Today in poison pills:

"It is an issue of fairness, it's deeply unfair. We've got to own that. We've got to acknowledge that." According to California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking to noted racist, transphobe, and human toe Charlie Kirk, on trans women in women's sports.

Newsom and Kirk seen here sitting on
chairs upholstered in genuine puppy-leather.

On the upside, I can't wait to vote for his
replacement when he terms out in 2026.

What's messed up here is that Newsom was agreeing with Kirk, and saying that trans women playing in women's sports is deeply unfair. Now, if it sounds to you like I'm saying "women playing women's sports" it's because I am. Trans women are women. Gender is a construct. That's the whole goddamn point, and with one ill-chosen podcast interview, Newsom has likely just made it impossible for a lot of us--including myself--to vote for him should he ever run for President. 

Remember? When everything wasn't
an absolute trash fire all the time?

Speaking of, I have to admit, there's a part of me making excuses for him. A part of me saying "oh, well, he doesn't really feel that way, he's just setting himself up as a candidate that even conservatives can vote for." After all, pre 2008 election Barack Obama said that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because he wanted to be President of America. Then, post 2012 election Obama was all: "Gay marriage for all!" Because he'd already won a second term, and no longer needed to court the homophobe vote.

It's not like a medical background
is necessary anymore. 

But this is different. Newsom's comments sound dangerously close to "trans women are just dudes in dresses" and I don't know that he feels that way, but it sounds like he's saying that being born biological male--which, is way more complicated that I'm about to make it sound--confers unfair athletic advantages. And I have some problems with that. Actually, I think science has some problems with that, but again, I'm not a doctor, so I'm just going to yammer on about things that seem correct to me.

According to this article from PBS, the NCAA says there's something like ten trans athletes out of half a million competing in college sports. And I know we're not necessarily talking only about college sports, but even if there's a hundred we're still making up rules that apply to a tiny fraction of people. But ok, is there evidence that athletes who went through, let's call it male puberty, and then later transitioned, had an athletic advantage? 

Above: male puberty.

I think it's safe to say that being a cis man
in no way confers no athletic advantages.

Yes, but also no. Ok, according to the same article, there's a possibility that there's something to the idea that some trans women might have an advantage. Or they might not. It's an incredibly small sample size. But what I'd like to know is is this possible advantage outside the range of ability of cis women athletes? That is, are all trans woman, by virtue of having gone through male puberty, naturally stronger and bigger than all cis women? Or, are we going on gender stereotypes?

When the President bloviates about how he "will not allow men to beat-up, injure and cheat our women and girls." I can't help but feel he's not coming from a place of protecting women, but just pandering to the nutters he's conned into voting for him.

Again, this is a guy who bragged that he liked to sneak into the changing
rooms at beauty contests to ogle teens, so forgive me if I don't take him at his word.

Pictured: I don't know, tennis?

But to get back to Gavin Newsom's gross pandering, I guess I just don't care enough about sports? Let's say for the sake of argument that there's a chance that some trans women can, in some really specific cases, have a slight athletic advantage over some--but again not all--cis women. So what? Chromosomes, hormone levels, and whatever are just factors, and can't replace hard work and training. I assume. Again, I don't sport, and to be clear, I'm not any kind of expert.

But since when has not being an expert stopped anyone? I guess what I'm saying is that discriminating against an entire class of people feels far more deeply unfair than some women having a vaguely defined, possibly not real advantage while playing a game. And is Newsom's sudden, gross stance on this enough to keep me from voting for him in some hypothetical race against an octogenarian Trump in some grim future where he's somehow allowed to run again? Yikes, I don't know.

Of course, that presupposes that we'll even have elections in the future.

Today in exquisite dining experiences:

It's a lazy, but apt metaphor for our times.

Can we chat about something not having to do with the garbage fire that is politics right now? I know, I know, it's hard to escape, as much as we'd all like to. And to be clear, as a fire, it's urgent and should be discussed. The administration is doing illegal, unconstitutional, and un-American things every day and should be resisted and spoken out against at every opportunity. That said, I'm hoping we could talk about Fancy Feast?

Above: No. None of this.

You know, the cat food? I ask because I refuse to pay for YouTube, and consequently am bombarded with advertisements; something I find intensely unpleasant, owning both to my natural aversion to marketing, but also to the wildly ineffective ad targeting. Anyway, today I encountered an ad for something called Fancy Fest Gems which is weird because I don't now, nor I have ever, owned a cat, much less expressed a desire to supply my non-existent cat with a feast, much less a fancy one.

Nevertheless, I was...intrigued isn't the word. Morbidly curious maybe? I was morbidly curious as to what gems--nominally a word used to describe a stone--had to do with cats. They, to my knowledge, eat meat? Like, they're carnivores, so I was understandably confused and decided to let the ad run longer than I normally would before hitting the skip button. The product, I came to understand, is a pyramid of food topped with goo.

I...what even is this?

I presume this is what cats eat, but I also
may just have had slovenly housemates.

Now, I said I've never owned a cat, that's not to say that I've not had living situations that included cats, only that said cats weren't mine, nor was their well being any of my concern. Typically I would offer them a nod of acknowledgment, which they would return, and that would be the extent of our interaction, so exactly what they eat was not a question that came up for me. I was hazily aware of an unpleasant smelling plate of an unappetizing meat-like paste slowly hardening on the floor next to a water dish, or a dry variety resembling Cocoa Puffs. 

Huh? Oh, it's that weird, puffy hat that
chef's wear. I looked it up. Because Pedantry.  

This however, is not that. Why is it pyramidal? And what is that gel on top? Like I said, I didn't watch the commercial in its entirety, but that clammy beige ziggurat gnawed at me, teasing me to learn its secrets, so I did what any 21st century internet-addled adult would do instead of anything productive: I looked it up. The Fancy Feast website refers to it as "A Culinary Crown Jewel" that promises to "delight your cat" with an "exquisite dining experience." It's evidently a mousse paté, although to call it that feels like a personal affront to every French chef who's donned a toque. Oh, and the stuff on top is supposed to be gravy. Another thing I'm sure cats care about.

An ounce of food is like the size of
a cat's face. They're going to notice.

And look, to be clear, I have nothing against your cat and I am in no way suggesting that your cat doesn't deserve an exquisite dining experience. I'm sure they've worked very hard. I'm only pointing out that Fancy Feast Gems is a scam. It varies depending on where you shop, but a 3oz. can of Fancy Feast jellied fish parts and offal is $.99, or $.33/oz. while a two-pack of two-ounce Gems is like $2.50 or $.63/oz. and screws your cat out of an entire ounce of cat food per serving. That's like, a third less gross paté.

Again, I have no dog in this hunt, but I had to sit through this ad and now I've made it my mission to ruin the Fancy Feast company by convincing you that if you have a cat, to please not fall for nonsense like mousse paté for cats.

 I mean, who are you trying to impress?

Yeah, but we don't pass bathroom bills so...

I never understood, nor will I, how anyone can look at anything the President is doing this time, did in his first term, or really has ever done or will do in the future of his self-centered and heartless existence with anything other than horror and disdain. 

Pictured: a draft dodger shaking down a war-time leader and

berating him both for his unwillingness to hand over territory to an

invading force and for his fashion sense. Not pictured: a hint of irony.

On the one hand I do not approve of
vandalism. On the other hand, this.

For the most part, his behavior has been enough to alienate the last of the few family members and vague acquaintances of mine he once had enthralled, and that's a start. Now, when I refer to the vast fields of rubes who bark along with this insanity, at least I'm not talking about anyone I care about. And for the most part, as a Californian, other than the odd Tesla, I'm statistically unlikely to encounter any out and proud MAGAs in the wild. 

To be clear, no group adopting a skull
as an emblem has ever been the good guy.
Also, the Punisher hates fascists.

But still, there's a sense that vast swathes of the country that are simply under the sway of an occupying force. An army of zombified zealots who traded their souls for a lazy political ideology, and replaced having a personality with red hats and Punisher decals. And maybe they feel the same way about us: a bunch of woke liberal socialists indulging in the sin of empathy or whatever nonsense they tried to float a few weeks back. But since they literally cannot define the words "woke" or "socialist," I'm hopeful history will bear us out. 

"Hey,  don't have to stand here and
tolerate your intolerance of our intolerance."

-Press Secretary Leavitt

Eventually. And I'm frustrated by the question of what their plan is. Like, the polls are aways half approve, half disapprove. Republicans support this lunacy by a 90% margin and Democrats abhor it by, yup, a 90% margin. But how are we supposed to have a functioning society when half the county is screaming about tearing everything down and replacing it with some kind of weird Elo-garchy, and half of us just want to look at our phones without thinking "what's he done now?"

"Where was everybody? Really could
have used that grudging coalition."

-Shoulda Been President Harris

Again, I get that the Right hates the Left and feels the same way, but the difference is that when our star is in ascendance--or more accurately, when we've mustered together a grudging coalition of generally progressive viewpoints and manage to win an election--nobody is a public enemy. No broadly defined group of people is marked out as being responsible for whatever perceived ills society is facing. Democrats don't run on a platform of making life miserable for entire groups of people. There are no bathroom bills under Democrats.

So I'm not saying that the American Left is perfect or doesn't make huge mistakes, but on balance I think we're talking about a worldview where everyone is welcome versus one where straight, white, Evangelical Christian, cis-gendered, English-speakers are American, and everyone else is barely tolerated, or not tolerated at all.

Above: a broadly defined group that probably should be
marked out as responsible for the ills our society faces.