Glenn Greenwald responds to the “judicial tyranny” objection to the California Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

This reasoning — that it undermines “democracy” and constitutes judicial tyranny when a court strikes down a popular law — is so pervasive every time there is a controversial court decision. But it is as woefully misinformed as it is common.

That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court’s decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law’s enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes’ extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That’s because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a “democracy” as much as it a “constitutional republic,” precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

My pal Elayne Riggs has posted a nice review of “Hereville” on ComicMix, a major comics website. Really interesting stuff. Here’s a sample:

I don’t think we’re meant to derive a specific setting as much as a general feeling, and on that count Hereville succeeds marvelously. We become privy to a whole culture — one with which, given my upbringing, I could pretty easily identify — and family interrelationships, as well as universal experiences like bravery, ambition, cleverness and dreaming big.

Our protagonist, Mirka Herschberg, doesn’t seem to crave too much of the outside world anyway. We know she wants to vanquish evil in the way of the knights of eld — first she decides she wants to slay dragons, and then later her aim is to battle a troll — but what she doesn’t want to do seems ambiguous. She dislikes the “womanly arts” her stepmother (not an evil stepmother, by the way, a very welcome change from the usual in these sorts of stories) attempts to teach her, skills which, naturally, she will grow to need as the narrative reaches its climax. On the other hand, she accepts unquestioningly the bigger picture, that of the severe gender separation within the Jewish culture as a whole.

And I think back to when I was an 11-year-old tomboy, and I think, “So did I.” Sure, I wanted to play baseball and have lawn-mowing as one of my chores instead of doing the dishes or vacuuming, but I hadn’t yet arrived at the point where I’d find myself in a couple of years, finally questioning the morning prayer where men thanked God for not making them female and women substituted that prayer with one which thanked God for “making me as I am” (i.e., dutifully and even joyfully accepting second-class citizenship). Mirka’s not meant to be a bigger-picture “why don’t we have a feminist haggadah” and “heck with it, women should be on the bima and maybe, just maybe, God isn’t actually male” revolutionary yet. She’s still navigating the treacherous waters of pre-adolescent adventure.

At the same time, she’s able to participate in and marvel at what she considers to be a pretty comforting lifestyle from her point of view. Sure, she may not wish to sew or cook, and she cleans the house and polishes the candlesticks somewhat grudgingly, but she absolutely delights in observing the Sabbath with relatives and friends. She enjoys the community it brings her, the intellectual opportunities, the specialness. There’s a lot of the 11-year-old me there, except Mirka doesn’t seem to fall asleep in the pews at the Shabbos service the way I always did.

Elayne also has an interesting discussion of the art, which I always appreciate. But to read that, you’ll have to go read the whole thing.

From The Tarkio Sentinal:

Tarkio, Missouri — Representative Sam Graves today stunned opponents and allies alike by announcing that his re-election campaign has placed the Tarkio Junior High School A/V Club in charge of creating new advertising.

“It’s not just about saving money,” Congressman Graves announced today in press conference held in the A/V Club Room, which also houses the Tarkio Junior High School Chess Club and the Tarkio Junior High School Science Fiction Society. “It’s about supporting the real America, rather than supporting professional ad executives, who all too frequently live in large cities, or at least have visited large cities for meetings. San Francisco is a large city, you know. I’d rather buy my advertising from America. Billy, George and Trevor have shown me that they have what it takes to help me to win this reelection campaign.”

William “Billy” Greaver, the A/V Club President, explained to reporters how he and the two other A/V Club members spent two entire weekends creating the groundbreaking TV ad. “It wasn’t easy, because Trevor was supposed to babysit the Morlan kids last Saturday, so we had to find a substitute for him and everything.” Trevor, who was scheduled for gym class that period, could not be reached for comment.

George Wilsonette, the A/V Club Treasurer, announced that the money paid the A/V Club by the Graves campaign would enable them to buy a second video camera in time for the Fall semester.

A representative of Kay Barnes, the Democrat running against Representative Graves, was reached by phone, but had no comment other than incoherent noises which may have been either laughter or weeping.

(Hat tip.)

Please use this thread to post whatever you’d like about whatever you’d like. Self-linking is encouraged, if you like.

* * *

I don’t recall ever seeing animal photography as beautiful as Nick Brandt’s photos from East Africa. Definitely worth checking out. He takes all his photos without the use of telephoto lenses, incidentally.

On the same website, I found Florian Böhm’s gallery of photographs of New Yorkers waiting to cross the street oddly compelling.

Zuzu has a great post up at Shakesville explaining the rules that govern the DNC and the behavior of the candidates in regard to Michigan, Florida, and the popular vote.

I’ve been fairly confused about all this, as rules-mongering is not one of my talents, and I appreciate Zuzu having taken the time to spell it out in so much detail. I suggest you go read.

(Not yet proofread; please bear with me.)

For me, one of the most striking things about pregnancy has been how pregnancy affects embodiment. In particular, I’m referring to how societal interactions and structures make affect social psychology and social interaction. One of the things I’ve noticed in the last few months of my pregnancy is the tendency for people to move over when I walk by them.

I first noticed this among men, especially younger men. It was almost like they would jump out of my way when they saw me coming. Some were clearly being gracious and definitely trying to be polite and considerate, and others looked almost scared, as if I was going to go into labor on the spot. What was fairly consistent was a lack of verbal interaction or sustained eye contact. Older men (those who seem to be over 50), have had very different reactions. They tend to hold doors, make more eye contact, and even strike up conversations. I’ve notice a little bit of difference in relation to ethnicity. Since I live in a neighborhood with many immigrants and different racial groups, I have day to day interactions with many men from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. In my own experience, both Latino and West African men (not African American, but West Africans) are much more likely to have to smiling, friendly, excited reaction. It seems that American born men (or those who are heavily assimilated), regardless, of race are more likely to jump out of the way and avoid eye contact. It is possible that many Latin American and West African cultures are very pronatalist that men view pregnant women in different ways than American men.¹

As for women, it took much longer for women to do the move over thing. I’ve only noticed women moving over in the past few weeks when my stomach has been huge² My experience has been that women are less likely than men to give this pregnant woman extra physical space. When women do move out of the way, it feels different. It rarely feels like their scared, but I do get a sense of pity from some of the women who move over. For most of the women who have a noticeable reaction to my pregnant body, their physical reaction is not really one of distancing themselves. They tend to try to do helpful things like hold the elevator, and then ask the programmed questions like: “When are you due?” “What are you having, boy or girl³?” Women, especially older women, may offer their own personal stories. Although I’ve also had some elderly and young women, act in a way that I interpreted as rude. For example, I’ve had a few cases of elderly women rushing to get ahead of me in line, which I would generally ignore if I wasn’t pregnant. I think there is an interesting conflict between women who are slowed because they are pregnant and women who are slowed because they are older. In terms, of ethnicity I haven’t noticed many differences. The Latinas in my neighborhood tend to have the most favorable reactions, but I felt that I had more pleasant interactions with Latinas before I was pregnant, so it is hard to know how much pregnancy has changed my interactions. I know I’ve had several cases of women speaking to me in Spanish about the babies, and I speak enough Spanish to communicate a little. I’m not comfortable generalizing about racial or ethnic differences in women in relation to moving over, but I think there are other race/class/gender differences in how women react to pregnant bodies or the idea of pregnancy.

The other factor that seems to influence how men and women react to my pregnant body in public interactions is the whether or not I’m alone, with a woman, or with a man. When I’m with my husband, I don’t get as many move over reactions from anybody, male or female. Moving over seems to happen more when I’m with women or, especially, when I’m by myself. I think when I’m with a man, who appears to be my partner, people think I have someone to “take care of me,” so they don’t feel compelled to respond.

From a social psychological perspective, this has made me very aware of my pregnant body. I rarely forget about being pregnant when I’m out in public. Of course, the smiles and other reactions make a big difference in how I interact, but the one that I really notice most is the move over reaction. That reaction has made me a little more sensitive to people with visible, physical disabilities. I don’t see pregnancy as a disability, but I think there are similarities in how people reaction to disabled bodies and pregnant bodies. Moving over is definitely one thing both groups have in common. I can see how people in each group can have their sense of self altered by these repeated move over interactions.

1. I know in my partner’s culture–Nigerian, Igbo–there is a special word that means “mother of twins.” I’ve been called that by almost everybody in the family, male or female, and the connotation is very positive. (back)
2. Remember I’m carrying twins, and right now my belly is bigger than almost any woman I know who has had a baby, so I have wondered if the reactions of other women would be different if my stomach was a more typical size. (back)
3. The question about gender take on another dimension when the person asking finds out that you are having twins. People get really excited, and the most common question I’ve gotten is, “Do twins run in your family?” (back)

Hey folks it’s Rachel.  I figured I’d give everyone an update.

Yes, my posting has been limited lately. I’m slowly getting prepared for the babies, and then we had some computer trouble last week, so needless to say I’ve been preoccupied with other things.

I’ve been really lucky because I haven’t had any major problems. I’ve also had a total of zero contractions, no high blood pressure, no diabetes, and no other common pregnancy problems. My doctor did suggest taking time off from work at 34 weeks. I think that is fairly standard with twins since twin pregnancies are generally more taxing on the body than singleton pregnancies. Fortunately, my semester ended right at that time, so I didn’t have to worry about going to my job. It was just the right time to stop because I really can’t be on my feet for more than 10-15 minutes without having back, hip, and buttock pain.

The babies are doing well. Since “discordance,” which is basically large differences in size or growth of multiples, is a potential problem I have to get them measured every 3 weeks. I get an ultrasound, and the neonatalogist and ultrasound tech measure their size, heart rate, amniotic fluid, and several other measures of health and growth. At 33 weeks and a half weeks, they weighed 5lbs. 1oz. each. I was happy to see that their sizes are the same because baby A was getting ahead of baby B, but B finally caught up. At this rate, I may have two 7lb. babies. That’s not big for a single baby, but it’s pretty big for twins–I just keeping thinking, “My body will likely be carrying 14lbs. of baby.” The seem to be dropping, and right now they have their heads down, so I may be able to push both of them out without a C-section.

Unless they want to come sooner, I’ll probably be delivering them at 38 weeks.

I was hoping something like this existed! Thanks to reader Nicole for sending the link.

Some real anti-science, anti-equality jerks have been nominated to the committees for revising the DSM defitnitions for paraphilia (for those who don’t know the word, here’s a *very* loose definition: sexual fetishes which have become pathological… obviously, a highly controversial topic) and gender identity disorder.

The jerk on the committee for redesigning gender identity disorder was recently featured on an NPR special which discusses how two families grapple with sons’ gender preferences (h/t Holly’s extremely moving post The Sissy-Whupping Method). Zucker’s attempted “treatment” for the boy he was working with was to try to “cure” him by separating him from all varieties of femininity:

to treat Bradley, Zucker explained to Carol that she and her husband would have to radically change their parenting. Bradley would no longer be allowed to spend time with girls. He would no longer be allowed to play with girlish toys or pretend that he was a female character. Zucker said that all of these activities were dangerous to a kid with gender identity disorder. He explained that unless Carol and her husband helped the child to change his behavior, as Bradley grew older, he likely would be rejected by both peer groups. Boys would find his feminine interests unappealing. Girls would want more boyish boys. Bradley would be an outcast.

Carol resolved to do her best. Still, these were huge changes. By the time Bradley started therapy he was almost 6 years old, and Carol had a house full of Barbie dolls and Polly Pockets. She now had to remove them. To cushion the blow, she didn’t take the toys away all at once; she told Bradley that he could choose one or two toys a day.

“In the beginning, he didn’t really care, because he’d picked stuff he didn’t play with,” Carol says. “But then it really got down to the last few.”

As his pile of toys dwindled, Carol realized Bradley was hoarding. She would find female action figures stashed between couch pillows. Rainbow unicorns were hidden in the back of Bradley’s closet. Bradley seemed at a loss, she said. They gave him male toys, but he chose not to play at all.

“He turned to coloring and drawing, and he just simply wouldn’t play with anything. And he would color and draw for hours and hours and hours. And that would be all he did in a day,” Carol says. “I think he was really lost. … The whole way that he knew and understood how to play was just sort of, you know, removed from his house.”

His drawings, however, also proved problematic. Bradley would populate his pictures with the toys and interests he no longer had access to — princesses with long flowing hair, fairies in elaborate dresses, rainbows of pink and purple and pale yellow. So, under Zucker’s direction, Carol and her husband sought to change this as well.

“We would ask him, ‘Can you draw a boy for us? Can you draw a boy in that picture?’ … And then he didn’t really want us to see his drawings or watch him drawing because we would always say ‘Can you draw a boy?’” Carol says. “And then finally after, I don’t know, a month or two, he just said, ‘Momma, I don’t know how. … I don’t know how to draw a boy.’”

Carol says she finally sat down and showed him. From then on, Bradley drew boys as directed. Male figures with anemic caps of hair on their heads filled the pages of his sketchbook.

Clearly, this man should NOT be involved with the DSM definition of gender identity disorder. So, go sign the petition. Here’s an excerpt:

>On the Task Force, named as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair, we find Dr. Kenneth Zucker, from Toronto infamous Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH, formerly the Clarke Institute). Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilizing reparative therapy to Ccure gender-variant children. Named to his work group, we find Zuckers mentor, Dr. Ray Blanchard, Head of Clinical Sexology Services at CAMH and creator of the theory of autogynephilia, categorized as a paraphilia and defined as  man paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman

The letter I attached to my petition signature:

It is imperative to psychiatry that it remain a valid field by sponsoring the work of men and women who do good science and who are progressive in terms of civil rights. There is no place for bigotry and bad science in the ranks of psychiatry. The DSM has done well to remove homosexuality from its listing. It would do well to continue in that vein instead of idly permitting more shameful and regressive acts to be committed in its name.

Bob Hayes — a friend of mine from college days, (mumble mumble) years ago — has posted a very kind review of “Hereville” on “Blogger News Network.”

This is not a Marvel comic book filled with iron-jawed superheroes, though Mirka yearns for heroics - dreaming of dragonslaying as she tends her younger brother, knits with her stepmother, and prepares the Shabbat meal with her family. “Hereville” explores themes more adult than its protagonist might wish for in a comic book - primarily, coming of age, the role of women in traditional societies, a subtle exploration of how communities on the margins of a larger society nonetheless view themselves as the center, with their own set of outcasts and marginal figures, and the struggle faced by an independent, somewhat nonconformist young girl faced with a social role not of her choice or to her liking.

The story of Mirka begins with a friendly argument, and climaxes in a debate whose outcome could mean death to Mirka - or could, if we didn’t presume from the title that our heroine would prevail in the end. In between, Mirka saves an outcast woman (a “witch”, according to the local boys) from a beating, and is offered a reward for her service - a reward that takes the form of a quest to retrieve a sword from the local troll. But before Mirka can battle the troll, she must keep her brother from ratting out her plans to their ever-protective parents, celebrate the Shabbat, and find a way to get out of the house at night without being detected. These obstacles and travails are drawn with wit and warmth, and the reader is drawn into the oddball world of “Hereville” without a backwards glance. (A world of trolls, witches, electric lights and vacuum cleaners? Don’t ask questions - just enjoy it!)

There’s more to the review, including some mild criticism and mild spoilers, at BNN.

It seems fairly clear to me that Obama is not the best candidate for women’s and LGBTIQ rights. He’s gaffed several times.

It seems fairly clear to me that Clinton is not the best anti-racist candidate. She’s gaffed several times.

Obama has employed misogyny against Clinton in the campaign.

Clinton has employed racism against Obama in the campaign.

…..so when I hear people say “I won’t vote for (candidate A) because s/he is (racist/sexist),” well… I feel a bit disheartened. Because it feels, to me, like one is saying “I’ll vote for Clinton even though she’s racist, but not Obama despite his sexism, because to me sexism is more important than racism.” Or vice versa.

I’ll note, though, that I don’t feel this way when I hear women of color declining to vote for one or the other candidate due to racist or sexist dogwhistles. To me, those comments don’t have the same undertone of “What’s important is that I get mine” since, obviously, women of color (particularly LGBTIQ women of color) will be screwed over by the beauty of intersectionality either way.

YMMV, of course, and I don’t mean to condemn anyone, and of course any given person may have motivations other than what I’ve described. It’s just — in total, as a trend — this is something that’s made me sad this primary cycle.

Shockingly: feminist/womanist, anti-racist commenters only.

Obamaniac

Billary

Snobama

Elephascist

McSame

etc.

If you have a good argument, then make it. These phrases just make you seem juvenile.

Frankly, I feel the same way about illustrating negative comment on a candidate with the most unflattering picture you can find. Don’t we generally complain that too MUCH emphasis is placed on candidate’s appearances and irrelevant characteristics? Running a picture of a sneering McCain or Hilary with a distorted expression is the equivalent of running a long series of footage about Bush looking cowboyish on the ranch. It’s a non-sequiteur, designed to appeal to visceral likes or dislikes apart from the actual substance of the quote you’re criticizing (or, in the case of the cowboy footage, the masculinity narrative you’re underlining).

If that’s actually what you want to do — just produce propaganda to make people’s visceral reactions more distinct, and allow that level of discourse to take a prominent role in your blog or debate — then I guess that’s fine to an extent. It’s not a good argument, but sometimes debates are won by bad arguments, and if you feel it’s totally necessary, then I guess I can swing with that.

But I hope you realize that’s what you’re doing. And also that it seriously undermines your ability to be outraged when it turns out that the media and your opponents use visual images in the same way.

(Places I feel do this include — but are not limited to — Pandagon (usually Pam) and Shakesville (often Melissa). I like both blogs a lot, but this use of visual imagery nettles me.)

UPDATE: I also see the use of derisive nicknames in comments at both Pandagon and Shakesville. It irritates me a lot. I see from the comment thread that inspired me to make this post that it’s not thrilling Portly Dyke either. She writes in response to a commenter who repeatedly refers to Snobama:

IBW — I’ve defended you on this thread, and sided with you many times — but I’d really appreciate it if you cut out the “Snobama” thing. I don’t like it when people call Clinton “Billary”, and I don’t like it when people think up cutesy, derisive names for Obama either. I know that you can do as you wish in this regard, but I notice that it’s been grating on me a bit in this thread.

Use this thread to post whatever you’d like; self-linking is encouraged. Meanwhile, here’s Annie Ross singing “Twisted”:

Although I love this clip because Ross does such a great job with gesture and expression, I wonder if she had a cold that day; her voice sounds a bit flatter here than in any other old recording of her I’ve heard (for example).

Ross’ singing partners Lambert and Hendricks were also cooler than you, by the way:

Lambert and Hendricks passed on some time ago, I think, [UPDATE: I am informed in comments that Hendricks is alive and well. Sorry, Mr. Hendricks!] but Ross is still performing today.

Curtsy: Shakesville.

More reason for despair, from the Columbia Journalism Review (and via Ezra):

Anyone who buys the beltway complaint that television news reporting shrivels both politics and public discourse has two new reasons to worry: sound bites are getting shorter and video reels are getting longer. That means less talk of policy solutions and more rolling shots of diplomatic handshakes, tarmac striding, and presidential cowboys whacking underbrush on Texas ranches. In the Journal of Communication’s winter issue, Indiana University professors Erik Bucy and Maria Grabe update a landmark 1992 study, which found that clips of presidential candidates speaking between 1968 and 1992 had dramatically shrunk from an average of one minute to under ten seconds each. Since 1992, say Bucy and Grabe, sound bites have been further compressed into eight-second nibbles. Meanwhile, B-roll of candidates has expanded, and image bites (no words from the candidates) now take up more airtime than sound bites in campaign coverage.

But do the details of the findings offer any hope? Are sound bites, though shorter, more numerous? Nope. Denser with policy content? Afraid not. Shrinking in proportion to the length of news stories? On the contrary.

What isn’t pointed out, however, is that the web may counteract this to a small degree; consumers with (the money to pay for) fast web connections can watch all the long speeches they want on Youtube. Nonetheless, a huge portion of the public is still getting most of their news from TV, and they’re being poorly served.

Oh my fucking God, yay! It’s so nice to have GOOD news!

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A sharply divided California Supreme Court today legalized same-sex marriage, a historic ruling that will allow gay and lesbian couples across the state to wed as soon as next month and inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay unions.

In a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Supreme Court struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, finding that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a marriage license in hand.

The California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts are now the only top courts in the country to uphold the right of gay couples to marry.

“The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” the court observed in a 121-page decision.

The reaction was immediate.

A spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sent a simple e-mail to his press staff: “We won.”

When the news was signaled to the more than 100 people gathered on the steps outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco by a thumbs up, they let out whoops of joy, and some broke out in tears.

From the ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George: “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation like a person’s race or gender does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental consitutional right to form a family relationship, the California constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.”

Mildred Loving would be happy today.

UPDATE: a few more choice bits from the ruling, as selected by my fiance.

“One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignityand respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. [...]

First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.

Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

I really loved the first 13 paragraphs of “The Misogyny I Won’t Miss,” an op-ed by Marie Cocco in today’s Washington Post, about what she won’t miss once the Clinton campaign ends:

I won’t miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible “gender card.”

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

Reading this, I was so with Ms. Cocco, mentally jumping up and down and cheering for her. The first 13 (of 15) paragraphs really are excellent. Then — with the editorial all but over — she had to drop in this cluncker:

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

Seeking a gold medal in oppression Olympics, Ms. Cocco?

Like Ms Cocco, I won’t miss the misogynistic comments directed at Clinton from the media, from right-wingers and from Obama supporters; nor the deafening silence about sexism from the party establishment. All of that is fucking loathsome.

Something else I won’t miss? Clinton supporters who either make race-based attacks on Obama’s candidacy, or who (like Ms. Cocco) imply that racism doesn’t exist or hasn’t affected the course of this campaign, and anyhow racism isn’t nearly as bad as sexism. And you know what? That’s fucking loathsome too.

* * *

Curtsy: Liza at Culture Kitchen. And see Ta-Nehisi Coates, as well.