#ban the republican party

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[charlesoberonn]

1984 by George Orwell

[fashionlandscapeblog]

Politics in the U.S. have shifted sooo much to the right that now there are only two competing political spectrums:

The far right drawing bills that would allow kids/ teenagers to work longer hours and perform some currently banned tasks, cutting taxes on the super rich (increasing them on the poor), criminalizing abortion (some states even want to implement the death sentence to women who have abortions), criminalizing trans people (by banning drag shows, or anything that 'sexualizes' children, without of course fobidding beauty competitions in little girls in bikinis), banning any books that talk about racism, trans people or homosexuality from schools, etc. There are people even talking about banning women's rights to vote.

Versus the center right, a.k.a. Democrats which are even more right than the CDU, which is Germany's center right party that widely endorses universal health care and many other social issues that the Democratic party rarely even talks about or would even dream in supporting ("Like why should I pay for other's peoples' wellbeing").

The center left, i.e. Bernie Sanders, is out of the panorama, since it is considered far left even by the Democrats in the U.S. of A. Bernie Sanders is by no means, a socialist. He'd be an average SPD member, which is Germany's current ruling center left party.

While the Evangelical right of the U.S. does not represent the majority, they have so much power, that they managed to succeed in drawing all these antisocial legislations. It's not only a democracy question, but the truly worrying thing is that they can be considered the Western Hemisphere's equivalent of the Taliban.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

An Arkansas lawmaker shocked onlookers this week when he asked a transgender health care professional about her genitals at a hearing on a bill that would prohibit gender-affirming care for minors.

Gwendolyn Herzig, a pharmacist who is a trans woman, was testifying Monday in support of the treatment for minors during a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“You said that you’re a trans woman?” Republican state Sen. Matt McKee asked Herzig. “Do you have a penis?”

The audience erupted, with some audibly gasping and at least one person shouting, "Disgraceful."

"That's horrible," Herzig said, after taking a few moments to gather herself. "I don't know what my rights are, but that question was horribly inappropriate."

Herzig, who holds a doctorate of pharmacy, then added: "I'm a health care professional, a doctor. Please treat me as such. Next question, please."

Herzig said she went into Monday's hearing hoping that Republican lawmakers would be receptive to hearing her perspective as a trans woman and a health professional.

"Any other question I was expecting other than what I got," Herzig, 33, said in a phone interview with NBC News. "It was probably the most publicly humiliating thing I've ever gone through."

McKee did not immediately respond to NBC News' request for comment.

The exchange prompted outrage on social media from trans activists and the state's Democrats.

"Absolutely sickening," Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, wrote on Twitter. "Arkansas State senator Matt McKee asked a trans person at a legislative hearing 'do you have a penis?' Does this State Senator have any basic human decency?"

The Democratic Party of Arkansas tweeted, "Republicans are not hiding their transphobia."

The legislation, S.B. 199, introduced in the Arkansas Senate this month, would prohibit physicians in the state from providing most types of gender-affirming care to minors, including prescribing puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, or from performing transition-related surgeries.

It would also allow anyone in the state who has received gender-affirming care as a minor to file a malpractice lawsuit against physicians for up to 30 years after they turn 18.

More than a dozen major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, support the treatments that would be barred if the bill becomes law.

In 2021, Arkansas became the first state to ban gender-affirming care for minors, but a federal judge temporarily blocked the law. The 2021 legislation largely mirrors the bill introduced this year.

Five other states have enacted similar forms of the legislation, including South Dakota, whose Governor signed a measure into law on Monday.

Less than two months into 2023, lawmakers in at least 24 states, including Arkansas, have introduced legislation that would restrict transition-related care for minors, according to an NBC News analysis.

S.B. 199 advanced through Arkansas' Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, and it is expected to pass through the state Senate in upcoming weeks.

After testifying, Herzig said she defiantly sat through the rest of the hearing before heading back to work at the pharmacy she owns, Park West Pharmacy in Little Rock, the state capital.

As video of her exchange with McKee spreads on social media, Herzig said, "Going viral, I guess, is OK."

"I really just hope it just shows people that there's people like me who want to stand up and that there are people who want to make sure there are access to resources," she added.

[canadianabroadvery]

[lgbtally4ever]

Republicans are listening to a MINORITY of RW extremists on matters of education (because they’re trying to destroy public education in favor of their charter schools—TALK ABOUT “INDOCTRINATION)!

PS Republican politicians are following the minority opinion on matters of birth control, too—and every other policy Republicans feel like fiddling with!

Make SURE to vote, in each, and every, election, like YOUR life, your children’s lives, your friends’, neighbors’, and acquaintances’ lives, as well as strangers’ lives, ALL depend on it! Because they DO!

[intelligentchristianlady]

Not Just Controlling Women Anymore

[The GOP is using small, enraged groups] “to attack public institutions. It’s not about banning specific books, or limiting the content of certain classes. It’s about limiting the channels through which knowledge is transmitted to ones where Republicans can exert explicit, overt control.”

– Mark Sumner

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[fleepadeep]

Never in my life have I wanted to deface a sign so fucking much.

[accidentalharrie]

I know this is not new news to plenty here, but the Popular Information/Rolling Stone article on Anschutz’s corporate donations to anti-choice PACs is worth a read.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called Forward, in an attempt to appeal to what they call the "moderate, common-sense majority."

"Political extremism is ripping our nation apart, and the two major parties have failed to remedy the crisis," David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday. "Today's outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes. As a result, most Americans feel they aren't represented."

Jolly is a former Republican congressman from Florida, Whitman a former Republican Governor of New Jersey and Yang is a former Democratic presidential and New York mayoral candidate. The three will merge their political organizations into the new party, whose launch was first reported by Reuters.

The group cites issues including guns, climate change and abortion as those that could benefit from a moderate approach. The new party will also advocate ranked-choice voting and open primaries, the end of gerrymandering, and nationwide protection for voting rights.

"Sixty-two percent of Americans now want a third party, a record high, because they can see that our leaders aren't getting it done," Yang told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "New Day" on Thursday in a joint appearance with Whitman. "And when you ask about the policy goals, the fact is the majority of Americans actually agree on really even divisive issues. The most divisive issues of the day like abortion or firearms -- there's actually a commonsense coalition position on these issues and just about every other issue under the sun."

Forward is planning a national convention next summer and will soon seek ballot access to run candidates in 2024, according to the Post op-ed.

The party said in a news release that it would launch "a national building tour this fall to hear from voters and begin laying the groundwork for expanded state-by-state party registration and ballot access, relying on the combined nationwide network of the three organizations." It plans to gain legal recognition "in 15 states by the end of 2022, twice that number in 2023, and in almost all U.S. states by the end of 2024."

While Forward won't be running its own candidates in this year's midterm elections, it will "support select candidates in November who stand up for our democracy, even if they come from outside the new party," according to the news release.

Jolly, Whitman and Yang acknowledged the clear lack of success third parties have had in the United States previously, writing in their op-ed, "Most third parties in U.S. history failed to take off, either because they were ideologically too narrow or the population was uninterested." But they said that "voters are calling for a new party now more than ever," citing a Gallup poll from last year.

"Americans of all stripes -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- are invited to be a part of the process, without abandoning their existing political affiliations, by joining us to discuss building an optimistic and inclusive home for the politically homeless majority," Jolly, Whitman and Yang wrote.

Asked by Keilar on Thursday why they believe their effort to create a third party would work, Whitman said, "We're in a different time."

"When you have 50% of the American people saying that they are registered independent ... people are sick and tired of what they're seeing in Washington and the fact that nothing major is getting done is frustrating them. We have big problems and we want to see them resolved," she said.

A few independent candidates have earned national attention in their races this cycle. In Utah, Evan McMullin, who ran for president in 2016 as an anti-Trump conservative, is challenging GOP Sen. Mike Lee and has the backing of the state Democratic Party. In Missouri, John Wood, a former senior investigator for the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, is running as a "commonsense alternative" to the field of Republican and Democratic candidates for the state's open US Senate seat. And in Oregon, former state Sen. Betsy Johnson, who left the Democratic Party last year, is a top contender in the open governor's race.

[taviokapudding]

Blue alerts {cops getting shot} are a thing but mass shooting alerts {the idea I pitched to congress which the whole republican party voted no and one of the many reasons why Musk banned me from twitter} isn't is why I don't fucks with the US government as a whole tbh

I got a lot of reasons with the recent Lahaina fire being the most recent but y e a h

[tomorrowusa]

Perhaps this rightwing organization should change its name to "Moms for Hitler".

Moms for Liberty chapter apologizes for quoting Hitler in newsletter The Hamilton County chapter of Moms for Liberty in Indiana placed the quote on the front page of its new newsletter.

A local Indiana chapter of Moms for Liberty, a national conservative parents organization, apologized on Thursday for quoting Adolf Hitler in a newsletter. The Hamilton County chapter of Moms for Liberty quoted Hitler's remarks at a 1935 rally on the front page of its new newsletter on Wednesday. The quote, placed directly below the masthead, read: "He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future.” After the Indianapolis Star first reported this story on Wednesday, the local chapter of Moms for Liberty added additional "context" to the original newsletter, saying the quote from this "horrific leader should put parents on alert." "If the government has control over our children today, they control our country’s future," the note read. [ ... ] The four administrators of the chapter's Facebook group did not immediately respond to NBC News' requests for comment.

When it comes to controlling, rightwingers apparently have no problem with red state governments regulating the reproductive systems of women or dictating which books patrons can view at libraries.

Republicans have become the Anti-Freedom Party.

[thebreakfastgenie]

It is extremely disturbing how many posts I see claiming that Roe v. Wade was overturned on Biden's watch and blaming him and the Democratic Party for it. It's disturbing on a number of levels.

First, it was Trump and Bush-appointed justices who handed down the Dobbs decision. This is a flagrant example of blaming Democrats for things Republicans did, and not coincidentally is one of the the most widely felt differences between the two parties. As a result, it's usually the first example Democrats and their allies point to; this misappropriation suggests a deliberate attempt to undercut that fact.

Secondly, and related to the first point, it obfuscates who the real enemy is, and I am comfortable using word "enemy" to describe the Republican Party because of the policies they advocate and enact. The truth is that states controlled by the Republican Party were where the effects of Dobbs are most severely felt, while states controlled by the Democratic Party are passing laws to protect abortion. It is important to know which party opposes abortion and which party supports it. If the Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, and White House, they will pass a national abortion ban, as they have done at the state level in several places.

Thirdly, blaming Biden for Dobbs demonstrates a very concerning lack of understanding of how the government functions. The judiciary is its own branch of government; judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It doesn't matter who is president when a decision is handed down, it matters who was president when the justices were appointed. People sometimes react to this by moving the goalposts and claiming the real issue was a failure by Democrats to "codify" Roe v. Wade. I am not sure what "codify" means in this context, and I'm not sure they are either. One thing it does not mean is that congress can pass a law saying "abortion is legal forever." Republicans could easily repeal such a law and it the federal government cannot necessarily prevent states from restricting abortion at the state level. Roe v. Wade was a ruling stating that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, which included the right to have an abortion. This prevented abortion restrictions in a way federal law cannot. That doesn't mean passing federal law protecting abortion is a bad idea, but it isn't a foolproof protection. It's fair to argue that the Democratic Party and the left of center generally were complacent about abortion. The form of this complacency was not taking the courts seriously, while the right spent fifty years openly filling the courts with anti-abortion judges.

The last thing that worries me is that this is popping up phrased almost the exact same way all over the place. I am afraid that it is not merely incompetence, but intentional misinformation, that is then repeated by the incompetent who believe it.

I know some will probably dismiss this post as being from a "vote harder" liberal Biden supporter, but whatever your feelings about Biden, the Democratic Party, or the democratic process in the U.S., you should care about the truth. The truth is that Roe v. Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed judges and abortion bans are being enacted by Republican elected officials, and Joe Biden opposes these things. You can do with that information whatever you wish, but you denying it is dishonest.

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/a-masculine-irony/

A Masculine Irony

The young woman seated opposite me at the restaurant was an orphan. A few months earlier, her mother had died of cancer. Her father had departed this earth years earlier after a fall from a ladder. Both parents I’d known since college, a bookish pair who remained in the same four-storied house they’d purchased after they married. Over the years, the couple had managed to fill the space with books, giving each room the appearance of a cozy library. Now the daughter was tasked with clearing away their history and she felt guilty. “I’m not much of a reader,” she admitted, her eyes meeting mine as if seeking absolution.   “Who reads these days?” I shrugged as a way of satisfying her.    Oddly enough, I’d read an article that morning that said I.Q scores in the U. S. were falling.  Could a general decline in reading be at fault? To my dismay, I’d learned earlier that among the younger generation Charles Dickens, Henry James, and Thomas Mann had fallen out of favor. The reason?  Their sentences were too long.  As a teacher and a writer, I felt my brain shudder when I read that.  No better way exists to reveal the connection between disparate ideas than with long sentences. Science agrees.  For example, the Nun Study which has been underway for many years revealed that participants who wrote long, convoluted sentences in their diaries lived dementia-free lives.  Could the data also suggest that a decline in the nation’s IQ stems from a decline in verbal reasoning–the capacity to understand complex ideas in written language? If so, then abandoning James’ literary flourish for Earnest Hemingway’s grunt-like sentences has done the human brain no favors. Dictators are aware of the strong connection between the mind and language. That’s why they burn books and suppress free speech.  Mussolini’s stench rose anew, recently, when Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni proposed banishing foreign words.     Not long after reading the I.Q story, my eyes fell upon an unrelated article reporting on a different decline. Young men are leaving the workforce in greater numbers than in the past.  One expert explained why.  Men are unhappy with their social status.  Another labeled the condition an aggrieved male psyche.  The root of the problem lies in a machismo nostalgia that is compatible with fascism. The hallmarks are homophobia, hostility to women’s rights, gun idolatry, and a wiliness to see violence as legitimate political action. Donald Trump, a candidate for President of the United States in 2018, tapped into this angst when he vowed to “Make America Great Again.” (MAGA)  The core of his platform was a promise to return manufacturing jobs to the United States, enabling men with little education to earn good wages. In response, these underclass males flipped their loyalty from the Labor movement with its Democratic leanings and voted Republican. Overnight, the party of large corporations and one-percenters became a party that feared foreigners and embraced a narrow set of religious values. Out of sync with the majority of Americans, the recruits had enough political clout to divide the country and create a cultural upheaval not seen since the 19th century.   In the 19th Century, as the economy began to transition from rural labor to urban labor, people began to worry that boys were becoming weak because women were playing a larger role in their upbringing. So they attempted to find ways to encourage young men and boys to engage in physical activity, creating things like body building and later the YMCA and Boy Scouts.   Today, a similar challenge confronts undereducated men who cling to outmoded “masculine” values. For example, they choose to drop out of the workforce rather than transition into healthcare where jobs are plentiful. Caring for others is women’s work they say and point to the poor pay as a disincentive. Sociologist Michael Kimmel admits that before these men can transition, they will need a new male role model. As a feminist, I will note that no similar generosity greeted women as they struggled to transition themselves.  But I get it. The Republican Party will be short-lived if it is dominated by men who look back in anger. In any case, a return to the past isn’t possible. Technology precludes it. What’s more, progress in that direction requires more light than falls from the discontent of disillusioned men.  But where do we look for masculine role models? Republicans like Trump and Josh Hawley may imagine they fit the bill, but as they were born to privilege and received expensive educations, can their claims be creditable?  Probably not.  Still, they will attempt to create that illusion. They have no choice. The men with whom they have little in common control the launching pad for their ambition. These politicians may mumble shibboleths to attract supporters but that doesn’t make them role models.  It makes them opportunists. For the moment, the Republican version of masculinity looks like a snake attempting to swallow its tail.  Who’s leading and whose following isn’t clear.  What’s obvious is that both ends are promoting a cultural stagnation that will imperil the future.