Distributed via OtherWords
Women who report assault deserve to hear that we believe them, and that we can back them up — because we’ve heard the other side.
The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation imbroglio shined a bright light on a terrible misconception: that the #MeToo movement is somehow about destroying the careers of powerful men.
Again and again, Kavanaugh and his defenders complained that the allegations were “ruining his life” or “his good name.” (Never mind whether he deserves it.)
This sort of entitlement completely erases survivors of assault. #MeToo is about those women, previously silent, speaking out so that America’s shameful tolerance of sexual assault ends.
Even worse, some Republicans appear willing to accept Kavanaugh even if the allegations brought by Christine Blasey Ford and others are true. To them, it’s unfair that something Kavanaugh did as a 17 year-old boy should impact his career 36 years later.
This is nothing less than open tolerance of sexual assault. To me, that’s unacceptable.
I suspect millions of men share my view. And we need to speak up — especially those of us who got a glimpse inside the world Brett Kavanaugh grew up in. Continue reading
I was hoping a miracle would save me from writing this post.
I so wanted Deedra Abboud to pull off a stunning upset, even though I knew it couldn’t happen.
But reality has arrived. Kyrsten Sinema is the nominee for U.S. Senate of the Democratic Party.
And as soon as I receive my ballot in the mail in October, I’ll be connecting that broken bar next to her name. It’ll be painful. I’ll undoubtedly throw up a little in the back of my mouth as I do it. But there will be no hesitation on my part. Sanity demands no less.
And if you want to maximize our chance of avoiding disaster, you’ll be joining me. Continue reading
[Cross-posted from Inequality.org]
Sometimes percentages alone don’t do justice to the injustice of corporate compensation.
The Economic Policy Institute reported earlier this month that the average CEO of the 350 largest firms in the U.S. pocketed $18.9 million in 2017, a 17.6 percent pay increase over 2016.
At the same time, typical worker compensation remained flat, rising merely 0.3 percent.
If you do some quick math, dividing 17.6 percent by 0.3 percent, you might conclude that CEO pay in 2017 increased about 60 times faster than worker pay.
But if you take a moment and do some more careful calculations, that CEO-worker pay gap will soar incredibly higher — to a CEO pay boost over 15,000 times the pay hike for workers.
To believe the Mueller investigation is a “witch hunt” is to believe that all the connections between Trump and those in his orbit are not inter-connected; that it’s all one huge coincidence. Here are the various dots (I may be missing a few):
- George Papadopoulos’ Russian contacts (through an intermediary) in early 2016.
- The June 2016 Trump tower meeting.
- Manafort’s many Russian connections and his willingness to manage Trump’s campaign at no charge, at a time he was deep underwater financially.
- Roger Stone and his connections to Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0.
- The mysterious softening of the Republican platform position on Russia.
- Trump’s public ask for help from Russia finding HRC’s emails within hours of when Russia launched its hacking operation.
- The efforts to create a back channel, by both Jared Kushner and Erik Prince (the Seychelles meeting).
- Michael Flynn’s Russia contacts regarding sanctions.
As I said, I’m sure I’m leaving out a few.
Recently, I’ve started following blogger Marcy Wheeler, of Emptywheel. Marcy’s analysis during the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby imbroglio was brilliant. On several occasions, she figured things out that the mainstream media had missed.
Her analysis of Mueller investigation related matters has been stellar as well. Continue reading
If there were a hall of fame for Blog for Arizona writers, David Safier certainly would occupy a premier space. David wrote over 3,000 posts here before moving on to his current gig at Tucson Weekly’s The Range. His posts here covered many topics, but mainly on his passion, education policy. His posts always were thoughtful.
After reading Larry Bodine’s hit piece on David Garcia’s book, “School Choice,” David reviewed the book himself and wrote his own piece at The Range, A Review of David Garcia’s Book, “School Choice”.
Here’s Safier’s take:
Bodine’s depiction of the book is, in a word, wrong.
In other words, David agreed with Brahm Resnik’s characterization of Bodine’s piece as a “gross distortion.”
Safier went a bit further than Resnik: Continue reading
Disclosure: I voted for David Garcia.
Further disclosure: I know Brahm Resnik better than I know my co-blogger, Larry Bodine. I put Brahm at the top of Arizona’s political media. When it was time to go public with the John Huppenthal’s racist comments on this site, it was a huge plus having him be the one to break the story.
Here’s what Brahm Resnik said when he learned of Bodine’s hit piece from Tim Steller on Twitter:
I read the book. The blogger and the professor grossly distort the content. It’s not even a close call.
So, one of the most respected reporters in Arizona just said this blog grossly distorted the facts. If Brahm Resnik’s tweet is correct, we committed a fraud on our readers. Ugh.
The Farley campaign reportedly is broadcasting the Bodine post, which Brahm characterized as a gross distortion, far and wide. That’s how politics works. It’s a dirty business.
David Garcia’s own statement regarding his book follows after the jump. If you think we owe David an apology, say so in the comment section. Continue reading