Freedom to oppress. Freedom from oppression.

I don’t read the New York Times, and I’m not tempted to pay for a subscription to get behind its paywall. I also don’t trust their coverage based on what I read in Daily Kos. However, my friend and debate partner, who is originally from the Big Apple, does subscribe and does read it regularly. The NYT is known as the paper of record for its lack of bias and its balanced reporting. Because of that it is used as a source for a variety of topics by members of Congress. That is important. A couple days ago I got an email from GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (the organization was formed before society paid much attention to Bisexual and Transgender, back when Queer was considered a slur before it was reclaimed as a badge of honor). GLAAD does such things as monitor TV, movies, and print publications (whatever “print” means these days). They protest defamatory portrayals of our community and they present Media Awards each year to those TV shows and movies with the most positive portrayals. I’m on GLAAD’s email list, though I’m not a financial supporter. The email urged me to sign an open latter to the Times demanding they stop giving voice to people who mischaracterize and harm transgender people. Most of these voices are through opinion pieces, which don’t have the same requirements of accuracy. I read the letter and added my name. There are many important LGBTQ people and many celebrities who also signed. The letter listed demands, including no longer giving voice to anti-trans bigots and their hateful misinformation and hiring a few trans people to guide the paper’s coverage. I forwarded the GLAAD email to my friend, saying this is why I don’t trust the Times. We had lunch together to day. As part of our discussion of many things he said he saw my email and marked it for later reading. He also was surprised that the Times would allow such misuse of its impartiality, though he said he doesn’t read all of the Times. My friend wondered if I have any examples of this biased portrayal of trans people. Marissa Higgins of Kos provides an example. JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books (which I read and saw the movies too), has become notorious for being a transphobe. Rowling reasons that she is defending women. Higgins replies that trans women are women. The people women need defending from are men. Much of Higgins post is about an opinion piece by Pamela Paul, a Times op-ed columnist, who defended Rowling’s transphobia. I won’t go into every one of Higgins’ rebuttals to what Paul wrote, though it is good reading for those who want to understand transgender people. I will note that it matters because this is not the only transphobic opinion piece in the Times. And because they appear in the Times they are given an air of impartiality (when they clearly are not) and transphobic lawmakers are able to say, “See! The Times agrees that trans people are dangerous!” That gives cover to anti-trans laws they propose and pass. And that leads to harm and death of trans people. Higgins also provides a link to the letter and includes a response from the Times, which essentially says they stand by their reporting. Which increases my mistrust of the Times. Dartagnan of the Kos community what would be involved in blue (or red) states seceding from the country. He references the article These Disunited States by Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson that appeared in the New York Review of Books. Dartagnan begins by noting many of the reasons why the two sides may not want to live together, though the reasons come down to: Freedom to one group means freedom to oppress. Freedom for the other group means freedom from oppression. There are disagreements over gun availability and what to do with militia groups. Over being “woke” or “anti-woke” – whether we should acknowledge our oppression of targeted groups to stop being oppressive or ban acknowledging that oppression so that it can be perpetuated. Over whether America is a “Christian” nation that gives conservative Christians control of national laws. Over whether abortion is a right and women have control over their own bodies. Over whether the Supreme Court can rule from on high without considering a justice’s own ethics. Over whether rich people are taxed fairly and poor people are offered a meaningful social safety net. Over who gets a good quality education. Over who is allowed access to affordable health care. Over whether workers are left to the oppression of bosses. Over whether we should do something about climate change. I’m sure there are many other issues Dartagnan (and I) left out. Dartagnan wrote:

Given the seemingly implacable divisions that already exist in this country, it’s not particularly apocalyptic anymore to imagine a point where the majority populations in “blue” states simply refuse to bow to this court’s edicts and opt to go it alone.

Add to that the conservative introduction of violent intimidation and sense that they were ordained to rule. Because of all that America is already essentially binational, with two sharply opposed communities under one federal government in which each thinks the other poses a mortal threat to the country. If Congress remains divided after the 2024 election, no matter which party takes the White House states that are predominantly the other party may begin discussions of secession – amicable separation – and begin collaboration with other like-minded states. Since red and blue states are somewhat intermingled there won’t be a clear division as there was in the Civil War. There would also be a great deal of political migration. And violence. Perhaps the danger could be lessened with the federal government changed to handle the military and national infrastructure and leaving everything else to the states. However, most Democrats see the federal government as the most practical way of redressing injustice and protecting minorities. And most Republicans want the federal government to be the enforcer of oppression. There would be issues to work out – how to handle Social Security, national health, the distribution of energy, maintaining infrastructure, and how to keep the military from being used by one side against the other. Conservatives vow to step up their oppression and are doing so in Texas and Florida. They are showing exactly what they intend to do if they win the presidency. Splitting the country is an extremely unpleasant thought. But it is better to think about it now rather than when it is too late. Lean McElrath, quoting and linking to an article in the Daily Beast, tweeted:

“DeSantis Now Says Teachers Are Shelving Books to Make Him Look Bad” The only thing worse than a bully is a whining bully who plays victim. Oh, wait, that’s the entire current Republican Party. For a group who adhere to a belief “traditional” white culture is supreme, Republicans repeatedly reveal they see themselves as victimized weaklings. I’m as white as one can be by ancestral or aesthetic metrics and find it pathetic. I can only imagine how non-white people feel. “We’re white, cis, heterosexual men. We created the bestest most important strongest culture on earth and must defend it until death!” But also: “We’re being defeated and made to look bad by all those other mean icky people so they must be attacked! Waaaaah waaah waaah!” You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to be a bigot, at least have some dignity.

Rob Rogers tweeted a cartoon of Ron DeathSantis writing “Don’t Say Gay!” at the front of a classroom and a black student asking, “Governor DeSantis, were you born a bigot or is that a lifestyle choice?” Jesse Duquette tweeted a cartoon of Goldwater (I think) of the 1960s saying “States’ Rights,” Nixon in the 70s saying, “Southern Strategy,” Reagan in the 80s saying, “Welfare Queens,” and DeathSantis in the 2020s saying “Woke.” The caption says, “Different code, same Klan.”