Lenona, consider this.

Any thoughts?

Feminism has indisputably righteous ,if infrequently-abided, pillars. The last three lines of that piece are one of them. Golden.

Good article Crid. Thanks for posting.

Not really interested in "crowd size" but the resolution available today is unbelievable. A dot (face) can be zoomed in on to show a perfectly clear facial image.

http://ijr.com/2017/01/784781-the-highest-quality-photograph-of-trumps-inauguration-yet-has-been-released-guess-what-the-crowd-looks-like/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=conservative-daily&utm_medium=owned

That sure is going to do wonders for Comcast in Utah:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/27/ad-by-lgbt-activist-attacking-mormon-churchs-tax-exempt-status-to-be-aired-on-comcast/

Yadon't hafta blow a guy to want those people to pay their fuckin' taxes.

You don't even hafta want government to be as big as it is before you want it to be paid for

It's behind a paywall and I'm in a rush right now.

OK, I'm still in a rush, but I managed to skim it. (I'll get back later.) If she's so smart and nuanced, why does she keep making a fool of herself on other occasions?

The mainstream media is the enemy of the American people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/27/abc-deletes-donald-trump-march-life-reference-its-/

> why does she keep making
> a fool of herself on
> other occasions?

I haven't been paying attention to her. What kinds of occasions?

I think you're just playing the ignoramus, but anyway, for starters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/09/kellyanne-conways-laughable-look-at-whats-in-his-heart-defense-of-trump/?utm_term=.f47c874ee3eb

By Aaron Blake.

First paragraphs:

Kellyanne Conway has a prescription for what ails the media's relationship with President-elect Donald Trump. In defending Trump's months-old mocking of a disabled reporter, Trump's senior adviser said we need to look into Trump's heart.

“Why don't you believe him? Why is everything taken at face value?” Conway asked CNN's Chris Cuomo while talking about Meryl Streep's criticism of Trump at Sunday's Golden Globes.

She continued: “You can't give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and he's telling you what was in his heart? You always want to go by what’s come out of his mouth rather than look at what’s in his heart.”

The short answer to Conway's question is no, we can't give him the benefit of the doubt because of what's in his heart. We can't do this because the evidence so clearly shows a presidential candidate mocking a reporter's physical disability. But mostly we can't do this because we don't know what's in his heart, and any attempt to figure that out would amount to a value judgment.

Think about it: If reporters are suddenly deputized to give the benefit of the doubt to politicians whose hearts they've evaluated as being good, there is basically no end to what that politician will be allowed to do. It's a totally unworkable standard for anyone involved (and probably one that Republicans wouldn't like). Conway is essentially asking for a permanent “Get Out of Jail Free” card because Trump has, in her estimation, a good heart...

(snip)

Oh, and while you're at it, Google on her name plus "alternative facts."

"If reporters are suddenly deputized to give the benefit of the doubt to politicians whose hearts they've evaluated as being good, there is basically no end to what that politician will be allowed to do."

Reference: 18 months of pro-Hillary anti-everyone-else reporting.

Update: full tilt media meltdown over every tweet, gasp, fart, utterance, hairball, and sneeze President Trump emits.

> you're just playing the ignoramus

Nope. In 57 years on this big ol' blue marble of ours, there's been no reason for me to pay attention to her. She hasn't been choking my December mailbox with Christmas cards, either.

She looks fuckable though, in a middle-aged way, even in that one coat.

But that's all I got.

I sincerely thought you might get a kick out of that interview.

I've always accepted alternative facts to mean only that there's more than one piece of true information that someone might hold in mind while considering any phenomenon. I don't go to parties with political zombies. If folks want to say they know what the absolute quintessential meaning is for every worldly event, Godspeed. I don't care. But I don't want to hang out with them, either. The more far-reaching the certitude of such people, the less courage and achievement they seem to have demonstrated in their own lives.

Re the WaPo piece, I'm not accepting their psychographic take on Trump's interior life any more than I'm accepting hers. Trump is an asshole: I knew this. No matter what happened, I'd dislike him for coarsely and unnecessarily mocking a disabled person. So what?

Listen--- Anyone, ANYONE who moves through these days without some humility towards the forces (or maybe even the voters) who elected this guy is disregarding perhaps the greatest explication of human nature our generation will ever produce. Have you read the thoughtful pieces comparing Brexit to Trump? Comparing Francis to Trump? This is global. I can well imagine that the game-changing improvements which have to humanity during my lifetime heretofore will now, tragically, slow to a crawl or even roll backward... And this could happen for mechanically sound if not morally good reasons.

If you, as do so many lefties, imagine that politicians, and reporting on politicians, should as the first task FLATTER you, then I think you're fucking it up. Even if Trump is an eighth-grade boy. Even if whatsername is a sinister shitbot.

Okay, there was one omitted word in that one ("happened"), but I'm still a great blog commenter.

One of the greatest, absolutely spectacular, a stunning success.

Well, YOU seem to need to flatter yourself...

No, I don't expect or demand that politicians flatter the people I admire - I never believe they really mean it anyway. Their actions are what matter. (Looking at the big picture, that is - chances are all politicians have disappointed their supporters in one way or another.) But being overly, verbally nasty to people who don't need/deserve it is something very different from merely not flattering people. (And yes, Madonna was a good example of how not to talk, recently.)

Btw, whenever the subject comes up, I tell young people never to idolize any politicians or celebs - they're just going to disappoint you someday. (Look at Cosby.) Take any GOOD lessons they had to offer originally and build your life on those ideas; don't count on THEM to practice what they seem to preach.

The Heartbroken Left has taken no lesson from this. Half the voting public, or whatever fraction you might choose to credit, elected Donald Trump. That is a thing that happened.

Instead of asking why or how those voters have become so disaffected with politics, especially Democratic Party politics, the Heartbroken Left continues make social distance from the people who elected Trump... Because those voters are too racist, or mean-spirited, or hate trannies, or what-have-you. As if 'The people who voted for Trump are beneath me; I need not be concerned with their lives'.

How will that work out for the Heartbroken Left?

My sarcasm is the least of their problems: Their condescending disinterest in the lives of voters who are every bit as American and every bit as deserving as they are has bitten them hard in the ass.

We are ALL paying the price for the egotistical neediness and social isolation of the Heartbroken Left.

Any voter overwhelmed by the irony of my jokes deserves what's about to happen. The rest of us do not.