The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!
Open thread! It’s Super Tuesday here in the US. Discuss today’s primaries, the evil that is Trump, politics in general.
That’s Voltaire’s Prayer right there, isn’t it?
@WWTH,
tsumani?
@msexceptiontotherule Thank you! That stuff does look terrific–as opposablethumbs said it doesn’t appear to be available in the UK, but I’ll ask a friend in the US to bring some over. My hair isn’t damaged (I don’t do anything to damage it!) but I’m not interested in getting into the whole bleaching thing. I’ll buy a couple of B&B colours and see how they work.
@opposablethumbs What region are you in? If you’re near enough and interested, I can share what I get with you. I’m looking at various blues just because I look good in blue/gray, but now I’m thinking about what you said about blue being associated with old women, and am having second thoughts….
I would watch the hell out of a debate with Kanye West. That is all.
Hi guest, that’s extremely kind of you! But no, as I shall probably hesitate for several decades before actually making my mind up 😉
(I’m in the Great Wen/The Smoke) I’m thinking I might give the Kevin Murphy stuff that msexceptiontotherule mentioned a try, as it looks easy to get hold of some. I guess it might not be too complicated to use like once a month or so (with hair as short as mine I’m hoping one small bottle could last me a year).
Let us know how it goes with the B&B, though – their photos look amazing 🙂
Yeah, I love the idea of colouring (and have toyed with the idea off and on for ages) but in reality I’m not so much low-maintenance as no-maintenance-whatsoever 😉
It’s not fair that subtle blues might (and knowing my luck, would) go straight into a respectable blue-rinse look! My Spawn#1 has sensibly gone for the occasional burst of proper bright purple, which is just the thing for the young person-about-town (or about the countryside, of course). But (if I had a completely different hair type from the one I actually have on my head) I could dream of having an iridescent petrol-slick rainbow …
That’s funny because I’ve encountered a lot of Bernie supporters who when accused of sexism will say that they like Warren to prove that they can’t be sexist.
I also find it hypocritical of Bernie supporters to point to examples of Clinton supporters saying sexist things to argue against Clinton without doubting their support for Hillary but when Clinton supporters do the exact same thing about Bernie supporters, it must be a conspiracy to discredit Bernie
It’s funny to see people talking about the oil slick look, as I guess it’s been A Thing for a few months but I only discovered (and fell in love with) the style this past weekend. In a world where I didn’t have a staid office job and I wasnt unbelievably lazy with my hair, I would love to give it a try.
Edit: my mom, who is much less cool than you are, opposablethumbs, would be quite appalled if I did.
This so true and one of the things that annoys me about Bernie supporters is that there criticisms of Clinton as being a carrier politician and supporting policies because they are popular are also true of Bernie (especially when it comes to gun control), so it just makes them look like they’re knowledgeable about the candidate that they support.
Quick query for our USian friends.
If by some horrible set of circumstances Trump does become president, how many of you will volunteer as Tribute for your District?
@Alan
Hey now, I’m not voting for Trump even if it comes down to medieval torture from those (not so) friendly neighborhood republicans trying to change my mind, but I don’t plan on going all heroic volunteer. Being a homeowner means having to stay put unless/until there’s a plan and a place to go to, maybe I’ll send the s/o outside to start digging a moat. For protection. And the alligators. (can’t have a moat without alligators or sharks, I’m going with alligators…and maybe sharks too. It’ll be a really big moat. Promise!)
@Guest, @opposablethumbs:
Happy to help, just no showing up at my door. I spent the afternoon helping a friend who literally showed up on my doorstep with a hair color disaster thanks to box dye! With the chaotic state my house is in, furniture all moved into the center of the room and everything that was in cabinets piled on top of furniture, she’s lucky I could find the stuff I needed to fix her hair disaster. And she’s lucky I was even home, if this were Sunday I’d already have gone to check in at the hotel with the dog and the s/o, painters arrive Monday and we have to be gone until Thursday.
@ Alan
If those of us Americans who’re to be “volunteered” as tribute shout for armed revolt, do you think we’ll have our 2nd Amendment rights revoked?
@ sparkalipoo
Yeah, I know what you mean. That Sanders voted for the bill only Clinton catches flak for is kind of ironic; although he never went on to refer to “super predators”. The comments section to the Mother Jones piece in the bit you quoted? The most upvoted one claims the writer is biased for talking about Sanders’ voting record with a critical eye. Even talking factually about his votes or things he’s said is evidence of being pro-Establishment, apparently. But if actions count more than words and promises, why not look at his legislative record too? (MJ has devoted space to being critical of Clinton too, fwiw.)
There’s other stuff that dims the Perfect Revolutionary™ glow a bit. Sanders called Planned Parenthood part of The Establishment, for some inexplicable reason. And he supports drone strikes when used “selectively and effectively”. Both have made racially insensitive remarks.
I still like Sanders’ message and his integrity (e.g. his donors are not big corporations or groups like the Koch brothers). But we’re voting for a president, not a monarch; you know? If he got into office, my (completely unscientific and entirely opinionated) suspicion is that those who’ve made him into a progressive messiah would be as disappointed in him as they have been in Obama.
Anyway, I look forward to my Establishment Shill™ check next Tuesday.
The thing I notice about the establishment is this.
In 2008, Obama didn’t have a long political career, and he was cast as being way too inexperienced to lead. (I remember conversations that were very adamant that it had nothing to do with his race — it was all about experience.)
Same year, Palin didn’t have a long political career, and she was cast as being way too inexperienced to lead.
Now Clinton’s got a really long political career, and…suddenly that’s a bad thing.
Now, partly it’s just that times have changed, but it does seem like white dudes have an ability to cast whatever background they happen to have as a good thing, while women and minorities don’t have the same luxury.
Nah, all candidates always try to cast their background as a good thing and their opponent’s background as a bad thing, and both arguments have a long history of being used against white dudes. You see both attacks on the Republican side as well, though this year they’ve pretty much conceded that their voters do not think highly of experience at the moment. People with long political careers (“Washington insiders” is the standard term) try to cast themselves as having the experience to get things done, people with short political careers (“Outsiders”) try to cast themselves as not beholden to established interests and willing to challenge the standard way of doing things.
Times change; Obama won by banking on his status as a relative newcomer to a government people viewed as having failed, and Clinton is betting on her long experience appealing to voters as someone who can get things done. Clinton is winning at the moment, so it’s apparently working. She lost last cycle because voters wanted a change; this cycle the majority seems to want to stay the course. That’s inverted on the Republican side, which is why McCain was nominee in 2008 and it looks like Trump has this year in the bag. And in 2008 both picked the opposite for their running mates to appeal to people who weren’t too sure about their record or lack thereof.
@opposable thumbs I’m in the southwest, but come up to London every once in a while. I think I might end up wimping out–am going to get a couple shades of blue but also a couple shades of blonde, since it occured to me blonde highlights might look nicer (particularly in summer, when I usually get a super tan) than gray ones 🙂 I agree with you about the oil slick colours–was showing to a friend last night with dark hair and we both oohed and aahed–I hope she does it, it will look great on her.
@Viscaria
You’re very kind! But eh, I probably just have a different set of less-coolnesses :-s
You’d have to ask the Spawn 😀
msexceptiontotherule, no doorstepping, I promise 🙂
guest Oh, Spawn#1 is in the southwest – currently doing Adulting 101 (v proud of them). Blue-and-blonde sounds lovely with a tan (you mean you get enough sun in the southwest for a tan?!?!?! 😀 )
guy
Yes – but this is also reminding me of an experiment I read about (I can’t remember where, but I suspect this will be familiar to a lot of people here): volunteers were asked to form a discussion group to talk about hiring candidates for a job (under the impression that the experiment was looking at something else, such as dynamics within the group itself) – two resumés, with different sets of characteristics (experience vs. academic qualification, iirc), were matched with two different identities, one a man and the other a woman. You can guess what happened; whichever resumé was allocated to the male “candidate”, those were the characteristics that the discussion groups overwhelmingly tended to argue were the important ones for the job in question. If the male photo was on the “experience” resumé, experience was what the job needed; if the male photo was on the “qualifications” resumé, qualifications were what mattered most.
PS I may be mis-remembering, but I’m pretty sure that the same thing happened where one candidate is a PoC and the other is white.
@opposable thumbs I just moved to the southwest a few months ago…from the northeast! I do tan really well (I’m a native Californian, that is our superpower)–people always ask me what exotic locale I holiday in, and the answer is that I spend a lot of time at my allotment. I don’t actually know how it’ll work out down here in the gloomy south, but am crossing my fingers.
I do remember the experiment you’re referring to–I think I saw it in a book about irrational thinking (e.g. Ariely) as evidence that people tend to make their decisions first, then develop a framework of logical argument to justify them.
I should say that my mom is one of my very favourite people in the whole world, and she definitely understands that my hair is on my head and is therefore completely under my control. I didn’t mean to be unkind to her and I wish I’d phrased that a bit better! She just has a thing about how in order to be taken seriously you must look like a serious person. She worries, because that’s what you do I guess, even when your kids are old and out of the house and all that jazz.
I found this rather subtle variation yesterday and I wonder if I could pull that off at work! I’ve got a hair appointment next week, so maybe I’ll ask the stylist what she thinks.
I won’t deny that some of the people making the argument are using it to justify their own prejudices, but we’d be seeing exactly the same arguments if all the candidates were white men, though probably not from all the same people. Candidates play the hand they’re dealt and must convince voters that the differences between them and their opponents make the candidate the best choice. And minorities can turn their background into an advantage too; being new to Washington was why Obama was “Change we can believe in.” Likewise, Hillary supporters believe her experience is a good thing.
Sanders is actually in position to make a legitimate claim for the status of “experienced outsider” to have his cake and eat it too. He’s been in the Senate for quite a while, but he’s not really linked with the larger power structures, as evidenced by how overwhelmingly the party leadership backs Hillary.
There’s some subtleties to both Sanders’s voting record and Hillary’s fundraising, such that they’re not as clear-cut as their opponents would like. First, since Sanders isn’t a major leader, he hasn’t been in a position to decide what bills look like when they reach the floor. The crime bill that the Hillary clip is about and that he voted for was an omnibus and included the Violence Against Women Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban among other things; his vote proves only that he thought the bill passing was better than it failing. On Hillary’s side, companies actually donate to candidates who do things that the companies don’t like all the time. They’re hoping to get input on a bill regulating them rather than fight it and have one that they don’t have input on passed. All the donations mean is that the companies like the bills that the people they donate to present more than the ones that would be presented if the companies didn’t donate to anyone. And that’s why Oregon’s two largest power companies backed a bill that requires them to completely phase out coal by 2030, because it was that or face a ballot initiative.
@Viscaria
I CONFIRM THIS R TRUE. (I have 1 spawn out of the house, 1 at home; I worry about both. I try to restrain myself. I fail. Try again, keep trying, keep failing but well, maybe fail a little better each time, at least I hope so 🙂 )
That photo you linked is stunning.
@guest, I hope the southwest is treating you well! In theory you’re now supposed to get a bit more sun but exactly the same amount of rain as in the northeast – except dumped on you in occasional great big torrential dumps instead of constant drizzle all the time 🙂
Guy: You’re very good at thinking of explanations for everything other than sexism, but is that really a very productive use of your time? The whole reason sexism is so hard to eradicate in real life is that of course most people don’t just say “I won’t hire/vote for her because she’s a woman.” It’s always couched in plausible deniability so it can be explained away as something that’s totally not related to gender/race.
You started this discussion by saying
and I responded by pointing out that minorities absolutely can cast whatever background they happen to have as a good thing as evidenced by how Obama did exactly that and Clinton is in the process of doing the same, and white dudes absolutely can have their background cast as a bad thing. The second point is evidenced by how thoroughly Jeb lost despite massive financial backing because he was seen as being too tied in with the establishment and big business, like Clinton. A female candidate being subjected to exactly the same attacks a male candidate would get is not indicative of sexism.
You might as well have said “it does seem like white dudes get to cite whatever position they have on global warming as a good thing, while women and minorities don’t have the same luxury” and cited Clinton and Palin as examples. That would make precisely as much sense, because they’re both women, hold different positions on global warming, and get criticized for them by political opponents with different positions and that could be a cover for sexism. So I ask you: would making that global warming argument be a productive use of your time? And no, being a divide within the democratic party doesn’t change this because a lot of the people who criticized Obama’s inexperience last time are endorsing Hillary again this time.
So, Bernie won three states today. Just wanted to talk about how great that is and all.
Same goes for racism, as evidenced by the Ghost in the Shell conversation in the latest Ghostbusters thread.