Getty

Quit whining about gender equality and Hollywood, says actress in whiniest franchise ever.

Following in the footsteps of Charlotte “racist to whites” Rampling and Michael “be patient” Caine is Kristen Stewart, who told Variety that those who have been speaking out about diversity in Hollywood after zero people of color were nominated for any acting categories in this year’s Oscars should stop “sitting around and complaining about that, do something. Go write something, go do something.”

“And that’s easy to say,” she continued, nearly becoming self-aware before veering wildly off course. “Like, f–k, it’s hard to get movies made. It’s a huge luxury. Who gets to just make movies? But that subject is just so prevalently everywhere right now, and it’s boring.”

To her credit, Stewart’s argument (if you can call it that) isn’t in favor of the status quo—something that couldn’t said for Rampling and Caine. She is arguing that people should organize or create things to inspire change, not just talk about it. The problem is, fuck, it’s hard to get movies made, especially for women and people of color—a lack of opportunity is part of the problem. 

And also, speaking out about #OscarsSoWhite, even if it’s “boring” to Stewart, has inspired change. On January 21, the Academy announced plans to “double the number of women and diverse members of the Academy by 2020,” which almost certainly wouldn’t have happened if people hadn’t spent most of the previous week sitting around complaining.

Update: Variety, which originally reported that Stewart’s comments were about diversity, has changed its story and now reports that they were about gender equality. Variety conducted the interview in question.  

February 21, 2017

Hulton Archive / Getty Images

A newly discovered Walt Whitman novel shows why he became a poet instead.

Zachary Turpin is becoming an expert in uncovering previously unidentified Walt Whitman writings. The University of Houston graduate student had previously discovered that Whitman was the pseudonymous author of Manly Health and Training, a self-help guide penned by “Mose Velsor” in 1858. Now Turpin has proven that Whitman was the anonymous author Life and Adventures of Jack Engle, a short novel that was serialized in the pages The Sunday Dispatch, a New York newspaper, in 1852.

The New York Times describes the novel as a “quasi-Dickensian tale of an orphan’s adventures, it features a villainous lawyer, virtuous Quakers, glad-handing politicians, a sultry Spanish dancer and more than a few unlikely plot twists and jarring narrative shifts.” The novel is available online, and while it deserves reading from Whitman aficionados, few will think this is a recovered masterpiece on par with Leaves of Grass.

Whitman wasn’t proud of his works of fiction, and he opposed plans to reprint them. “My serious wish were to have all those crude and boyish pieces quietly dropp’d in oblivion,” he wrote in 1882. Still, as the Whitman-loving James Joyce once noted, the errors of a genius are “portals of discovery.” Life and Adventures of Jack Engle is a window into who Whitman was before he discovered his mature voice as a bard, a marker of his path to his vocation.

Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images

Here are the best panel titles from CPAC.

On Wednesday, CPAC’s annual conference will kick off, now sans one Milo Yiannapoulos. But judging by some of the panels, the conference will still be ... dangerous. (Sorry.)

A few of the panels are NSFW.

  • “50 Shades of Property ... Or at Least 3”
  • “Prosecutors Gone Wild”

Some of the panels will really make you [thinking face emoji].

  • “If Heaven Has a Gate, A Wall, and Extreme Vetting, Why Can’t America?”
  • “FREE stuff vs FREE-dom: Millenials’ Love Affair with Bernie Sanders?”
  • “Black Lives Matter, so why does the Left not support Law Enforcement?”
  • “Banning Poor People from Jobs”

CPAC panel or Miss Congeniality sequel?

  • “Armed and Fabulous: The New Normal”

And then others are just tackling the impossible.

  • “How Not to Be a Hack During the Trump Administration: An Inside Industry Perspective on Media Coverage in a New Political Paradigm”

See the whole agenda here.

Slaven Vlasic / Getty Images

Uber is bringing in Eric Holder after a former employee’s complaints about sexism went viral.

In a staff memo Uber CEO Travis Kalanick announced that, along with Arianna Huffington and new human resources head Liane Hornsey, former Attorney General Holder will investigate recent allegations of the company’s sexist culture.

Two days ago, a former Uber engineer, Susan J. Fowler, posted a harrowing blog post detailing her experiences at Uber. Fowler wrote about tensions with HR after reporting instances of blatant sexual harassment. She also described a chaotic, Game of Thrones-like atmosphere in which women were often stymied or passed over. At one point, an HR representative suggested that Fowler herself might be to blame for her struggles at the company.

The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that *I* was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making, and that if I had ever considered that I might be the problem. I pointed out that everything I had reported came with extensive documentation and I clearly wasn’t the instigator (or even a main character) in the majority of them—she countered by saying that there was absolutely no record in HR of any of the incidents I was claiming I had reported (which, of course, was a lie, and I reminded her I had email and chat records to prove it was a lie).

Immediately after the post went viral, Kalanick ordered HR to begin an urgent “independent” investigation of the claims. Bringing on Holder makes some sense. During the Obama administration, he led investigations of mishandled sexual assault allegations on college campuses and took part in the White House interagency task force on sexual assault response at universities.

Whether it will be enough to repair Uber’s tarnished image is another question. Just recently, the ride-sharing service faced a #deleteUber campaign after its drivers broke a strike of New York City taxi drivers protesting Donald Trump’s Muslim ban. Last week, David Plouffe, another Obama White House veteran, was fined $90,000 for illegally lobbying Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, also a former Obama administration member, on behalf of Uber.

John Moore / Getty Images

Donald Trump’s proposed immigration crackdown is sweeping, inhumane, and dangerous.

According to The Washington Post, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly signed a pair of memos Friday that outline the Trump administration’s new plan to begin the arrest and deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. The agency wants to mobilize local law enforcement in the rounding up of undocumented immigrants, hire thousands of new officers, expedite deportation hearings, and vastly expand the criteria for who will be fast-tracked for deportation.

But not to worry. The memos come with provisos that seem intended to assuage the public’s fears that this mass deportation plan would be inhumane, expensive, and completely unnecessary. Trump says he only wants to get the “bad hombres,” or, in the words of the memo, people who, “in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.” Ok, so what exactly does that mean? This description is sufficiently vague that virtually any justification could be drummed up to deport anyone who doesn’t have papers.

Trump has already made clear his belief that illegal immigration, in and of itself, poses a risk to public safety and national security, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But it’s that phrase “in the judgment of an immigration officer” that is particularly scary. This invests agents on the ground with a huge amount of power. If an immigration officer feels like it, you get the boot.

As for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which protects undocumented people who were brought here illegally as children, it remains untouched by the new plan. But Trump once called DACA “illegal amnesty,” and expressed a desire on the campaign trail to get rid of the 2012 law via executive order. In the past four years more than 750,000 children and young people have been protected by the law.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

This Republican wants to institute affirmative action—just for other Republicans.

Conservatives often complain about being excluded from college campuses, citing the overwhelming majority of Democrats employed at institutions of higher learning. A lawmaker in Iowa is now proposing to do something about it, in the form of a bill that would require “balance” in the hiring of faculty in the state university system. The bill would prohibit the hiring of a professor or instructor until the party registrations of Democrats and Republicans are within ten percentage points of each other.

“I’m under the understanding that right now they can hire people because of diversity,” the bill’s author, state Sen. Mark Chelgren (R), told The Des Moines Register. “They want to have people of different thinking, different processes, different expertise. So this would fall right into category with what existing hiring practices are.”

The bill is almost certainly unconstitutional, since it would be viewpoint-based discrimination. If actually carried out, it would likely result in a brain drain of qualified professors. But it’s actually very amusing to consider the ramifications of such a proposal even being made in the first place. First off, the language of diversity and affirmative action is being appropriated to benefit the political class that is literally running the country (and the state of Iowa) right now. And second, in this one man’s misguided effort to get what he sees as a fair shake, he wants to literally carry out the sin that conservatives have accused colleges of committing: shutting out deserving applicants.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Why are conservatives drawing the line at Milo Yiannopoulos?

Milo, a rising star of the alt-right, has been disinvited from CPAC and lost his book deal with Simon & Schuster after a clip emerged of him endorsing sex between adult men and young teenage boys. His fall has a lot of people wondering just how conservatism reached such a low point that racist misogynists like Milo have become celebrities.

Matt Lewis writes in The Daily Beast of seeing young activists walk right past the legendary Phyllis Schlafly at CPAC years ago, apparently unaware of who she was, in order to check out the latest shocking personalities. He concludes:

It’s a long way from speakers like William F. Buckley, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Phyllis Schlafly to Milo Yiannopoulos, but who thinks that just because he was disinvited in 2017, the trend will end here? Will next year’s invite include Julian Assange, Richard Spencer, Piers Morgan, and Alex Jones? They may not be conservative, but it’ll make for a hell of a show. The conservative movement is a very big tent—a tent that now houses the greatest freak show on earth.

The real question, though, is when the freak show actually began. The late Phyllis Schlafly, as a key example, built her own political movement as a right-wing conspiracy monger railing against “the secret kingmakers” of the old Eastern establishment. In terms of the modern gender politics in which Milo has excelled in creating controversy, she was notable for opposing the very idea of marital rape as a legal concept: “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.” These are comments that would not be out of place on Breitbart today—and yet Schlafly is held up as some kind of grande dame of conservatism.

Buckley, of course, was a longtime champion of white identity politics. He endorsed segregation and black disenfranchisement in 1957; called for police to suppress the Selma marchers in 1965; and staunchly championed Apartheid-era South Africa in 1985.

So what new line, exactly, are the likes of Milo, Spencer, or Jones actually crossing?

February 19, 2017

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Please, New York Times, don’t compare supporting Trump with being gay.

National correspondent Sabrina Tavernise, in a “news analysis” in the Sunday edition, asks the question: “Are Liberals Helping Trump?” The “momentum” of the resistance to President Donald Trump, she argues, “is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism—the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed.” Tavernise acknowledges that “[c]onservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trump’s encouragement,” but the overall impression is that liberals ought to be more politically expedient by building bridges to centrist Trump supporters.

But here’s the most insulting passage in the article (emphasis mine):

“The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist, 34, who works in sales for a tech start-up in Mountain View, Calif., a liberal enclave where admitting you voted for Mr. Trump is a little like saying in the 1950s that you were gay....

Mr. Youngquist stayed in the closet for months about his support for Mr. Trump. He did not put a bumper sticker on his car, for fear it would be keyed. The only place he felt comfortable wearing his Make America Great Again hat was on a vacation in China. Even dating became difficult....

He came out a few days before the election.

It’s astounding that this reckless analogy survived the Times’ famously tortured editorial process. Supporting a political candidate of any stripe is nothing like being gay. The former is a political belief, subject to change on a whim, while the latter is an elemental part of one’s human identity. But supporting a bigoted political candidate today could not be more different than being gay in the United States during McCarthyism. The government, in what’s known as “The Lavender Scare,” was hunting down and firing federal workers suspected of being homosexual. “Popular magazines, including Time, LOOK, and Life, ran articles about gay men (women were often completely ignored) depicting them as poorly adjusted individuals who were lonely, isolated, and interested in seducing innocent others into their ‘lifestyle,’” Deana F. Morrow, a professor of social work at Winthrop University, wrote in 2001:

[T]he Pre-Stonewall era was an oppressive time to be gay or lesbian in America. Gays and lesbians were portrayed only in negative terms by mainstream media. Medical authorities depicted homosexuality as an illness to be cured, and religious authorities viewed it as a lapse of moral conviction. Furthermore, the legal system provided no options for the protection of the civil liberties of gays and lesbians. In fact, being gay or lesbian meant living with the risk of being arrested or institutionalized because of one’s sexual orientation.

As Bonnie J. Morris wrote at the American Psychological Association’s website, “[I]t would not be until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as an ‘illness’ classification in its diagnostic manuals. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, gay men and lesbians continued to be at risk for psychiatric lockup and jail and for losing jobs or child custody when courts and clinics defined gay love as sick, criminal, or immoral.”

This is to say nothing of the violence committed against LGBT people, then as now. I’m not aware of any mass discrimination against Trump supporters that is threatening their livelihood, their civil rights, or their right to exist at all.

Joe Raedle/Getty

When it wasn’t terrifying, Donald Trump’s “campaign-style” rally was stale.

Trump needed this. His first month in office has been an unmitigated disaster. There are not only daily—practically hourly—reports from the West Wing of extreme incompetence, but Trump’s fourth week in office was defined by a major scandal: the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Things are not going well and Trump is clearly over-matched—when he isn’t bored—by the responsibilities of being president.

His “campaign-style” rally—ominously pitched as the start of the 2020 campaign—existed primarily to make Trump feel good about himself. Getting back on the campaign trail was a way to regain his mojo. Trump needs crowds to tell him that he is good and is doing a good job, because every other available metric—polls, reporting, basic cognitive functions—say that he is, in fact, doing a very bad job and that he is historically unpopular. He got that on Saturday—in many ways, Trump’s rally most resembled his rallies from mid-August 2016, when it seemed like his campaign was crashing to earth. The biggest takeaway from the rally was that Trump seemed genuinely happy in a way that he hasn’t since he took office.

It was, in effect, a greatest hits rally. Like going to see Boston or .38 Special in 2017, Trump did tired versions of old favorites: He talked about the border wall (now, hilariously, the “great border wall”) and companies moving overseas and the terrible Democrats and how the federal government is getting screwed by private companies. At one point, resembling late-period Lenny Bruce, he read the travel ban executive order to the crowd to point out ... something. He brought out a rabid fan to say a few words, which was probably the silliest thing I’ve ever seen a president do. Melania kicked things off by reading the Lord’s Prayer. It was a weird rally, in other words, but only because Trump was president—in most ways, it seemed like the kind of rally Trump did over and over again in the long summer of 2016.

One thing that was missing—perhaps the reason why the rally felt so unfocused and unmoored—was a foil. In 2016, Trump had Hillary Clinton, a career politician with ties to the corrupt establishment he was railing against. In 2017, Trump has nothing. He tried to hit two abstractions: the Democrats, who don’t have the power to really oppose his agenda, and the media. Trump’s attacks on the media and the First Amendment are genuinely ominous—on Saturday Trump quoted Thomas Jefferson to decry the “fake news” media. “I want to speak to you without the filter of the fake news,” Trump said at the beginning of his speech. It’s clear that Trump’s attacks on the media are meant to delegitimize one of the few American institutions capable of holding him to account. But Trump’s attacks on the media, though more pointed—he is now claiming that the news media is making up entire stories, which is insane—have always been at the center of his speeches to large crowds.

Trump’s rally will be held up by his surrogates on the Sunday shows and by press secretary/unwanted household pet Sean Spicer as proof that the polls that suggest that a clear majority of Americans disapprove of his presidency are “fake news.” That Trump is still leading a movement and that thousands of people at a rally somehow equal or negate the millions who are concerned about his ability to lead the country. But what was most notable about the rally was that Trump retreated to the safety of the stump speech—it may have been the least newsworthy event of his calamitous young presidency.

February 17, 2017

Donald Trump is so petty.

Trump is currently a man without enemies. His attempts at elevating Head Clown Chuck Schumer have failed; his jabs at Hillary Clinton are like the Rolling Stones playing “Jumping Jack Flash” in 2017—the diehards may cheer but everyone else just rolls their eyes. On Friday afternoon, Donald Trump took to Twitter to throw a left jab at the only enemy he has left: The media.

But Trump deleted this tweet after only one minute. Why? Did he believe that he had crossed a line? That labeling the media as treasonous did little to repair America’s fraying social bonds? That it’s unfair to call people who are just doing their jobs FAKE NEWS or SICK? Or that the entire structure of this tweet was weirdly messianic, transferring his personal enemy—in this case, an abstraction—onto the “people” (which in Trump’s case strictly refers to citizens)?

No. Twenty minutes later Trump re-upped.

Trump deleted a tweet just because he wanted to label some other media organizations as “fake news”—in this case the three major non-FOX networks.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

John Bolton might become national security adviser because nobody competent wants to work for Trump anymore.

Shortly after Donald Trump won the presidency, an important debate ensued over whether experienced Republicans and civil servants of integrity should agree to work for him. Having adults in his administration would reduce the risk of calamity, but it might also tempt them into complicity with his crimes, while lending his team the competency he would need to carry them out. Or so the argument went.

When Bob Harward declined Trump’s offer to be his one-month-old presidency’s second national security adviser, it marked the moment when that debate ended, for all intents and purposes.

Through malice and incompetence, Trump has shambled into a paradox, whereby anyone who agrees to work for him will have exhibited a disqualifying error of judgment, guaranteeing him an administration filled with knaves, hacks, and vandals. John Bolton may be an incrementally less horrifying national security adviser than General Michael Flynn was, but it’s hard to say. The Trump White House withdrew Bolton from consideration for multiple Senate-confirmable positions because even Republicans wouldn’t willingly consent to allowing him into the government.

The other people Trump is considering, while less alarming than Bolton, also speak to the thinning pool of talent he has available to him.