning to root that both ISIS head-rolling and this ...

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/05/26/we-had-a-good-run/

... start gaining momentum in America because as payback for our collective national sin of bending over and allowing the Republican Party to continually bugger us without fighting back with Second Amendment remedies these many years, we deserve both.

The soundtrack to the end of this country will be hails of automatic gunfire and dubbed-in laughter, both bullets and laughter of the hollow variety.

America has become a fart joke and we're losing the patience to continually re-inflate the whoopee cushion.

Meanwhile, foreign, fascist, armed Republican terrorist groups are infiltrating our borders unimpeded, at the invitation of Donald Trump's personal hate group, the Republican Party.

They are even in my hometown of Denver:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/meet-the-anti-refugee-group-that-laned-in-the-us

Is it safe?

No. Not for them. Their lives are short.

[Countme-In]

More on Republican vermin, The Soldiers of Odin:

http://www.vocativ.com/315509/soldiers-of-odin-in-us/

[russell]

I didn't realize that there was a 'premier brand' of nazis.

I thought I was being sarcastic with the 'anything for a laugh' thing.

irony may not be dead, but it's rapidly becoming beside the point.

[Countme-In]

Meanwhile, a few remaining chuckles while we clean our weapons:

http://juanitajean.com/friday-toons-181/

[Countme-In]

From a link at Hullabaloo:

'Victor Vizcarra, 48, of Los Angeles, said he would much prefer Mr. Trump to Mrs. Clinton. Though he said he disagreed with some of Mr. Trump’s policies, Mr. Vizcarra said he had watched “The Apprentice” and expected that a Trump presidency would be more exciting than a “boring” Clinton administration.

“A dark side of me wants to see what happens if Trump is in,” said Mr. Vizcarra, who works in information technology. “There is going to be some kind of change, and even if it’s like a Nazi-type change. People are so drama-filled. They want to see stuff like that happen. It’s like reality TV. You don’t want to just see everybody be happy with each other. You want to see someone fighting somebody.” '

On Monsieur Vizcarra's, 48, of Los Angeles behalf, I'm going to pitch this idea to the Cooking Channel for a new amateur chef cooking show, with Vizcarra as one of five Trump-supporter contestant's on the pilot.

In front of a death panel of celebrity judges (Mike Tyson, Dr. Ben Carson, Gary Busey, and Victoria Jackson have already signed on) the contestants will vie to spit-roast a Muslim, a Black Lives Matter activist, a Mexican immigrant, a Jew, and a woman transgendering to a male, but with a bladder infection because he's been holding his urine in for a month pending permission to use Ted Nugent's backstage bathroom (Nugent is torn; if the individual agrees to remain a woman, he'd be happy to f*ck AND shoot her, but if she continues on to full manhood, shooting him will be Ted's only option), each to a perfect char.

The winning contestant will move on to next week's show, but the four losers will gather their belongings and be loaded onto a Nazi-type boxcar, outfitted with Nazi-type straw on the floor, and transported to a Nazi-type concentration camp, where a screaming, jackbooted Nazi-type Gordon Ramsay will confiscate their chef's knives and bid them to either step to the right to undergo five years of hard labor polishing Tom Delay's Nazi-type waffle iron or .... to the left for the forced march up the hill for processing and delousing in the camp's Nazi-type gas chambers and crematoria.

Trump is a gentleman, hence women and children first.

Show Title: From The Oven Into The Fire

A drama-filled, but irony-free time shall be had by all, especially .... and one does so hope, doesn't one, for Mr. Vizcarra, who might protest at some point that things are getting a little too Nazi-type.

I mean, the Wagner and the goose-stepping are all very well, but this idea of rendering his body fat for re-use as cooking lard to feed the Trump masses who Paul Ryan buggers and then beggars with his Randian "policies", is really a little too Nazi-typish, in his considered opinion.

Or, maybe Vizcarra and his ilk will snag front seats at Trump's Republican Inaugural:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI

If you listen, there is laughter.

[Countme-In]

Probably only Russell will appreciate this comment:

Vizcarra's ravings about a Nazi-type America, as a yearning to stem boredom (which I think have some insane logic to it; I suspect much of the slaughter -- the word "laughter" with an "s" in front of it -- throughout human history stems from boredom) have a lot of appeal to a vast segment of what is now a sociopathic America.

His words remind me of the perverted theories of the nutcake in the lifeboat that Augie March encounters near the end of Saul Bellow's "The Adventures of Augie March".

Here's a synopsis of that chapter I borrowed from elsewhere:

"One night while he is having one of these informal counseling sessions, the ship is torpedoed and sinks. Augie finds an empty lifeboat and helps another man into it, but the man then coldly refuses to help him on. He finally gets inside and beats the other man. The cold, indifferent man, whose name is Basteshaw, is a fellow Chicagoan and the ship’s carpenter. The two are the only survivors and drift at sea for days. A brilliant but apparently mad biophysicist, Basteshaw tells Augie that he has been working on a cure for human boredom. He claims to have discovered, in the course of his research, how to create life in the form of protoplasm. Basteshaw figures that they will soon land in the Canary Islands, where they will be interned by the Spanish, and he can continue his experiments there with Augie as his research assistant. Augie finds this idea ludicrous, and insists that he wants to be rescued and go home to his wife.

Finally, Augie sights a ship and attempts to light a smoke signal. However, Basteshaw attacks him and ties him up."

Augie escapes from the madman's clutches. I'm not sure we will.

[russell]

if life is gonna imitate art, we could worse than Bellow as our model.

[Countme-In]

The worst America has to offer continue to swarm like ravenous maggots all over the Death's Head that is Donald Trump.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/shkreli-does-part-to-prevent-trump-presidency.html

It sits atop the twitching, rotting zombie corpse of the Republican Party.

To think that all of these worthless, ruthless murderous vermin could well converge in one place, one building, this summer.

That an airstrike will not be called in by true American patriots to rid us of these scum, and thereby save the country, is a sad, passed up last chance.

Politically correct tolerance of these sadistic Republican killers will prove to be the fatal weakness.

[russell]

the thing is, he won. he got the votes.

you can't save the country against its own will.

[sapient]

the thing is, he won. he got the votes.

He got the Republican votes. And if we're not careful, he'll get more of the clueless. This is when not voting Democratic in the general is really a crime against the future.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Oh, you mean like in 2004? And 2008? And 2012?

Repeating the same argument every election cycle makes it harder to take seriously, even if in this case it seems truer than it has been in the past. Trying to treat leftist citizens whose policies don't align with the Democratic establishment as a voiceless, helpless constituency of hostages who owe the DLC their vote in in every single election in exchange for zero concessions is an excellent way to balkanize the left.

[wj]

There is a time to take a stand on principle, and a time to accept something less than perfection. You take a stand when there really isn't a significant difference between the other alternatives -- those that are really the only ones which can prevail. But when one of those alternatives is significantly worse than the other, then the responsible course is to hold your nose and vote for the "lesser evil".

Of course, it's always easier to abdicate responsibility. Insist on purity and reject any compromise as betrayal. But then you are necessarily complicit, whether you admit it to yourself or not, in whatever horrors the "greater evil" perpetrates.

[dr ngo]

. . . isn't this where we came in? . . .

[Tony P.]

The generation of Americans (Republicans as well as, mostly, Democrats) who defeated the Axis is almost gone, as every return of Memorial Day reminds us. Most non-Nazis are saddened by the thought.

Seventy years from now, when the survivors of the 2016 election will be on the verge of extinction, I wonder whether the general sentiment among Americans then living won't be "good riddance".

It will depend, I suppose, on whether today's Democrats turn out to have been smart enough to hammer home, to the "independents" and the sincere Bernie-or-busters and the mythical Never-Trumpers, such questions as:

Which aspects of your life over the next 30-40 years do you think will be better if He, Trump gets to nominate Supreme Court Justices over the next 4 years?

Which aspects of your life over the next 30-40 years do you think will be better if He, Trump gets to set policy on CO2 emissions over the next 4 years?

Which aspects of your life over the next 30-40 years do you think will be better if He, Trump gets to decide who to bomb and who to arm over the next 4 years?

Which aspects of your life over the next 30-40 years do you think will be better if He, Trump manages to establsh that performance art matters and policy doesn't?

By "hammer home", I mean: ask those questions so often and so consistently that people either have to answer them or feel embarrassed for not knowing how. It takes a certain amount of courage to pester people that much, but courage is what posterity honors.

It may turn out that those who can articulate the ways in which President Daffy Trump would make their lives better will outnumber everybody else -- just as the Axis might have won WW2, or the Confederacy might have won the War Betwixt the States. If so, the tone and tenor of Memorial Day 2086 will be different from what it would have been otherwise, for History is written by the winners. But courage, even in a Lost Cause, is sometimes remembered fondly by future generations. Timidity or indifference invariably, and deservedly, rate no more than "good riddance".

--TP

[Countme-In]

Ripped this off from Hullabaloo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

The irony half-life of that video is roughly ten minutes in today's disgrace of an America.

There is no drought in California.

Whoops, time's up.

[bobbyp]

Trying to treat leftist citizens whose policies don't align with the Democratic establishment as a voiceless, helpless constituency of hostages who owe the DLC their vote in in every single election in exchange for zero concessions is an excellent way to balkanize the left.

True. But we could ignore that, join together, and push to take over the party.

Of course, it's always easier to abdicate responsibility. Insist on purity and reject any compromise as betrayal. But then you are necessarily complicit, whether you admit it to yourself or not, in whatever horrors the "greater evil" perpetrates.

And the horrors of the "lesser evil"? We are all complicit, but we all have to chose. This time (as just about always) it will be lesser evil for me, but that doesn't get me off the hook-complicit-wise, either.

[wj]

Too true. But it does get you off the hook for complicity in the greater evil. Sometimes, that's the best you can do.

[Countme-In]

Here's the best the Libertarian Party can do:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-wild-convention.html

That's a candidate in the video prancing about on stage in his knickers, by the way.

I wonder what bathrooms the children in attendance were permitted, or even able, to use without blushing.

Or do Libertarians skip organized toiletry altogether and just crap in the aisles and call it States' rights?

We are one f*cked-up bunch of exceptional sh*theads.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Did the LP hold an "open carry" convention?

I mean, they *could*, if they held true to their professed principles. It's not like they have any candidates viable enough that the Secret Service will be hanging around saying 'sorry, no 2nd Amendment for YOU'.

PLUS, they could decide to only schedule their convention in gun-friendly venues. I'm sure that even the Motel 6 in Bucksnort Arkansas would be big enough.