I’m still trying to figure out if Warren really did leak that story. All reporting I’ve found presumes it was her, but no one seems to know definitively. Given how she handled it, I think there is enough reason to doubt that she did. It’s hard to see how she thinks it could have helped her and she had done a good job of not playing “the woman card” up until then. Plus it just doesn’t feel like her style to leak something anonymously.

Still, it’s possible she did, but even in that case, it seems like the kind of conversation worth having. As someone who knocked a lot of doors in Iowa this year, I can absolutely tell you people will say that they’re worried enough people won’t vote for a woman that it would hurt their chances to beat Trump.

I don’t, for a moment, think Sanders would ever say anything sexist and he clearly has no issue with a woman running. Its easy to see, though, how the media could distort a conversation about how to reach voters who are concerned about a woman’s electability to make it seem this way.

Like you, I don’t have anything other than my intuition to guide me here, but I think I would agree with the Satanist that there could be atheist Catholics.

It seems to me that religious labels are up to the individual, even in cases where there are specific doctrines that dictate what official adherents to the religion must believe. To take an example, according to Pew, 69% of self-described Catholics believe that the bread and wine used during communion are only symbols of the body and blood of Jesus, which is contrary to official doctrine. Still, I doubt that many people would have trouble accepting this majority as “real” Catholics. If this is the case, I don’t see why accepting any other aspects of the religion as merely symbolic should be any different.

That’s my theory anyway. In practice, I think such persons are much more likely to be merely agnostic rather than outright atheist. Still, I would welcome a church going, communion taking self-described Catholic atheist into the community.

I’ve always assumed that all time travel would in fact have to be time and space travel. After all, the Earth isn’t going to be in the same location in space in 1955 as it is today.

The idea that this was the ONE THING about Bill & Ted that didn’t make sense is pretty funny. I will be smiling about that all day :)

I guess I should clarify: Of course I agree that impeachment shouldn’t be used or threatened simply because we don’t like them. What can be done for us can be done to us. There must be a benchmark. What I disagree with is the idea that only crimes are impeachable. My reading on the subject is that “high crimes and misdemeanors” refers more to violations of the oath of office or undermining public confidence in the office or government. This can include crimes, but it doesn’t have to. If a government official showed up belligerently drunk to work every day, it may not be illegal, but they could be impeached.

So no, we have no evidence of a crime, but I’m saying it’s at least arguable that he has violated his oath of office by continuing to have business conflicts while in office.

Honestly, I don’t think it would necessarily be wise to begin proceedings, even if we thought it might be likely to succeed, given the amount of damage he could do before being removed from office (and with nothing to lose). Removing him democratically is still the better way.

Sorry, Jack, huge flaw in your reasoning is that impeachment does not necessitate a crime. For example, if the president decided to take a six month vacation, that’s clearly not against the law, but should absolutely bring about impeachment proceedings for dereliction of duty.

I, for one, think that his violation of the emoluments clause, and his ridiculous nepotism would be plenty to begin impeachment proceedings against any other president. On the other hand, I am aware that impeachment is generally a bad thing for the country, no matter who is in office. And unlike Nixon, for example, we can’t expect Trump to go quietly.

Of course, it’s a moot point as long as republicans are in control of Congress.

I just watched this for the first time two weeks ago. You're totally right that you shouldn't know anything about it going in. The problem is that virtually every plot point is spoiled in the trailer. I hadn't seen the trailer recently or very many times, yet I knew everything that was going to happen well before it did. Do not watch the trailer if you want to enjoy the movie.

I also agree with SonicYouthFan about the God comment toward the end of the film. With so little dialogue in the film, it really sticks out as something that the filmmakers apparently felt they had to say. It rewrote a lot of the subtext for me, and not for the better.

I'm not going to worry about spoilers, because this is a two year old movie, and frankly, anyone who wants to see this movie has seen it already.

I agree that this isn't a horror movie for horror movie fans, I would say it's a horror movie for cinephiles. The visual style, score, narrative structure, and cinematography all work to deliver an intentionally understated feeling of dread throughout the film.

I love - LOVE - traditional horror movies, but I can appreciate what this film is trying to do. I wasn't initially sure how I felt about it as the credits were rolling, but this is one of those that stuck with me for a few days. For example, I'm still not sure what all of the underlying motivations were for the creature to take the forms it took, but it's a puzzle I found myself happy to think about.

I think the Christian abstinence scare tactic theory is based on a pretty vacuous reading. I would argue that the message is somewhat the opposite, that this film is about coming to grips with sexual morality, not shutting it out, but embracing and accepting it as we grow into adulthood.

Re: The Witch: I'm ashamed to admit, I couldn't make it through this one. I still may take another go at it some day, but I just felt gross watching it. Not scared, just gross. Not a cool feeling when you're home alone at night with the lights out.

I think the lens of social media distorts our view of society. I've read many articles about how someone had a bad experience on social media, but it appears to be just anecdotal evidence, and largely subject to confirmation bias. Writing about the worst of social media at the expense of all of the positive movements and discussions being had across the country extends their platform and thus gives them outsize influence on the conversation.

If this is truly all you're seeing, well, I guess I can't begrudge you for writing about it, but I would encourage you to find some Indivisible groups in your area, or start showing up to the listening posts hosted by your local representatives (I know you're in MS, but surely you have one or two democratic state reps?). I think you'll find that the conversations being had in the real world are far more rational and action-oriented than what the blog-o-sphere would have you believe.

If I'm being honest, I see FAR more complaining by the middle-left about how ALL liberals (who aren't them, of course) have been hurling baseless insults and name-calling anyone with whom they disagree than I have seen actual liberals name-calling or insulting anyone. The Women's March in Washington was famously one of the most peaceful large-scale protests ever, and it was intentionally not endorsed as an anti-Trump movement. I have encountered literally zero instances of anyone making any of the comments suggested in this article, even behind closed doors, and I have some pretty aggressively liberal friends. We talk a lot about the actions we plan to take over the next two years to fight for the issues we care about. We are in agreement that a large part of the next election is going to be about reaching out to those who didn't vote with us in November and how to convince them that the current administration doesn't have their best interests at heart. Most of our complaints about the administration are about specific policy decisions or otherwise baffling occurrences that are happening on such a routine basis. We aren't blaming our friends and neighbors for our predicament. We are instead doing things like going out to our local off-year caucuses today, listening to our elected representatives, and making contributions to our party platform.

As far as I can see, these foaming-at-the-mouth liberal nut-job ass-hats you keep talking about are a very small minority. And you are giving them far more power by writing about them as if they're not. And that is playing into the administration's hands as much as anything else.

Jack, your posts are usually straightforward and thoughtful, but I can't tell whether this is genuine enthusiasm for the safety-pin-as-fashion-statement look, or a too-subtle dig at those who would use the safety pin as a tool of empowerment. I suppose since I can't recall your posts resorting to sarcasm often, if ever, I will choose to believe the former.

Weird time to become suddenly interested in fashion though.