Donald Trump’s Budget Is the Ending Conservatives Always Wanted

Eery year, during the run-up to Halloween, when Jim DeMint goes to Hell’s mega-mall and sits on Satan’s lap, he has a list of things he wants for the holiday. The parents of the assembled demons and imps behind him in line often get frustrated because the list is so long. On Thursday, the Trump Administration released its proposed national budget. It’s been a long time coming, but DeMint and the rest of the greasy barbarians at Heritage finally got most of what they asked for.


This proposed budget isn’t extreme. Reagan’s proposed budget in 1981 was extreme. This budget is short-sighted, cruel to the point of being sadistic, stupid to the point of pure philistinism, and shot through with the absolute and fundamentalist religious conviction that the only true functions of government are the ones that involve guns, and that the only true purpose of government is to serve the rich.

There is an increased stirring among allegedly respectable conservatives to separate themselves from the president* and his more manic supporters in the Congress and out in the country. To hell with them. Like Haman, they’re dancing on a gallows they spent years devising. This budget represents the diamond-hard reality behind all those lofty pronouncements from oil-sodden think tanks, all those learned disquisitions in little, startlingly advertising-free magazines, all those earnest young graduates of prestige universities who dedicated their intellects to putting an educated gloss on greed and ignorance, and ideological camouflage on retrograde policies that should have died with Calvin Coolidge—or perhaps Louis XVI.

This is it, right here, this budget. This is the beau ideal of movement conservative governance. This is the logical, dystopian end of Reaganism, and Gingrichism, and Tea Partyism, and all the other Isms that movement conservatism has inflicted upon the political commonwealth. This is the vast, noxious swamp into which all those tributaries of modern conservative thought have emptied themselves. People die in there, swallowed up in deep sinkholes of empowered bigotry and class anger.

Meals on Wheels?

Jim DeMint

Who in the hell zeroes out Meals on Wheels? Who decides that a program that spends $3 million to help volunteers feed the elderly and infirm in their communities is something that the country can no longer afford? Who are the men in the meetings who make this kind of call? What are their names? Trot them out so the country knows who they are. C’mon, David Brooks, find out who they are and explain why National Greatness Conservatism has a problem with starving elderly shut-ins.

The National Endowment For The Arts? The National Endowment For The Humanities? The Corporation For Public Broadcasting?

Who in the hell zeroes out the NEA, or the NEH, or the CPB? Who decides that rural museums, and Ken Burns, and Antiques Roadshow are too elitist for a country full of righteous bumpkins? I’ll tell you who does. Newt Gingrich does, that’s who, and 23 years ago Newt Gingrich was the superstar of the conservative movement, the intellectual anchor of the modern Right, until, of course, he became a public embarrassment. You know who else does? George Effing Will, just today, that’s who. These programs did not become targets last November.


Climate change?

Who the hell eliminates research funding for the climate crisis in an age of mega-storms, and wildfires, and steadily vanishing coastlines? Who pulls the country out of the Paris Agreement? Who takes the United States of Goddamn America out of the fight against the biggest existential crisis the planet has faced since the asteroid landed near the Yucatan? Gee, why don’t we take a wild guess and say it’s the political party—and the political movement that is its only life force—that for decades has taken billions from the extraction industries, placed a climate denier at the head of the EPA—where he isn’t going to have much to do, anyway—and appointed an oilman to be Secretary of State. Which reminds me…

The fcking State Department?

Who the hell virtually defunds the goddamn State Department? The party that tolerates a Tea Party hack like Mick Mulvaney, taking him as such a serious person that he can become to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget, instead of the extremist loon he’s always been. Mick Mulvaney didn’t need the rise of Donald Trump to become a crackpot who would be marginalized in any sane democratic republic. He was always there on the fringes. He is as much a creature of movement conservatism as Paul Ryan is, even more so because Mulvaney was one of the prime movers in the defenestration of John Boehner.


Now, he’s in a position to enact all those policies that made him a star. From ABC News:

The president’s vision is to add $54 billion to military spending and cut the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by 28 percent. “There is no question this is a hard power budget, it is not a soft power budget,” the president’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters Wednesday. “The president very clearly wanted to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong power administration, so you have seen money move from soft power programs, such as foreign aid, into more hard power programs.” While Mulvaney described the cuts to the State Department as “fairly dramatic,” he said the country’s core diplomatic functions will not be impacted by the cuts, which he said are focused on reducing foreign aid. “That is not a commentary on the president’s policies toward the State Department, that is a comment on the president’s policies toward what is in their budget,” he said. “The foreign aid line items just happen to fall in State.”

There are other goodies in here besides. The budget proposes to privatize the air-traffic control system, finishing the work that Reagan started in 1981, and adapting the system to a philosophy that has worked so very well in the prison system and in education. Speaking of which, the Department of Education is taking a 13.5 percent cut, but there’s going to be $1.4 billion shifted over into various charter and voucher schemes that have proven worthless in practice, but that warm the heart of Betsy DeVos, our anti-public-education Secretary of Education. Pell Grants also take a whack. I’m sure that any kid from, say, McDowell County in West Virginia who dreams of a college education will be thrilled by that news.

These programs did not become targets last November.

A lot of this is going to make the members of Congress choke, so a lot of it may not pass. It’s very existence is important, though, as a document that lays out quite clearly the vision of government shared almost everywhere in modern conservatism. This is a DeMint Budget, a Heritage Budget, a Gingrich Budget, a Reagan Budget, and a Tea Party Budget. It may be crude and lack a certain polish, but its priorities and goals are clear. There is no modern Republican Party without movement conservatism, and this budget is the most vivid statement yet of that philosophy.

None of the people who have become rich and influential through shining this philosophy up needed the election of Donald Trump to become what they are. If the country allows them to step away from him and his budget—the way they all stepped away from Gingrich when he became toxic, or Reagan when he became senile, or George W. Bush, when everything went wrong—then the country does itself no good service. This budget isn’t what they want. It’s who they are.

Meals on wheels?

Jesus Christ, these really are the fcking mole people.

Update (5:45 PM): Mulvaney came out from under his bridge to take questions about the budget on Thursday afternoon. The results were as hacktacular as you can imagine. This is what he said about feeding children in after-school programs: He said they showed “no demonstrable results.”

He also says that Meals On Wheels is one of those programs “not showing any results.”

Food, how does it work, anyway?

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.



Source: Donald Trump’s Budget Is the Ending Conservatives Always Wanted

The National Park Service Won’t Be Silenced – Scientific American Blog Network

Trump is in power, and one of his first acts has been to gag government agencies. After the National Park Service bruised his ego by retweeting a New York Times tweet showing Trump’s inauguration numbers to be lower than President Obama’s 2009 crowd, they were ordered to stop all tweets, including scheduled ones.

He then muzzled the EPA, not only prohibiting it from using social media, but also ordering it to remove a critical page on climate change from its website and put a freeze on awarding grants and contracts critical to our nation’s environmental health. (In case you’re in any doubt as to what a Trump presidency means for climate change and the environment, just consider that one of his first official acts after being sworn in was to announce he’d be eliminating The Climate Action Plan – legislation critical to combating anthropogenic global warming.)

The USDA went silent for several days, and an email ordering them to cease “news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content” until further notice. As of this writing, they have not tweeted since January 18th. The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service account has only tweeted once.

Other agencies have gone silent or become considerably quieter.  It’s eerily quiet on formerly chatty government social media accounts.

But the NPS refuses to be silenced. While their main official Twitter account has fallen into line, tweeting an apology for their inauguration retweets and sticking to innocuous fluff since, the Badlands National Park official account defiantly started tweeting about climate change:


On Tuesday, the Twitter account for South Dakota’s Badlands National Park—a subsidiary of the National Park Service—began tweeting out climate change facts, in apparent defiance of the gag order. Someone working for the national park’s social media team went rogue and started posting climate change facts from the National Wildlife Federation’s Web site in 140-character bursts. (Trump, who can generously be described as a climate change skeptic, has previously called called climate change a “hoax” engineered by the Chinese.)


The National Park’s tweets were retweeted thousands of times before they were suddenly deleted later Tuesday afternoon.


You can see screenshots of the rogue tweets at the above link.

Not long after Badlands was brought into line, anonymous employees of the NPS went rogue. They created the AltUSNatlParkService account and, after retweeting a particularly provocative image from the Badlands account along with some climate change data, announced their intent in no uncertain terms:

Screenshot of @AltNatParkSer tweets. From the bottom (earliest) to the top tweet, they are as follows: Tweet 1: "'The pre-industrial concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm). As of December 2016, 404.93 ppm.'" Tweet 2: "Mr Trump, you may have taken us down officially. But with scientific evidence & the Internet our message will get out. Tweet 3: "Respect goes out to our brothers and sisters at the @BadlandsNPS. When they silence you, we will speak for you."
Screenshot of AltUSNatParkService tweets. Credit: Dana Hunter

These federal employees speaking out now understand that science is not subordinate to politics, that truth is essential, and transparency vital to a functioning democracy. They are risking their careers to ensure the public is kept informed. They’re exercising their free speech rights to ensure we know the truth.

I have never been prouder of our National Park Service than I am now.

Please follow them on Twitter. Retweet their climate change data. Support their efforts. Get the word out. And support your National Parks by donating and volunteering. Tell your elected officials to support the NPS. Take a moment to thank NPS employees during your visits. They have never needed us more than now.

We will not be silenced.

We will protect our public lands.

And we will still be here long after Trump and his disastrous administration are a bad memory.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


The National Park Service Won’t Be Silenced – Scientific American Blog Network.

Is Donald Trump’s Insecurity a National Security Threat? | Vanity Fair

Despite the manifold challenges facing Americans, none may be greater than its vulnerable egomaniac of a president—and his inability to think beyond himself.

President Donald Trump speaks at the C.I.A. headquarters on January 21, 2017 in Langley, Virginia.

By Olivier Doulier – Pool/Getty Images.

I once asked a friend of mine, a standup comic, why comedians are often so unhappy. “If you went onstage and started telling jokes in front of 1,000 people, and 999 of them started to laugh, you’d be like, ‘Holy shit, I’m funny!’” this person said. “But if you’re a comedian, you are constantly saying to yourself, ‘Why is that one guy in the audience not laughing?’ It eats away at you.”

This comedian’s explanation occurred to me as I watched Donald Trump’s bewildering inaugural address on Friday. Trump, after all, is about to embark on the most difficult journey of his life. This isn’t because this laughably incurious man is now the 45th president of the United States. A number of less intelligent people—including, arguably, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—have held the office. The bigger challenge is that Trump is facing an unprecedented challenge in his career. For the first time in his adult life, Donald J. Trump is going to have to stop focusing relentlessly on Donald J. Trump. And I’m not sure that he can do it. Worse, I fear that his inability to look beyond his stifling narcissism has grave national security ramifications.

While previous presidents have awoken on their first day in office overwhelmed by the magnitude of the job, steering their ambition towards their legislative goals, Trump apparently greeted the dawn miffed about the negative media coverage of his dystopian inauguration speech and its underwhelming turnout. As CNN’s Brian Stelter noted last night, Trump apparently turned on the TV upon his first morning on the job (unlike the rest of us, Trump has professed to take the weekend off and begin in earnest on Monday), and became furious at what he saw. Trump first directed his anger towards his staff and then, later, the public. When he visited the Central Intelligence Agency, a move that was supposed to illustrate his support for an intelligence community that he ridiculed in recent weeks, Trump shockingly said to the room full of 300 intelligence agents, and myriad television cameras, “Probably everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did.” At one point Trump channeled his inner-12-year-old and told the intelligence officers, “I’m, like, a smart person.” He then blabbered on about how the media had “lied” regarding the number of people who had attended his inauguration. (The media had not lied.) Trump subsequently grossly exaggerated the total, saying that there must have been about 1.5 million people there. (Most estimates peg the number at around 250,000 attendees, about six times fewer.) As Joe Scarborough later pointed out on Twitter: “A president who speaks from hallowed ground at Langley about crowd size and press coverage may soon see his ratings drop into the 20s.”

If that wasn’t enough, the first White House press conference, held a few hours later, wasn’t about healthcare reform or the millions of people who had calmly marched around the world and in cities across the country to voice their disapproval of President Trump. Instead, Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary, nastily complained about reports of the size of the inauguration. “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period,” Spicer said. The baldfaced, easily fact-checked lie, and the setting in which it was communicated, startled reporters. The New York Times’ Glenn Thrush tweeted, “Jaw meet floor.” CNN’s Jim Acosta called the statement “astonishing.” Chuck Todd noted that he had “run out of adjectives” to describe it. You could say Spicer spoke out of school, but there is no doubt in my mind, based on the language he used, that every word of that press conference was orchestrated by Trump himself, down to the emphatic hat tip with which Spicer concluded his point—“period.”

You don’t need to be Harry Harlow or Dr. Freud, or have a degree in psychology from Oxford, to know that Trump is a very insecure man. Early photographs of Trump taken during his formative years at the New York Military Academy depict a lonely teenager, who calls to mind fictitious mobster Tony Soprano’s wobbly-kneed son, A.J., upon his very brief inauguration at military school. Imagery of Trump atop housing projects with his father, Fred, also suggest someone profoundly uncomfortable in their own skin. A subsequent lifetime of behavior and distinct proclivities—marriages to subservient women; an unremitting obsession with his own fame; the tendency to address himself in the third person—lay bare the point. Just hours after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11, Trump bragged in an interview that his own building at 40 Wall Street was now the tallest in downtown Manhattan.

As I’ve written before, Trump is obsessed with his TV ratings (which were not that high), has bragged extensively about his own network appearances (again, meh), and about how many people have shown up at his rallies and events (he said arenas were full while reporters said they were empty). Still, even after winning the nomination, he bragged about how many followers he has on social media (even if many of them are fake) and how much people love him on Twitter (even if half the people on the platform hate him). He even hired actors to stand in during his initial Presidential announcement in 2015. He loves himself so much that he likens his tweets to the words of Hemingway.

Trump’s egomania, to this point, has distinctly benefitted him. Presidential candidates are expected to talk about themselves, constantly—and Trump was excellent at this. On the campaign trail and in debates, candidates espouse “I will do this…” “I have done that…” “I believe in this…” “I don’t support that.” But once they make it into the White House, the calculus changes dramatically. There are so many aspects of Trump’s new job that are not about him. Nearly three million people now work for him, and they’re certainly not going to want to hear Trump talking about himself for the next four years. Then there’s the 62 million people who voted for him and are expecting their lives to get better. Many are expecting jobs, not Trump praising himself or making up stories to justify why he lost the popular vote. President Trump certainly can’t keep patting himself on the back whenever he does something miniscule. While President Obama created 15 million jobs, he didn’t jet around the country holding rallies in gymnasiums to congratulate himself. Trump, on the other hand, has so far done constant victory laps for potentially creating a couple of thousand.

Trump’s obsession with himself is going to be a very stark slap in the face when he begins working in the Oval Office this week. For decades Trump has worked out of the Trump Tower and almost everything that adorns the walls and sits atop the desk is about Trump. In his inner sanctum in the Trump Tower he was surrounded by magazine covers that adorned his face. Most are old and yellowing, going back decades—Fortune, Businessweek, Forum and a 1984 edition of GQ, among countless others. He even has pictures of himself framed sitting on the shelf behind him. (Can you imagine framing a picture of yourself and sticking it in your office cubicle?) The word “Trump” appears so much in Trump’s office you’d think it was one of the only word in the English language.

The Oval Office looks nothing like that. While Trump will surely hang a few pictures of himself on the walls (he’s already changed the curtains to gaudy gold), he won’t be able to replace them all. There’s something wonderful in knowing that Trump will have to sit in his new office looking at sculptures of men and women that are clearly much greater than he is, like Abe Lincoln, Winston Churchill, George Washington, Eleanor Roosevelt and Betty Ford. There’s something satisfying knowing that Trump could replace 999 pieces of artwork in the White House to pictures of himself, but if there’s one of someone else, someone better than him, it’s going to eat away at him. Or, one hopes, maybe it will humble him enough to scare him straight. I’m guessing it won’t, but hoping it will.

Trump’s obsession with himself, particularly when not shared by the media and those he serves, may distract him from the job at hand. How can we trust such a vain narcissist to value the interests of those around him—the some 300 million people he serves—if he won’t even release his taxes or trust the intelligence community because it’s not in his interest? What are the blind spots of a man who arises to the highest office in the land and on Day One is consumed by his ratings and inaugural turnout? It simply baffles the mind. The question is when will the 62 million people who voted for him recognize that Trump’s self-interest has destroyed their own.

Full ScreenPhotos:The Art of the Donald: Alison Jackson Pictures Trump’s “Me Time”


The torch will be passed, and a new leader must be capable of gripping it securely. Will he prove equal to the challenge?

Photo: Photograph by Alison Jackson.


As commander in chief, would the candidate use military force responsibly—and tastefully?

Photo: Photograph by Alison Jackson.


Above all, success in the Oval Office requires an ability to sit still for long hours of exacting prep work.

Photo: Photograph by Alison Jackson.


America needs a leader who won’t flinch under fire, whether literal, metaphoric, or tonsorial.

Photo: Photograph by Alison Jackson.


There is not a black America or a white America or a Creamsicle-hued America (waterproof and evenly applied). There is only a United States of America.

Photo: Photograph by Alison Jackson.


When the candidate looks in the mirror, a president should stare back. With newfound confidence, he is now ready to fill Lincoln’s mittens.

Photo: Photograph by Alison Jackson.



The torch will be passed, and a new leader must be capable of gripping it securely. Will he prove equal to the challenge?

Photograph by Alison Jackson.



As commander in chief, would the candidate use military force responsibly—and tastefully?

Photograph by Alison Jackson.



Above all, success in the Oval Office requires an ability to sit still for long hours of exacting prep work.

Photograph by Alison Jackson.



America needs a leader who won’t flinch under fire, whether literal, metaphoric, or tonsorial.

Photograph by Alison Jackson.



There is not a black America or a white America or a Creamsicle-hued America (waterproof and evenly applied). There is only a United States of America.

Photograph by Alison Jackson.



When the candidate looks in the mirror, a president should stare back. With newfound confidence, he is now ready to fill Lincoln’s mittens.

Photograph by Alison Jackson.

Is Donald Trump’s Insecurity a National Security Threat? | Vanity Fair.

Meanwhile, At The Second Life Trump Inauguration Party . . .

Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th president of the United States was an appropriately staid and stately affair. The inauguration party in virtual world Second Life was much more colorful.

The biggest inauguration party in Second Life took place in the London City sim, oddly enough, where avatars of all sizes and shapes from around the world converged to experience the momentous occasion together.

The organizers did a fine job of transforming the Soho & Regent’s Park area into a tribute to the American presidency. The gathering took place in the central square, just in front of the Freebie Megastore, where new avatars go to gather horrible clothing.

Ask for it by name.

The square/dance floor (though no one danced during the proceedings) was decked out in a United States flag design with a massive presidential seal in the middle. At the front, a stage with Trump’s named spelled out in large letters of red, white, blue and gold.

Some of Trump’s biggest fans.

Though the party didn’t start until 11 AM Eastern, I arrived an hour early to scope things out. There were already a dozen or so avatars wandering about, waiting for the festivities to begin.

Britain’s own Lara Croft briefly showed up for the party.

I found a seat towards the back of the square and listened to voice chat, where several non-Americans were discussing their hopes that Trump’s presidency will be a successful one, for the sake of the global community. An adorable little creature commented on my avatar’s tail, but that was pretty much the extent of my direct interaction.

What can I say? Cats love my tail.

Rather than watch a video stream of the event, the area was streaming British audio coverage of the inauguration. Instead of watching the events going down, I listened to pleasant-voiced people describing what was happening.

As the moment of Trump’s swearing in drew closer, the crowd grew much larger.

One moment there were 69 avatars in the zone. Then 78. Then 97. I crashed several times during the final half-hour of the event, as my computer struggled to show me everyone attending.

That’s a ton of people in one place in Second Life these days.

Some came to show their support for the next president of the United States, though it’s hard to tell if their outfits were earnest, ironic or just something they wore every day.

Well, I suppose he is.

Others just dressed in whatever they had on hand, from video game costumes . . .

. . . to their best grunge-wear.

Most of the crowd kept their cool as Trump was sworn in and gave his speech. Others made snide comments. A few shot each other, or laid down on the ground in dying poses with daggers in their backs.

But for the most part, attendees just stood quietly and listened as the events unfolded.

Ladies and gentlemen, a virtual cardboard cutout of the 45th president of the United States.

Kotaku elder, lover of video games, toys, snacks and other unsavory things.


Meanwhile, At The Second Life Trump Inauguration Party . . ..

We Have To Create A Culture That Won’t Vote For Trump   – The Establishment


never again



November 11, 2016




Donald Trump is not my #1 concern. Yes, I am concerned about Trump. I’m fucking terrified. But that’s nothing compared to how I feel about the people who voted for Trump. In four years, in eight years, they’ll still be here—regardless of who wins future elections.

I’ve lived in a country that would vote for Donald Trump my entire life. And, as a black woman, I’ve felt it. That feeling of hurt and betrayal that many liberal white Americans are just now feeling? That’s what I and so many other people of color have felt their entire lives. This is why we’ve been demanding intersectionality. This is why we’ve been saying that Black Lives Matter and Water Is Life. This is why we’ve been called “militant” and “angry”—because this is the country we’ve always lived in.

And POC in the U.S. have been fighting to change this for hundreds of years. But it’s really hard to defeat White Supremacy while being oppressed by a White Supremacist system. But maybe now, maybe now that White Supremacy is also coming for health care and abortions, maybe now the rest of liberal white America will join us. We’re going to need every single one of you.

Because what we need to do is hard. Very hard. We have to create a culture that won’t vote for Trump, that won’t vote for anyone like Trump ever again. And in order to do that we have to shift our focus from our politicians, our electoral college, our TV pundits—and we have to start focusing on our communities.

Because Trump did not elect himself. The news did not elect Trump. The DNC did not elect Trump. The majority of white American voters elected Trump. The majority of white American voters saw a message of violent racism, Islamophobia, and patriarchy and said “sign me up.” You can make whatever excuses you want—you can talk about how Hillary was unlikeable, how Bernie would have been better, how the Rust Belt just wants jobs—you can say all that, but it doesn’t matter. Because what Trump loudly and openly promised was White Supremacist Patriarchy. He didn’t hide it. He didn’t euphemize it. He called Mexicans rapists. He delighted in the thought of sending 11 million undocumented people away from their families. He called for violence against POC protesters at his rallies. He bragged about assaulting women. He threatened to imprison the woman running against him in office. Trump did all of this in the open, and the majority of white American voters found a way to justify it.

And white American voters were able to justify voting for Trump because everything Trump offered, from the racial hatred to the pie-in-the-sky promises of greatness, are completely acceptable in our society. So even if we find a way to turn the House and Senate in two years, even if we find a way to prevent Trump’s reelection, if we don’t change the culture that allowed this election, then our POC, our LGBT community, our undocumented community, our Muslim community, and our disabled community will still be at risk.

But the good news is, we can make this change in our communities. We can lay a foundation on equality and justice, not oppression. This is where we need to focus:

• A culture that understands consent doesn’t elect a man who is heard on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.

• A culture that knows that Black Lives Matter doesn’t elect a man who wants to bring back Stop and Frisk.

• A culture that understands implicit bias doesn’t elect a man who insinuates that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers.

• A culture that believes in religious freedom doesn’t elect a man who promises to ban Muslims.

• A culture that understands ableism doesn’t elect a man who mocks a disabled reporter.

• A culture that values women doesn’t elect a man who promises to take away abortion rights.

• A culture that stands for the poor doesn’t elect a man who builds his wealth on the backs of the poor.

Conservatives have been saying this for decades and they’ve been right—we are in a culture war. A war that many of us have been hesitant to take to anyone not already enlisted on our side. But we must take this fight directly to that which threatens us, and it’s not our politicians or our media—it’s ourselves.

What are you telling your sons about being a man? Are you telling them that they don’t have to be heads of their households— financially or managerially? Are you telling them that women don’t owe them their time or attention or affection? Are you telling them that the measure of their manhood is nothing more than their kindness and generosity? Are you telling them that it’s okay to cry, okay to be scared, okay to be hurt?

What are you telling your daughters about being a woman? Are you telling them that they are 100% complete with or without men? Are you telling them that the patriarchy will not protect them? Are you telling them that it’s not an insult to be called shrill, or bossy, or demanding? Are you telling them to stand up for all women?

What are you telling your relatives at Thanksgiving? Are you telling them that no, you cannot “agree to disagree” on issues that affect the freedoms and well-being of others? Are you calling out their offensive and ignorant language? Are you telling them that their decisions are hurting you and people you love? Are you telling them that oppression is not one of your family values?

What are you telling your neighbors? Are you telling them that your community is better when it’s diverse—racially, culturally, religiously, and economically? Are you including your homeless and undocumented populations in your community?

What are you telling your schools? Are you demanding that your high schools and colleges teach consent and have firm consequences for violations of consent? Are you asking if your schools have strong and intersectional anti-bullying procedures in place that they actually follow? Are you reviewing your children’s textbooks and insisting they are intersectional? Are you demanding a PTA that works for all students? Are you asking what your principles, school counselors, and school boards are doing to make sure that students of color, LGBT students, disabled students, and undocumented students feel both safe and included? How much pressure are you putting on your schools to close their racial opportunity gaps shown in the vast majority of testing?

What are you telling your coworkers? Are you telling them that their bigoted “water-cooler” talk is creating a hostile work environment—even if you aren’t the one directly impacted by the bigoted speech? Are you asking why you don’t have more people of color and women in decision-making positions? Are you asking about your company’s HR process for claims of discrimination and harassment? Are you asking your company how they are monitoring inclusion and satisfaction of minority staff?

Because when we ask these questions every day, and demand the right answers, we can bring change. It may not be overnight, but it will be quicker than you think. Because right now, nobody is asking, and that comfort is what is allowing the status quo. And the status quo is racist, sexist, Islamophobic, classist, and ableist.

People will stop voting for Trump when it is no longer acceptable to vote for Trump. And we don’t get there by yelling “NO” once every four years. We get there by never letting anything slide, never letting anything go. By treating every racist microagression, every sexist joke, every ableist assumption like the threats to our future that they are.

Together, we can make sure that this never happens again.

Ijeoma Oluo

Ijeoma is the Editor-At-Large of The Establishment. A Seattle-based Writer, Speaker, and Internet Yeller, her work has appeared in The Guardian, The Stranger, New York Magazine, Huffington Post, and more. She was named one of the Most Influential People in Seattle by Seattle Magazine. She’s also a columnist at The Seattle Globalist.

We Have To Create A Culture That Won’t Vote For Trump   – The Establishment.

Source: We Have To Create A Culture That Won’t Vote For Trump   – The Establishment