#drew sheneman

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Drew Sheneman

* * * *

Both-siderism reaches new heights at NYTimes

We stand at a stark divide in the fight to protect the reproductive liberty of women. One candidate, Joe Biden, promises to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade if he is given a majority in both chambers of Congress. The other, Donald Trump, is okay with a total ban on abortion and jailing doctors as long as gerrymandered state legislators pass a law banning abortion. The positions of the candidates could not be more different.

So, imagine the surprise of receiving a newsletter from the NYTimes by Jess Bidgood with the headline, “Two Imperfect Messengers Take On Abortion.” (This article is accessible to all.)

The headline—and the article—create a false equivalency between President Biden and Donald Trump that does not exist. It is true that Joe Biden—a devout Catholic—has struggled with abortion as a matter of personal conscience throughout his fifty-year political career.

Biden indeed struggles to use the term “abortion” in his speeches—a sign of his sincerely held religious beliefs, not a sign of hesitancy in supporting the constitutional rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. At every opportunity, Biden promises to reestablish Roe v. Wade.

Over the last 25 years, Biden has been a staunch and vocal supporter of reproductive liberty for women despite his genuinely held religious views. That, in Bidgood’s opinion, makes Joe Biden an “imperfect messenger” on equal footing with the candidate who brags about killing the constitutional right to right to reproductive liberty and openly supports total bans on abortion.

Bidgood’s article is irresponsible journalism because in striving for balance, she distorts reality and does violence to the facts. Donald Trump is a menace to women’s rights, while Joe Biden is a champion for women in all things—including their right to reproductive liberty. Bidgood’s article is misleading in suggesting otherwise.

Read Bidgood’s entire article (linked above). If (after doing so) you want to share your thoughts with her, you can reach her at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[tomorrowusa]

Sometimes you wonder which century Republicans are living in. They seem more comfortable in the 17th century than in the 21st.

[aunti-christ-ine]

[antidrumpfs]

Cartoon by Drew Sheneman

[azspot]

Drew Sheneman

[immigrationnewsdigest]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Drew Sheneman (@drewtoon)

cartoon by Drew Sheneman

[soundgrammar]

  From Drew Sheneman/Tribune Content Agency

[secotm]

A few days ago I got an email from Barnes and Noble touting the latest releases, and right at the top was a book by a guy I’ve never heard of: Howard Schultz. When I read the description I learned he was the former CEO of Starbucks and he was writing about... I forget what the book is supposed to be about, but from the description I got the impression of a politician releasing a ‘Here’s where the country is at and here’s what we need to do to make it better’ tome.

“Is this guy running for president?” I asked myself half-seriously.

The next day I learned that yes, he is running for president. In his own mind at least. Hence the book.

I’m old enough to remember Ross Perot being taken seriously as a presidential candidate in ‘92 and to a lesser extent in ‘96. I don’t remember anything about his platform, which perhaps doesn’t matter. American media and culture love to swoon over millionaires and billionaires as inherently more driven, more competent and just all-around better than regular people, so whenever one of them makes noise about running for high office (leapfrogging a years- or decades-long career in politics, establishing themselves as knowledgeable of and experienced in the realms of campaigning, legislation and all the other stuff politicians do and just shooting right for a Senate seat or the presidency itself) the media dutifully gives them mountains of free press and treats them as a viable candidate because they think oodles of money is a reasonable substitute for experience or a clear platform or, in the case of Schultz, basic name recognition.

Now, obviously Schultz can take care of that last problem with his money. He can buy so much ad space in every form of media that we’ll all be drowning in ‘Schultz’s name is even more omnipresent than Starbucks locations’ ‘jokes.’ And the media isn’t going to pretend that a coherent political philosophy is something a billionaire needs when running for office. That’s for the paupers, who have to do things like fundraising and phone banking to keep their campaign going. ‘Tut-tut,’ they’ll say, ‘He’s a billionaire. Clearly he must know what the country needs and how to achieve it politically. Just hand the reins of government over to him and trust him.'

(And even if Schultz reveals himself to a be a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic buffoon the media will still give him coverage under the logic that he’s so popular so we have to give him more attention than the other candidates, thereby ensuring his popularity and the further normalization of whatever shit he spews.)

So it is incredibly gratifying to see that in at least one realm of the media, editorial cartoons, there are a number of people who aren’t having this shit. Maybe Trump finally broke the mold of ‘Billionaires with no political experience should be treated as viable candidates on faith alone’ or maybe even the current climate is taking note of income inequality for realsies now and a wealthy white guy all but saying ‘I don’t want to pay higher taxes, and if no one else will run against Warren (and Sanders, should events unfold that way) then I will, because someone has to protect my billions’ is not treated as a reasonable or unexceptional thing.

Probably not that second point, but please just let me have my dream of a world where the masses are aware of and openly admit that you don’t become and stay rich by being honest or decent, and any billionaire trying to jump into public service is going to be looked at with suspicion.

It’s a nice dream...

Anyway, I’m gratified to see I’m not the only one pegging Schultz as a self-serving schmuck with no chance of winning the presidency. Maybe there’ve been other times in the past where a millionaire/billionaire played at running for president, got a splash of free press, and then fizzled out or just walked away because they weren’t serious in the first place, and nobody else took them seriously, maybe even some people made fun of them, and I’ve just forgotten about it. Maybe there’s a cycle to this that I’ve never noticed because guys like Schultz are always just a flash in the pan not worth remembering.

Not everyone gets it, though. But could somebody (assuming anyone read through this entire post, in which case thank you) explain to me what appeal Schultz is supposed to have for Democrats?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Drew Sheneman, Newark Star-Ledger

* * * *

“We speak often, and sentimentally, of being 'enchanted' by the natural world. But what if it's the other way around? What if we are enchanted, literally, by the human world we live in? That seems entirely more likely - that the consumer world amounts to a kind of lulling spell, chanted tunefully and eternally by the TV, the billboard, the suburb. A spell that convinces us that the things we want most from the world are comfort, convenience, security. A spell that by now we sing to each other. A spell that, should it start to weaken, we try to strengthen with medication, with consumption, with noise. A slight frantic enchantment, one that has to get louder all the time to block out the troubling question constantly forming in the back of our minds: 'Is this all there is?”

― Bill McKibben, When the Wild Comes Leaping Up: Personal Encounters with Nature

[tomorrowusa]

Let’s hope this administration doesn’t try to stop the spread of the Wuhan virus by using a Sharpie marker

[aunti-christ-ine]

[antidrumpfs]

Cartoon by Drew Sheneman

[azspot]

Drew Sheneman

[furryalligator]

Today’s best political cartoons via @theweek )