Let’s go Pens!
Yesterday the first lady of the United States, Michelle Obama spoke at a democratic party fundraiser in a private residence in Washington. During her speech about creating opportunities for our nation’s youth a woman began shouting from the audience.
Heckler, Ellen Sturtz was ejected from the fundraiser after Obama told her directly: “One of the things that I don’t do well is this,” according to attendees she continued “Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”
Curiously this event in many media spaces is being used to show evidence of Michelle Obama’s innate aggressive nature. Many articles quote Sturtz, part of the gay rights group GetEQUAL, saying “She came right down in my face, I was taken aback.”
I suspect Sturtz never thought that interrupting someone might result in that person responding to her. She’s dumbfounded. It’s not like this was an accomplished woman who was invited to speak at am event and was interrupted and demanding to be shown respect. No, this is Michelle Obama: angry irrational Black woman. This stance is blind to the long history of Black women having no choice but to project submission and subservience to any and all white people. But look! CodePink had some advice on how to handle things!
Mrs. Obama should have said to LGBT protester: I don’t make policy but I certainly understand your concerns. Thanks for sharing them w me.
— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 5, 2013
Oh that’s reasonable. Thanks CodePink for explaining how 49-year-old adult should respond to being disrespected. Could you give lessons to like all women? Especially women of color. Sometime’s there a bit feisty and don’t know how to settle down. **BLINK**
Today on #TWiBRadio, we discuss Michelle Obama and respect and did you know that Kevin Powell, yes the dude from the Real World, can speak for Black people? All of them.
And this morning on #amTWiB, #TheMorningCrew we cover the all male subcommittee voting to restrict abortions nationwide, Michelle Obama not taking your crap, and George Zimmerman applying to be a cop and naturally failing.
June, when the popcult romantics’ hearts turn to thoughts of weddings and legally cemented happy-ever-afters! I grew up in the Jansenist traditions of the Irish-American Catholic Church, where the main wedding planning advice I remember was “If you put on that much of a show, people will think you’ve never had a nice party before and never hope to again.” Our own wedding twenty years ago — requested, and paid for, by my father-in-law — has mostly served as a source of funny-after-the-fact stories. But now we all have an impeccable standard to share with all future wedding planners: Don’t be like Facebook billionaire Sean Parker. As The Atlantic‘s Alex Madrigal reports, “Nothing says, “I love the Earth!” quite like bringing bulldozers into an old-growth forest to create a fake ruined castle”:
Hey, if a billionaire couple wants to spend $10 million on their wedding, it’s neither all that surprising nor interesting, as far as I’m concerned. So, when news and statistics started to trickle out about Sean Parker’s wedding here in California — namely that it’d cost millions of dollars to create Kardashian-level over-the-topness — I was ready to chalk it up to the standard excesses of crazy rich people.
But that was before I read the California Coastal Commission’s report on the Parker wedding’s destructive, unpermitted buildout in a redwood grove in Big Sur. Parker and Neraida, the LLC he created to run his wedding, ended up paying $2.5 million in penalties for ignoring regulations…
To his credit, Parker paid up for the damage and said in a statement that he and his wife “always dreamed of getting married in Big Sur, one of the most magical places on Earth.” And weddings are great and I’m sure it was a good party.
But, of course, that’s also part of the new Silicon Valley parable: dream big, privatize the previously public, pay no attention to the rules, build recklessly, enjoy shamelessly, invoke magic, and then pay everybody off…
Parker may have described his fantasy-wedding fantasies as “Victorian whimsy“, but they come across more as “Gilded Age status-anxiety overkill”. Perhaps he can at least serve as an inspiration, ala Jiggs & Maggie, for some rising star among the new wave of graphic artists…
Apart from sharing wedding war stories, what’s on the agenda for this midweek evening?
The Manning Court-Martial is currently ongoing.
The SCOTUS has denied certoriari in Behenna v US. You can read the CAAF ruling in US v Behenna here.
SSG Robert Bales has plead guilty to all charges, save one charge of Obstruction of Justice in the murder of 16 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children in their sleep. He is currently undergoing a Care inquiry (a providence hearing) to ensure that his pleas are full, knowing, and intentional, in order to satisfy UCMJ requirements and by so doing foreclose most avenues of appeal.
The weather here in OK has been very rainy. Three years worth of drought has essentially been (temporarily, at least) wiped away in two weeks. While climate scientists are mostly hesitant to say that global climate change has contributed to our recent weather woes, primarily because they haven’t really studied the interaction of GCC and tornado creation, it seems to me that there may be something to the theory, when we had two EF5 storms within a 20-mile area within a two week period.
Hitting Sweet 16 includes all sorts of coming-of-age perks and responsibilities. Voting could become a new one.
A plan to lower the voting age in the City of Takoma Park, Md., would create the youngest voters in the nation.In 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.The measure in Takoma Park would only apply to local elections for mayor and the city council, and its objective, in part, is to make the election process more representative and diverse.
Last week, the Takoma Park City Council voted 6-1 to change its charter to become the first city in America to lower the voting age to 16. While we are the first city to adopt this policy, we have little doubt that others will follow. Maryland already has been a national leader in extending voting rights to younger voters when it opened its primaries years ago to 17-year-olds. That practice has spread to more than 20 states, and the case for a lower voting age in local elections is similarly strong.
The context for action was an accompanying measure backing an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution and local actions in support of suffrage. The city will also establish Election Day voter registration and extend voting rights to more people with past felony convictions, and may adopt Minnesota’s policy of ensuring that candidates have access to apartment buildings to talk with residents.
Because studies show conclusively that both voting and not voting are habit-forming, providing a “first vote” opportunity for those more settled in their community is particularly important. The fact that those given a first chance to vote at 18 participate in higher rates than those unable to vote until 19 helps explain why studies show that Austria — one of several nations recently lowering the voting age to 16 — has experienced a significant turnout boost among for first-time voters.
Final council passage came after months of public input. The testimony of so many young people was particularly persuasive: They have earned the right to be treated with the same respect as any other potential voter, and government will be accountable to more of our residents.
Our nation’s history has been one of regular expansion of suffrage. Low participation in government and elections is a threat to democracy. Our cities are the best places to try innovations to address that challenge. We’re proud to be a part of a city that has chosen to include more of our sons and daughters in the best part of democracy — making a choice together about our future on Election Day.
I like this because it’s such a radical departure from the suspicious, distrustful attitude towards voters and voting that has so dominated in the last decade – no black-bordered FRAUD warnings, no threats of felony charges. Instead there’s all this crazy, loose talk about “expansion” and “democracy” and “our sons and daughters.” Doesn’t it sound old-fashioned? Where’s the list of the requirements and prohibitions and stern warnings? So confident, too. They have “little doubt” that others will follow.
Bring on the dancing beat sweetener. Unlike Chuck Grassley, we don’t have a Hill to tell where it hurts, so here’s an open thread.
Thanks to reader J for the link.
And for Marco Rubio’s next trick…
Because of course this was inevitable. Now he’ll remain Very Serious On Immigration Reform, but the bill’s failure won’t be his fault when it doesn’t meet his exacting standards, and now none of the House Republicans have to go on record when this all crashes in flames.
Additional points for Blame Obama.
Fin. Exeunt all.