Culture Feature

Amy Coney Barrett Isn't a "Handmaid's Tale" Character—She's Worse

If The Handmaid's Tale teaches us one thing, it's that even seemingly powerful societies can and will collapse if certain fringe groups take enough power and bend enough public opinion to their will.

Amy Coney Barrett

Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI/Shutterstock

Amidst the political chaos of the past few weeks—the unveiling of Trump's unpaid tax returns, a disastrous debate, Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis, and so many other issues—Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination has received little significant blowback for such a significant event.

Following Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, many feared the worst and felt a sense of hopelessness. Ginsburg was long a pillar of women's rights and liberty and justice for all.

Amy Coney Barrett is a staunch pro-life conservative, a member of a fringe religious group known as the People of Praise, and a former student of Antonin Scalia. Her appointment is also a specific and purposeful attack on Ginsburg's legacy. In 2018, Trump considered picking Barrett but allegedly said "I'm saving her for Ginsburg," according to an Axios report. Barrett received word of her nomination three days after Ginsburg's death.

Keep ReadingShow less
TV Lists

Happy Bi Visibility Day: The Best Bisexual Representation on TV

Dear TV writers and boomers, bisexuality is not a phase or a stepping stone.

photo by: Delia Giandeini / Unsplash

Though bisexual people make up roughly 52% of the LGBTQ+ community, they've been underrepresented on television and in media for a long time.

When they do appear, they're frequently painted as sociopaths (cough, Villanelle on Killing Eve) or are painted as promiscuous or confused, if their identities are addressed at all.

Fortunately, many recent TV shows have been making up for decades of bisexual erasure and misrepresentation by featuring nuanced bisexual characters. On this Bisexual Visibility Day, here are some of TV's greatest bisexual icons.


Keep ReadingShow less
CULTURE

Elizabeth Banks and Busy Philipps Join Rally in DC to Defend Abortion Rights

The My Right My Decision rally in DC on Wednesday focused on the positives and success stories of abortion

The world is full of different kinds of suffering.

There are base physical pains—abdominal cramps, aching joints, tearing flesh. And then there are deeper, more crushing forms of spiritual and psychological anguish—the feeling of being inadequate to provide for a loved one, or that your mere existence has ruined another person's life. No one should have to live with that kind of pain. That's the idea behind a rally on Wednesday in Washington DC and an accompanying hashtag on Twitter, which both seek to celebrate and defend a powerful tool for the prevention of suffering: abortion.

Keep ReadingShow less
CULTURE

Rush Limbaugh Is a 30-year Infection in American Media

His latest insanity involved claiming that the coronavirus is both "the common cold," and a bio-weapon designed by China.

Rush Limbaugh's life and controversy

There are few people in American media as reliably unhinged and distasteful as Rush Limbaugh.

Keep ReadingShow less
CULTURE

Kirstie Alley's Awful Tweets (Still) Point to Everything Broken in American Politics

Her thoughts on billionaires, socialism, and impeachment betray a complete disinterest in understanding the topics she discusses

Kirstie Alley 'This Morning' TV show, London, UK

Photo by Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock

Update 3/24/2020: Kirstie Alley has kept her streak of awful going. Taking to Twitter last night, Alley praised Donald Trump's "recent decorum, sincerity, & care," and his "willingness to solve problems." This despite the fact that Trump's delayed response to the COVID-19 pandemic has sent US infection rates on a trajectory that exceeds Italy's terrifying model, and shortly after news that an Arizona couple had poisoned themselves trying to take advantage of the unproven "cure" that Trump has recklessly touted in his press conferences.

The tweet also comes amid a newly opened debate about whether the country should return to business as usual before the pandemic has run its course—allowing the healthcare system to be overwhelmed, and many thousands or millions to die in a misguided effort to prop up the foundering stock market. As Trump put it, "Our country wasn't built to be shut down."


When Kirstie Alley, star of Cheers and Look Who's Talking, was last in headlines, she was explaining how she had traded a cocaine habit for a flower addiction.

It's actually a really sweet story, but whatever is in those flowers must be pretty great stuff and seems to have overwhelmed any awareness of our cultural moment or political realities, because she has since been feeling herself on Twitter in a way that is truly remarkable. The latest entry in the saga arrived around the time the impeachment vote was announced on Wednesday night, when Donald Trump officially became the third president in US history to be impeached. If you want to say that impeachment may not be the right political move, or that other articles of impeachment would have been more effective, there are valid arguments to make. But Alley's take is not one of them.

Alley adopted a sage tone to declare it a "dangerous precedent" and let the world know that "it's gonna be a bumpy decade," as if allowing a president to exchange political help for military aid would not be a dangerous precedent, as if the coming years could somehow be anything but "bumpy" to the point of terrifying division and chaos. What world has she been living in? Does she not realize that the US is currently more divided than at any time since the Civil War? That every Republican lawmaker is beholden to a Trump-adoring constituency in a way that precludes any criticism of his petulant whims, racism, or corruption?

This is not the first time Alley has tweeted regrettable opinions about Trump and the Republican Party. She actually endorsed him in 2016 before walking back that endorsement after the Access Hollywood "grab them by the pussy" tape came out. So maybe she has an ulterior motive in criticizing the Democrats for finally standing up to this absurd regime. More importantly, when she talks about the dire backlash that's headed our way, what does she think that will look like? Will Republicans no longer allow a Democratic president to appoint a Supreme Court justice? Will they redraw maps to cling to power? Or adopt obstructionist tactics with the explicit goal of ensuring that the next Democrat in power only serves a single term? Or maybe they'll just track down a petty personal scandal to build an impeachment case on. That would be so crazy...

In case you don't feel like clicking those links, I'll just let you and Kirstie Alley know that all those things have already happened. And the process of avoiding craven political retaliation from the Republicans would be literally indistinguishable from letting them do whatever they want. So… nice try.


But Alley has other opinions, too. On Monday she also wanted the world to know that she is staunchly anti-socialist. So much so that she recently compared the term "democratic socialist" to "gentle nazi." Strange, then, that the handful of Democratic Socialist countries in Europe are listed as full democracies, according to the Democratic Index. This is in contrast to America's "flawed democracy." And really, all the countries rated "full democracies" incorporate more socialist-leaning policies than the US—like single-payer health care, or fully socialized medicine, just as an example. Is it possible that Kirstie Alley doesn't know what she's talking about? Did she grow up in an era that poisoned her mind with trickle-down, free market, American exceptionalism, domino effect Cold War propaganda? Is she maybe…a boomer?

The reality is that, whatever the issues with its implementation, the underlying ethos of socialism is fundamentally more democratic than that of capitalism. Under true capitalism—and to a lesser extent America's dilute form—owners necessarily control everything from work to speech to political power. You have rights to the extent that you can own things, and the right to ownership is the only one that's fundamental. Under true socialism—and to a lesser extent the dilute form found in Scandinavia—workers are in control of their work and the nation's wealth belongs to the will and the needs of its citizens.

In other words, a Democratic Socialist is far from the contradiction Alley lays out in "gentle Nazi." So as long as we're in agreement that Nazis are fundamentally violent and bad, maybe we can get on the same team with standing up to the politician who has made them feel welcome in America? And if we aren't going to impeach him for creating concentration camps at the border and deporting tens of thousands of people to face death and sexual assault as a result of violence that we export to our southern neighbors, can we at least hold him accountable when he tries to cheat his way through reelection? No? That's a bad precedent?

The truth is that the truly bad precedents in our politics stretch back decades. Since at least the days of Newt Gingrich, the GOP has adopted the approach of pushing as far right as they possibly can while labelling taxes, regulations, social services, and critiques of expanding wealth inequality as "Socialism." In response, Clintonist Democrats have tacked toward the center on economic issues, running away from any accusation of radicalism or a desire for dramatic change.

The result has been that the political left in America has spent decades slowly eroding while the "center" has shifted further and further toward the economic right—toward favoring ownership above all else. And while those economic right policies are not really all that popular with Americans today, the regressive social agenda that the GOP has attached to it has a vocal, enthusiastic core of straight white support—one that makes plenty of room for figures like Donald Trump, Steve King, David Duke, and real, live, non-gentle Nazis.

Now Millennials are faced with being the first generation of Americans since the New Deal who have worse prospects for the future than their parents. And Kirstie Alley apparently sees nothing wrong with that. While many of us are waking up to a potential for economic progress and wondering if the socialist boogeyman was all that scary to begin with, Kirstie just wants to go back to the civil politics that brought all of this on—back to a time when the idea of a more equitable distribution of wealth was not even on the table.

Fortunately, not everyone is so rigid in their mindset. Alley's thoughts on socialism were prompted by an interaction with Hillary-Clinton-advisor-turned-darling-of-the-far-left Peter Daou, who had offered a challenge to Twitter at large: justify the existence of billionaires. Come up with a reason why any individual should own so much money. So much power. Money rules our lives—our politics, our press, our legal system—so what could possibly justify one person having such immense sway over all those sectors? The power to buy legislation, kill negative news stories, and get away with any crime you want to commit. Who deserves that?

Alley had a lazy and thoughtless response ready to go: all you have to do is come up with something really nifty! If enough people want to give you money for it, you deserve to have dominion over the world! The follow up was even less compelling, but I want to dig in on this idea. Don't get me wrong, people who create great products and services deserve reward and recognition. Of all the world's ultra-wealthy people, the small group of successful creators are the ones who most nearly deserve what they have. But a billion of dollars?

Let's say you invent a cool video game that everyone likes? Well, now you have enough money that you can blast your awesome opinions about race and sexuality as loudly as you want. Good for you, Notch! Though you might want to spread your wings and buy up some media companies like some other billionaires have done. If you do that, you can basically just run for president and everyone will have to take you seriously! All because of that video game you came up with, Notch. Or the money you illegally inherited from your dad, Donald. Or that emerald mine in Africa, Elon. Makes a lot of sense.

It would be easy and petty to run through Kirstie Alley's acting credits as though the legacy of Veronica's Closet precludes her from doing some background reading before involving herself in politics. I don't think that actors of any stripe—or anyone else with a platform, an audience, and a message—should be excluded from a conversation on the basis of benign things they've done for money. That isn't why Kirstie Alley is out of her depth here.

You can make movies about talking babies and even be a Scientologist and still have important things to say—though maybe not about psychiatry. You also don't need to have three degrees in political science to have a valid opinion on current events. But if you really think that creating a thing that people want is so inherently good as to justify the wild excesses of unrestrained capitalism, you should at least be willing to read The Lorax to get a sense of where that leads.

Ellen DeGeneres is an inspiring figure.

There are few people as successful as she is who deserve success as much as she does. Her talent and charm are perhaps only matched by the bravery she demonstrated in coming out as a gay woman at a time when that seemed likely to tank her career—and did, in fact, derailed it considerably. Her popularity as a public figure is both a testament to how far our culture has progressed in a relatively short time and undoubtedly a contributing factor in that progress.

Is it any wonder then that, when Ellen came under attack for just being pleasant to a fellow human being, people practically fell over each other to defend and support her? Since issuing her response on Tuesday, she's been hailed as an icon of civility and a too-rare source of hope for the future of our divided nation. Maybe she is those things, and as a general rule, she deserves our support—but she is also absolutely wrong about George W. Bush. Namely, she's ignoring the man's true legacy.

"I'm friends with George Bush. In fact, I'm friends with a lot of people who don't share the same beliefs that I have. We're all different, and I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different."

Who could argue with that? Differences of belief and opinion are not just a part of friendship; for some people they're the whole basis. And as a morning talk show host, Ellen's job is pretty much to be friends with everyone. While she makes no secret about being generally progressive, she treads lightly when it comes to politics—which is not just smart, but probably necessary for national sanity. Instead of diving into that mess, she thrives in all things cute, silly, and inoffensive.

Her show specializes in harmless pranks, surprises, adorable animals, and child prodigies who make us all feel stupid. It's a world of low-stakes fun, and it's not hard to see how the 2019 version of George W. Bush fits into that world. He's a goofy old man who hasn't been culturally relevant in a decade, and he spends his retirement creating charmingly amateurish paintings of pets, world leaders, and himself bathing. He isn't abrasive and belligerent like Trump. He actually seems pretty humble and sweet, socially.

If I were to meet him without context, I'm sure I would want to be his friend, too, regardless of his personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are a personal matter, and if it were only a matter of beliefs—or even of the social agenda Bush promoted when he was president: pushing for a federal amendment to outlaw gay marriage—then it would be up to each individual to forgive and accept him or not.

This seems to be the frame that Ellen was working from when she paired herself with Bush as "a gay Hollywood liberal sitting next to a conservative Republican president." And in that respect, she no doubt has a lot of practice with forgiveness. After all, 15 years ago, 60% of the country opposed gay marriage, and today more than 60% approve. Should we hold a grudge against that 30% that have changed their minds?

More importantly, should we bother to rehash old issues when a supreme court ruling has rendered them moot? Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states! Portia and Ellen are as married as anyone else. If they don't want to hold onto old resentments over the fight to get there, who are we to tell them otherwise? The problem is: George W. Bush's legacy extends much further than domestic policy. He was once the most powerful man on earth, and the way he wielded that power continues to shape the world for the worse.

George W. Bush is a war criminal.

I'll leave aside waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, and Abu Ghraib, because there is far too much to talk about in one article, and none of those topics are as cut and dry as the Iraq War.

George W. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and Bush had inherited a grudge from his father—along with an oil lust from his Vice President. But the world has no shortage of evil men, so he needed a stronger justification to send the country into a massive war.

In that respect, 9/11 justified the inevitable. It got the whole country so fired up for a fight that there was enough energy for more than one. So George W. Bush and his administration lied. They drew vague, imaginary connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, then they manufactured evidence of a weapons program that was even more of a fantasy. They manipulated the media, coerced false testimony, ignored voices of reason, and lied, and lied.

They got the country on board through any means necessary, and thrust us into a multi-trillion-dollar war without a plan for the fallout. As a result of that war, hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children have died, millions have been driven from their homes, the entire region has been destabilized, and ISIS formed and flourished in the vacuum of power. We are living in the world that George W. Bush's war created, and we are far worse for it, regardless of his "beliefs."

Is it even possible for someone with such a toxic legacy to earn our forgiveness? Someone who has caused so much misery and turmoil? We may never know… because George W. Bush has never apologized. Maybe all that pain he caused was the result of some mistaken beliefs on his part. Maybe his beliefs have evolved, and he regrets what he did. As of yet, he's given us no reason to suspect that he sees anything in his legacy that would require an apology. It seems unlikely that he will ever give the world that opportunity to forgive him, yet so many of us are already eager to forget what he's done. Will we do the same for Trump and his child concentration camps in another decade?

In a just world, we would leave aside any question of beliefs and put George W. Bush on trial for his crimes. But we don't live in a just world. We live in a world where powerful men rarely face real consequences for their crimes.

Luckily, there is a model for responding to this kind of injustice. if there's one lesson we can draw from the #metoo movement (apart from the basic reality of pervasive sexual assault…), it's that we don't have to wait around for a justice system that isn't on our side. The court of public opinion is fickle and dangerous, but sometimes it's the only tool we have to punish people who are otherwise untouchable. George W. Bush will never be tried at the Hague. The least we can do is shun and shame him. The least we can do is remember.

In her response, Ellen admonishes us to "be kind to everyone'' and accuses the world of forgetting that difference is okay. Has she truly forgotten that war crimes are not?