336 Comments

The stuff McCarthy has allowed to date while deplorable has caused no real damage. Kicking Swalwell and Schiff off the intelligence committee, booting Omar from the foreign relations committee, elevating Republican goons to the oversight committee and giving Tucker J6 tapes that he can cherry pick poses no existential risk to the nation. But he surely realizes he has a tiger by the tail. What's his plan when that tiger insists on taking the country over the cliff on the debt ceiling. Does he think that at that point he will be able to reason with the tiger? No chance. He's given these people a taste of blood. They're going to want more. Kissing MTG"s ass didn't stop her from making a fool out of herself and his conference at the State of the Union. We haven't seen anything yet.

Expand full comment

Re: An Amanda Carpenter line in her piece titled, "How Kevin McCarthy and Tucker Carlson Surrendered to MAGA":

Author: "...Apparently, like his friends at Fox, McCarthy thinks he can play his audience for fools..."

'Nuff said!

Expand full comment

Who aren’t I helping, Charlie? Mona?

Expand full comment
founding

Am curious as to why Amanda Carpenter refers to Carlson's latest J6 programming products as "specials*. What, exactly, is *special* about them? Just more of the same ordinary, everyday product from Carlson & Fox Fertilizer, Inc. Nothing new, innovative or special here.

Expand full comment

Regarding the love fest between Kevin and MTG, we shall see. I remember Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman.

Expand full comment

"He adds that the goal is not to “convince the other side” but to “defeat, humiliate, and demoralize” his opponents."

When Adam Serwer says, "the cruelty is the point", you don't expect someone to flat out cop to it.

I respect Buttons for her principled stand here (admittedly I'd never heard of her before now). In fact, I encourage everyone to read her resignation letter as it gives a fairly accurate summation of where people like me stand on this issue.

I don't know everything about where she is on other issues; she claims to be a pro-choice atheist who has always voted Democrat. I am all of that plus someone who still feels comfortable calling themselves a "progressive" (albeit these days not without some disclaimers). She also claims to have transsexuals as friends (which I entirely believe), which appears to have been the breaking point for her with regard to Walsh's statements.

Regardless, her article nicely illustrates how someone of a liberal disposition, who not only tolerates but cares about people with gender dysphoria and their well-being, can espouse what are often lazily portrayed as "anti-trans" views. She is correct to note how a cultural studies ideology is currently masquerading as actual medical science, typically given cover by intransigent and often unhinged outrage on the left. And she is spot on in calling out Walsh for for fueling this outrage and providing it legitimacy.

I am gratified to see that she has now experienced the difference between compassionate and sensible scrutiny of an important issue, and the right-wing bigotry with which it sometimes finds itself in functional alignment.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Yes, I am well aware of them. I have been aware of them for over a decade. And I originally found them quite encouraging.

However, they don't say what you and many others seem to think they say. Here's a meta-study from 2016:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/#!po=13.0872

This looks at MRI and similar studies of early-onset transsexuals, both pre and post transition. The upshot for pre-transition transsexuals is nicely summarized here:

"Untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs show a complex picture for the expression of sex differences in their brains (Tables 5, ​,6).6). Contrary to some popular ideas, the MtF brain is not completely feminized but presents a mixture of masculine, feminine, and demasculinized traits. ... Moreover, the brain of homosexual FtMs is not uniformly masculinized but presents a mixture of feminine, defeminized, and masculinized morphological traits (Table 9)."

So while there are definitely pre-existing differences in the brains of early onset gender dysphoria patients relative to same-natal-sex controls, and you're not incorrect to say that they "more closely resemble" the opposite gender, those similarities are limited. They do not come close to fully presenting as the opposite sex phenotype – they are their own unique phenotype. The most significant differences occur post-transition.

Which isn't to say that this has no implications for understanding gender dysphoria – quite to the contrary. But unfortunately it's not a validation of the standard conceptualization of "woman born in a man's body". Believe me, I was very hopeful at one time that this would turn out to be the case, because then we'd have a solid footing on which to approach this issue. But it hasn't – although this still suggests what might be a valuable tool for diagnosing gender dysphoria. If only we actually used it for such.

But unfortunately, this plays no part in the modern "science" of gender-affirming care. Instead, what a "diagnosis" mostly consists of is asking a couple perfunctory questions before prescribing hormones, under the presumption that to do anything else is the equivalent of sending gay kids to conversion camps.

And it should also be noted that this is in *no way* the basis for "gender queer theory", which generally (not that it's entirely consistent) posits that gender is a purely social construct with no relation to underlying biology. And at the moment, this cultural theory – or more accurately, the fear of running afoul of it – seems to be driving the treatment of transgendered teens far more than any actual scientific studies of gender dysphoria, which people are often reluctant to even mention for fear of "pathologizing" transgendered people.

So now, ONCE AGAIN, if you want to discuss this further, KINDLY stop telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I have CLEARLY established that I know WAY more than you think I do, and have paid attention to this for FAR longer than it has been a salient political issue. And unless you can demonstrate that YOUR familiarity with this issue predates Caitlyn Jenner and "I Am Jazz", I'd recommend you stop being so rude and presumptuous.

Expand full comment
RemovedMar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Mar 10, 2023·edited Mar 10, 2023

Oh, you promise? I will be happy to take you up on that! Because frankly I'm tired of your nonsensical sophistry.

I didn't move any goalposts. I not only acknowledged the MRI studies, but I explained what they established and what they didn't establish (no, I didn't address the thyroid studies, because I only have so much time for someone who is likely just going to call me a transphobe anyway).

And in particular, I discussed how these studies play NO PART in modern gender affirming care. They are merely thrown out by people like you as an after-the-fact justification for the pillorying of people concerned about an increasingly reckless standard of care in response to a POORLY UNDERSTOOD uptick in transgender identification in teens, which THREATENS THE WELL-BEING of people BOTH CORRECTLY AND INCORRECTLY diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But I suspect you didn't actually read that part, as you often pose questions which indicate that you skim rather than read what I say.

And what you call "gibberish" is the very BASIS for at least the classic interpretation of gender identity and transsexuality (despite the fact that it contradicts other fashionable ideological notions) – that being transgender is something that someone IS rather than something they choose to be. That they are born this way (or effectively set this way in early life development), just like gay people. I would like to establish if this is true, and if so, restrict care to those for whom it IS true. This is something that ANYONE with ANY real familiarity with this issue besides name-dropping Renee Richards and collecting little factoids from advocacy sites would be able to tell you, and I'm frankly stunned that you don't recognize this. Most importantly, this is a CENTRAL QUESTION involved in determining how to treat gender dysphoria in young people, and I shouldn't have to explain to a grown adult why.

So thank you for promising not to subject me to your bull-headed ignorance any longer. I'm sick of wasting my time discussing relevant medical studies and going into detail regarding the worldwide state of scientific consensus on this matter, only for you to tell me that I reject medical science. I'm tired of explaining, repeatedly, why this matters to the well-being of the transgendered community, and making it absolutely clear that I reject right wing bigotry on this matter, only to have you CONSISTENTLY CALL ME TRANSPHOBIC. In your conversations with me you have demonstrated everything that is wrong with modern progressivism, and I am more than happy to never hear from you again.

But just remember: YOU ARE THE ONE who always runs away from the discussion. That should tell you something.

So go ahead and mute the thread now.

Expand full comment

"The elderly President" has done a great job. I think the media (all stripes) need to quit ragging on him and support what he has done to bring order into the chaos that king Trump left. Save your speculation about when he's going to die.

Expand full comment

Imagine if the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes were to occur today. When the brave little truth teller blurts out the emperor is in fact naked, instead of freeing the crowd to acknowledge that truth, he'd be berated as "fake news" and he and his entire family would be hunted to the ends of the earth by the crowd as evil "woke" traitors.

Expand full comment

Yah...it doesn't seem like any of the GOP "kings" could ever experience shame no matter how naked they are proven to be...

Expand full comment

There's a tanning your nether regions joke in here somewhere, but it's a family program.

Expand full comment

I'm finishing up a unit on the Civil Rights movement and I always show the video "A Class Divided". The Daily Wire story reminded me of how easily people will abuse their power and punch down when given a license to do so. Why is tolerance so hard for some people?

Expand full comment

I didn’t. Only read the part Charlie put in his Morning Shots. And that was more than I could stand.

Expand full comment

Yes I saw all of that. I don’t need more evidence of an insurrection—most reasonable people realize that’s what it was. But there is this seemingly bizarre behavior by Capitol Police which should be addressed. The others responding here to my post are speculating about why the police acted the way they did. But we still don’t know why police would casually escort insurrectionists around. That can’t possibly be SOP. Were these sympathizers? I don’t know. But it looks bizarre and deserves a serious review.

Expand full comment

Most of the law enforcement experts I've heard interviewed about it say that they were completely outnumbered and they're doing their darn level best to try and not escalate the situation.

I imagine if they started trying to zip tie him...would have been a potential spark igniting a flame that would have led to a much darker place.

Finally...I would add the fact that this was a completely unprecedented situation and given the circumstances....I think they did their jobs bravely and capably....preventing a far worse situation than it ended up being.

Expand full comment

It all feels a bit too much like MSNBC. We have happy talk about how profoundly stupid these people are- total buffoons but I'm paying attention to a new tact taken by Michael Steele.

It seems to me that he is saying that there was an opportunity to blow the platform these guys are building all to Hell BUT even though we comfort ourselves in seeing the red wave fail to materialize, they still won the midterm election in the house and that's very bad news. These people want the insurrection and are coming for you.

Something right along those lines and the question really is "when are the never Trumpers and the democrats going to actually wade into a fight? MAGA world likely never have watched the Jan 6th committee, and they likely believe Dark Carlson. If all they watch is FOX and FOX doesn't report on any of this crap, they really will destroy the republic and that's what they actually want.

The opposition needs to buy advertising on FOX and pound the video of Jan 6th. If FOX won't sell the time, sue the MF's for large sums of money. Start now. Pound them.

Expand full comment

I really don't understand why no one seems to be held to account for an illegal scheme that tried to keep tfg in office after he had lost. It's just the low level minions who attacked the Capitol (and even then, I think their sentences have mostly been too lenient). Why are the people who signed fake elector certificates not in jail? Why are the lawyers who plotted this undemocratic thing not disbarred and in jail? Why are the congresspeople who helped, or gave tours on J5, now empowered in the House and not in jail?Why has Mike Flynn, for instance, not been recalled to active duty so he can be court martialed for his sedition? Why the hell is Bannon out and about, still able to flap his gums and spew poison? Just so disheartening...

Expand full comment

MAGAs claim they're being victimized by a two-tiered system of justice that protects liberals and persecutes conservatives -- even while powerful MAGAs are being shielded from the consequences of their actions.

The rich and powerful have always gotten more protection than the little people, regardless of politics. What's happening now is something different.

A big portion of the public chose to believe that an amoral sociopath is a great crusader against corruption, and therefore whatever gets in his way is itself corrupt. Some acknowledged that Trump is no angel and then asserted that someone with his scorn for rules and norms was exactly what was needed to battle a corrupt "deep state" -- including institutions of law enforcement.

Naturally, Trump attracted people who liked his transgressiveness, while others probably revised their own moral code to accommodate his amorality, or simply took the view that the people they see as fighting in their cause should be granted moral indulgence.

Ordinary Trumpites aren't offended that J6 foot soldiers are being prosecuted while the instigators (so far) walk free. They're outraged that anyone in their camp is being held accountable by what they regard as a corrupt justice system -- because if it touches the Great Patriotic Swamp-Draiiner or his allies, then by definition it's corrupt.

Expand full comment

The contrast between Senate and House Republicans is striking. The House R's are a boiling pot of excrement. When Senate Republicans push back on some of the insanity, it's an important inflection point. The ads for 2024 write themselves. And keep in mind there was no 2022 red wave. If Kevin McCarthy actually had character and intelligence, I would worry.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Totally agree. But it is better to have Senate Republicans pushing back on House Republicans than agreeing with them.

Expand full comment

To be fair to the non-MAGA GOP, it’s hard to get too worked up about a war in Europe, or attempted coups in DC, when there are immigrants and trans kids to demonize. The Paul Ryans are going to keep voting R, and the John Boltons will keep voting for any non-Trump R.

And they don’t need get their hands dirty by physically eradicating trans folks. Given the suicide statistics, if they can make things as miserable as possible for faceless trans people and their families, the problem might take care of itself. On this front, there’s certainly room to improve at The Bulwark, which seems too often to throw trans folks under the bus in burnishing its anti-Woke bona fides. (It was refreshing to hear it acknowledged in one of the podcasts yesterday that there are, in fact, kids who know they’re trans and families and health professionals who want to support them; and that the GOP’s anti-trans agenda causes damage beyond merely infringing on the 1st Amendment.)

The good news is that in 20 years, the GOPs trans bashing will be as toxic as gay bashing is today. The bad news is that it will take 20 years, that they will try to preserve as much as possible by putting a religious wrapper around it, and that immigrant bashing will stay evergreen.

Expand full comment

This is so depressing and scary which the new Republican party is so extremely gone to support kooks, freaks and insurrectionist and downright liars. What happened to sanity, honesty and love of of truth and the Constitution and American values that many former Republican used to preach these values. What a shame.

Expand full comment