Category Archives: Ann Coulter

One of Trump’s biggest detractors is as conservative as they come – Public Opinion

Bill Gindlesperger, Columnist Published 7:00 a.m. ET Sept. 2, 2020

Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway leaves position to focus on family, and her husband will also be stepping away from the Lincoln Project. USA TODAY

So who is George Conway, and why should you care?

George Conway is a 57-year-old American attorney and ultra-conservative Republican. Not a RINO (Republican in name only). He is dyed in the wool.

Conway knows Donald Trump. He was on the shortlist for appointment to U.S. solicitor general. He was also recruited for assistant attorney general heading Civil Division in U.S. Department of Justice.

Trump wanted him, because Conway is a star. Conway argued Morrison v. National Australia Bank before the U.S. Supreme Court. He won unanimously with the opinion authored by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Twenty years ago Conway dated conservative Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham. Then he saw Kellyanne Fitzpatrick on the cover of a society magazine and was stunned. He called another friend, Ann Coulter, for an introduction.

Bill Gindlesperger(Photo: Bill Gindlesperger)

More: Social Security issue shows that Trump's words mean nothing

More: Political trial balloons are soaring all around, testing the atmosphere for Trump

George and Kellyanne were married in 2001, and Kellyanne Fitzgerald became Kellyanne Conway. Today they have four children and live in Washington, DC.

Kellyanne turned out to be no slouch. She is a pollster, political consultant and pundit. She worked as campaign manager and strategist in the Republican Party and was CEO of The Polling Company / Woman Trend. She became Trump's campaign manager when he ran for president.

Up until recently Kellyanne was Trumps counselor and spokesperson. She appeared regularly on Fox News. Thats why you may recognize the Conway name.

Meanwhile George Conway and Neal Katyal, another high-powered lawyer, wrote an op-ed in New York Times challenging the constitutionality of Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general after Trump fired conservative Jeff Sessions. Conway and Katyal argued Trump was overriding explicit wording in the Constitution.

George Conway sought support from members of the ultra-conservative and libertarian Federalist Society. Members were influential in selecting candidates for Trump to appoint to federal courts. They concluded Trump was betraying well-established legal norms and conservative values.

None of this went down well with Trump.

With Trump suffering from narcissism to the detriment of the country and its Constitution,George Conway founded the Lincoln Project.

This conservative Super PAC wants to Defeat President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box. In fact the Lincoln Project is dedicated to "persuading enough disaffected conservatives, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in swing states and districts to help ensure a victory in the Electoral College, and congressional majorities that dont enable or abet Mr. Trumps violations of the Constitution".

Contrary to what Trump has tweeted, the Lincoln Project is hard right, conservative, libertarian, rule-of-law, and Constitution-based.

Trump has called George Conway a "stone cold LOSER & husband from hell".

Trump has publicly called George Conway Moonface. This racial slur is based on George Conway being half Filipino. His mother was a well-respected organic chemist from the Philippines.

George Conway grew up near Boston, graduated from Harvard College magna cum laude, and obtained a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School. Thats where he was editor of Yale Law Journal and president of Yale Law Schools chapter of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.

More: Trump is pulling the ultimate con on the American people

More: Political posturing will not change the facts about COVID-19

Several weeks ago, conservative Republican George Conway made a statement regarding COVID-19 and Trumps responsibility to the American people. Here it is:

"For Trump supporters, let me make one thing VERY clear!

For the record NO ONE is blaming the President for the virus. Let me repeat. Coronavirus is not Trumps fault.

Heres a detailed list of what we are blaming him for:

* Trump declined to use the World Health Organizations test like other nations. Back in January, over a month before the first Covid-19 case, the Chinese posted a new mysterious virus and within a week, Berlin virologists had produced the first diagnostic test. By the end of February, the WHO had shipped out tests to 60 countries. Oh, but not our government. We declined the test even as a temporary bridge until the CDC could create its own test. The question is why? We dont know but what to look for is which pharmaceutical company eventually manufactures the test and who owns the stock. Keep tuned.

* In 2018 Trump fired Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossart, whose job was to coordinate a response to global pandemics. He was not replaced.

* In 2018 Dr. Luciana Borio, the NSC director for medical and bio-defense preparedness left the job. Trump did not replace Dr. Borio.

* In 2019 the NSCs Senior Director for Global Health Security and bio-defense, Tim Ziemer, left the position and Trump did not replace the Rear Admiral.

* Trump shut down the entire Global Health Security and Bio-defense agency. Yes, he did.

* Amid the explosive worldwide outbreak of the virus Trump proposed a 19% cut to the budget of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention plus a 10% cut to Public Health Services and a 7% cut to Global Health Services. Those happen to be the organizations that respond to public health threats.

* In 2018, at Trumps direction, the CDC stopped funding epidemic prevention activities in 39 out of 49 countries including China.

* Trump didnt appoint a doctor to oversee the US response to the pandemic. He appointed Mike Pence.

* Trump has on multiple occasions sowed doubt about the severity of the virus even using the word hoax at events and rallies. He even did it at an event where the virus was being spread. Trump has put out zero useful information concerning the health risks of the virus.

* Trump pretended the virus had been contained.

* Trump left a cruise ship at sea for days, denying them proper hospital care, rather than increase his numbers in America.

Repeat. We do not blame Trump for the virus. We blame him for gutting the nations preparations to deal with it. We blame him for bungling testing and allowing it to spread uninhibited. We blame him for wasting taxpayer money on applause lines at his rallies (like The Wall). We blame him for putting his own political life over American human life. I hope this clears things up."

This is not a liberal speaking. These are the words of George Conway and members of the ultra-conservative libertarian Federalist Society.

Bill Gindlesperger is a central Pennsylvanian, Shippensburg University trustee and founder of eLynxx Solutions that provides Print Buyers Software for procuring and managing direct mail, marketing, promo and print. He is a board member, campaign advisor, published author and commentator. He can be reached at

Read or Share this story:

Read the original post:
One of Trump's biggest detractors is as conservative as they come - Public Opinion

There are warning signs that America is in the early stages of insurgency. – Slate

Members of far-right militias and white pride organizations rally near Stone Mountain Park in Stone Mountain, Georgia, on Aug. 15.Logan Cyrus/Getty Images

David Kilcullen is one of the worlds leading authorities on insurgencies. For decades he has studied them. As an infantry soldier in the Australian army and an adviser to the U.S. Army, hes fought against them. His latest scholarly work has focused on their role in urban conflicts.

So when Kilcullen says that America is in a state of incipient insurgency, its worth sitting up, taking notice, and trembling just a little.

The official definition of an insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of an area. An incipient insurgency might be happening when inchoate actions by a range of groupsfollowed by organizing, training, acquisition of resources (including arms), and the buildup of public supportlead to increasingly frequent incidents of violence, reflecting improved organization and forethought.

Kilcullen argues that this is what weve been seeing the past few months in the waves of provocations and street violence that have blown through American cities since the May 25 police killing of George Floyd. By and large, the protesters havent been at fault. Its been the extremistsleft and rightwho have tagged alongside the protests and counterprotests, exploiting the disorder.

In some cases, the violence has been committed by individual idiotsas Kilcullen calls themsuch as, most notably, Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old self-appointed vigilante who, after reading radical right-wing ravings online, drove from his home in Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, and wound up shooting three people, killing two of them, in the wake of demonstrations over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

The incidence of violence is rising. According to a new report by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (which usually monitors violence in war-torn countries), 20 violent groupsleft and righthave taken part in more than 100 protests related to the George Floyd killing. In June, there were 17 counterdemonstrations led by right-wing militant groups in June, one of which sparked violence. In July, there were 160 counterdemonstrations, with violence in 18.

Armed militias are nothing new in the United States. A decade ago, Kilcullen counted about 380 right-wing groups and 50 left-wing ones, many of them armed. In the early 1990s, the faceoff between the FBI and the Branch Davidians, outside Waco, Texas, left 80 people deadand inspired Timothy McVeigh and his gang of extremists to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. In the late 1960s and early 70s, left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground set off bombs all over the country; police waged deadly shootouts with the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, and Chicago; and marchers for and against the Vietnam Warmainly students and hard-hat workersclashed in violent street battles.

But except for the last set of clashes (which didnt involve organized groups, much less insurgencies), those earlier incidents rarely corresponded with the divides between the nations political parties. This is one way in which the current conflicts are differentand, potentially, more dangerous.

Another difference and danger is the prevalence of cable TV networks and social media, which amplify and spread the shock waves. Incidents that in the past might have stayed local now quickly go viral, nationwide or worldwide, inspiring others to join in.

After Rittenhouse shot three people in Kenosha, right-wing militants touted him as a hero. FoxNews host Tucker Carlson hailed him for deciding that he had to maintain order when no one else would. Frequent Fox guest Ann Coulter said she wants Rittenhouse as my president.

Kilcullen also has observed, in the militias social media, a steady rise of dehumanizing rhetoricthe left calling the right parasites, the right calling the left (especially the left wing of Black Lives Matter) rats. The trend parallels, and intensifies, the mutual hostility between Democrats and Republicans in Congress and politics broadly.

Meanwhile, a powder keg is building. FBI background checks for gun sales hit 3.9 million in Junean all-time high. Many of them were for first-time gun buyersby definition untrained, possibly rash in their actions. An estimated 20 million Americans carry a gun when they leave their homes. It takes just a few trigger-pullers to set off a conflagration; even in intense insurrections, such as the postwar rebellion in Iraq, only 2 percent of insurgents actually fired their weapons.

Kilcullensees a pattern similar to the patterns that precipitated insurgencies in Colombia, Libya, and Iraq. The key factor is the rise of fear. He cites Stathis Kalyvas book The Logic of Violence in Civil War as observing that fear, not hate, drives the worst atrocities. Every civil war and insurgency of the last 50 years has been driven by fear, Kilcullen told me. Todays politics and social tensions are dominated by three fears: fear of other social groups, fear that those other groups are encroaching on ones territory, and fear that the state no longer has the ability to protect the people.

Things do not have to get worse. Incipient insurgency doesnt mean inevitable insurgency. We are still in the very early phase of this rampagea pre-McVeigh moment, as Kilcullen puts it. And the extent of disorder has been exaggerated, usually for political motives. When violence has occurred during protests, it has been confined to just a few blocks; it hasnt spread throughout a city. Contrary to Trump and other Republican politicians, New York is not a hellscape, Portland is not ablaze all the time, and Chicago is not more dangerous than Afghanistan.

In other words, there is still time for political leaderslocally and nationallyto calm the storm, douse the flames, and stifle the violent provocateurs across the spectrum, while also addressing the underlying social, political, and racial issues that sparked the (legitimate) protests.

Unfortunately, President Donald Trump has no interest in calm. Instead, he is deliberately fanning the flames as part of a cynical election strategy. He has declined to criticize Rittenhouse, viewing his actions as self-defense. In general, he rails only against left-wing militants such as antifa activistsnever against the right-wing ones, such as the Boogaloo Bois, Patriot Prayer, or Proud Boys. More than that, he has lumped antifa alongside the truly peaceful protesters of Black Lives Matterand alongside the Democratic Party. His words encourage some police, in some cities, to take the same view. (In Kenosha, police were caught on camera tossing water bottles to armed right-wing militants, thanking them for coming out to help.)

Trump is also threatening to cut off federal aid to cities with Democratic mayors and rising crime rates, calling them anarchist jurisdictions. He has painted his opponent, Joe Biden, as a weak politician in thrall to leftist radicalsignoring Bidens long record as a left-centrist and his repeated denunciations of violence and looting, regardless of the cause.

Trumps aim is to incite fearfear of violence, disorder, changeand to paint himself as the bastion of law and order. Its an odd tactic for an incumbent president, and its unclear whether the ploy is working. But, as Kilcullen and Kalyvas point out, hes right about the fears potency. And the first violent incidents can spark a self-reinforcing cycle of violence, retaliation, and retaliation for that. It doesnt matter what the original grievance is, Kilcullen says. It becomes self-sustaining.

The report by the Armed Conflict Location a& Event Data Project concludes:

In this hyper-polarized environment, state forces are taking a more heavy-handed approach to dissent, non-state actors are becoming more active and assertive, and counter-demonstrators are looking to resolve their political disputes in the street. Without significant mitigation efforts, these risks will continue to intensify in the lead-up to the vote, threatening to boil over in November if election results are delayed, inconclusive, or rejected as fraudulent.

In short, the authors write, The United States is in crisis. The upcoming electionhow it plays out, as well as how it ends upcould determine how deeply into crisis the country continues to plunge.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

More here:
There are warning signs that America is in the early stages of insurgency. - Slate

"A Movement of Women" takes a critical look at conservative women in the century since the 19th amendment was ratified – Art Critique

Next week, on the 100th anniversary of when the 19th amendment to the US constitution was certified, an exhibition of works by American artist Michelle Vaughan will open in New York. In the show, called A Movement of Women, Vaughan investigates the last century of feminist history in an unusual way. Instead of looking at the women who led the fight for the 19th amendment and those who carry on their legacy today, Vaughan reflects on the role prominent conservative women, many of whom have opposed progressive ideals, have played in womens rights.

The show is set to open at Theodore: Art in Brooklyn on August 26th, the centennial of the day when the 19th amendment was officially ratified giving women the right to vote, although it would be decades, still, before all women, particularly women of colour, were able to vote. A Movement of Women will showcase a series of portraits by Vaughan depicting 40 major conservative women. Some, like anti-feminist and anti-gay activist singer Anita Bryant and anti-Equal Rights Amendment champion Phyllis Schlafly, are from bygone decades but others, like Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Palin, and Betsy DeVos, are current conservative women weighing in on the state of womens rights today.

Vaughans portraits are purposefully created in pastel tones, evoking a stereotypical notion of femininity, set against pale pink paper. Accompanying the portraits are quotes, also set on pink paper, said by the women Vaughan painted. Some of the quotes are nothing short of shocking, like that of Ann Coulter, who stated: [i]t would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. Others cut against women who have fought and continue to fight for equality, like Nikki Haleys comment that [t]here is no war on women.

The purpose of the exhibition, though, isnt meant to be slanderous, but to ask viewers to do their part in critically evaluating the arguments and statements of some of the most notable women in the US. Vaughan wants guests to ponder the complexities of American political history. In addition to the portraits and quotes, A Movement of Women will offer a research library and archival materials for visitors to begin their research.

A Movement of Women was inspired by the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but still lost to now president Donald Trump. To Vaughan, it seemed like a giant paradox, which she then set out to unravel through an examination of prominent conservative women.

In a press release, Vaughan said of A Movement of Women:

Why solely conservative women? Because I wanted a clearer understanding of progress versus tradition when it comes to womens rights, health and equality. For instance, a womans right to choose has been under attack since the passing of Roe v. Wade, leaving progressive women in a constant state of defense for the last 46 years, instead of building a stronger coalition for womens health as a whole. Also fascinating are the recent sexual discrimination lawsuits which took place at companies like Fox News, the Department of Education rolling back sexual assault protection on college campuses and the unfair pay gap women still face in the workforce.

I wanted to unpack some of these issues and learn more about the stories and backgrounds of women who help enforce the status quo and traditional values. Much of my work investigates power and paradoxes, and this project is no different.

Now based in New York, Vaughan studied at UCLA. Her works have been included in a number of group exhibitions as well as the focus of solo shows. Hand-set, hand-pulled letterpress prints that are included in A Movement of Women are available through Theodore: Art.

A Movement of Women is on view between August 26th, 2020 and October 22nd, 2020 Theodore: Art in Brooklyn, New York City.


Continued here:
"A Movement of Women" takes a critical look at conservative women in the century since the 19th amendment was ratified - Art Critique

Why do Liberals Shut down Free Speech and Conservatives Don’t? – The Times of Israel

Advocates on both sides of the right-left divide defend their viewswith a zeal that is more religion than intellectual exercise.

Who threatens free speech?

That was the title of my last blog post. In it I argued that conservative speakers are routinely prevented from speaking on college campuses, but far left speakers are not.

The left uses an armamentarium of tactics to silence conservative speakers. These include: threats of violence that discourage schools from considering conservative speakers in the first place; demands that scheduled speakers be uninvited; outlandish claims that the conservative speaker is a racist, white nationalist or bigot; and shouting, screaming and being disruptive, or physically barring them from entering the lecture hall.

At Middlebury College, where researcher Charles Murray was prevented from speaking, audience members, in organized fashion, turned their backs to Murray and held up banners to prevent attendees from seeing him.

After human rights activist and scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited to speak at Brandeis University to accept an honorary degree in 2014, left wing students and faculty pressured the administration to cancel her talk (although to save face they vaguely promised to welcome her to campus in the future to engage in a dialog). That same year, former presidential advisor Condoleezza Rice decided to cancel her invited commencement speech at Rutgers University due to student protests. She was too controversial for the left-leaning students.

When the University of California, Berkeley invited conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos to speak in 2017, riots resulted in $100,000 in damage to the campus. Intimidated by the destruction, the university canceled the speech. Due to left-wing pressure, UC Berkeley also canceled a talk by conservative commentator Ann Coulter, although they restored Coulters invitation to a later date.

Historically, the term liberal was applied to people who held the liberal values of tolerance, support for free and open debate, and respect for individual points of view. Far-right conservatives, on the other hand, were associated with excessive nationalism, nativism, racism and intolerance for people unlike themselves.

But today the left has hijacked the liberal ethos and converted it into a belief system characterized by the worst elements of intolerance formerly associated with the right. When it comes to tolerance for free expression of opposing ideas the difference between right and left is clear.

But why the difference?

Defining Boundaries

Psychologist and social critic Jordan Peterson has offered an insight into the left-right divide on free speech. He believes that when the intellectuals and politicians who established the modern conservative movement defined themselves in the mid-twentieth century, they faced a critical choice. Were they going to include voices from the fringes of their movement? These included groups that were nativist, anti-Semitic, racist and overly nationalistic-for example, the John Birch Society, the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.

Peterson believes that the emerging conservative movement wisely decided to define its boundaries by excluding its far-right fringe. But the left has never defined its boundaries. It never answered the question, How far left is too far?

As a result, today we see the left include extreme groups like Antifa, the Earth Liberation Army, and an assortment of anti-capitalist parties like the Communist Party-USA and the Socialist Workers Party. Some of these groups are as intolerant and violent as anything ever seen on the right. Along with the extreme ideas of these groups come extreme tactics which sometimes are violent and often shut down free speech.

Social Institutions

What are other reasons for the conservative-liberal divide on free speech?

Many of todays social institutions are populated by people who lean left. This is true of the press, universities and many civil society groups. The very largest and most influential social media platforms are decidedly left-leaning. They often censor voices on the right while they restrict, de-monetize or ban voices on the left. The social media giants also tolerate openly anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic content.

Activists and others on the left are thus supported by a range of powerful social institutions-and they are aware of this. Perhaps this awareness emboldens them to disrupt and shut-down speakers. On the other hand conservatives cannot count on the sympathetic support of the most dominant social institutions. Could this restrict their willingness to engage in extreme tactics?

This phenomenon is perhaps more evident in Europe than the US. In 2014, a politician in England stood on a public street and read aloud from an essay written by Winston Churchill. The essay was critical of Islam. The local police promptly arrested the man for anti-Muslim incitement. But last year, during a flare-up of violence at the Israel-Gaza border, protesters in London screamed death threats to Jews. Their chants included You dog only death will come to you/You Zionist only death will come to you. Nevertheless the protestors proceeded uninterrupted.

Both those on the right and left are keenly aware of what sorts of speech will get one into trouble or not.

Recently, at San Francisco State University, anti-Israel students intimidated and physically stopped a group of Jewish students from distributing literature and speaking to passers-by on campus. And they did this while university administrators and campus police looked on. Had students presented an informational table critical of, say, the policies of Arab countries, they would have been denounced as racist and shut down by the very same administrators and campus police.

The threat to free speech comes not just from violence, but also from the threat of violence. Spineless college administrators and faculty will self-censor in favor of leftist speakers and against conservative speakers. They know that a conservative speaker may lead to an uproar and violence that will, at a minimum, be a headache and at maximum, a threat to their careers.

Far-right groups are sometimes violent. But there arent enough violent people on the right to constitute a major threat on most campuses.

A group of students at Portland State University met to air their experiences with political correctness in their classes. One student after another described their decisions to keep silent in the face of liberal professors who presented views they disagreed with. As one student explained, I paid $1,000 for this course and I was not going to risk my grade. So I stayed silent. The left-supporting atmosphere on campus had a chilling effect on these students free speech.


Religion may also play a role in all of this. Advocates on both sides of the right-left divide defend their views with a zeal that is more religion than intellectual exercise. Both sides may go off the rails. But those on the right-where religious belief is more common than on the left-have a built-in circuit breaker when it comes to zeal. That circuit breaker is a religiously-based ethical system that values the individual, sets standards for right and wrong, and promises rewards and punishments to keep ones behavior in line. The secular activist on the left is less likely to have these ethical restraints.

Defending Free Speech

Whether the threat comes from the left or the right, free speech must be defended. The free and open expression of views is the oxygen that keeps a free society alive.

Instead of teaching young people to advocate blindly for the racial, ethnic, gender or sexual identity groups popular today, why not teach them the genuinely liberal values that are the foundation of a free society? Foremost among those is free speech.

The author is a life-long Zionist and advocate for Israel. He believes that a strong Jewish state is invaluable, not only to Jews, but to the world-wide cause of democracy and human rights.Dr. Berger earned a PhD in Social Welfare from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has twenty-seven years of teaching experience. He has authored and co-authored three books as well as over 45 professional journal articles and book chapters. His parents were Holocaust survivors.

Read more here:
Why do Liberals Shut down Free Speech and Conservatives Don't? - The Times of Israel

Biden is like a house you buy ‘as is.’ I did, and it’s the best investment I ever made. – USA TODAY

Michael J. Stern, Opinion columnist Published 1:58 p.m. ET Aug. 19, 2020 | Updated 7:08 a.m. ET Aug. 20, 2020

Biden did not seize the Democratic nomination based on his mental dexterity. He is the nominee because voters trust him to be the opposite of Trump.

Lets be honest about Joe Biden.

Sometimes he exaggerates events, like when he said he was arrested in South Africa while trying to visit imprisoned anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela. Turns out he was onlybriefly "detained."

Sometimes he misspeaks, like when he said if elected president he would appoint the first Black woman senator.

And sometimes he says things that appear untethered to logic, proprietyand rational thought, like referencing his hairy legs during a campaign rally.

Knowing all of this, I look forward to casting my presidential ballot for Biden in 75 days. Because in addition to these less than ideal qualities, Biden has an inherent decency, was an effective co-pilot during Barack Obamas successful presidencyand is well-suited to heal the polarizing woundsgripping this country.

But some Democrats are withholding their enthusiastic support for Biden because he is a centristwho does notendorsedefunding the police,unlimited free college and eliminating private health insurance.And some onTeam Blueare judgingtheir candidates character through the same unforgiving lens.

In sharp contrast, Republicans have abandoned broad purity tests in exchange for a handful of must-haves.Never mind that the GOP is dumping clean water and air laws in favor of corporate pollution.What matters to them is Supreme Court justices, abortion, a walland the ability to refuse wedding cakes to gays.And theres no agonizing at the ticket counter over the moral character of their candidates. They gladly pay the overweight baggage fee to ensure their agenda reaches its destination.

This means that bragging about sexually assaulting women, botching the effort to protect Americans from a deadly virusand getting impeached havelittle effect on most Republicans voting calculations. They havecircled the wagons and are stronger for it.

Meanwhile, as the GOP ignoresitsown dirty laundry, its propaganda machine is masterful atlobbing scandal bombs into Democratic territory. Whether its Hillary Clintons emails or Sen. Elizabeth Warrens Native American heritage, they know how to make the dog chase its tail to the point of exhaustion.

Bidens you aint black gaffe earlier this year caused less offense to most African Americans than to white Republican pundits who feigned outrage on behalf of a community they are not interested in courtingbut are working hard to alienate from Democrats.

Jill and Joe Biden on Aug. 18, 2020.(Photo: Democratic National Convention via AP)

So far, congressional Republicans have worked hard to tar Biden with an unfounded allegation that he used his position as vice president to further his sons business interests as a board member of a Ukrainian gas company.And any minute now, Attorney General William Barrs inquiry into those who initiated the Russia investigationis likely to be deployed as a smear campaign against Obama, and Biden by proxy.

But the most insidious GOP attack on Biden alleges that his mental cognition is failing, making him unfit to hold the presidency. In an interview with Fox News last month, Donald Trump said Biden could not pass a senility test. Republican operative and author Ann Coulter said Biden has "senile dementia." And a pro-Trump super PAC has run a TV ad suggesting that Biden has lost his mind.

During my 25 years litigating for the Department of Justice, one of the most important lessons I learned is this:You will lose if you try to convince a jury that a weakness in your case does not exist.Voters are the jurors in the upcoming election, and Democrats need to stop trying to convince them that Bidens blunders, like saying hes running for the United States Senate, are due to his childhood stutter.

Biden has been a gaffe machine for decades.But yes, maybe his mental acuity is not what it once was. We must acknowledge this possibility and accept it, or every future slip will lead to endless hand-wringing.

The case for Joe Biden: Trump makes politics excitingbut terrifying. Democrats bore,but they govern.

Biden did not seize the Democratic nomination based on his mental dexterity.If Democrats wanted someone who could draft a 300-page Ph.D. dissertation over the course of a weekend, after a Friday night of binge drinking and with one arm tied behind his back, they would have selected former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

Biden is the Democratic nominee because voters know he willnot:solicit foreign assistance in American elections;exchange love letters with dictators;cripple the U.S. Postal Serviceto suppress votes;make hush money payoffs to porn stars.

And, Biden is the Democratic nominee because voters know hewill:appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect civil rights; work across the aisle to ensure all Americans have health care; cut tax breaks for billionaires; recognize that the First Amendment is as important as the Second; push for reasonable gun control; work to slow climate change; restaff the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention so itcan effectively respond to a viral pandemic; appoint competent Cabinet members; listen to them when they speak truth to power.

Former GOP state chair: I never expected the Democratic convention to inspire me

Biden will also bring back the human empathy that has been achingly missing from the White House since Jan. 20, 2017.Biden buried his first wife and young daughter, and then his grown son.Sorrows map is tattooed on Joe Bidens heart.And its scars are big enough to embrace the agony and anger in a time whennearly 173,000lives have been stolen by a malevolent twist of viral RNA.

The former vice president represents the worn tire groove that promises to pull us back on the road, after DJT seizure syndrome sent us careening into the trees. This must be the theme that drives the Democratic campaign.

No one candidate can be everything to everyone, and allowing Republicans to dictate the terms of Democratic debate will send us down a rabbit hole from which there is no escape.

We must learn to say no. Noto watching Republicans prop up the rot that is their chosen leader while egging on infightingabout Bidens verbal slips or his sons job.

And Democrats need to accept that they can no longer protect both American democracy and the moral high ground.When Republicans raise Hunter Biden, Democrats need to go all in on the nepotism and graft buoying the bank accounts of Trumps offspring and son-in-law.

When Republicans attack Bidens mental competence, Democrats need to deploy their own Trump blooper reel. From windmills causing cancer, to injecting disinfectants, to calling Apple CEO Tim Cook Tim Appleto nonsensical speech like a kidney has a very special place in the heart, the well of Trump blunders is deep.

And Republicans must pay a price every time they clutch their pearls over a minor Biden misstatement.Trump has filled a Pinocchio barrel with more than 20,000 false and misleading claims. Lets use them. Political tit for tat isnt pretty, but it is effective.

Authoritarian threat: Sanders is the MVP of the Democratic convention. We have to save our democracy from Trump.

Most important, the Democratic nominee is chosen and we need to accept that he is the only alternative to Trump. As Sen. Bernie Sanders told Democratson the first night of theirconvention, primary disappointment and ego need to be put aside. Every protest vote, or failure to vote, inches Trump closer to four more years.

When I bought my house, it needed a new roof, plumbingand foundation repair.The seller insisted I sign a contract taking it as is, meaning with its flaws.I love that house, and its the best investment I ever made.

If Republicans can respond to the abject corruption of their leader with thats Trump being Trump, we should be able to accept Bidens innocuous foibles with thats Joe being Joe.

Given the alternative, Ill take Joe Biden any day of the week. And Ill take Joe as is.

Michael J. Stern, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors,was a federal prosecutor for 25 years in Detroit and Los Angeles. Follow himonTwitter: @MichaelJStern1


Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story:

Read the rest here:
Biden is like a house you buy 'as is.' I did, and it's the best investment I ever made. - USA TODAY

A New Gallery Show Scrutinizes the Legacies of Anti-Feminist Women, From Ayn Rand to Kellyanne Conway – artnet News

On August 26, 2020 the United States celebrates the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which ended the decades-long fight by suffragists for women to be allowed to vote.In her latest exhibition, opening at Brooklyn-based Theodore: Art to coincide with the occasion, the artist Michelle Vaughan is looking at feminist history. But instead of celebrating those who led the fight for equality, shes taking a hard look at some of the women who have held it back.

A Movement of Women features pastel portraits of some 40 womenculled from the pantheon of conservative activism. Some areluminaries of a previous generation of anti-feminist women, like singer and anti-gay activist Anita Bryant, author and objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, and anti-Equal Rights Amendment campaigner Phyllis Schlafly (recently also examined in the Hulu series Mrs. America). Others, likeBetsey DeVos, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Kellyanne Conway, are familiar from recent headlines.

Why train the spotlight on such figures?Vaughn tells Artnet News that the project actually began back in 2016, when history-making candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election. When post-election analysis revealed that educated white women had voted for Trumpeven after the infamous Access Hollywood tapeshe decided to look into conservative women, to unravel what looked to me like a giant paradox.

A selection of portraits from Michelle Vaughans A Movement of Women (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore: Art.

The show is presented as a genuine investigation, amassing a huge reserve of information about conservative women including a research library and archival materials in addition to the 40 pastels.

Perhaps the most striking components of the show are the quotes Vaughan selected, presented as letterpress prints painstakingly hand-set on decidedly feminine-pink office paper, and juxtaposed with the beaming portraits. Each picks out one of the more despicable quips associated with the women in question.

The more outrageous might sound like raw material for SNL skits or Twitter memese.g. Ann Coulter declaring, [i]t would be a much better country if women did not vote. Vaughn wants viewers to really scrutinize the words and the faces behind them and ponder the complexities of American political history.

Michelle Vaughan: A Movement of Women is on view at Theodore:Art in Brooklyn from August 26October 22, 2020. Before the show opens, prints are available at a discounted price of $80 (originally $100).

Michelle Vaughan, Ann Coulter (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, It Would Be (quote by Ann Coulter) (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, Phyllis Schlafly (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, What I am defending (quote by Phyllis Schlafly) (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, Suzanne Silvercruys (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, There are Practically (quote by Suzanne Silvercruys) (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, Anita Bryant (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

Michelle Vaughan, If Gays are Granted (quote by Anita Bryant) (2020). Courtesy of the artist and Theodore Art.

See more here:
A New Gallery Show Scrutinizes the Legacies of Anti-Feminist Women, From Ayn Rand to Kellyanne Conway - artnet News

Kamala Harris is Asian and Black. That shouldn’t be confusing in 2020 but it is to some. – NBC News

During her 2020 presidential campaign, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., found herself at the center of a controversy about which Americans can claim to be Black, or Black enough because of both her biracial identity and her immigrant parents.

Born to a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, Harris was subject to a smear campaign insinuating that she was not Black at all which began anew immediately after presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced she was his pick for the vice presidential nomination. After a July 2019 debate, critics took issue with her for discussing a topic they viewed to be most relevant to American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) busing to racially integrate schools. Although Harris was bused to a majority white school in California as part of a desegregation campaign, her lineage didnt include enslaved African Americans, the group such efforts targeted, her detractors argued. (Harris' father, Donald, wrote in 2018 that his research suggests he and his daughters are descended from Black people enslaved in Jamaica.)

To have her Blackness questioned in this way mustve been jarring for a woman who graduated from the historically Black Howard University, was born in Oakland, California hometown of the Black Panther Party and has likely been viewed as Black by a majority white society.

But the questions about what constitutes Blackness arent new.

When he ran for president, Barack Obama also faced questions about his racial identity, having grown up outside the continental United States without his Kenyan father. And when he identified as solely Black on the 2010 census form, some mixed-race activists openly expressed their disappointment with his decision to exclude his white heritage even though he did not have the option to identify as biracial until a decade before, in the 2000 census, which took place well into his adulthood (and three years after he had begun serving in the Illinois state Senate).

Until 2000, the federal government hadnt allowed members of the public to identify as two or more races on the census. For most of the 20th century, Americans either had to pick one race or "other," a shift from even the late 1800s when the census included racial designations for people with fractions of African ancestry."

Get the think newsletter.

After the 2000 census gave mixed-race people more options, civil rights groups for African Americans and Asian Americans challenged the move, fearing the voting power of people of color would be diluted if the multiracial category reduced their counted populations during the congressional apportionment process. But it was already evident that multiracial people were increasingly choosing not to identify as any one race: Two million Americans selected the other category on the 1990 census.

It was for that reason that multiracial activists had spent the next decade campaigning for the government to allow for multiple racial identities on the census form and succeeded.

The multiracial option isnt the only way that the census, which also included the term African American for the first time in 2000, will have complicated Black identity. Black people from immigrant backgrounds may now specify their ethnic origins on the 2020 census, which owes a debt to the same campaign two decades ago to differentiate the types of Blackness in America.

The change coincides with the rise of the ADOS movement, which seeks to prioritize the socio-political goals of African Americans whose families have lived in the United States for generations, rather than their counterparts whose families arrived recently and voluntarily. Black immigrants to the United States enjoy higher household incomes and rates of educational attainment than U.S.-born African Americans, a trend that gets overlooked when the Black experience is universalized. (However, some Black immigrants, such as Afro-Latinos, are speaking up about the marginalization they face in society.)

The ADOS concept includes supporters as wide-ranging as Harvard philosophy professor Cornel West, who has said that it is giving working-class Black people a voice, and white conservative political commentator Ann Coulter. But the movement has many detractors, some of whom view it as divisive at best and xenophobic at worst. Others have argued that it ignores the long history of African Americans with immigrant roots, including black nationalist Marcus Garvey, who was Jamaican, and Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X, whose mother was Grenadian.

Similarly, the idea that multiracial people are distinct from other Black people overlooks the history of mixed-race civil rights activists such as Homer Plessy, Walter Francis White, Adam Clayton Powell and Diane Nash, all of whom couldve "passed" for white.

Still, 20 years into the movement to allow mixed-race Americans to acknowledge their differentiation from Black Americans, the multiracial demographic is one of the fastest-growing groups in this country. And it's fair to say that the oldest Gen Zers and the youngest millennials are unfamiliar with a society that deemed someone wholly Black and nothing else for having a trace of African ancestry.

Today, its not uncommon for young people with two Black parents to view themselves as completely distinct from those with just one hence, the outcry that the new show BlackAF didnt exclusively star actors with two Black parents, or the recent charges of anti-black racism leveled at the biracial rapper Doja Cat.

And Meghan Markle born to a black mother and a white father exactly 20 years after Obama has consistently identified as biracial, reinforcing the generational divide in perceptions of Black identity.

Or take singer-songwriter Kehlani, who has white, black and Native American ancestry: In May, she give fans permission on Twitter to call her mixed. For a multiracial woman, thats not exactly a groundbreaking announcement, but the reasons she gave for doing so reflect a shift in how black identity is viewed today. The 25-year-old R&B star explained the importance of recognizing that she does not face the same issues as black women w 2 black parents" and that to suggest otherwise perpetuates the erasure of these women.

Generations ago, when the archaic one-drop rule which declared that a drop of African blood made one Black still shaped African American identity, these discussions about authentic representations of Blackness werent as likely to occur. In 1982, Susie Guillory Phipps, who didnt realize until adulthood that she was 3/32nds Black under the law, fought the state of Louisiana to have the race listed on her birth certificate changed from colored to white. She lost, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

As recently as the 1990s, mixed-race people were typically encouraged to identify or simply identified in society as Black, even if they looked racially ambiguous (see: Mariah Carey). And it was considered laughable, if not unthinkable, that a darker-skinned multiracial person would reject the Black category in favor of identifying as multiracial. Golf star Tiger Woods is a case in point: In 1997, he was widely ridiculed for saying that he didnt consider himself as Black but cablinasian, a portmanteau of Caucasian, Black, Indian and Asian, representing the entirety of his racial background.

Just three years later, Woods and other mixed people who didnt want to be boxed into one racial category would be vindicated by the census. And today, Blasian is an acceptable way for people of mixed Asian and Black heritage to refer to themselves.

Unbound by the one-drop rule or even by the broad term African American, Black people in the United States have more freedom than ever to identify themselves as they choose. For some, that means not describing themselves as solely Black; for others, that means specifying their ethnic origins, embracing the ADOS label or taking none at all. Each choice is potentially controversial but more important than how any one person identifies is that Blackness in this country has long been nuanced, and always will be.


Nadra Nittle is a Los Angeles-based journalist. Her writing has been featured inVox, The Guardian, Business Insider, KCET and other publications.

See the original post:
Kamala Harris is Asian and Black. That shouldn't be confusing in 2020 but it is to some. - NBC News

Editorial: CMU should be able to handle a Richard Grenell – TribLIVE

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Politics is inherently a debate. Ideally, it is a tango of perspective and position, with one side advancing an idea and the other retreating until the music shifts and someone else takes the lead. And as everyone knows, it takes two to tango.

College should be similar.

You cannot go to college to learn what you already know. Well, you could, but that seems like a real waste of four years and a lot of student loans. The idea is to train your brain to expand its perimeters by hearing ideas you havent heard before and applying them to things you thought you knew, things you are learning and things you want to discover.

No one ever said you need to believe every idea that filters through a college lecturer. The idea of a diversity of opinion is not to follow what someone else believes but to discover what you do.

And thus it is unfortunate that politics and the American college campus two places where a diversity of opinion are part of the building blocks cannot seem to coexist.

For years, there have been attacks on each other. Conservatives knock campuses for liberal lockstep. Colleges return the favor by shouting down right-wing voices.

It has happened everywhere. UC Berkeley and protests against Ann Coulter. Charlie Kirks Turning Point USA and its Professor Watch List. Penn State was sued by a Georgia man for denying a request for a speech from white nationalist leader Richard Spencer. That suit was later dismissed by a judge.

The most recent example is the response to Carnegie Mellon University bringing in Richard Grenell as a senior fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy.

An openly gay conservative, Grenell is no stranger to the idea of controversy and polar dissent. Adept in social media and a voice in campaigns or administrations for multiple Republican presidents or nominees, there is no arguing the ambassadors bona fides. For the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, he served as U.S. spokesman at the United Nations.

His positions, however, are something else. Allegations of sexism, misogyny and xenophobia have been made. As ambassador to Berlin, he was notably undiplomatic; in his short term this year as acting director of national intelligence, he was seen as primarily doing Trumps political bidding.

The university has had opposition to the appointment from faculty, staff and students, including an open letter signed by 200 individuals and a letter to the school administration from the Undergraduate Student Senate. The critics on Twitter included Gen. Michael Hayden, the Pittsburgh native who served as both CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush.

IPS director Kiron Skinner who has also worked in the Trump administration defended her hiring, saying she brought him on in the spirit of academic freedom. Opponents say she distorts the meaning.

Whether anyone agrees with Grenell or not does not mean there is nothing to learn from him, especially in the field of politics where half of the country doesnt agree with the other half. The IPSs mission is not just handing out degrees but to also build upon the universitys rich heritage of applying basic science to issues of public policy.

Science doesnt care about party or ideology. Science, like that tango, is a give and take of ideas and observations, and refusing to participate in a conversation because of someones politics is especially confusing in the arena of political science.

Without listening to those we dont agree with or even vehemently oppose we have no debate and we learn nothing. CMUs tuition is too high to not teach people to think for themselves by challenging ideas. Grenell, based on his experience to date, will be happy to engage in vigorous debate.

Categories:Editorials | Oakland | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Editorial: CMU should be able to handle a Richard Grenell - TribLIVE

‘Mrs. America’ Showrunner Dahvi Waller On Viewing American History as a Canadian, Showing the Birth of Intersectional Feminism – Awards Daily

Mrs. America showrunner Dahvi Waller speaks with Awards Dailys Megan McLachlan about what Phyllis Schlafly represents about modern America, writing American history from a Canadian lens, and why shes interested in TV projects set in the past.

Ann Coulter. Tomi Lahren. Ivanka Trump. Modern-day conservative women have a particular look about themtheyre blonde, opinionated, and influence their base with manipulative rhetoric. Before these women, the mother of all conservative blondes was Phyllis Schlafly, who up until her death in 2016, was still throwing her support behind the GOP base, including publishing a book on Trump.

Mrs. America on FX on Hulu analyzes the rise of the conservative blonde by following Schlafly (Cate Blanchett) as she aims to dismantle the push for the Equal Rights Amendment. As showrunner Dahvi Waller points out in my interview with her below, on the conservative side of this debate, you have one woman who serves as the face of the movement, whereas on the other revolutionary side, you have many faces. However, today, there are many faces on both sides.

I loved getting the opportunity to chat with Waller about her captivating series, why she chose to center the action on Schlafly, the freedom of writing Sarah Paulsons composite character, and what Gloria Steinems (Rose Byrne) late-night fridge notes say about being a woman.

Awards Daily: The show spends a lot of time with Cate Blanchetts Phyllis Schlafly. How did you decide how much time should be spent with each character? And why the focus on her, whos essentially the antagonist of the story?

Dahvi Waller: I was excited about centering the series on Phyllis Schlafly for a couple of reasons. One, I was really interested in telling the story of how our country took a sharp turn to the right in the 70s, that really set the stage for understanding where we arrive at today. And thats really a story that can only be told through Phyllis Schlafly. I think one of her greatest achievements was ironically to build up a grassroots army of politically right-wing women who became the soldiers in the Reagan revolution. That was the larger story of the series beyond the Equal Rights Amendment battle. It felt that to tell that story, we really needed to spend quite a bit of time with Phyllis Schlafly. But also, I think you keyed in to an asymmetry about these two worlds. In one world, you have one woman who was the one singular leader of the counter revolution, and on the other side of the revolutionaries, you have so many leaders. So we had to figure out how to structure the series so that were not making it seem like it was a Phyllis Schlafly versus Gloria Steinem. It wasnt at all. The two never met. But really finding a way to structure the series so that we do give many of the women who are leaders in the womens movement in the 70s their due, while still contrasting these two worlds.

AD: Theres really so much care with that, too. While I was watching, I appreciated how you balanced all aspects of the movement. You include black rights, gay rights, and really run the spectrum. Was that something you gave extra attention to?

DW: Absolutely. In telling the stories about the Equal Rights Amendment battle, I was really, really interested in telling the story not only of the birth of intersectional feminism, which really began in the 1970s, but really the struggle for the leaders of the womens movement to understand how important it is to embrace gay rights and issues of racism within the Womens Rights Movement. (Laughs) I was really shocked to discover that the womens movement had not embraced intersectional feminism from the get-go from the late 60s, but still in the early 70s, they considered womens rights something different from gay rights, which was so shocking to me. I really wanted the series and all the writers on the staff to really focus on that struggle and not shy away from it.

AD: Sarah Paulsons character is one of the few thats not based on an actual person, and she gets her own episode in Houston. What was it like to write that character who wasnt restricted to a specific history?

DW: (Laughs) In many ways, it was so liberating! It didnt involve research, like 200 pages of research documents! We really wanted to represent the homemakers. Phyllis Schlafly was not a homemaker. She was a working woman who ran a massive organization, but there were homemakers who formed her grassroots group, and we really wanted them represented and dramatized, what it was like to be a homemaker at this time fighting against the Equal Rights Amendment with real characters. That was the genesis for Alice Macray and Pamela Whalen (Kayli Carter). But because there werent that many public figures who came out of Phyllis Schlaflys movement, we created composite characters based on real women who we either had spoken to, or read an oral history, or read a newspaper article. Alice Macray is a loose composition of some members I talked to as well as a neighbor of Phylliss I came across in a newspaper article from the 70s. But because she is a composite character, we had the luxury of having her change over the course of the series. With Alice, we were able to show a character move through this decade and have an actual change in her worldview and that was really exciting. I think she also represented the every woman. We had all of these larger-than-life historical figures who were so iconic, but we wanted an every woman whos very relatable, who could be the audiences way in to this historical time period.

AD: Youre Canadian, and while this story is a part of womens history, its also a part of American history. Did being Canadian allow you to see it from a different lens, and if so, where does that come through?

DW: That is such a great question. Most people are like, Who are you to write about American history? But you phrased it in a really interesting way. I do have some street cred. My parents are American expats who emigrated to Canada. Although I was born and raised in Canada, I do hold dual citizenship. But I really didnt learn any American history until I went away to college. Since my dad is a political scientist, who focuses on American government, I did grow up in a home watching political conventions on TV, and election nights were like the World Series in my house. I really did grow up learning about American political history from my father, thats probably a great influence. You can definitely see his influences in the show. And he was my unofficial political consultant who I would call whenever I needed, to find out information about the Democratic Convention in 72 and the 76 convention. He would give free consultation, which was very sweet of him.

But I do wonder if, because you asked this and no one has asked me before, I do wonder because I was born and raised in Canada, and in a way even though I have American citizenship, I always have felt like a bit of an outsider in this country, maybe it did allow me to see events that I didnt live through here in the states with a different lens, view Phyllis Schlafly without the same kind of loaded way because its not part of my own history. Growing up in Canada, we didnt have Phyllis Schlaflys! (Laughs) And Cate Blanchett is Australian, and I think she also has this outsider perspective. We can view things maybe in a different way than if we had grown up with these stories.

AD: How much research did you do about these real people? I love Gloria Steinems little dances she does. Was that something she actually does? How did you throw things like that in?

DW: We did a ton of research. I had a researcher working with me as far back as development. Once I got the writing staff, all of us were doing research. We must have read as a group between 25 to 30 books. I think I clipped a thousand articles in newspapers. Magazines. We read oral histories. We watched footage. We went pretty deep. And one of the reasons I wanted to go deep is to get at that specificity in character that you just alluded to. Gloria Steinem tap dancing is a great example. We were reading and watching a documentary about her on HBO that she took tap dancing lessons as a girl, and that she thought she would dance her way out of Toledo. Thats how she was going to make it out of her working-class background. And for a feminist icon to also be great at tap dancing and also that be a part of her childhood and be performative when she really didnt like the limelight and to get joy from dancing even as an adult, it was such a great character detail that I wanted to bring in to the Gloria episode.

Another small character detail which came out of the research, we read a lot about oral histories of Ms. Magazine and Glorias memoirs about running the magazine. In one of her biographies or articles about her mentioned that late at night when she was the only one at the office, she would sneak food from her co-workers. What really struck me that was so enchanting is that she would leave them little notes. I thought, one, thats so relatable. Two, theres something so enchanting about that. It made me love her, so I put it into the script. The specificity of that really says a lot about her, that she would leave a note behind.

AD: Yeah, a dude boss would just take food.

DW: Hes not gonna leave a note!

AD: Women would leave notes to each other.

DW: It really spoke to what a female-centric work environment it was. Same with the Tot Lot. When I learned that there was a Tot Lot in the corner of the office, where women would just leave their children there. We dont even have that today. We had an amazing art department that built the entire Tot Lot where Margaret Sloan brings her daughter Kathleen the first day. Another detail, one of my favorites, was that it was such a startup and everything was being thrown together so fast, that some of them were working on dishwashing machine boxes instead of desks. So we actually had that in Episode 2, and by Episode 4, they had desks. Those little details, the art department was as great at research as the writing staff was. They would bring those little details into production design.

AD: Phyllis Schlaflys daughter believes your characterization of her mother villainizes her. But I think Phyllis comes off pretty good. We all manage to care for Phyllis in some capacity. What were your thoughts on that?

DW: (Laughs) What I find most interesting about a show like this, especially when you have so many versions of women all across the spectrum, from saintly and angelic to villainness, all of those types of women are represented in the show. I think its an interesting Horshack test for our own beliefs about ourselves as women and about women in power and about our political history. Its natural to project your own belief systems onto whatever youre watching. You cared about her, [but] some women watching have seen the show and said, Shes the anti-Christ. I hate her. And then other women are like, You really villainize her! Weve heard the whole gamut. For me, its rewarding that a show can have such extreme emotional responses from viewers. To me as a writer, its quite rewarding. How you view her says as much about you as it does about how shes portrayed.

AD: Youve worked on a string of period shows, starting with Mad Men, then Halt and Catch Fire, and now Mrs. America. Is there something that intrigues you about shows set in the past?

DW: Another great question that no ones asked me. I think that sometimes its easier for us to understand or to reflect where we are today by looking at a period of time in history where we have a little bit of distance and were able to see things more clearly, than if we were to write about relevant issues in a contemporary way. In the same way that Mad Men shone a light on gender dynamics in the workplace, even today, even though it was set in the 60s. [With Mrs. America], I wanted to look at it from a post-2016 lens. I think thats one of the appeals, getting to explore this world that way. Thats fun for me as a writer.

Mrs. America is streaming on Hulu.

Excerpt from:
'Mrs. America' Showrunner Dahvi Waller On Viewing American History as a Canadian, Showing the Birth of Intersectional Feminism - Awards Daily

Ann Coulter: Yale University has to go! | Opinion | – Today’s News-Herald

The Democratic Party is being forced into taking ridiculous positions by its insane base. Defund the police! Dishonor the flag! Throw Christopher Columbus in a lake!

What a wonderful gift! All Republicans have to do is take the other side. Make themselves the alternative to madness.

Instead, Trump and the Republicans have decided theyre going to be Democrats Lite.

Ill let others berate Republicans for doing nothing about the rioting, the arsons, the beatings, the corporate and social media canceling. This column will address the GOPs moronitude in response to attacks on the destruction of Confederate monuments. Works of art are being destroyed by Maoist vandals who have no idea what theyre doing.

Literally no idea.

Quick! Who was Fort Bragg named after? What did he do? Do you even know his first name? When you have to Google the guy on a statue to figure out who he is, maybe its not really the daily humiliation you claim it is.

At this point, the military bases are famous in their own right. No one hears Fort Hood and thinks of Gen. John Bell Hood.

Fort Bragg, home of the 82nd Airborne, is many orders of magnitude more famous than Gen. Braxton Bragg. It would be like demanding President John F. Kennedy change his name because his namesake, John Fitzgerald, was a corrupt Boston mayor.

Most obviously, the Democratic Party is going to have to change its name. You want an institution that represents slavery? Confederate politicians were all Democrats, Democrats created Jim Crow, and the founder of the party was a slave holder. (The Republican Party was founded to end slavery.)

Speaking of repellant Democrats, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said on the Senate floor this week that the United States didnt inherit slavery from anybody. We created it.

This is the most ignorant statement ever made on the Senate floor. (And thats saying something!)

Every society has had slavery; it existed long before America did, including by American Indians (though they preferred torturing their captives to death, inasmuch as few of the natives farmed or built things).

From 1530 to 1780, at least a million Europeans were kidnapped by African Muslims and forced into slavery. The vast majority were starved or beaten to death.

In fact, unless were counting the Democrats wearing kente cloth last week, slavery is the only African institution ever adopted by this country. Portuguese not Americans brought the first slaves to Jamestown in 1619 (The New York Times favorite episode of American history!). We, are, however, the only country that fought a war to end slavery.

Isnt slavery bad enough? No, Kaine has to make it extra bad by calling slavery an American invention. A U.S. senator committed a blood libel against his own country.

Anything to say, Republicans? Even Obama would have corrected this boob.

The BLM fanboys complain that other countries dont honor the losing side in their civil wars. Yes, exactly thats why their wars never end. Myanmar has been in a civil war since 1948. Israels been fighting Palestinians since 1948. The Kurds and Turks have been fighting for half a century. At last count, there are two civil wars going on in the Philippines, and at least three in India.

America concluded its civil war by dominating and subjugating the losers, but also honoring their bravery.

Even before the war, the South was eons behind the North in industrial development. If the entire country had been the South, America never would have become the richest, most advanced nation on Earth. (And thats how slaves built America!) After the war, it was like a third world country.

On the other hand, Southerners could take justifiable pride in what everyone agrees was a better class of general and soldier.

At Appomattox, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant allowed Gen. Robert E. Lee to keep his sword. As Lee mounted his horse to leave, Grant saluted him. After announcing the Souths surrender at the White House, President Lincoln ordered the band to play Dixie.

It was an amazing way to end a civil war.

My ancestors were abolitionists who fought for the Union, but you dont have to be a Southerner to care about Confederate monuments. I cant help but notice that the people trying to obliterate our history are not part of that history.

Not that long ago, nearly all Americans had pre-Civil War ancestors. Not anymore! Recent immigrants, by which I mean people who arrived after 1865, think the country started with them. They find it hilarious to destroy anything that happened before they got here.

Talk about cultural imperialism!

What about the black Revolutionary heroes, like Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley? Nope, you can forget about foundational black Americans, too. The first two centuries of our nations history are canceled. Why would that interest someone from Pune, India, Mogadishu, Somalia, or Bangkok, Thailand? (That would be Kshama Sawant, socialist Seattle city council member, Democrat; Rep. Ilhan Omar, Democrat; U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat.)

Corporate plunderers, globalists, the wolf of Wall Street, 8 million diversity jobs (that go to Indians, not the descendants of American slaves, as intended) -- thats the America they revere.

The new arrivals are fine with Red Guards going into cemeteries, ripping up symbols of our heritage. Just dont dare lay a finger on their privately owned Rothkos!

What do the Republicans say? No problem! Senate Leader Mitch McConnell says hes OK with changing the names of military bases. Trump tweets narcissistic bluster.

How about a bill withholding all federal funds from Yale University until it changes its name? The schools namesake, Elihu Yale, was not only a slave owner, but a slave trader.

Quite a dilemma for the little snots who attend and teach there! It will be tremendously damaging to their brand.

After all, true sublimity for a Social Justice Warrior is virtue signaling and advertising their high SAT scores at the same time.

If you refuse to fight, Republicans, dont you at least want to have some fun?

Ann Coulter is a regular contributor to conservative news sites Human Events and Breitbart. She is a native of New Canaan, Conn.

Read the original post:
Ann Coulter: Yale University has to go! | Opinion | - Today's News-Herald