Classi copy/paste issue, the NYT meant to put that 6th option in an article headlined "If you are bothered by Bud Light doing a post with a trans lady, here is an option you should consider"
How in the fuck did an editor let that fly on the NYT??? If I turned in copy like that admittedly I’d get praised but I’m a fucking satire writer not writing for the paper of record.
As a trans man (who transitioned almost 50 years ago), the hatred I see on her posts (and reposts of her posts) is so disheartening and distressing. The furor the right (esp Fred Deutsch and his cabal) started in 2019 is an attempt to rile up the base b/c they can no longer target the gay community.
It's become the most recent 'tempest in a teapot' to inflame the passions of the ill-informed, bigoted people who think they are 'saving the children' or promoting 'family values'. They don't put any energy towards those (many of whom are faith leaders) who ARE actually harming children. They deny the science and the advocacy of almost every major medical association. More succinctly, they refuse to let us live our lives or even show us any decency or respect as human beings.
Thanks, this really clarified things for me. Any "reasonable" person who "just has concerns" needs to be confronted with this question: Trans people, should they be allowed to exist? Because that's what the right wing religious extremists are aiming at, everything else is a distraction.
In point of fact, on another comment thread, some commenter tried to deflect with "trans in sport" and I refused to argue with him, citing eliminationist rhetoric. I said the number of people who might be affected by the "trans people in sports" issue is tiny, and meanwhile the very existence and ability to get treatment of trans people is being threatened. I didn't say, "Of course you want to change the subject", but yeah.
Yeah, I had an online back-and-forth with a guy upset that "this is hurting the Democrats." Says they shouldn't pick this one issue as a "hill to die on" (as if...). Also his wife is weirded out by having to share a bathroom with a trans woman at work. No, these are the kind of people who'd support interment camps, they just be really happy if all those trans people would just somehow go away and stop being an inconvenience (But NOT by violence, no, not at all! But maybe they could just be gently persuaded to not be so assertive and visible? I mean, I have concerns, respect my concerns!)
Parker, when you communicate the need for journalists to start pushing back more forcefully against this very bald transphobia, do you have specific journalists in mind? I ask because I'm going through my mental roster of all the journalists in corporate media, and I'm drawing a blank on who might have the courage and decency to do this.
Regarding the student loan forgiveness, all SCOTUS did was say the way Biden went about doing it was’t lawful. Even Nancy Pelosi says so: “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”
Congress has the power of the purse and can forgive the debt if they so choose.
That's not correct. "A 2003 federal law known as the Heroes Act gives the secretary of the Department of Education sweeping authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs ... as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
Roberts just made up a reason to say the law didn't actually mean what it explicitly says.
He didn't rewrite it, regardless of what Roberts said. And there's a reason that Biden took his time before announcing the program. He wasn't sure if he had the legal authority, so he looked for statutory authority to do it, found it and did it. The only lawlessness here is in the Supreme Court ignoring the clear meaning of the law.
Yes, when Nancy Pelosi tells me sorry, we can't do something that progressives want to do, I always take that at face value as unchallengeable legal advice.
Classi copy/paste issue, the NYT meant to put that 6th option in an article headlined "If you are bothered by Bud Light doing a post with a trans lady, here is an option you should consider"
How in the fuck did an editor let that fly on the NYT??? If I turned in copy like that admittedly I’d get praised but I’m a fucking satire writer not writing for the paper of record.
I'll cut right through it all. Dylan Mulvaney and women like her get these biggest complaining right wingers h--d. And they are panicked.
Wow, the NYT is working on reaching new lows in journalism.
"Ask your banker if death is right for you."
As a trans man (who transitioned almost 50 years ago), the hatred I see on her posts (and reposts of her posts) is so disheartening and distressing. The furor the right (esp Fred Deutsch and his cabal) started in 2019 is an attempt to rile up the base b/c they can no longer target the gay community.
It's become the most recent 'tempest in a teapot' to inflame the passions of the ill-informed, bigoted people who think they are 'saving the children' or promoting 'family values'. They don't put any energy towards those (many of whom are faith leaders) who ARE actually harming children. They deny the science and the advocacy of almost every major medical association. More succinctly, they refuse to let us live our lives or even show us any decency or respect as human beings.
Thanks, this really clarified things for me. Any "reasonable" person who "just has concerns" needs to be confronted with this question: Trans people, should they be allowed to exist? Because that's what the right wing religious extremists are aiming at, everything else is a distraction.
In point of fact, on another comment thread, some commenter tried to deflect with "trans in sport" and I refused to argue with him, citing eliminationist rhetoric. I said the number of people who might be affected by the "trans people in sports" issue is tiny, and meanwhile the very existence and ability to get treatment of trans people is being threatened. I didn't say, "Of course you want to change the subject", but yeah.
Yeah, I had an online back-and-forth with a guy upset that "this is hurting the Democrats." Says they shouldn't pick this one issue as a "hill to die on" (as if...). Also his wife is weirded out by having to share a bathroom with a trans woman at work. No, these are the kind of people who'd support interment camps, they just be really happy if all those trans people would just somehow go away and stop being an inconvenience (But NOT by violence, no, not at all! But maybe they could just be gently persuaded to not be so assertive and visible? I mean, I have concerns, respect my concerns!)
Parker, when you communicate the need for journalists to start pushing back more forcefully against this very bald transphobia, do you have specific journalists in mind? I ask because I'm going through my mental roster of all the journalists in corporate media, and I'm drawing a blank on who might have the courage and decency to do this.
Regarding the student loan forgiveness, all SCOTUS did was say the way Biden went about doing it was’t lawful. Even Nancy Pelosi says so: “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”
Congress has the power of the purse and can forgive the debt if they so choose.
That's not correct. "A 2003 federal law known as the Heroes Act gives the secretary of the Department of Education sweeping authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs ... as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
Roberts just made up a reason to say the law didn't actually mean what it explicitly says.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts
Roberts: “[Biden doesn’t have authority] to rewrite that statute from the ground up.”
The Pelosi quote is from 2021.
Even Biden said in 2021: “I don’t think I have the authority to do it by signing with a pen.”
He didn't rewrite it, regardless of what Roberts said. And there's a reason that Biden took his time before announcing the program. He wasn't sure if he had the legal authority, so he looked for statutory authority to do it, found it and did it. The only lawlessness here is in the Supreme Court ignoring the clear meaning of the law.
You should have been a lawyer. No doubt the justices would have been convinced of your arguments! Very well said.
Yes, when Nancy Pelosi tells me sorry, we can't do something that progressives want to do, I always take that at face value as unchallengeable legal advice.
Biden said the same thing in 2021. *shrug*
Thanks! Fixed.