Gisèle Pelicot Is Extraordinary
  December 19, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, This Saturday marks the hibernal/winter solstice, making it the shortest day of the year. Not to get all woo-woo on y’all, but it is a great time to do a little gratitude practice and set your intentions for the upcoming season. So have a feast, take a nice hike, brew some mulled cider in your cauldron, and look inward.  In today’s newsletter, we consider the outcome of France’s horrifying rape case. Plus weekend reading, and if you haven’t checked it out already, another chance to fill out our reader survey! Bracing for the cold, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONGisèle Pelicot and the “unrecognized” victims: Today, the final verdicts came down in France’s Pelicot rape case. A brief and brutal synopsis: Over the course of ten years, Gisèle Pelicot was drugged and raped by a man she’d been married to for five decades, Dominique Pelicot, along with dozens of men whom he invited into their shared home to rape her while she was unconscious. He also filmed and took pictures of the assaults. In total, 51 men, Dominique included, were convicted of rape, attempted rape, or aggravated sexual assault, with prison sentences ranging from three to 20 years. Throughout all of this, Gisèle Pelicot has been vocal about having her story told and shifting the sense of shame from victims to perpetrators. She waived her right to anonymity and welcomed the press into the courtroom—both of which surprised many, given the horrific nature of the case. “By making this trial public from Sept. 2, I wanted for society to be able to take up the debates that followed,” Pelicot told the French press. “I have never regretted that decision.”  SUPPORTERS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE WHERE THE TRIAL WAS HELD. ONE MAN HOLDS A SIGN THAT READS "THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE GISÈLE PELICOT. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Those debates are numerous. What could justice look like in this situation? Will anything be done to address faulty policy and rape culture in (and outside) France? Could no one have intervened earlier, while the men were planning their attacks online or when Gisèle Pelicot went to various doctors for mysterious symptoms? These are crucial questions, and don’t stop mattering with this verdict; lawmakers and reporters should keep following them even once the hero at the center of this trial recedes into her well-deserved privacy. And there’s another question we cannot avoid revisiting: What kinds of victims deserve support? Ideally, the answer should be all victims. In her remarks after the verdict, Pelicot herself acknowledged this: “I think of the victims, unrecognized, whose stories often remain hidden,” she said. But many women who come forward are ignored, belittled, publicly mocked, blamed, and shamed back into silence. Pelicot has been rightly lauded as a hero for pursuing a criminal case against these men—but she, of course, ticks all the boxes of what we expect a “good woman” to be. She is a loving mother and grandmother, she’s older (a nice word the media uses to imply “not sexy or enticing to attackers”), and her trial had the golden egg of evidence: video recordings. We still live in a society that in its deepest heart believes that “good women” should not be raped and that those who are were probably asking for it. As Pelicot repeatedly reminded us: The only person to shame and blame for a rape, is the rapist—point blank period. AND:
 WEEKEND READING 📚On a lifetime of silence: Earlier this year, Andrea Skinner, the daughter of late writer Alice Munro, revealed that she had been assaulted by Munro’s second husband—and that Munro knew. Skinner was forced to be silent for years. Why did her mother betray her? (New York Times Magazine) On more AI dangers: Tech companies pushing AI are also planning to build new gas power plants and pipelines to support the growing energy demands of AI. This is literally what they were asked not to do. (Heated) On criminalizing pregnancy: A prosecutor in Mississippi had been threatening pregnant drug users with 20-year sentences in the hope that it would force the mothers to get sober. He had no idea that the majority of these women had ended up in prison—until one woman, Brandy Moore, fought the charges against her. (The Marshall Project/Mississippi Today)  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
She Called Journalists "Monsters"and Liars
  December 12, 2024 Hey there, Meteor readers, We are entering that special time of the year I like to call The Vortex, where time is meaningless and we are all just hauling ourselves across various finish lines. But before we fully get sucked in, I’ve got a special request. Please consider taking a few minutes to fill out this survey so we at The Meteor can better serve you. We want to continue building this community, and we can’t do that without you. Our suggestion box is fully open! In today’s newsletter, we turn to Trump’s latest hire. Plus, your weekend reading list. With appreciation, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONAnother one: Yes, we are talking about yet another questionable Trump appointee, but this one hits uncomfortably close to home for those of us who work in media. Yesterday, Donald Trump announced that he’d nominated former news anchor, election denier, and known hater of the free press Kari Lake to be the new head of Voice of America. A little refresher on VOA: It’s a federally funded international news provider that reaches more than 300 million people. Congress gives VOA $300 million a year, a sum Kari Lake would be responsible for managing despite her calls in 2022 to defund the media. The entire mission of VOA is to provide unbiased, fact-forward news and the organization even has a “firewall” rule which “prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective, independent reporting of news.”  This won’t be the first time a Trump loyalist has been given power over VOA. In 2020, Trump put one of his cronies, Michael Pack, in charge of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA, and a judge found that he’d violated the First Amendment rights of VOA journalists and employees by attempting to censor and retaliate against those he deemed “insufficiently supportive of President Trump.” This time, we’ve got a woman who knowingly spreads disinformation and refers to journalists as “monsters,” a Republican-controlled Congress, and a news organization that relies on both journalists and Congress to function. What could possibly go wrong? Well, in the absolute worst-case scenario: You could end up with government-funded media that is loyal not to facts, but to one man’s agenda of revenge. That leaves the door open for worsening levels of misinformation that could border on propaganda. I hate to throw around that P word, but it’s gravely concerning that someone with such disdain for the truth could be given this much power over the telling of it. AND:
 WEEKEND READING 📚On a growing movement: No one thought Puerto Rico’s Alliance coalition could win the election. But more than a hundred years of history points to exactly why their candidate, Juan Dalmau, came so close. (Truthout) On the other property brothers: Three brothers, two of whom were luxury real estate brokers, were arrested for their roles in a 14-year-long sex trafficking scheme. Their story is so heinous, it reads like an implausible horror film. (New York Times) On money and menopause: Millennial women are entering perimenopause in droves, and a new wave of health-adjacent companies are taking notice. In Retrospect co-host Jessica Bennett dives into what’s real and what’s a scam. (The Cut)  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Could Trump End Birthright Citizenship?
  December 10, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, My child recently learned the words to “Jingle Bells,” and while she cannot fully pronounce all of them, I’ve now heard that song more times than “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” Send earmuffs. In today’s newsletter, we take a look at the latest news on what’s ahead for migrants. Plus, actress and playwright Danai Gurira on the backlash to women’s rights on the African continent. Changing the station, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONA semblance of a plan: When the news broke that Donald Trump had won re-election, I reached out to my mentor, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, and asked, “Did they tell you what time your group is getting deported? I’m in group C.” We laughed. After all, if the end is nigh, you cannot spend all your time suffering about suffering. But beneath the jokes, the memes, and the exhaustion, there is still a big question: Can Trump do all the things he wants to do? When it comes to immigration, it certainly seems like he’s going to try—and fast. Over the weekend in a “Meet the Press” interview, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to mass deportation, stating he would “absolutely” end birthright citizenship. “I don’t want to be breaking up families,” he said. (Really?) “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back, even kids who are here legally.” Because of the 14th Amendment—which does a few things including granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—Trump cannot make good on his threat by himself, but that doesn’t mean it’s an impossibility. As reporter Isabela Dias explains in Mother Jones, Trump and his allies could “resort to the far-fetched claim that large migrant flows to the US-Mexico border constitute an ‘invasion’ of the United States and, therefore, the children of unauthorized immigrants should be excluded from the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.” That idea might seem implausible, especially when even Republicans are divided on mass deportation (as demonstrated by today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings). But we are living in implausible times. If the president thinks the 14th Amendment is up for debate—and let me remind you that the amendment’s equal protection clause is literally being debated before SCOTUS—there’s no telling how far he’ll go to get his way. And when the “them” he’s targeting starts to look like everyone, what will be the line in the sand? AND:
  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
This Law Could Run for President. It's That Bad.
  December 3, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, So as your inbox has probably told you quite a few times today, it’s Giving Tuesday. We promise not to bombard you, but should you be in a particularly giving mood today, we hope you will consider supporting our nonprofit project The Meteor Fund. It hosts regular community events on everything from abortion access to climate change, and supports The Meteor’s journalism, including projects like United States of Abortion and The A Files. We know you have many places to give. We also know that in a time of disinformation, it’s never been more important to support independent media that unapologetically centers the interests of all women. In today’s newsletter, we take a look at the transgender rights case making its way to the Supreme Court. Plus, we’re reclaiming locker room talk. Grateful for you all, The Meteor Team  WHAT'S GOING ONA high-stakes SCOTUS case: ACLU attorney Chase Strangio will make history this week as the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court. The case at hand? United States v. Skrmetti, which will broach the question of whether or not Tennessee’s anti-trans law is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Let’s put that in plain speak for my non-Suits watchers out there. Tennessee SB1 prohibits any medical personnel in the state from providing care that enables “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” Translation: It bans any and all gender-affirming care specifically for transgender minors. It does not however stop, say, a cis-gendered teenage girl from receiving estrogen for any reason because, that form of gender-affirming care is not “inconsistent” with the patient’s sex assigned at birth. This bill is so loudly and staunchly anti-trans, it could run for president and probably win. Lawyers representing Tennessee are citing the court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which eliminated the right to legal abortion, as grounds for upholding SB1, saying that it is not discriminatory but merely “an even-handed regulation of medical procedure.” The use of Dobbs as precedent is part of what makes bringing this case to a wildly conservative court such a gamble: The way they rationalize it, Dobbs didn’t discriminate based on sex; it merely regulated how abortions can be administered in this country. 🙄 The ACLU’s argument, on the other hand, is more attuned to the reality of what these laws are trying to achieve: the eradication of transgender people. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care,” Strangio said in a statement. “They are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution.” Or, as Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, put it: “There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” There’s a lot riding on whether the justices agree. If SB1 is allowed to stand uncontested, the decision would embolden more states to pass more anti-trans legislation. (Twenty-six have banned gender-affirming care already.) If, on the other hand, SCOTUS rules favorably, the outcome could grind anti-trans legislation to a halt nationwide, and establish important limits on how state law can dictate an individual’s health care. There are, of course, many hitches in this giddyup, the largest one being the “U.S.” in “U.S. vs. Skrmetti.” Right now the Biden administration is the “U.S.”—Biden’s DOJ brought the lawsuit along with three trans minors and their families. But when he leaves office in January, the Trump administration might switch to supporting Tennessee. Should that happen, experts say there is a possibility that SCOTUS could request a new hearing to decide whether it should accept the ACLU’s petition at all. Regardless, Strangio and the ACLU are focused on the real people at the heart of the suit. “This is Tennessee displacing the loving, reasoned, painstaking decisions of parents who are trying to do right by their children,” Strangio explained to Dahlia Lithwick on the Amicus podcast. “Children who were in anguish, and are now doing better, because of the health care Tennessee now bans.” AND:
 PROTESTORS OUTSIDE OF THE INC-5 CONFERENCE IN BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA. (VIA UNEP)
 LOCKER ROOM TALK 🏀 🏉 🏃♀️A fun safe space for our fellow women's sports fanatics
 SCREENSHOT OF MY BESTIE VIA INSTAGRAM  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
How to Fight Autocracy, From the Activists Who've Done It
BY MEGAN CARPENTIER
When Donald Trump vowed in December 2023 to be a dictator “on day one,” his aides later clarified that he “was simply trying to trigger the left and the media.” Nonetheless, exit polls showed that half of voters “said they were ‘very concerned’ that another Trump presidency would bring the U.S. closer to authoritarianism,” even though some voted for him anyway.
In the weeks since the election, democracy advocates have raised the alarm about the possibility that, after nearly 250 years, the American system of constitutional governance may be compromised. Many people are worried that Trump will try to hold onto office illegally in 2029; he’s told voters, special interest groups, and House Republicans he’s considering an unconstitutional third term. Critics note his hostility to the free press, his early demands that all his appointments skip confirmation hearings (to which Senate Republicans currently seem unlikely to acquiesce), and his promises to use the Department of Justice to go after perceived political enemies.
Looking at history, the worry that Trump could destroy some of the fundamental guarantees of democracy are not without precedent: All around the world, voters in democratic countries have elected leaders who then undermined the very systems that brought them into power—including the 20th century’s most infamous authoritarian, Adolf Hitler.
How does that happen? What lessons can—and should—Americans learn from other countries which have recent experience with authoritarian rule? Given that scholars have repeatedly found that authoritarian countries are worse for women’s equality, this guidance feels more needed than ever.
So we asked the advice of a few activists from across the globe who know what it’s like when authoritarianism comes your way.
“People exchange their freedoms without actually realizing the consequences for everybody.”
—Génesis Dávila, founder and president of Defiende Venezuela. In Venezuela, current president Nicolás Maduro—handpicked successor of autocrat Hugo Chávez—presides over an authoritarian regime, and recently declared victory in an election he is accused of rigging.
“Something that we couldn't learn on time in Venezuela is that polarization is a poison for the entire society. When we had Chávez and then Maduro in power, they targeted the opposition as enemies and, when they did that, then the opposition also targeted them and their supporters as enemies. The opposition would say Chávez supporters were not smart people, that their values were against the country’s.
“It worked in favor of Chávez and Maduro. I would not want to support someone who is attacking me. I would not want to support someone who believes that I'm not smart. I would not want to support someone who thinks that my values are wrong and their values are right.
“Chávez came to power with the support of the people [but]...he took control of the judiciary and the legislative branch. He announced limitations on freedom of speech; he announced the reform of the Constitution. At the end, he was pretty much able to do whatever he wanted without any resistance. He had 100 percent impunity. [And under Chávez and then Maduro], we moved from being a strong democracy with a strong economy to one of the poorest countries in our region.
“We cannot perceive our fellow citizens as our enemies. We have different perspectives, different values, but we must be willing to find common ground. We need to create bridges, and we need to help them to walk to the other side—but we cannot push them, and we cannot attack them.”
“You can't protect democracy if you're not offering a really inclusive social and economic agenda.”
—Gábor Scheiring, Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics at Georgetown University in Qatar and a former member of the National Assembly in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has ushered in what the European Parliament has denounced as an “electoral autocracy.”
“I'm a huge supporter of liberal democracy and institutions, but you can't really protect those cherished liberal institutions by just talking about how important it is to have a constitutional court and how important media pluralism is. The overwhelming majority of people don't really think in these terms. They are concerned about inflation and real wages and unemployment and inequality, and that's where you need credibility if you're trying to represent those masses.
“So, the old elitist ways of doing progressive politics will not help you. You can’t just continue talking about the values of democracy, as opposed to talking about issues that matter to people. That's just not working. It's not helpful.
“You need to convey a message of significant change, and do that in a credible way….Beyond that, in the U.S., if you have any friends who have a lot of money and can use it to support significant, large, liberally-oriented media outlets, I think that's super important….If we’re frank, conservative billionaires, they invest in conservative media, even if it doesn't pay out immediately. Liberal billionaires in Hungary, they just did not really care to help sustain non-right-wing media. And I think that's a huge, huge problem.”
“As long as people remain organized, there is hope.”
—Halil Yenigun, Associate Director, Stanford University’s Sohaib and Sara Abbasii Program in Islamic Studies, and former professor in Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s time in office has generally been characterized as a movement away from democracy.
“There are a few basic differences between the Turkish government and the American one today that favor American democracy.
“One is that the U.S. judiciary is still a lot more independent than Turkey’s ever was. So even when Trump transgresses certain limits, some conservative justices still stand up against him, like they did with the election fraud claims. The second one is that the U.S. is a federal government, and federalism still creates some kind of counter-force to a centralized, authoritarian government. Don’t take the institutions for granted. Don't take checks and balances for granted.
“Another institutional mechanism [in both the U.S. and Turkey] is the opposition party organization. Turkey had a multiparty democracy before President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was first elected, and, even after, the opposition party organizations did not give up….Each and every election, they just continued fighting back.
“Even though in Turkey, we did not have the same kind of strong civil society as in the U.S.—we don’t have as many NGOs—civil society proved to be a very important channel for people to remain organized. There are still these openings to express opposition to the regime, like Pride Day and especially the women's movement and the annual Women’s March. [That] movement might seem as though it is about a single issue like women's rights, but it serves as a channel for people to vent their resentment against repression.
“These pockets of resistance are very important, I think, to prove that people can still fight back.”
“We realized that we needed to inform people what human rights are.”
—Cristina Palabay, secretary general of the human-rights organization Karapatan in the Philippines, where former president Rodrigo Duterte’s term from 2016 to 2022 was characterized by extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses, efforts to change the country’s constitution, and more.
“How Duterte spoke about human rights was, ‘OK drug addicts are not humans, They are animals.’ This was the dehumanization in which the administration was engaging.
“We realized that we needed to go back to basics, to inform people what human rights are. We had to explain that human rights are more than what is written in the Constitution—more than just legal rights. Human rights are the right to a dignified life, the right to food, the right to just wages, the right to live at all. People can have a basic understanding of human rights when it is spoken about in a way that is easily understandable to them.
“But, as we were educating people, the situation kept getting worse. When kids started to get killed in the drug war, that's when people started to think, OK, so, this is not just about drug addicts. And then, of course, he went after the human rights defenders and he took a militarist approach during the pandemic.
“Based on this education, people started to question the dehumanization of people. And that’s when we realized that Duterte’s propaganda was not as widespread a success.
“It became a defining moment for many of us—civil society, social movements, journalists, even artists—to all come together to mount some kind of pushback, including online. And we did that.”
Megan Carpentier is a freelance writer and editor. She is an alumna of NBC News, The Guardian, Talking Points Memo, and Jezebel, among others, and her byline has appeared in Foreign Policy, Ms. Magazine, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Glamour, and The New Republic.
Sarah McBride Will "Follow the Rules." Girl, Why?
  November 21, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, It’s been a difficult week for anyone following the news cycle. That could apply to every week this year, but these last few days have really had some extra bad umph in them. Please do something this weekend to catch your breath. In today’s newsletter, Bailey Wayne Hundl walks us through the ongoing bathroom battle between Rep. Sarah McBride and her GOP colleagues. Plus more trouble brewing in the land of Trump appointees and your weekend reading list. Inhaling and exhaling, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONYou gotta fight for your rights: As you may have heard, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced a new policy yesterday: On Capitol Hill, only some women will be allowed to use the women’s restroom. The announcement follows the introduction by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) of a bathroom bill targeting Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender person elected to serve in Congress. McBride responded to the policy on social media, writing, “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms…I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.” And as a trans person reading this, I guess I’m just wondering…girl, why? Some have interpreted Rep. McBride’s response as a strategic refusal to be baited into a time-wasting debate. But I happen to believe that the fight for trans people to participate in public life is one that should be faced head-on. I used to work in churches; I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of bullshit policies. And even if they only affected me, I always fought like hell against them—because I knew that if transphobes scored a win against me, they had a chance to do the same to anyone who came after me. Rep. McBride is not just accepting a loss for herself here. Every trans staffer on the Hill just lost the ability to use the restroom at work, and in fact, Rep. Mace has already filed a bill extending the policy to all bathrooms in federal buildings across the country. I want to be so clear: The people who should be fighting against this the hardest are McBride’s allies, on her behalf. And to their (middling) credit, several Democrats have spoken out against the policy—but, unlike the Republicans, they’re not doing anything. “But Bailey, what can they even do?” Something! Anything! McBride could use the women’s restroom anyway. Her allies could use the wrong bathroom in solidarity. Perhaps easiest of all, McBride or her allies could make a public announcement that their private office bathroom is open for any trans staffers to use. This is more important than ever at a time when Democratic leadership is considering dialing down their support for trans people (and some already have). I’m so sick of the learned helplessness Democrats seem to have adopted in the face of rising, unchecked hatred. The day after the election, I wrote about McBride’s win, saying, “It is nice to know that the next time a legislator in a room full of people suggests ‘hey, let’s kill the transes,’ someone will be in that room to say no.” It didn’t occur to me the strategy might be instead: “I may disagree with you killing us, but I will do nothing to stop it.” —Bailey Wayne Hundl AND:
 WEEKEND READING 📚On motherhood: Sometimes it's feral! Filmmaker Marielle Heller and her film Nightbitch give moms permission to lean into their inner animal. (The New Yorker) On survival: A new and painful word has entered the villa. “Broligarchy” is the collection of bros preparing to run the U.S. for the next four years. Here are some tips to make it through. (The Power, on Substack) On the hunger of belonging: An Armenian writer reflects on the kaleidoscopic meaning of her family’s mulukhiyah recipes. (Longreads)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Is It a Privilege to Pee?
  November 19, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, Remember last week when I said we would be doing a special photos-only send of my Christmas sweater once I finished making it? Well, guess what? We are totally not doing that because we are serious news people and these are serious times, but if you want a little holly in your jolly, you may or may not find it here. In today’s newsletter, we’re talking about bathroom bullies in Congress, Matt Gaetz, and a win in Wyoming. Seriously serious, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONIt’s a privilege to pee (apparently): When I first heard that Delaware lawmaker Sarah McBride had won her election, making her the first openly transgender person to serve in Congress, I turned to my roommate and said, “How long do you think we have until Republicans completely lose their shit?” As it turns out, not long at all. On Monday, South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace (R) introduced a resolution banning any members of Congress or House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” When asked by reporters if the bill was targeting McBride specifically, she responded, “Yes and absolutely, and then some… I’m absolutely 100% gonna stand in the way of any man [sic] who wants to be in a women’s restroom, in our locker rooms, in our changing rooms.”  MCBRIDE AT THE CAPITOL (VIA GETTY) There’s been much ado lately about whether or not all women should be allowed in women’s restrooms, women’s locker rooms, women’s sports. But this conversation has never really been about restrooms. We are witnessing a debate on whether or not trans people should be allowed to exist in public life. If we were all in agreement on that point—if this public panic was truly about women’s safety or the sanctity of your 8th grade daughter’s Little League team—then this conversation would be a logistical one. Those in opposition would propose alternate solutions. They’d have an answer (any answer at all!) for where a grown-ass man with a full beard and a vagina should pee. But they’re not even considering the question. Nancy, if you really want women in Congress to be safer, I’d start focusing your energy on…well, just read the next item. —Bailey Wayne Hundl About that (alleged) abuser: Ever since last week’s bombshell that Matt Gaetz is Trump’s pick for Attorney General, the media has been asking why, exactly, anyone (even Trump) would nominate him. As a refresher: Not only is Gaetz patently unqualified for the job, deeply disliked by his Republican colleagues, and primed to carry out the retribution Trump has been threatening, he’s also been the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation amid various accusations including sex trafficking and bribery. (Some details from that investigation have already leaked; WaPo reports that two women testified they were paid to have sex with Gaetz.) According to the New York Times, even Trump himself privately acknowledges Gaetz’s uphill struggle in winning the nomination. So the question remains: Why did he nominate this creep in the first place? We have to presume he knew what was in the House investigation and doesn’t care. But analysts suggest there may be something more nefarious at play: The kerfuffle around Gaetz draws attention away from Trump’s other dangerous choices, like anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., accused sex offender Pete Hegseth, or Putin darling Tulsi Gabbard. Gaetz makes them all seem less clownish in comparison. The plan may be to lower the bar for nominees, presenting so many extreme choices that the Senate can’t block all of them. So although it’s good news that Gaetz is far from a shoe-in, it’s unsettling that he might help pave the way for some equally abysmal government officials. (And if you too are unsettled, keep calling.) —Nona Willis Aronowitz AND:
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Gaetz, Hegseth, and RFK. Oh my!
  November 14, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, I am roughly two days away from finishing a Christmas sweater I started knitting in 2022, so please know that when it’s done you will be receiving a special newsletter that is only pictures of this sweater. I will not be stopped! In today’s newsletter, we are picking ourselves up and reminding ourselves who’s really in charge in this country. Plus a call to greater action for GBV survivors in Kenya and your weekend reading list. All the way from sleeve island, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONThe bad boys club: Donald Trump’s horrifying picks for key government positions continue apace. There’s Stephen Miller for deputy chief of staff, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for health secretary, Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, and the pick that has produced the most mouth-frothing of all: Matt Gaetz for attorney general. By now you likely know many of the reasons this newly former congressman should not get this job. The alleged sex trafficking for which he was being investigated by the House Ethics Committee. The terribly kept secret of his relationships with underage girls. The legal experience so thin that the Wall Street Journal wrote that his law degree “might as well be a doctorate in outrage theater.” His blindingly white teeth and startling Botox. (Fine, those don't really matter, but they do look freaky.) The one saving grace here, small though it may be, is that even some Republicans say they cannot see a path to Senate confirmation for Gaetz.  THESE TEETH JUST DO NOT OCCUR IN NATURE. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) But! And this is an enormous, Godzilla-sized “but”: Anyone who lived through the Brett Kavanaugh hearings—in which Susan Collins and other Republicans wrung their hands over the accusations of sexual assault, but then voted to confirm him—is right to be cynical about these protestations. Besides, the outrageousness of nominating a potential sex offender to run the justice department means that Trump is doing something intentional here: This is an explicit test of which senators will be loyal to him. But if it’s a test for them, it is also a test for us. Government officials do not work or exist in a vacuum. At least as of today, they are still civil servants, and if we want to stop them from becoming lords of a fiefdom then we must continue the work of demanding better. Organizer Sandra Avalos wrote in Truthout this week, “Our communities are not new to hardship — but we have survived even the harshest conditions, and in those moments, built even more power. We know how to organize, how to protect one another, how to support those facing the brunt of the threats.” In this case, it’s worth remembering that the “what are you going to do? They’re all crooks” reaction to the nomination of Matt Gaetz may be legitimate—but it also lets the Senators whose job it is to do the right thing off the hook, and they don’t deserve that pass. If you live in a state with one of those Republicans expressing even tepid doubts, it’s worth calling them. Quote those doubts back to them. Demand thorough hearings. Pressure your House members to release the ethics report into Gaetz. Remind them in any way you can that they work for us. AND:
 WEEKEND READING 📚On men: Looking for a break from toxic masculinity? You may be surprised to find respite in The Golden Bachelorette. (Slate) On the internet: The phrase “your body, my choice,” recently popularized by a Hitler-admiring self-described incel, didn’t come to life overnight—it has a dark and longstanding history, Jia Tolentino explains. (The New Yorker) On the images we keep: One writer’s practice of collecting images from Gaza preserves both the unspeakably bad and the brief moments of good. (The Baffler)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Do We Need to Worry About Susie Wiles and Elise Stefanik? Um. Yeah.
  November 12, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, If you haven’t already heard, wildfires are happening right now in parts of New York and New Jersey. For those of you in the area: The lack of rain and increased winds will likely make fires worse, so this is my friendly reminder to follow the rules of fire prevention if you’re in a dry zone. In today’s newsletter, we get to know the newest soon-to-be members of the Cabinet. Plus an uptick in abortion pill purchases and an important update for anyone who still has Thunderstruck playing in their brain. Waiting for rain, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONGirlboss, gaslight, gatekeep the White House: Donald Trump has started announcing his picks for cabinet positions, and before you even have time to ask, yes, we should be concerned about his first-round draft picks. But today, we’re focusing on two of Trump’s high-profile ladies—which is confusing considering that we’re pretty sure J.D. Vance said that women shouldn’t even be working anymore. First up is Susie Wiles, who’ll be the first woman to be the White House chief of staff if she’s confirmed. She was Trump’s campaign manager this year and is known for being incredibly effective, in the worst possible way. A self-described moderate Republican, long-time lobbyist, and political strategist, Wiles was a key figure in getting Ron DeSantis elected governor in 2018. Then, when the two parted ways, she was instrumental in destroying DeSantis’ 2024 presidential attempt in favor of helping Trump secure the nomination. In April, Politico called her the “most feared” political operative in America.  BEHIND EVERY VILE MAN IS A WOMAN WORKING TO UPHOLD POWER STRUCTURES THAT ULTIMATELY WILL NOT SERVE HER. (VIA GETTY) Wiles has been credited with bringing a high level of organization to the 2024 Trump campaign, and with being “a brilliant tactician…who helps her boss to set and achieve their priorities.” And since her boss’s Day One priorities include mass deportations and dismantling environmental protections, Wiles’s apparent efficiency fills me with a soul-crushing fear. Speaking of crushed souls, the next lady on the list is human Babadook Rep. Elise Stefanik, notorious for her congressional inquisitions of college presidents—several of whom lost their jobs—for allegations of antisemitism on campus. (Never mind that she herself has nodded to antisemitic “replacement theory” in her own Trumptastic campaign ads in the past.) Stefanik has now been chosen as the next ambassador to the United Nations, a crucially important post as the UN is dealing with a record number of wars and humanitarian crises across the globe. Her appointment is troubling, considering she has called for a “complete reassessment” of U.S. funding for UN initiatives that provide aid to groups in need, like the millions of women and children displaced by violence who rely on UN supplies and refugee programs.  ELISE STEFANIK GIVING OFF MAJOR BBE, BIG BABADOOK ENERGY. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) While Stefanik doesn’t have the decades-long resume of Susie Wiles (or much international experience, btw), she has something apparently even stronger: unyielding loyalty to Donald Trump. While Wiles may work to implement Trump’s will with as little public messiness as she can manage, Stefanik has already shown her willingness to fuel whatever fire will push forward the MAGA agenda, including stoking fears of anti-semitism at home to justify violence abroad. If you’re old enough to remember Samantha Power, who wrote a brilliant Pulitzer-winning book on genocide before becoming ambassador to the U.N., well—this ain’t that. Looking at these women’s track records and the power positions they’ve been offered, I can safely say I have not been this scared for the future since…last Tuesday. AND:
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
"Was It Foolish to Hope?"
  November 8, 2024 Dear Meteor readers, I hope everyone has something—anything—fun planned for this weekend. (I’m taking my little one to her first gymnastics class and can already feel the gold medal.) In today’s newsletter, we’re parsing the aftermath of Tuesday’s election with Brittany Packnett Cunningham and the UNDISTRACTED group chat. Plus, some options if you’re looking for an election break. Onward, Shannon Melero  “WAS IT FOOLISH TO HOPE?”That’s the powerful, poignant question host Brittany Packnett Cunningham posed to group-chat regulars Dr. Brittney Cooper and Dr. David Johns this week on UNDISTRACTED. The morning after Vice President Kamala Harris conceded the election (but not, as she said, “the fight that fueled this campaign”), the three sat down for a raw, honest conversation about everything from “righteous rage” to “deep disappointment” at America’s rejection of a Black South Asian woman candidate in favor of an open white nationalist. We hope you’ll listen to the whole thing; here are some highlights: Brittany Packnett Cunningham on her immediate feelings: "There’s a rage that I have for the deep lack of solidarity, appreciation and fundamental respect for…the Black women who consistently do the custodial work of democracy and get left hanging out to dry every single time. And for me, it is punctuated by the fact that the night before we all gathered at Howard [for the election results], J.D. Vance stood up and said, “We’re going to take out the trash tomorrow…[and] the trash’s name is Kamala Harris.” He was talking about every single one of us in the moment that he did that. And…it barely made a blip. In fact, plenty of people said, That’s exactly what I wanna go vote for. Let me go take out the trash." "We delayed this episode by a day because I didn’t want to come with this energy. [But] I’m still in grief. Not over just a candidate or an election. Not just because…the worst is yet to come. But because there seems to be little, if any, repentance toward the absolute disappointment everybody continues to be to Black women. And every Black woman I talk to is ready to go on strike….So that's where I am today."  “EVERY BLACK WOMAN I TALK TO IS READY TO GO ON STRIKE...” (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Dr. David Johns on hope: "I want us to feel all of our feelings. And…the corollary of that for me is that there’s never been a chapter in the history of our people where our ancestors began or ended with '...and then we conceded,' or '...and then we gave up.' That is not in us." "Also, I am heartened by the reminder that Black people understood the assignment in spite of all the lies that the media tried to tell, blaming Black men. In spite of all of those lies, we, Black men and Black women [by voting overwhelmingly against Trump] demonstrated an understanding of the assignment to continue to care for one another while doing the work of creating the democracy that our ancestors fought and died for, and that we are fighting for today.”  HARRIS SUPPORTERS AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY ON THE DAY OF THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CONCESSION SPEECH (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Dr. Brittney Cooper on how Harris was viewed: "I’m managing rage at the white supremacy and the patriarchy and sexism and misogyny of it all for sure. I’m also managing deep, deep disappointment and fury at some pockets of the left—because I think that I witnessed an abdication of a race/gender analysis that would prepare us for this moment." "The left had this sort of narrative about how she was so much a representative of the Empire that they couldn’t trust her for progressive goals—but they didn’t realize that they were fighting against people who saw her as a Black girl [who] would never be worthy enough to actually run the country. There is no evidence that this country trusted a Black girl with an Asian mama to run it and do it with excellence. Most of the country looked at Kamala and didn’t see a representative of the Empire, but actually saw the opposite—saw a Black girl [who] could never be a sufficient representative of this empire. And that is how they voted." Listen to the full episode of UNDISTRACTED. You won’t be sorry. AND:
 JENNIFFER GONZÁLEZ-COLÓN IN 2023. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 WEEKEND READING 📚
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
