You Keep Using That Word

In light of the torrent of women finally coming forward with their stories of rape and sexual assault by powerful men -- and being believed --I wanted to take a moment to broach the topic of consent, and why men -- not just heterosexual, as we've seen with Kevin Spacey, but I'm going to focus on straight cis men because let's face it, that's the demo that can't keep their hands and dicks to themselves -- seem to have such a difficult time both recognizing "no" and taking it for an answer.

The problem is that men are socially conditioned to view sex not as a mutual expression of affection between two (or more) people, but as a thing they do to someone else. And perhaps more disgustingly, a "deal" they have to "close." They must overcome the objections of their target and turn that "no" into a "yes." You can see this ridiculous mindset at play in David Wong's Ayn-Randian manifestos on Cracked, particularly this one (which I've torn apart here).

And men are conditioned this way because up until very, very recently, their partners didn't exactly have a say in the matter. Particularly straight men. If you were a woman? As a member of the nobility/aristocracy, you were flat-out assigned a man to have sex with (the husband chosen for you by your father). If you were a peasant, you simply married the first man who asked because you needed his salary. Ergo men never had to worry about being worthy, so much as first. The woman wasn't ever going to turn him down. She wasn't allowed to.

Up until even more recently, sexual assault and rape were in the same category as property crimes. Raping a woman was no different than vandalizing a piece of merchandise. Rapists literally paid a fine to the husband of the victim if she was married. If she wasn't, he could either pay a fine to her father or marry her; you broke it, you bought it.

Hell, just for perspective? Ancient Greece (on which nearly all of Western society is based) had no separate word for "rape."

For men, particularly straight men, sex is viewed through the lens of a sales transaction. He offers strength, protection, and wealth, and he gets sex and children as payment for his services as a husband. His objective is to turn any potential "no" into a "yes."

Thus, to him, sex is something his partner is letting him do. And if they let him do it, whether they want him to or not, that's all that matters. He closed the sale.

On the contrary, when victims -- especially women -- talk about consent, they mean "sex that is wanted, with this particular person" rather than simply letting sex happen out of a sense of obligation or being too under-confident to refuse. And that's a concept that we can't seem to get through men's heads.

Comedienne Margaret Cho outlines the issue perfectly in this post on her site:

But the sex I am talking about having, the kind I didn’t want, is sex I initiated with people I wasn’t attracted to so that I could get finished faster, or so I didn’t have explain whytowherefor I wasn’t into it or into them, or I loved them so much, but the chemistry wasn’t there, and I felt bad for them and so I would leave my body temporarily for them to do what they wanted, like “take what you want, I’ll be over there” and then return at the end for cuddling and the nice warmth of sleeping in a bed with another person.

Women have been conditioned by and large to agree to sex we don't want to have because it's presented to us as our end of the bargain. Something we let men do to us in exchange for him providing financial security and physical protection.

Why is this not consent? Okay, you remember Lumbergh from Office Space? Star of the That Would Be Great meme? Would you say Milton/Peter/Porter/Slydell consented to anything he asked for? Of course not. They did it out of unspoken obligation.

They acquiesced. They relented. They did not, in any way, consent.

Now picture being expected to have sex in the same way you're expected to go to work on Sunday. Specifically, picture being expected to have sex you derive little, if any, pleasure from because your partner does not know or care if you're enjoying yourself. Picture this and you're starting to scratch the surface of the problem with the male definition of "consent" with regard to what it means for women.

The difference between consent and acquiescence can be summed up in one word: desire. "Lie back and think of England" isn't consent. You don't "let" people do things to you out of desire; you do it with them as a willing and enthusiastic participant. Consent is having sex out of desire. Acquiescence is having sex because it's easier than refusing. Particularly when it comes to the power dynamics between women and the powerful men they work for. If they're "letting you do it" because "you're a star", that's not consent. That's a person too afraid of what might happen if they say no.

So if you could take no for an answer and keep your hands and dicks to yourselves unless you're double-damned pinky-swear sure the other person is into you (or wants you to be into them), yeah, that'd be great.

Neon Genesis Evangelion Is the Most Misunderstood Franchise of All Time

The show that launched a thousand flamewars, because pretty much nobody knew what the hell was going on. And a show that everyone agrees was one of the darkest and most nihilistic works of fiction ever made.

Well, almost everyone.

I'm one of those weirdos that saw it as the complete opposite. As one of the most optimistic and positive views of humanity in fiction, minus the usual cheese that comes with the Humans Are Special trope. It was a visceral deconstruction of said trope, stripping away the layers to find out why. I think the reason so many folks consider it negative is because they're so focused on the visuals (which are indeed horrifying) that they ignore what's actually happening and what the characters are discussing.

The short version is that the underlying main plot of the show is to collapse the AT Fields -- the physical manifestation of the psychological wall that separates people's identities from each other, in effect the thing that makes you able to identify as the individual you are -- of everyone on earth and combine all souls into one being (referred to throughout the show as Instrumentality). The goal is that nobody will suffer any longer since they don't have an identity, and therefore no need to establish relationships with other people.

Shinji, the series' protagonist, ultimately rejects this despite his crippling fear of others, and opts to keep his identity. Hence the movie ending with him and Asuka alone on a beach in a post-apocalyptic hellscape with the "sea" in the background. That sea is the collective souls of mankind.

Now, why the unholy fuck would I consider this a positive ending? Even uplifting? Besides me just being weird and disturbed?

The devil is in the details.

Up to this point, Shinji has been through the proverbial wringer. At 4 years old, he watched his mother get absorbed into Evangelion Unit 01 (and opt to stay there, effectively committing suicide, but it's not clear he was ever informed of that). Right after this, his father shipped him off to live with a teacher, and only contacted him nearly a decade later to be Evangelion Unit 01's pilot.

Then came the 13th Angel (Bardiel) battle. It had possessed Unit 03, and when Shinji refused to fight because he knew there was another pilot just like him in there, his father took control of Unit 01 away from him and had him sit in the cockpit fully conscious and aware while it brutally tore apart Unit 03 and nearly killed the other pilot (whom he learned was a friend of his).

Right after this is the battle with Zeruel, the 14th Angel. Shinji is forced to return to piloting Unit 01 after swearing he wouldn't, and in the course of that battle is absorbed into it exactly like his mother was ten years prior. Only he makes the decision to come back.

Right before the events of the movie, he fights the 17th Angel, who had shown up disguised as Kaworu, a fellow pilot. Before learning his true identity, Kaworu was literally the first person in the series to not treat Shinji like an object that exists to fulfill the needs of other people. And in the end, Shinji is forced to kill him. Something he swore in the Bardiel battle that he would rather die than do.

So by the time that the underlying plot of the show comes to fruition, Shinji is at the lowest point any human being could find themselves. More than anyone, he has every reason to go "yup, fine by me, I'm totally cool with not suffering anymore" and taking the ultimate escape from reality that is joining Instrumentality. But he doesn't.

Because as all the philosophical talk in the movie illustrates, having an identity is painful when you fear other people and when you view the world as a cruel, shitty place. Having an identity is pure torture when you hate that identity because you are under the impression that everyone else does.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

When you change your own perspective and stop viewing everything and everyone as hating you and out to hurt you, having your own identity is good. Even pleasurable. Certainly preferable to floating in a sea of nothing and not caring anymore. As Shinji himself puts it:

I feel that there were only hateful things there. So I'm sure it was okay to run away. But there was nothing good in the place I ran to, either. After all, I didn't exist there... which is the same as no one existing.

But that's not all. The real punch comes in the next few lines:

Kaworu: Is it okay for AT Fields to hurt you and others once more? 

Shinji: I don't mind.  But, what are you two within my heart? 

Rei: Hope.  The hope that people might be able to understand one another. 

Kaworu: And the words 'I love you'. 

Shinji: But that's just pretending - a self-intoxicating belief... like a prayer. It can't possibly last forever. Sooner or later I'll be betrayed... And they'll leave me. Still... I want to meet them again, because I believe my feelings at that time were real.

That is the point at which Shinji rejects Instrumentality, and his reasons for doing so. Sure, he'll be hurt sooner or later. But there's happiness there, too, and it's just as real as the pain. And that alone is worth retaining his identity for.

So despite the crucified Eva series in the background, despite the giant decapited Rei head on the horizon, despite everything else...existing is better than not existing. And that giant sea in the background? All of humanity has the chance to make the same choice as Shinji. They can all come back if they want to.

Having walked that line before? This is powerfully positive stuff. Especially in current times when so much is going wrong. When every day seems like the world is sinking into that sea inch by inch, figuratively if not literally. It's going to get ugly, but people can act to set shit right again. Things can get better. But only if we stick around long enough to take action.

That is, at its heart, the message of the entire film and the entire series. As long as you're alive, there is still hope that things can get better because you have the ability to act. As Shinji's mother says, "Anywhere can be heaven as long as you have the will to live. After all, you're alive... and you can find the chance to achieve happiness anywhere."

God's in his Heaven, all's right with the world indeed.

Puerto Rico Isn't Trump's Katrina; It's Worse

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

That line has got to be the single most defining moment of Bush's presidency. The reality-denial of incompetence so over the top it sounded like a Marx Brothers movie if 1,800 people had died making one. Today, barely 12 years later, Hurricane Maria's leveling of Puerto Rico is being compared as a similar defining moment for Trump. But it's not; it's way the fuck worse.

See, the Katrina response was sheer incompetence. Then-President Bush, then-Governor Blanco, and then-FEMA Director Brown had no idea what they were doing. Katrina was the first disaster on that scale that any of them had witnessed. And then they had to figure out how to respond to it. People were outraged. For the first time, the suffering and deaths of hundreds of brown people drew the empathy and attention of white people. And as a result, shit got done. This time, it's worse. Once again, the suffering of an island full of brown folk has drawn the attention of white folk. Once again, there is pressure and outrage. But unlike in 2005, shit ain't getting done.

Because in 2005, Bush's problem was ignorance and incompetence. Trump's problem is indifference.

Shit got done after white people all around the country made a big enough ruckus because for all his faults, Bush still saw the people of Louisiana and Mississippi as fellow citizens and as human beings in need of relief and help:

Trump sees the inhabitants of Puerto Rico as neither American citizens (which they are, and have been for a fucking century) nor as people:

And not just because they're brown. He doesn't view the inhabitants of Houston as people or fellow citizens, either:

Trump...really doesn't view other people as humans. Period.

He is, as Twitter user @HoarseWhisperer has observed, a severe sociopathic narcissist. The short version is that everything he does serves two purposes, and only two: gain positive attention, and deflect shame. He has the mentality of every screaming toddler at Wal-Mart the week before Christmas. And there is nothing that exposes a narcissist of Trump's level like a humanitarian crisis.

When we see pictures from Puerto Rico -- people who have lost everything, people covered in mud, standing in waist-deep floodwater, looking like they haven't slept or eaten in days -- we feel for them. Even those of us who have never been through a major disaster can at least imagine what going without food, water, electricity, and sanitation for weeks and months on end would be like, and therefore we at least attempt to understand how they feel. That's what empathy is. Being able to recognize and understand the emotions of other people.

A sociopathic narcissist is incapable of empathy. It's part of the disorder. They do not feel emotions except on a superficial level, therefore they can't recognize them in others. More than anything, a humanitarian crisis -- a crisis of human suffering -- requires empathy in order to deal with effectively. It requires recognizing the needs of the suffering people, and meeting those needs as quickly and efficiently as possible.

When the Bush Administration failed spectacularly at the start of the Katrina relief effort, it was still able to recognize what went wrong and took steps to fix it. Because for all of his other shortcomings, George W. Bush is still a human being capable of empathy. He is still capable of recognizing the needs and feelings of others and prioritizing them. He was just a complete fucking moron about it. But in the end, he did care about getting it right and helping the people.

Trump, by contrast, is dragging his feet to help Puerto Rico and its citizens because he doesn't give a shit. He has no properties there (anymore), and Puerto Ricans on the island can't vote for him. He has no reason to bother. Even if public opinion were to pressure him, he has no incentive to do more than the bare minimum. And even then, it's just easier to invent some other crisis to distract people with and deflect shame from this absolute clusterfuck.

So when you get a narcissist forced into a situation where empathy is required, and for which they haven't had time to rehearse their act, you get a floundering, incoherent mess like Trump. While I have no doubt whatsoever that he has some form of Alzheimer's, this is not what you're seeing when he talks about Puerto Rico. You are watching a kid get called on in history class to answer a question and he hasn't been paying attention all year.

Trump is a 100% cold-blooded sociopath. A soulless, reptilian predator trying to convince you he's one of you. And his human suit is starting to itch.

White Supremacists Are Scared of Their Own Mediocrity, Part 1

Special Note: I'm well aware that there are mediocre white women who are just as dangerous. I'll get to them in Part 2. I'm concentrating on white men for this part, because the people who marched on Charlottesville and murdered a woman with a car were by and large not women. Men have historically been the face and engine of the movement for a reason.

After the horror in Charlottesville this weekend, I've noticed way too many people -- not gonna mince words, here, it's literally all white people -- expressing shock that this could be happening in 2017. And as a fellow white person, this is the part where if I were from the South, I'd be going "bless your hearts, you sweet summer children." Because it's obvious by your shock that you don't realize that a mediocre white man is the most dangerous creature on earth.

See, you'll never find a white supremacist who is confident, self-assured, and good at what he does. He would not be a white supremacist otherwise. Because white supremacy -- the belief that being white makes you automatically superior -- is logically the position of the man who is such a generic, formless pile of nothing that whiteness and the privilege that comes with it are all he's got to define himself by. Like a sad lump of dried bird shit on the windshield of society.

These are the guys you'll find on 4chan and Reddit bitching that they can't get a job and can't get laid because brown people are being given too much of an unfair leg up and white guys like them are getting deliberately ignored because "libtards ruin errything." The reality, of course, is that guys like them are so utterly, insufferably dull that as the playing field with people of color gets more even and fair -- that is, as whiteness matters less and less -- it becomes obvious that being born with the advantage of white skin is all these milktoasts have going for them. And thus, the only thing they can feel superior about.

These are men who are so painfully, invisibly mediocre that you'd find it impossible to pick any one of them out of a police lineup with any real certainty. They all look the same. They all sound the same. They all use the same buzzwords. Wear the same popped collars. Have the same stupid haircut. And they all offer the same boring, banal, old-hat excuses for why their lives are meaningless trains to absolutely nowhere.

These are the men who have been able to so thoroughly coast through life on being white that they were never pressured to develop any useful skills or foster any unique talents. "White" was all they needed. Life is graded on a curve and as long as they could maintain roughly the same level of average, they didn't need to do anything more. The bare minimum was enough.

But that's the thing about grading curves; all it takes is one person far enough outside the curve to fuck the entire system up.

For people of color who have been conditioned to be twice as good just to achieve the bare minimum that white men have been riding the brake on? Removing or at least diminishing the race component makes their hard work and qualifications stand out in stark relief against the sea of flat, boring, dull, nondescript mediocrity of your average white male.

As far as white supremacists are concerned, brown people who have been working hard all their lives have wrecked the curve. The black kid from the projects who's had to fight tooth and nail to make people see past his skin just got 100%, so now the white guy's 50% is flunking rather than average.

And damned if a lazy, average white guy is going let society tell him he needs to study harder in order to achieve what the black kid has now. Being above black people is his right and proper place as a white guy, and nobody's going to tell him otherwise.

That is where white supremacy comes from. Mediocre white men who have gotten soft and lazy due to being handed everything that non-white people have fought for, now realize they're so in over their heads that it's not even a competition anymore. Their whiteness is not an advantage any longer, and literally everything else about them sucks. When forced to stare their own mediocrity in the face, the white supremacist, being lazy as shit, knows it's just easier to beat up the black kid than to open a book.

And it wasn't just Donald Trump that tapped this well of hatred and resentment and self-loathing. Bernie Sanders went just as hard after these voters. Even going so far as to claim common ground with Trump barely a week into the nation's mourning and reeling after the election. It's no accident at all that many of the deep red states that Sanders took in the Democratic Primary -- particularly West Virginia, Indiana, and Michigan -- went overwhelmingly for Trump. It's also no accident that many of these areas are white supremacist strongholds. Since they didn't get the "Free College" Guy, they went for the "Kick Out All the Illegals" Guy. And this makes perfect sense when you realize what the root of their hatred is: if they can't crack the books, they'll crack the black kid's skull.

They're not economically anxious, and they never have been. Poor? Sure. Poverty is as pervasive in the Rust Belt and Appalachia as it is in the inner cities of Detroit, NYC, and Toledo. The difference between rural white poverty and urban brown poverty is that those in urban brown poverty never had a privileged existence to fall from; rural white poverty is the result of the loss of high-paying jobs to automation, outsourcing, and the changing needs and wants of the market; rural white people used to have it good and now they don't, so white supremacy takes root easily by giving them a convenient scapegoat. They're not economically anxious; they're culturally anxious because the world has increasingly little use for whiteness, God, or guns. The ways they've always been allowed to behave are becoming unacceptable. White supremacy is the spoiled teenage brat throwing a tantrum because his parents took away the PlayStation after he called the neighbors The N Word. Trump and Sanders are like the subversive grandpa who promises to buy them the next model if they reject their parents hard enough.

This is further amplified when you throw women into the mix. Because when you get right down to it, what all this fear of mediocrity goes back to is the inability to attract a mate and make more white babies with her. Why yes, I'm totally saying that the core of white supremacy is men who are too incorrigibly boring to be fuckable, because it's not 1950 anymore and women don't need men's permission to support themselves. Simply having a dick and a paycheck isn't enough to guarantee white men a mate, nevermind a gaggle of women desperate for their attention so they can leave their parents' house by age 25.

There is a direct correlation between white supremacy and the hatred of women, particularly women seen as independent in any way. From r/TheRedPill to GamerGate to r/Incel to /pol/, you'll find plenty of documented overlap between white supremacists and hating women who won't make babies with them. And if that isn't enough for you? Besides poor hygiene and a racist worldview, Steve Bannon, Alexandre Bissonnette, Jeremy Joseph Christian, and countless other white supremacists all have something else in common: a history of violence toward women, or at least violent rhetoric. It's a feature, not a bug; white supremacy aims to elevate white men above all other creatures, and that sure as fuck includes women.

And if you need more recent proof? Heather Heyer, the victim of the violence in Charlottesville, was subject to a vicious screed on the white supremacist website Daily Stormer (which had served as a hub to organize the riot). Because obviously a white woman who isn't busy making white babies has no value to white men who can't get laid in the first place.

Really, white supremacy is a complete misnomer. It's a movement of men who are anything but "supreme"; fragile, cowardly, insecure, lazy, unmotivated nondescript white men who are literally so goddamn worthless that the thought of having to do anything more than the bare minimum is so terrifying, they can only cope with it by waving the traitorous flags and screaming the slogans of history's most spectacular losers.

Especially when they still use mommy's Uber account.

The Affordable Care Act Is Barack Obama and the Democrats' Xanatos Gambit

And it has so far succeeded beyond any of their wildest dreams.

As we've seen since January 20th, while the House of Representatives -- being a highly polarized and deeply partisan shitshow thanks to the gerrymandering apocalypse back in 2010 -- was able to pass a bill that could actually become law, the far more moderate Senate has tried to pass their own version three times, and each time they've crashed and burned spectacularly. And unlike the Senate from 2008-2011, there hasn't been a single filibuster involved (as a budget maneuver, it can't be filibustered, and this was completely intentional). Despite having a majority in both chambers and one of their own in the White House, Republicans can't do this one thing they've been chomping at the bit and salivating to do for the last 8 years. Because rather than being a symbolic gesture they know will never happen, this time it has actual consequences because they have a stooge willing to sign it.

First, in case you don't speak fluent TVTropes terminology, a Xanatos Gambit is a plan that cannot fail, because it fulfills multiple goals simultaneously. Such that no matter how its opponents try to thwart it, one or more of the plan's goals will get furthered. They simply can't all be foiled. It's named for the character of David Xanatos, an antagonist from the Gargoyles TV show from the mid-1990s, because he had a penchant for these types of plans.

The Affordable Care Act has been implemented so far and become such an integral part of the American healthcare system that no matter what the Republicans do, Obama comes out ahead. Because there are only 3 possible outcomes. In 2 of them, Republicans are summarily fucked. In the third, they'll have to concede that the guy they've been trying to fuck over won in the end:

Scenario 1: Republicans Fail to Repeal or Replace the ACA (Status Quo)

This would, of course, mean that they've broken a promise they've been campaigning on for nearly a decade. The hardcore Republican voting base isn't going to accept this quietly. While they won't vote for a Democrat, they're more likely to just stay home and not vote at all out of disillusionment. As we inch closer to the 2018 midterms, this does not bode well for Republicans in vulnerable seats (which, as the special elections this year have proven, may be far more vulnerable than they think).

Scenario 2: Republicans Succeed in Repealing and/or Replacing the ACA

This is frankly the worst of the 3. Because for any bill to get the 51 votes it would need to pass the Senate, it would have to be cruel enough to appease sociopaths like Lee and Cruz, but restrained enough to get the votes of moderates like Murkowski and Capito. If by some miracle that happened -- and if by an even greater miracle, the House managed to pass it -- it would be a bill that would still kick anywhere from 22 million to 32 million people off their insurance. Many of these people live in Republican strongholds: the rural South, the Rust Belt, and the deep red center (Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, etc.).

These folks are going to see their situation on the ground rapidly deteriorate. As rural hospitals shutter without Medicaid. As areas hit hard by the opioid crisis -- areas that overwhelmingly voted for Trump -- suffer even more devastating loss of life due to overdose. As people who didn't even know that they have insurance because of the ACA suddenly find themselves unable to get even the simplest healthcare.

And they're going to blame the people in charge. Republicans. Because there will be nobody else responsible for their hardships. Again, as we inch closer to the 2018 midterms, this is going to become even more of a prominent issue.

Scenario 3: Republicans Amend and Improve the ACA

The most likely scenario, and frankly the only one that won't mean Republicans getting walked to the electoral guillotine next year. If, after failing like a snake trying to play Dance Dance Revolution, they finally decide that maybe it's time to work with Democrats and actually legislate to fix the ACA's flaws instead of pitching out baby, bathwater, bathtub, bathroom, and entire neighborhood, Obama will come out the furthest. Because he'll have forced their hand to build on his signature accomplishment. And history will forever remember that the Affordable Care Act was the work of the nation's first black President, whom a bunch of old racist white guys tried to blow up and found out they couldn't without taking themselves with it.

And the part that would really burn their biscuits?

Not only does Obama win, we all do.

Because even more than black folk in positions of power, that's what Republicans fear most.

The people winning.

Bernie Sanders Is Not Our Fucking Ally

I apologize in advance for the ridiculous amount of cursing in this post. Those who read this blog know I'm not adverse to dropping an F-bomb here and there, but when it comes to the shenanigans of the Bernie camp, I cope with my rage using good ol' fashioned sailor's talk.

Bernie needs to fucking resign as a Senator and take his shriveled old grandpa ass out to a desert fucking island with no wi-fi where he can't hurt anyone else.

The Democratic Party as we know it today has never been the party of the powerful. Black folk, Latinx, women, the disabled, LGBT folk, etc. have been the backbone of the party since the Dixiecrat revolt over the Civil Rights Movement (with the Dixiecrats becoming today's GOP). It has never been about throwing those people under the bus to win over the white working class.

But that's exactly what Bernie Fucking Sanders wants to turn it into.

Bernie Fucking Sanders has galvanized a "revolution" of freeloading angry white dudes to demonize the Democratic Party for demanding they actually do a fair share of the fucking work. Much like your stoned loser friend from college who couch-surfs through everyone he knows while eating their chips and puking on their carpets after a kegger, and then has the audacity to tell them their video game collection sucks. And just like that friend, they pitch a fit when you inform them they've grossly overstayed their welcome.

I put "revolution" in scarequotes up there because freeloading angry white dudes taking a giant steaming smelly dump on the already oppressed for their own benefit isn't a fucking revolution at fucking all; it's the status fucking quo. And Bernie Fucking Sanders is leading the charge.

That's right, kids. He's not a goddamned progressive and he never fucking has been. He doesn't want to go forward. He wants to go back. The only difference between him and Trump is how far back. Sanders wants to turn back the calendar to roughly 1960. Taxes were fairer, but life sucked enough for everyone but cishet able-bodied white males that it was still comfortable to look down on the rest of us. Trump wants to go back to 1860 so he can make slaves carry him around on a tacky golden sedan chair.

And because he's too goddamned lazy to start his own party and do the fucking work required to build it into something viable, he's decided to start a revolt within the Democratic Party.

This is a guy who literally takes a huge stinky shit on every principle he says he stands for. How many working-class people do you know who own three goddamn motherfucking houses? How is it standing up for the little guy to sponsor a bill that dumps nuclear waste from your rich white state on a dirt-poor Latinx community in Texas? How is he "new blood" in politics when he's been serving in Congress ten years longer than Hillary? Unless it's totally fine when he does it, in which case he's a fucking hypocritical bag of dicks who doesn't deserve your vote or your $27.

To make matters worse? This is a guy who, ten days after the election, says he can totally find common ground with Trump. On -- get this! -- "standing up to corporate America."

Let me repeat that: "standing up to corporate America."

Donald. Fucking. Trump.

Bernie Fucking Sanders is not our fucking ally. He's a goddamned motherfucking shit-eating collaborator. And has also probably been a Russian agent this whole time.

And I'll admit, I voted for him in my state's primary. I regret doing so. Because his antics prove every day that he does not give a single paltry constipated shit about anyone but himself. He's been on nobody's side but his own, gaming the system to get what he can out of it before moving on. He's as bad as Trump, if not worse; Trump at least makes no pretenses that he's a demented, narcissistic, self-serving son of a bitch. Sanders sells his followers his false self before he robs them fucking blind when they're not looking.

Therefore, if he wants to take all the freeloading angry white dudes with their heads so far up their own asses they could lick their own prostates out of the Democratic Party? Fucking let him. Let him lead them all into the river like the Pied Piper of Goddamn Hamelin for all I care, because these motherfuckers were never on our side, either.

If you're a "progressive" solely to improve your own station, to the detriment of other people, go join the fucking GOP, because that's where you belong. Get the fuck out of our way and the fuck out of our party, because we ain't got time for whiny, petulant, selfish children. We have fucking work to do.

The Shorter of Two Bullshit Mountains

You would think, by now, that there would be enough evidence of both Trump's corruption and unpopularity that any Republican worth their House seat would be drafting articles of impeachment the minute Comey's firing was announced. So why haven't they?

Here's the situation so far:

- Trump asked Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn's Russia ties.

- Trump fed classified intel to Russian diplomats.

- Trump's approval rating has dipped below 40%; his disapproval rating is close to 60% (as of this writing).

- Republican-controlled Congress' approval rating is 20% as of this writing. Down 4 entire points from March.

In a sane world, this would be a screaming neon sign for both impeachment and removal, and to push the Russia investigation full speed ahead, balls-to-the-wall, until the truth comes out. But it's not. Republican officials have either been silent, wishy-washy (saying it's "disturbing" but taking no real action; hi there, John McCain!), or outright defending Trump.

Despite his unpolularity. Despite their unpopularity. It makes no goddamned sense.

The working theory is the usual party-over-country mentality and the desperation to actually legislate now that they have control of everything, because for the last eight years they were too preoccupied with obstructing Obama to do anything else. But that doesn't hold up, either.

The first bill to actually pass the House was the American Health Care Act (AHCA). A bill that almost nobody in the country actually wants (17% approval; that's it). A bill that was so shitty Ryan had to pull it from the floor the first time, and only got it past the House by a hair because somebody made it even worse.

Why? Why, when you're a deeply unpopular Congress, would you stand by a deeply unpopular president just to pass a deeply unpopular bill?

Simple: the Republican Party knows that if the investigation is completed and Trump goes down? They go right down with him.

Let's back up a week.

On May 11, 2017 -- right on the heels of James Comey's firing on May 9 -- the FBI executed a search warrant on the Annapolis office of Strategic Campaign Group, a Republican PAC that failed gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli sued back in 2014 for scamming donors. The raid was directly related to Cuccinelli's lawsuit, but further research brings up some very interesting and very familiar names.

Strategic Campaign Group's senior adviser is Dennis Whitfield, who as it turns out also worked for a firm called BKSH & Associates. A firm founded by...Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. Remember those guys?

They were gone before Whitfield came on board, but considering Paul Manafort and Roger Stone's history of shady shit going back several decades, and BKSH & Associates' history of even shadier shit going back to roughly 2002, the dots and the line are still there.

So we have a consulting firm raided for scamming donors, whose senior adviser used to work for a consulting firm that specialized in influencing foreign elections and whose founder with Russian ties went on to be Trump's campaign manager.

As the saying goes, where there's smoke there's fire. This? This is a tiny crack in the ground over Centralia, PA.

 And Republicans are scared shitless of the still-smoldering coal fire the full investigation will find. Because another interesting thing about BKSH & Associates? One of its founders, Charlie Black, Jr., was a top aide on the failed presidential campaign of none other than everyone's favorite spineless "maverick," John McCain.

This is why Republicans keep standing by Trump, and why they want the Russia scandal to go away. For the same reason Trump hasn't yet released his tax returns: whatever PR nightmare they're facing now is nothing compared to what will happen when the full truth comes out.

Republicans in 1973 turned on Nixon because at the time, they had more to gain by hanging him out to dry. Republicans in 2017 are protecting Trump because they have more to lose if the investigation keeps going.

They'll survive the stench of Trump. They won't survive Russia. And they know it.

Social Issues Are Economic Issues

If there is one thing I'm getting fucking sick of really fucking fast, it's the Straight White Guy lament in defense of Bernie Sanders that the Democratic Party focused too much on "social issues" instead of "economic issues" in the 2016 campaign. And the reason I'm sick of it is because that argument comes from a place of ridiculous tone-deaf privilege.

Issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity/presentation, disability/illness, and everything else that straight white men consider "social" and therefore unimportant are directly tied to the economy in a number of ways.

Black and Latinx people incarcerated at disproportionately higher rates, more harshly disciplined in school (suspension, expulsion, etc.), and reprimanded for everything from accent to hairstyle all contribute to these populations earning substantially less than white people. It's hard to get a decent job when you were raised by a single mom because your dad pled guilty to something he didn't even do because public defenders are awful and your family's too poor to afford their own lawyer, and nobody will hire your mom for anything other than fast food service because her name is too "ethnic" and she can't afford a hair relaxer treatment every week. This gets even harder when "pled guilty" means "your dad was gunned down in his car by police because he reached for his wallet while black."

Native Americans are also affected by extreme poverty, and not just on reservations. Native descendants face high rates of alcoholism and diabetes, both of which contribute to higher costs of medical care and future disabilities. Native peoples also face the same kind of racism and police brutality that black and Latinx populations do.

Being trans and too terrified to use your preferred bathroom at work means you're more likely to suffer a bladder infection, which means you miss work or get ironically reprimanded for using the bathroom too much on the clock. Trans youth account for nearly half of the homeless youth population, due to being kicked out by parents and guardians. Trans people also face rampant housing and employment discrimination, which is perfectly legal in many states. Trans people also face extremely high rates of sexual assault and murder, particularly trans people of color.

Women not having access to reproductive services are more likely to forego college not just because of pregnancy, but also other medical issues (hormonal birth control treats a wide variety of reproductive disorders like endometriosis and PCOS, which can be physically debilitating). Women unable to access abortion services are more likely to live at or below the poverty line. Women are more likely to quit a job than report sexual assault or harassment, and if they do report it, they're more likely to be fired in retaliation than aided.

It is still legal in 28 states to fire and deny housing to someone for being LGBT, which makes LGBT people a disproportionate share of the homeless population. As a result, a significant number of sex workers are LGBT, and it's not uncommon for LGBT people who aren't sex workers to be suspected of such and harassed by police. Even legally married gay and lesbian couples can have a hard time finding things like joint health insurance. LGBT people with HIV and AIDS also face extremely high costs of healthcare and job discrimination. And LGBT youth face much higher rates of suicide, assault, and murder.

This is why we get so fucking angry when straight white men dismiss our issues as "social" rather than economic. They are economic. They just affect our lives financially instead of theirs. It's us who need to shoulder the higher costs of rent, medical care, incarceration, fines, and everything else because we live in a society that hates the fact we exist.

Social issues and economic issues are forever intertwined. If you think they aren't, it's only because you've never really faced them.

What Star Trek Can Teach Us About the Danger of Ideological Purity

It's not every decade that I get to see firsthand what is meant by a work of fiction being "ahead of its time." Star Trek is certainly no stranger to this; the original series boasts the first interracial kiss on US television, at a time when people were burning down radio stations for playing Janis Ian's "Society's Child." It also featured a Russian character played by an actor of Soviet descent at the height of the Cold War.

But 24 years ago, the third series of the franchise premiered: Deep Space Nine. And over the course of the show, the story would take twists and turns that, re-watching it today in the current political climate, seem oddly...prescient.

I'm not saying Obama was the real-world Benjamin Sisko. But where we are as a nation is right around the end of the show's fifth season. The Cardassians have taken the station. The Dominion is on the move.

While there has been plenty of analysis of the show as a World War II allegory (which it was obviously meant to be), in relation to today's crisis, I think one of the most important points the series makes is that when dealing with existential threats, there is a razor-thin line to walk that will get you through to the other side. Deviate from that line in any way whatsoever? And you'll either end up as the monster you're fighting, or you'll be torn limb from limb by it.

Two sixth season episodes in particular illustrate this point: "Rocks and Shoals" and "In the Pale Moonlight."

"Rocks and Shoals" is an illustration, bit by bit, of how Major Kira -- who survived the series' equivalent of the Holocaust as a child -- slides into a mindset of rationalization and cooperation in order to survive the Cardassian takeover of the station. A kind of Stockholm Syndrome that one of her people's religious leaders, Vedek Yassim, tries over the course of the episode to clue her into. Eventually, Yassim commits a public suicide in protest of the occupation. And it's only after that, that Kira begins to realize that she's being complicit in not only her own oppression, but that of the entire Alpha Quadrant.

"In the Pale Moonlight" involves Sisko and Garak hatching a plan to get the Romulans into the war as allies against The Dominion. The plan involves manufacturing evidence that The Dominion were planning to violate the non-aggression pact with the Romulans. The short version is that while it doesn't go off exactly as planned, it does happen. Albeit with more unnecessary death and manipulation than Sisko originally wished for.

What these two episodes represent are the two fates on either side of that razor-thin line. Giving up all of your scruples in order to survive, as Kira did, or trying to keep your hands clean, as Sisko tried to do.

We have, at the moment, two extreme factions of progressives. The first faction are The Collaborators. People who think they can compromise with Trump's regime in order to escape unscathed, or at least minimally scathed. If you want examples, look no further than this chart. The only Trump cabinet nominee to receive zero votes from Democrats was Betsy DeVos. All others -- including Jeff Sessions for Attorney General and Rick Perry of all people for Secretary of Energy -- have received at least one vote from Democratic senators, many of whom have shown an astonishing willingness to placate the new administration. In particular Joe Manchin (WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND), whose No votes combined can be counted on a single set of hands.

And no, not even Bernie Sanders, the self-appointed anti-corruption guru of the Senate, has really stood up to Trump all that much. On the contrary, he even declared Trump would have him as an ally if he "stands up to corporate America" like he promised to do; Sanders then went on to vote Yes (along with the rest of Congress) to confirm Shulkin for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, despite Shulkin's ties to for-profit healthcare and his not even being a veteran, a first for the position.

But it's not just Sanders. It's the entire activist landscape and everyone in it who advocates "working with" the new administration rather than opposing it and "empathizing with" the people who voted for Trump, even when they'd been some of Trump's staunchest opponents during the campaign. Spineless louts like Jim Wright, Kyle Plantz, Michael Lerner, and Les Leopold -- unsurprisingly, all white men -- who gleefully throw progressive causes under the bus if they have something to gain in this new era.

Capitulating to oppression -- and that includes the "wait and see, give him a chance" kind of capitulation -- is like a bystander telling someone about to be raped "hey, you might enjoy it." It's just as callous, cruel, and morally reprehensible as committing the rape themselves. If you don't feel scared in Trump's America, it's because you have no reason to. And rather than going with the flow and being a Collaborator, it means you, of all people, have even more of an obligation to be part of the Resistance.

For Major Kira, it took witnessing Vedek Yassim's public suicide in the middle of The Promenade to knock that into her head. Dare we even ask what it's going to take for Manchin and Heitkamp?

The other faction is something of an ideological carbon filter. The side that seeks to remove "impurities" within its own movement. You'll recognize this group as anyone who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or wrote in Harambe or stayed home or literally did anything other than cast a vote for Clinton. People who are still screaming that Bernie would've won (but won't say how). People who are protesting against Democrats not because of how they're voting but who they're funded by. People whose only mission is "shaking up the establishment" and don't really give a rat's ass what happens as a result.

Some have begun to refer to this faction as the "Alt-Left" (as opposed to the "Alt-Right"), but I think that's giving them entirely too much legitimacy. Being made up largely of the same demographic that finds Trump an attractive candidate, I think it's far more appropriate to simply refer to them as populist anarchists. It's even more telling when, faced with direct comparison to white nationalist propaganda outlet Breitbart, Cenk Uygur is more perturbed at being compared to a publication with fewer unique viewers rather than because Breitbart openly promotes bigotry and Nazi ideas. They're not even two sides of the same coin so much as two parts of the same side of the coin; popular anarchy is the smooth and shiny background, while white nationalism is the stark, in-your-face relief.

This faction, like the Tea Party before it, seeks to essentially kick out everyone that doesn't fall into goose-stepping formation with their ideology of political campaigns run on everyone stuffing $20 in an envelope. For one thing, not everyone has that $20 to throw into an envelope. And even if they did? As someone who has had to work an annual fundraising event for the last 4 years, and for an organization that doesn't require anywhere near the kind of penetration that a political office campaign does, you can't get elected without money. It's just not possible. You have to court large donors if you expect to even win the primary, because coordinating advertising, voter registration drives, and the dissemination of info on vital shit like deadlines takes a fuckton of cash.

Bernie Sanders learned this lesson the hard way. A big part of the reason he didn't get the nomination was because he simply did not run his campaign very well, and his numbers in actual primaries (as opposed to caucuses) reflected that. A huge part of campaigning is registration drives, particularly in primaries because they're closed in most states; you have to be registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the Democratic primary (whereas the national election is completely open; it doesn't matter what party affiliation you have as long as you're registered to vote). Sanders did not do enough to get people who were already registered as Independents in closed primary states to change their party affiliation in order to vote for him in time, or to get new voters who supported him registered as Democrats in time to cast their primary ballots. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC; Sanders could've done this regardless of how much the DNC favored Clinton's campaign (rightfully so, being that she is a Democrat, and the DNC actually gave Sanders some very generous accommodation by letting him run on the Democratic ticket without changing his party; they would've been perfectly within their rights to tell him "LOL NOPE"). But he didn't, because he couldn't. Because his campaign simply did not have the money to pull it off, since he snubbed corporate donors.

Sisko's lesson in "In the Pale Moonlight" is that sometimes, you have to strike a deal with the Devil in order prevent the apocalypse. You have to do things that aren't ideologically -- or even morally -- pure. But you have to do them in order to prevent a total catastrophe from happening. It was a lesson that anyone who voted third party and anyone who still insists they were right to do so is deliberately trying not to learn. Or to put it another way, they're ignoring the 109th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition: dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.

Resistance in the Trump Era is a moral imperative. We cannot compromise. We cannot "work with him." And at the same time, we may have to do things we find ideologically repugnant in order to have any chance at all of avoiding disaster. We fucked up not by "disregarding the economic anxiety of the white working class" but by not uniting against a very obvious threat. We fucked up by not recognizing evil when it was staring us in the face, and sacrificing unity and victory simply because doing something ideologically impure was an inconvenience.

We must learn from that mistake, or pay dearly for it. We have a moral imperative to fix this mess. Now is not the time for an ideological war with our party's establishment. Unify and survive. Resist or perish.

As Vedek Yassim's final words commanded, "Evil must be opposed!"

The Ancient, Cruel Notion At the Core of the ACA "Replacement"

Speaker of the Rich Paul Ryan has finally released a statement on the new "healthcare" bill. Which is really not so much a healthcare bill as it is federally sanctioned mass murder of everyone that Republicans deem undesirable: women, the poor, communities of color, the mentally ill, and the very sick and disabled. The question so many have been asking -- and rightly so -- is how people who purport to be in favor of "family values" and the tenets of Christianity can take a gigantic steaming dump on everything Jesus ever taught. Your answer is an idea that dates all the way back from the Calvinist bullshit of the Middle Ages. This is how far Republicans want to turn back the clock.

In the Calvinist view, disease and illness and injury are just physical manifestations of sin. If you are chosen by God, bad shit will never happen to you; if you're not worthy, welp, sucks to be you don't it? The current Evangelical support of legislation that rewards the rich and punishes the poor is centered around this. In their view, it's only natural that we reward God's "chosen people" so they'll put in a good word for us. Everyone else who is poor and sick? They've already been rejected by God, so who cares about them anyway?

If this sounds like a terrible way to view the world, then congratulations. You're not a sociopath.

Republicans love the fuck out of this sentiment because it absolves them of having to do anything to fix the country's problems, literally all of which go back to poverty. Crime? Drugs? Violence? All directly tied to poverty. Because when people are poor, they get scared. When they get scared, they get desperate. And desperate people do drastic shit in order to survive.

Abortion? Most abortions that occur are done because the mother can't afford to care for a baby, or even the cost of giving birth (bare minimum with no complications, childbirth costs around $30K; abortion is just under $1,000 at its highest). In some professions, she risks being fired from her job just because she's pregnant (it's been illegal since 1978, but it still happens with alarming frequency, and if you can't afford a child, you sure as hell can't afford a good lawyer).

Poverty is also a direct cause of ill health itself. Healthy, nutritious food is expensive. The highly processed food that poor people can afford is loaded with salt, sugar, fat and empty calories (calories that provide no or very few nutrients). Being able to cook requires energy and free time that many working poor families don't have. On top of that, jobs with shitty pay tend to be physically demanding (retail, food service, etc.), and because the pay is awful, employees need to work longer shifts or multiple jobs to buy even the shittiest food. This doesn't even factor stress into the equation, or urban food deserts where there's no grocery stores for miles and your only options are fast food and bodegas (which overwhelmingly sell the aforementioned highly-processed crap food).

For Republicans, the problem is that fixing this mess would require going back to the income tax levels of the mid-20th century, where top-earners paid around 70%, as well as building stronger unions and better regulation of the financial sector to prevent the kinds of market collapses we saw from the 1970s onward. And that, of course, means listening to the people rather than their campaign donors, who tend to skew wealthy as fuck and, like Thorin at the end of The Hobbit, don't want to part with a single coin.

It would be much more beneficial to them if all us pesky poor folk were kept in a highly efficient queue of high birth and death rates, so we could continue to work shitty service jobs for shitty pay until we drop dead of heart attacks and get replaced by the next desperate shmoe. And the easiest way to do that? Restrict abortion and birth control such that the rights to them are merely ceremonial in order to force the birthrate to go up, and gut healthcare for the working classes so we die faster.

That's where the American Health Care Act comes in.

Immediately, you should notice three words missing from the bill's title compared to the ACA: "patient protection" and "affordable." This is not an accident; this bill is not intended to protect patients, nor is it intended to make healthcare affordable in any way unless you're young, rich and already healthy. In other words, already chosen by God, and fuck the rest of us.

It's the same Victorian-era bullshit of regarding wealth itself to be a virtue. If you're rich, then you're obviously a shrewd and virtuous person. If you're poor, it's because you obviously did something awful or stupid, so why should you get any sympathy?

This is what lets hard-right God-fearing Christians sleep at night while they vote to slash the safety net for the country's most vulnerable. All that stuff about charity and helping your neighbor? That only goes for people who already have God's favor.

This is one of the biggest reasons I walked away from Christianity in my college years and didn't look back (besides figuring out I was gay). The idea of a "chosen" people never sat well with me, because the next logical step is to dismiss those not "chosen" as deserving of their fate. I'm not saying all Christians do this, not by a longshot; there are many wonderful churches and Christian charities that do a lot of good in the world. But ignoring individual churches who do good things for a minute? All the major players in the Bible who came after Christ promoted this idea of chosen vs. damned, and to defer to God's word (or what people assumed was God's word) rather than trying to understand things on your own. I found myself unable to maintain my faith in a system that just about required me to leave my empathy and critical thinking at the door.

But this is exactly the thought process that has brought us to this point. And it's not just limited to Evangelical fundie whacknuts. Everyone who voted for Trump did so for one reason and one reason alone, regardless of the language they couched their decision in: he is a straight, white, rich cisman, the epitome of privilege, and therefore "chosen." If they vote for him, they can be "chosen" as well.

Only now, with the very real threat of shredding healthcare to a point even worse than it was before the Affordable Care Act, do they realize what "chosen" really means: everyone else is damned.

You Can't Compromise With Fear

Normally, I like Jim Wright. But as I've learned over the years, even he suffers from the same problem that every white guy does: since he's not really going to lose much in Trump's America, he feels he has the authority to tell progressives how to win.

His entire post, linked above, is the ramblings of a guy so steeped in his own privilege he's turned the water into milk.

The lede is the only good part of it. But then he starts screaming at fellow liberals to "turn the red sea purple" by "compromising with fear." I very calmly challenged him on Twitter earlier today to explain just how on earth we're supposed to do that, and got blocked for my trouble.

Because, as I finally got him to admit in that thread, you can't compromise with fear.

Not the kind of fear we're dealing with, at any rate. When a child comes to you in the middle of the night scared of monsters under his bed? Your natural instinct is to lift the bedskirt and show him there are no monsters. Maybe check the closet with a flashlight just to go the extra mile. But then the child turns to you and says "no, there really are monsters, they're just invisible so of course you can't see them!" At that point, the child's fear can no longer be compromised with, because he's going to make up reasons to stay afraid.

Trump voters are that child. The monsters under their bed are literally everyone and everything else.

In his post, Jim Wright suggests reaching out to these fearful people instead of dismissing them, by going to churches and assuring them they won't have to marry a gay couple in their house of worship.

I literally laughed out loud reading that, because:

1) why the holy fuck would they believe a word "Crooked Hillary" says? These are the same people chanting "lock her up!"

2) to say that their fear is having to marry a gay couple in their church is to treat it with far more rationality and credibility than it deserves. They don't actually give a shit about that. They don't want gay couples getting married, period. Not in their church, not in any church, not in their courthouses, not in their city, not in their state, not in their country.

The part Mr. Wright doesn't seem to grasp is that compromising with them in any way is compromising with hatred. This is the same guy who was literally targeted by Neo-Nazis, but can't seem to understand that their fear is based on hatred. It's built directly on top of it. Hatred is the foundation of everything conservatives do. They fear change because they hate having to deal with anything different than themselves.

As far as blaming liberals for not showing up at the polls? That is a valid point. At least for privileged white liberals like himself. The problem is that in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled on Shelby County v. Holder in a 5-4 decision that de-fanged the Voting Rights Act. Afterward, we saw a veritable orgy of voter suppression legislation passed.

In key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan -- the states which cost Hillary the Electoral College -- many liberals, progressives and moderate conservatives who might've shown up to vote for Hillary were turned away and not permitted to cast a ballot. This is also not even counting the fact that communities of color (who vote largely Democrat) suffer disproportionately high rates of incarceration for non-violent felonies, which in turn means they are legally barred from voting.

Many liberals and progressives didn't show up for the 2014 midterms and 2016 election not because they didn't want to, but because they weren't allowed. Maybe smug white guys with the same privilege Jim Wright has decided to sit it out, largely because of their privilege. But to lump everyone else in with them is not just misleading, but insulting.

If you want to turn the red sea purple? Don't waste your time compromising with fear. Don't lose sleep trying to convince an irrationally scared child to go to bed when he's going to have far more reasons not to than you can keep up with.

You can't dismiss all of their concerns, because they do have valid ones. Poverty, drug use and failing health are just as bad in rural areas as they are in urban, but without any of the (still inadequate) support centers that city dwellers have (soup kitchens, shelters, sliding-scale clinics, etc.). But you can most definitely dismiss their fear, when that fear has equal parts jack and shit to do with their concerns.

You want to mitigate the damage Trump can do? You need to put the pressure on your Congresscritters. The people who put shit on Trump's desk to sign. They're already too scared to hold town halls. Don't let that stop you. Flood their inboxes. Flood their phones. Flood their mailbags. Hold protests. Stop traffic.

Make them so pants-shittingly terrified of losing their seats in 2018 that they'll have no choice but to break with the party line for self-preservation. Force them to be the check on Trump, with the threat that if they won't, you'll elect someone else who will.

Don't compromise with fear, and don't negotiate with terrorists. Resist.

To Err Is Human, To Forgive Is Dangerous If They're Not Sorry

When I was somewhere between kindergarten and third grade, I vaguely remember some incident where the teacher made a kid apologize to me. She then turned to me and said "now what do you say?" When I didn't answer she said "you're supposed to say 'you're forgiven.'"

I looked at her and said "But I don't forgive him, because he's not sorry. He's just saying it because you made him." I'll never forget the look on the teacher's face. It was like somebody had clued her in to a part of the human psyche she'd either forgotten about or had never acknowledged. The script she was used to wasn't being followed. The motions she'd been conditioned to go through were being rejected. All of a sudden, she kind of stood there and questioned reality as she knew it.

This was my first clue that forgiveness is as much a part of the bullshit children get spoonfed by their adult caretakers as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It's an arbitrary social convention that everyone follows, but they have no clue why. Other than "it's rude if you don't." It's a rehearsed interaction much the same way that pleasantries and small-talk are. Go off-script? Everyone loses their minds.

As children, we're conditioned that "you're forgiven" is simply the right response to "I'm sorry." And you say you're sorry when you do something bad so that the other person says "you're forgiven" and it's all forgotten about.

It's a ridiculous kindergarten ritual that kids are taught, and after a while the words themselves cease to have any meaning beyond "this is what you say because it's what you've been taught to say." Sorta like those Berlitz phrasebooks. Only you're learning how to phone it in instead of how to hail a taxi in Spanish.

As a result, I've found people by and large view forgiveness as something they're entitled to just for saying they're sorry. Hell, we even call these rehearsed phrases "magic words." You speak them and they get you what you want. So all too often, people will treat them as such. They won't apologize out of genuine remorse, but only because they're expected to. And in return, they expect to be forgiven.

People in these situations don't deserve your forgiveness.

Because what forgiveness is, is granting absolution. Declaring whatever incident that happened "water under the bridge" and returning your relationship to the status quo. This works when someone is genuinely remorseful, because they're going to remember what they did to upset you and not do it again, because they care about not hurting you. The status quo actually means something to them.

But when the person doesn't have genuine remorse? When they're not sorry for what they did, just that they got caught and you're angry? Forgiveness is worse than wasted on these people. Forgiving someone who isn't really sorry rewards their behavior. It effectively tells them they can hurt you, but as long as they say the magic words, there will be no lasting consequences.

That? Is a very dangerous thing to teach someone.

And this doesn't even get into situations of abuse. Far too many therapists and counselors see forgiveness as a necessary step in the healing process, and impart upon their patients the idea that they will never truly heal until they forgive their abuser (whether they get an apology or not). The thing is, not everyone can do this. Even the kindest and most empathic person has limits. And trying to force a person who has already suffered rank abuse over their limit -- trying force them through cajoling and coercion to forgive someone they simply can't -- is going to do nothing but re-traumatize them. They're going to see themselves as a failure all over again.

You are not, under any circumstances, obligated to forgive. Just like the opposite of hatred isn't love, but indifference, the opposite of a grudge is not forgiveness; it's release. You can leave the anger and the hurt behind by simply getting to the point of not giving a shit anymore.

The decision to forgive is as personal as the decision to have sex. If you do decide to do it, make sure it's because you want to and not because you feel it's expected. Going through the motions is just as bad in both scenarios.

Don't Fear Trump; Fear His Allies

By now, three weeks into Trump's ridiculous shitshow of a presidency, I think there are two glaringly obvious things we need to digest as a country:

1) Resistance is working. The marches, the deluge of calls from constituents, it's working. Betsy DeVos was only confirmed by a tie-breaking vote from the Vice-President because two Republican Senators voted against her. Something that has literally never happened before in a cabinet confirmation.

2) Donald Trump is not who we should be looking at as the real danger. It's the people he's surrounded himself with.

Trump is reminiscent of Poo-Bah from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. Pompous, narcissistic, strutting around like the peacock with the biggest feathers and bestowing important-sounding titles on himself to cover up his ineffectual bumbling. The only powers he really has are to sign things and appoint people, and most of those things he signs must be approved by Congress before they even see his desk. Executive orders are really the only place in which he has any teeth, and as we've seen, even those are subject to judicial review.

It all goes back to his actual official title: President of the United States. He presides over the process of governing, and even his say isn't final; laws he signs can be overturned by the Supreme Court if challenged far enough, and his veto can be overridden by Congress with enough votes. He's not a monarch, no matter how many golden toilets he owns.

And unlike his more shrewd predecessors, he's a complete outsider to the governmental process. He quite literally hasn't got the foggiest clue what he's doing. This is a guy who, despite claiming to be the world's greatest businessman, doesn't even read shit before he signs it (literally failing How to Do Business and Not Fuck Up Royally 101). He gets his advice and strategy directly from cable news, and when something doesn't go his way, he whines like a pre-teen douchebag in a Halo tournament on Twitter. At best, he's a useful idiot to the people with the potential to do the real damage.

Trump is that old codger in the nursing home who will sign anything you put in front of him, just because he likes seeing his signature on things. It makes him feel important. Except instead of birthday and Christmas checks to his grandchildren, it's laws and executive orders and military action approvals that affect millions.

It's hard to describe these kinds of people, who are such malignant narcissists and pure fucking evil on every level, but the only reason they haven't gone full comic book villain and subjugated the entire planet is because frankly, they're too fucking stupid to manage such a task. It's why I don't particularly like the comparisons to Hitler; Hitler was able to do the horrifying, world-changing things he did because he was the triple threat of narcissistic, ambitious, and intelligent. Trump is more like Mussolini. Brutal, charismatic, and an utter fucking moron.

The real dangers of his presidency are the people he's appointed to his cabinet, and especially the Congress that confirmed them.

The President was intended to be a check on Congress' power. They can propose and approve all the bills they like, but unless the President signs them or pockets them for ten days in an active session, they don't become law. Think of the President kind of like quality control and safety inspector at a factory, while Congress is the assembly line. The President's job is to approve the product for distribution, or send it back to the assembly line with a list of reasons why it's defective.

If the QA/safety inspector will rubber stamp anything without actually inspecting it? Then the factory can produce whatever it wants, no matter how defective or dangerous. Trump is the QA inspector who is too busy worrying about his side business to care what comes off the assembly line, and has delegated that task to his aides and cabinet. Which leaves them and Congress with an extraordinary amount of power.

That's the reason why, despite committing multiple impeachable offenses, nobody in Congress has actually made a move to draw up those articles; Trump, being both a narcissistic, attention-starved toddler as well as rock fucking stupid, is the perfect broken valve through which a Republican Congress can pass all the shitty bills it wants. Pence isn't nearly so pliable, having real experience in public office and thus knowing how to read things before he signs them. Congress won't impeach him unless he does something which makes even that kind of a payoff not worth their while anymore.

The people Trump has chosen for his cabinet are right out of the narcissist's playbook. People who flatter him and who think much like he does. He's used to surrounding himself with spineless yes-men who, like the residents of Peaksville, OH, will tell their child overlord whatever he wants to hear in order to keep their jobs. And he fancies the U.S. government to be merely an extension of his business empire. Ergo, he expects the people he appoints to do whatever he says (despite that the opposite is literally the function of the cabinet; above all else, they're supposed to warn the President when a bill on his desk is a bad idea).

These yes-men that Trump thinks he's got in his pocket? Include Steve Bannon, an avowed white supremacist who literally wants to destroy the government. Jeff Sessions, a guy deemed too racist to be a federal judge under one of the most racist Presidential administrations in recent memory (Reagan, 1986). Rex Tillerson, an oil tycoon who was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship and is a close buddy of Putin. These are the people who have Trump's ear. The people he trusts to put stuff in front of him to sign, like the old senile codger he's turning out to be.

And just like the guy in the nursing home, he's not willfully signing away power of attorney to his eldest child that just replaced all his heart medication with Tic-Tacs; he simply signed whatever he was told to sign. Trump is hardly the danger, here. The real danger is the people around him who know exactly how to play him to do their awful bidding.

Those are the people we need to vote the fuck out in 2018. Provided we still have a country by then.

"Princess Mononoke" Is Still a Terrifyingly Beautiful and Chillingly Relevant Film

This month, Fathom Events screened Hayao Miyazaki's 1997 film Princess Mononoke in select theatres to celebrate the movie's 20th anniversary. And I think it's something sorely needed, for a new generation to see this movie. Because if anything, it's even more relevant now than when it was made, current events considered.

While many bloggers have declared Rogue One the movie we needed to see in order to affirm our resistance to oppression and fascism, I would argue that the message in Princess Mononoke is far more comprehensive. While Rogue One celebrates diversity with a great cast and the fight for freedom against a very oppressive (and very white) evil empire, at the end of the day it's still the simplistic space opera of the same stripe as the movies it's a prequel to; the good and bad guys are obvious. You know who to root for.

The world we live in, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, is not so clearly divided. It never has been.

In Princess Mononoke, the title character, Ashitaka, is the last crown prince of a persecuted ethnic group, the Emishi, that was supposedly wiped out five centuries before. In a battle to save his village from the crazed Boar god Nago, he is injured by the demonic presence that had driven the boar mad, and cursed with a demon mark that will eventually consume his body and kill him. As a result, he is ordered to leave his village to prevent the curse from spreading. And with him goes his people's last hope of survival.

As he journeys west, he soon discovers that Nago was transformed from a god to a demon because of what has been happening to the forests; man has been destroying the forests to build forges and get to the iron ore in the ground beneath them, in order to build weapons that they use to hunt the animals that guard the forest. Ashitaka soon learns that what drove Nago mad was rage at the forest's suffering, and the humans that have caused it. His fight is then taken up by Okkoto, another Boar god, who wishes to exterminate the humans and save the forest.

In particular, the humans of a village called Irontown, led by Lady Eboshi, and the men who follow her partner Jigo, a monk who seeks the favor of the Emperor against the local warlord Asano. In Irontown, Ashitaka is enraged to learn of the destruction Lady Eboshi's efforts have caused. But it's tempered by learning that the citizens of Irontown are the most downtrodden members of society. Brothel girls, lepers, etc. Lady Eboshi takes them all in and gives them a place to both feel safe and have a purpose.

But as a result of her destruction of the forest, Lady Eboshi has earned the hatred of the Wolf god Moro, and her three children: her two Wolf pups, and her human daughter San (the eponymous princess), an abandoned child that was thrown at her feet by her own parents when they escaped Moro's wrath. Rather than eat her, Moro adopted her as one of her own. Due to Lady Eboshi's efforts to destroy the forest for its wood and iron, San (and to a lesser extent, Moro) has made it her mission to kill her.

Later on, a plot unfolds between Lady Eboshi and Jigo to harvest the head of the Great Forest Spirit to gain the Emperor's favor. They're successful, but the result is that the Great Forest Spirit drains all life from the landscape while searching for his head. Ashitaka and San return it to him, ending the destruction and repairing the land.

On the surface, the film seems relevant only because of environmental issues. But it's so much more than that. At its heart, Princess Mononoke is a film about the destructive power of hatred, and how we must end the cycle with empathy and compassion for all creatures, not just the ones we belong to.

The four main characters are all foils to each other. Ashitaka represents the best that humanity can be; he wants a perfect solution, for everyone to stop killing each other and to coexist peacefully. As a direct contrast to him, there is Jigo, a self-serving scoundrel who doesn't care what kind of destruction he causes as long as he gets what he wants out of it. In the middle of those two extremes you have San and Lady Eboshi, two sides of the same coin. While San has renounced her humanity, Lady Eboshi completely embraces it, both the destructive and compassionate parts.

While it's true that Lady Eboshi wishes to destroy the forest to get to the iron, she does so because she wants to provide a better life for the people she's rescued. The old and sick, the brothel girls, the lepers...the literal dregs of society that nobody wants to take care of, and that other leaders (like Asano) were implied to be outright purging. As one of the lepers says, she is the only person to treat them as fellow human beings. Despite outward appearances, Lady Eboshi is a kind and compassionate woman...but only toward her fellow humans. She has none of that empathy for the forest or the animal gods that guard it. While she seeks to defend her own home, she has no qualms about razing the home of Moro and San and Okkoto to the ground.

On the flip side, the same could be said for San. She will defend the forest to her last, but has little compassion for the humans defending their home from her Wolf brothers. The only reason she doesn't kill Ashitaka the two times she has the chance is because he appeared to be on her side; the first human she's met who ever showed her any kind of compassion.

And really, that's what sets off the entire chain of events. Ashitaka's mission from the beginning is to see what's happening "through eyes unclouded by hate." And as a result of sticking to that principle, he not only lifts Nago's curse from himself, but ultimately ends the war between the humans and the forest gods.

And it's not an easy mission. Throughout the film, character after character asks, suspects, and demands to know which "side" Ashitaka is on. His motives are questioned by everyone because he doesn't act in the interests of any one person (not even himself, evident when he breaks up Lady Eboshi and San's fight and carries her safely out of Irontown with a gaping bullet wound). And throughout the movie, his motive is the same; to make everyone stop causing suffering.

But the most important part, and the one that is most relevant right now, is that even when it becomes evident that there is no negotiating and Ashitaka must choose a side, the side he chooses is always the side of the oppressed. San, the Wolves, the citizens of Irontown, the peasants being massacred by Asano's men. When Ashitaka must choose to help one side over the other, he always chooses the side that is disadvantaged in some way.

Where we are as a country right now? We need that. We need more Ashitakas. People who would rather see peace, but when forced to choose a side, will help those who need the extra hand most.

Because what we are fighting is not a war of land or resources. We're fighting a purely ideological war, but with the potential to kill just as many as all the other physical conflicts we've seen combined. Because like forest gods, like Jigo's men, like Irontown, like Asano's men, the soldiers in this war are motivated by hatred. And as Ashitaka demonstrated in the film and as millions before us have demonstrated throughout history, you can't fight hatred with more hatred. The only thing that will accomplish is to perpetuate the cycle of violence, suffering and pain. If you fight hatred with hatred, it will eventually eat you alive.

You conquer hatred with empathy, love, compassion and healing.

That's really what the whole movie is about. In order to break the cycle of war, you must have empathy and compassion for others. Even for others who are not like you. Even for others who are trying to destroy you. No, this doesn't mean roll over and take their abuse, but nor does it mean to strip them of their humanity the way they've done to you. Because if you become what you hate in order to win, then you don't actually care about the cause; you only care about winning.

At the end of the day, equality is not about revenge. Equality is not about making other people suffer as you have. Equality is about making sure nobody else suffers as you've done, that nobody else need go through the same pain and horror and hardship that you've endured. Equality is about leaving this world a better place than you found it.

We must see the world with eyes unclouded by hate. It's the only way we're going to lift this curse.

An Open Letter to the "Incel" Male, From a Woman Who Used to Think She Was Straight

Dear Whinging Little Snot,

First, I refuse to acknowledge or normalize your rhetoric by calling you that ridiculous word you've cooked up. You are not "involuntarily celibate"; let's get that shit out of the way right now. You are not willingly abstaining from sex for religious or moral reasons. "Involuntary" denotes that your lack of a sex life is as beyond your control as your heart muscle, and that's demonstrably, patently bullshit. What you are is insecure, immature, lazy, and selfish.

Second, no, this is not going to be a "take a shower/work out/quit playing video games all day" post, either. Although in many of your cases, taking a shower would certainly be an improvement (yes, I realize the shower is on the first floor of your mother's house and your basement has no elevator, but hey, you gotta put in a little effort, here). This is going to be the raw truth of why you are in your current situation, and how to get out.

Let's start with the "celibate" part. You are not celibate, so much as completely unfuckable (we'll get to the reasons for that in a minute). If a reasonable facsimilie of Jessica Alba walked up to you naked and asked you to fuck her, you would not be able to get your pants down fast enough. That isn't "celibacy" in any sense of the term. You want to have sex, and you are fully willing to have sex if the opportunity presents itself. There just isn't one.

Why? Simple. It's the same reason you're not a star athlete, famous musician, actor, or even a politician. And no, it isn't lack of looks, talent or a good resumé. Plenty of actors, athletes and musicians are famous, ugly and fucking terrible at what they do. And Donald Trump just proved you can be literally the stupidest, most unqualified person in the room and still get the job.

But even the dumbest, most untalented piece of garbage on your TV or radio gets more tail than you because unlike you, they don't expect said tail to fall into their lap purely because they happen to have a dick (even Trump goes out and grabs pussy). They take the risk of going out there and pursuing what they want rather than setting a trap for it and hoping it's just as stupid as they are.

You want tail? Then you have to get out of your mother's basement now and then and actually go out and look for it. Put in some goddamned effort. And no, I don't mean effort into your looks. Again, Donald Trump has proven you can look like something left in a dumpster outside a taxidermist's office and still marry three gorgeous women. The kind of effort you have to put in is all in your attitude. Because that is your problem. Your entire mindset is completely unfuckable.

When I used to think I was straight -- before I realized that while some men were okay in the brain and maybe the face, everything from the neck down was like throwing a bucket of icewater on a cozy campfire -- the boys I found pretty or even intellectually attractive all had one thing in common: positive attitudes. They were funny, upbeat, genuinely good-hearted people. They didn't have to disparage anybody else, either. They didn't have to talk shit about "normies" or "chads." Nor were they "pick-up artists." They were regular goddamn people.

Guess what? Many of them that I knew in high school are happily married now.

What's their secret? It's twofold. Fold the First is they aren't obsessed with sticking their dick in a warm hole. Fold the Second is they have the basic human decency to see women as more than life support systems for the aforementioned warm holes. The reason you guys get no action is because women can tell you're interested in exactly one thing no matter how much you think you hide it. We know because you all give us the same look my cat does when I have a plate of sushi in my hand. My cat is far more mature about it, though.

Having a romantic partner is all a matter of leaving your comfort zone and not being a predatory douchenozzle. And every minute you call yourselves "incels" you're doing both. You are refusing to face the possibility of rejection because your ego has all the integrity of a used dryer sheet, and you are quite literally being a douchenozzle. And a defective one at that. An object whose sole purpose is to be shoved into a vagina, and you can't even get that part right.

You want a girlfriend? You want women to think you're worthy of a chance? Then you need to grow the fuck up and have an attitude deserving of us.

Stop blaming everyone else for why you feel like shit. It's not society's fault. It's not women's fault. It's not "chad's" fault. It's your own goddamn fault because you have a defeatist outlook on your life, thus your entire situation is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Stop thinking of yourself as a "king" who has "had your kingdom stolen from you" by feminism/The Enlightement/whatever. You were never a king. And if you had lived before The Enlightenment, you would have likely been a serf anyway.

Stop thinking of sex as a) something you must have and b) something you're entitled to. Women don't owe you shit, kiddo. You won't die without it, and sex toys have been a thing since ancient Greece, so if you really need to relieve your "urges" there are ways to get around the whole not-having-a-willing-partner thing.

Stop thinking of women as your combination sex doll and babysitter. You're a grown-ass adult, so act like it. You are responsible for your mood and your outlook on life. Nobody else is. Women exist for reasons other than your petty, selfish amusement.

Stop thinking of women as all whores/sluts/evil bitches/etc. who are not deserving of your dick even though you want to stick it in us so bad it's torn a hole in your pants. In fact? If you hate women as much as your Reddit posts indicate, you'd be better off finding something that isn't a fellow human to bust your nuts in. You don't have to risk breeding, and nobody else need put up with your loser ass. Everyone wins.

The reason "normies" get laid and you don't is because "normies" actually put in the effort both at meeting other people and at being enjoyable to hang around. You lazy skid marks in the underwear of humanity do the dating equivalent of whipping out your dick and telling us "it ain't gonna suck itself."

No shit, kiddo. Of course it won't suck itself. We invented the penis pump for a reason.