Sunday Funnies

Mansplaining

"The fact is, who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can't grow to live successful lives?" Rick Perry asked Thursday in a speech before the 43rd annual National Right to Life Convention in Dallas. "In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances."

"She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas senate," Perry continued. "It's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters." 

There's no better summary of the Texas Taliban's War on Women than this, from the head mullah himself. Except for this one.

It was classic mansplaining -- as Elyse Fradkin pithily summarized it on Twitter, "when a man explains to a woman how she should view the meaning of her own life experience."

The term derives from Rebecca Solnit's article, "Men Explain Things to Me," which opens with a wealthy older man hosting an event in Aspen at which he lectures her on "a very important Muybridge book that came out this year" after she brings up the photographer in casual conversation. He goes on and on at great length until she finally realizes he is playing the expert and seeking to educate her about the book she herself wrote.

The idea of mansplaining has grown to be applied to any situation in which men believe they are the experts and drone on and on about something on which the women being lectured are the actual experts. It also refers to the social syndrome in which women cast themselves as listeners who doubt their own expertise in the face of such masculine certainty.

Update: Or, as Jamison Foser Tweeted it...

Rick Perry thinks Rick Perry learned more from Wendy Davis being a single mother than Wendy Davis did. Seems unlikely.
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) June 27, 2013

That last sentence in the prior excerpt  helps us better understand this.

Those are the Republican women of the Texas House of Representatives standing behind Jodie "Cleaned Out" Laubenberg, from the debate this past week regarding the passage of the abortion restrictions legislation. (That's her in the middle at the mic, in the pink jacket. Try not to stare at the toad in the black dress and Cinderella slippers; the one with her toes at 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock. Try also not to notice that some of these professional women don't wear nylons to work -- and not just because they are wearing pants, leggings, or sandals borrowed from their teen-age daughters.)

Repeated for emphasis: "women who cast themselves as listeners, doubting their own expertise in the face of such masculine certainty". Then there are the women who truly don't have any expertise, like the ones in the photo.

Because so many Republican men think that all women are like Republican women, it does not occur to them that there can be women like Wendy Davis. Or Leticia Van de Putte, whose question set off the roaring in the Texas Senate gallery that ultimately killed the bill.

We all know (that would be Republicans and Democrats, as well as Greens and Libertarians and independents) that Republican women and men like those mentioned previously are actually the minority of Texans. Our problems in Texas, however, stem from the fact that they are the majority of those who vote. That's why people like Rick Perry and Greg Abbott and Sen. Bob Deuell -- and Ted Cruz and Steve Stockman and Louie Gohmert -- and women like those pictured above are our elected officials.

We also know that these same people are desperate to keep it that way. The Supreme Court cases, the gerrymandered districts, the voter ID legislation now back on ramming speed... all of it is designed to keep people like this right where they are. In charge.

And there's only one thing that will change it: the people who haven't been voting are going to have to start. And those of us who are interested in not having representation like this are going to have to help the non-voters get registered, get their IDs, and get to the polls during early voting periods and on election day. And, of course, help inform them and keep them up to date on things, including the issues.

Texas has nearly the very lowest percentage of its citizens participating in the electoral process in the entire nation. It may be that Texans are represented by morons because so many of them are in fact morons themselves, but at least for another couple of cycles I'm going to hope that this reality can be changed with more engagement with them by the thinking class.

If you can imagine, as agents of change in state government, the swearing-in of Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in January of 2015, hopefully that is motivation enough to get to work now to make sure that scenario doesn't come to pass. Here's this weekend's opportunity in the Houston area. There are many more across the state, and there will be many more opportunities in the future, but the time to take action is now.

Women and the men who respect them can't wait any longer, but that's also true of poor people and people of color. It's gone on for too long like this as it is.

We need to change it, and this is how that will happen.

Taiwanese animate Texas filibuster

Starring Wendy Davis as Supergirl, of course.



Featuring an appearance by the Ghost of Ann Richards. And a pretty good likeness of Donna "Get them OUT! I want them out of here!" Campbell (although her ass is about twice that big in real life).

A good week to be gay

What kind of week are YOU having?

Now, if you're a woman concerned about her reproductive freedom, this week has had its ups and downs, but on the whole? Meh, not so much. A person of color concerned about your right to vote? Pretty lousy. God forbid you're poor, because it's bad, been bad for awhile, and probably getting worse.

If you're an undocumented person, there's at least a little glimmer of optimism.

But if you're LGBTQ, it's safe to say you're having a good week. Hell, your civil rights are having a pretty good year. Maybe the best year ever, in fact.

Nobody's rights have moved in the right direction farther and faster than gay rights, in particular the right to get married to the person you love. In fact, let's just stop calling it gay marriage.

You should never forget -- and I'm certain you won't --  that you'll always have people like this to contend with. The best part about sharing a society with people filled with so much hatred is that they can coin a phrase like "sodomy-based marriage" and still make it sound like fun (while at the same time being completely oblivious to themselves).

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: if you're a white conservative bigot, things are bad for you and getting worse every time you open your mouth. But then again, nobody has earned a little payback any more than you.

The mills of the gods seemed to speed up a bit this week.

Watched it all, still couldn't believe it

A banana republic, run by the apes in the GOP.

Capping a chaotic end of the special legislative session, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said early Wednesday that proposed abortion restrictions didn’t pass after all.

The abortion requirements were in Senate Bill 5, which was called up for a vote that couldn’t be heard over shouting and screaming from opponents in the gallery. Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican pushing the legislation, had said the bill passed.

But Democrats disputed that, saying the action was taken after the required midnight end of the special session. Patrick had said the vote was started before midnight.

The vote was taken after a filibuster to try to kill it by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, was abruptly ended when Dewhurst upheld objections that she hadn’t strictly abided by filibuster rules, a disputed assessment.

Dewhurst’s announcement that the bill failed came after 3 a.m., following a Senate caucus meeting.

“Regrettably, the constitutional time for the first called session of the 83rd Legislature has expired. Senate Bill 5 cannot be signed in the presence of the Senate at this time. Therefore, it cannot be enrolled,” Dewhurst said.

He added, “It’s been fun, but see ya soon.”

I suppose if I had been in a couple of places in Florida, or DC, in December of 2000 I could say that I have seen worse displays of American democracy epically failing, but I wasn't. So I can't.

What I watched last night was, by every single account, a bad joke that just kept on going even after the deadline. If you want some sense of what it was like, here's 30 seconds of video that encapsulates the time from about 11:45 pm -- when a third and final point of order was sustained against Wendy the Filibusterer -- until about 12:15 am, when the DPS dragged the last of the gallery members out.

Scroll through the pictures at the top link as well. At 12:35 am I threw in the towel; nothing had yet been resolved. Look at my Twitter feed there to the right or the hashtag #SB5 to get a taste of the chaos.

It's a small and short-lived victory for the Dems, as the matter will likely produce another special session call today from Rick Perry to finish the business. It's not a Pyrrhic victory, though; a new army has been galvanized for the battle to take place this November.

With every Alamo, there is also a San Jacinto. Back to the future.

Off the Kuff and BOR have more and more links.

Update: I also like this little bit of exasperation from Dewhurst, who has -- among all of the award-winning demonstrations of asininity by the GOP -- singularly and repetitively disgraced himself throughout the special session...

But at 3 a.m., Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the presiding officer of the Senate and a Republican supporter of the bill, told lawmakers and reporters that although the bill passed on a 19 to 10 vote, the bill could not be signed in the presence of the Senate and was therefore dead, blaming “an unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics” as the primary cause. 

Texas Observer's liveblog also has the timestamp photographic evidence as shown by Sen. Chuy Hinojosa. That's when the Republicans were forced to concede.

You simply cannot elect people who run on a platform of "government doesn't work" and not expect that they will demonstrate it. Even if a person reading this was pro-life and did not object to such onerous restrictions on a constitutional right (imagine that if instead of ladyparts, the bill was about guns), they would be forced to admit that their elected officials are complete morons when it comes to doing their one job.

The Republicans in the Lege got bamboozled again on parliamentary procedure. For the millionth time.

Update: The best blow-by-blow comes from Christy Hoppe of the Dallas News, whose Tweets last night were also invaluable in describing the proceedings.

John Roberts: "Our country has changed"

There are plenty of interpretations still getting written and posted and published, but this is the most succinct one so far...

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a formula established by Congress to determine which states and localities, mostly in the South, must "pre-clear" changes in their election procedures with the Jstice Department or a federal court in the District of Columbia.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. essentially told Congress: “We warned you.” Roberts noted that in a 2009 opinion signed by eight justices the court said: “Things have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

But Congress didn’t take the hint and revise the coverage formula, which is rooted in voting practices dating back to the 1960s and ‘70s. The court’s conservatives made good on the implied threat from 2009 and struck down the coverage formula, meaning that the Justice Department may no longer enforce it.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is the formula referenced.

The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.

Here's the chart Roberts provided in his majority opinion that supports his premise (that the formula in Sec. 4 is essentially archaic). It's compelling ... at least from a "liars can figure" standpoint.

Roberts uses these numbers to reach a conclusion in a similar way that Paula Deen justifies her use of the N-word. The world has changed, Roberts says, whereas Deen says the same thing ... and then demonstrates that it actually hasn't; it's just gotten a little more subtle.

But that isn't even the biggest problem with this ruling: Congress is entirely incapable of coming up with legislation that can fix the formula outlined in the now-deceased Sec. 4. Three sources for that: Chuck Todd (and a few others interviewed by MSNBC), and then Egberto Willies, and lastly, Socratic Gadfly.

Todd said on MSNBC that Congress is not “mature enough” to reach a speedy political solution.

“This is not a welcome decision, by any means,” a senior White House official said in reaction to the decision. “But there is a theoretical path for Congress to update the statute in ways that would make it constitutional.”

“As a practical matter, that may be difficult to do given political dynamics,” the official told NBC News.

Removing the map determining which jurisdictions need pre-clearance of new voting laws rendered the Voting Rights Act effectively toothless, law professor Kenji Yoshino said on MSNBC. While lawmakers could draw up a new map, “it’s not clear that this Congress is going to have the will to do that,” he said.

 ==========

What the majority does not understand is that the success of the formula is what makes that increased voter participation possible. Removal of the formula even if temporary will have disastrous effects in presenting representation that does not reflect the desires of the population.

Texas is a great example that illustrates why these laws are needed. Texas finds the most ingenious ways to get around the law to suppress its voters. A state that is majority minority that votes exclusively for Republicans in statewide races is probative. Texas makes it difficult for voter registrars to get qualified, it adjust voting hours based on empirical demographic considerations that affect minorities, and draws districts based on turnout models to get around many laws. Nullification of Section 4 simply adds another tool to that toolbox. The Texas scenario is likely be replicated throughout many states.

While the Supreme Court has pretty much left the ball in the hands of Congress, it is unlikely that Congress will act for two specific reasons. Firstly, a Republican House that is in existence not by popular vote but by gerrymandering (Democrats got over one million more votes than Republicans in Congress even as they have a large majority), is in no hurry to stop the status quo. Secondly, the current Republican Party is unable to win the presidency without voter suppression. Republicans likely see this ruling as a gift.

==========

While the Court did not specify how this would affect cases such as Texas' redistricting, I would think the takeaway is redistrict away until Congress follows SCOTUS' suggestion and does a better update than the latest renewal of the act in 2006, in line with more current demographics.

Likelihood of the current House doing this? Zero. 

So, do preclearance cases sit in limbo? Use older, pre-2006 guidelines for now, or what?

This is typical of the Roberts Court on cases like this, just like the ID provisions case in Arizona decided earlier this month. Once again, it's telling Congressinoal conservatives, "Write a bill like this!"

Likelihood of the House doing that, and gutting the VRA in the guise of updating it? High. 

The real solution, as I've blogged before, is to nationalize Section 5. That's what should have been done from the start, but northern "machine" Democrats of big cities, and northern suburban moderate Republicans alike didn't want to address racial issues in voting in their backyard at the time. Technically, SCOTUS struck down Section 4, as the New York Times story on the ruling notes, but, properly nationalizing Section 5 would include Section 4. That, in turn, gets at how this is, in essence, a legal memo from Roberts saying "Do this!"

One last bit of analysis from BBC Washington correspondent Jonny Dymond.

But the effect is pretty much the same because Congress now needs to find another way to choose states that require oversight -- and Congress is very unlikely to agree on any such thing. The court has, intentionally or not, torn the key enforcement mechanism out of the act.

So the practical effect of the Court's decision today is to kill the VRA's pre-clearance provision, and thus the entire VRA itself. And without it, state legislatures will, as SC notes above, do whatever they feel like doing with respect to redistricting, whenever they feel like doing it.

I STILL don't think that buys the GOP any more time on their highway to oblivion, mostly because I have more faith in the common man than they do. I think that people can perceive the Republican party's injustices much better than Republicans think. And the only real question that remains is whether enough of the good people take the action necessary to end those injustices.

Then again, maybe I'm just naive about that. Time, and subsequent elections, will certainly tell. 

Update: More from a couple of lawyers, Michael Li and Rachel Maddow.

Texas’ voter ID law now can be legally implemented.

To be sure, the Department of Public Safety and election officials will have to take steps to be implement the law, but it is very possible those steps can be completed in time for the law to be in place for municipal and constitutional amendment elections in November 2013. If not, the law will almost certainly be fully operative by the 2014 Texas primary in March.

Don’t count on the litigation to be over, however. It is possible that groups opposing the law could bring a suit to enjoin enforcement of the law on section 2 or constitutional grounds. To get an injunction, though, they would have to meet the high standard for injunctive relief (irreparable harm, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, etc.)

==========

Keep in mind, when the Senate last took up the VRA, it passed unanimously in 2006. As Ed Kilgore noted, "We're about to find out how much GOP has changed" since then.