Link'ems

Jun. 27th, 2017 12:54 am
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

Politics

Amazon

  • Amazon now offers reduced fee Prime membership - $5.99 per month for low income earners. "Normal" Prime membership is $99, which in theory would be $8.25 per month, but only if you paid $99 at sign-up to lock in the price, so many people actually pay what I did before "cheaper Prime" came along - $10.99 per month/$131.88 per year - the usual $99 plus a $32.88 Poor People's Poverty Tax.
  • Also check out four more ways to get Prime on the cheap.
  • Amazon ended unlimited cloud storage pretty much the same week I had to jump cloud storage services...*grinds teeth into dust*
  • For cord-cutting Prime members now there's Amazon TV (pick your poison. Yay?).
  • From the email I got, as Amazon has no explainer and Google has nothing indexed: "Now’s the perfect time to take advantage of a game-changing Prime exclusive benefit—Amazon Channels, the first truly a la carte TV service. You can create a lineup you love from over 100 channels, and only pay for the ones you want—no cable required. You get a 7-day free trial of all of our channels, and you can watch anywhere and cancel anytime."
  • About the above - I haven't signed up and will probably be unable to. I also don't know anyone who's signed up. Comcast controls most of the fiber in my area and with them it's cheaper to pay for a TV and Internet package (called the "Double Play") than to just have Internet, so that's mostly what's been stopping me. Will take reviews, though (preferably from people I already know)!

Firefox

  • The search for Goldilocks, indeed. The author says the latest version of Firefox (54) has e10s (multi-process/multi-threaded like Chrome but a max four processes), but it does not have this. I'm using it on an x64 machine with two processors/8GB of RAM, so I can definitively say it has no e10s.
  • Before posting, I found an updated article which says (emphasis mine): "Electrolysis still isn’t on for all users. “Roughly half of Firefox’s user population is using multiple content processes, but Mozilla will be expanding the number over the next few months based on extension compatibility, accessibility support work and other factors,” a Mozilla spokesperson told VentureBeat. To check if you’re in the Electrolysis group, type “about:support” into the URL bar and check to see if it says “1/1 (Enabled by default)” under the Multiprocess Windows line item."
  • While I'm on the topic of Mozilla doing what Mozilla does, and as I made [personal profile] solarbird aware of, standard Firefox add-ons are on their way out, ostensibly to make room for the e10s that they claim exist which for many of us, still don't. People aren't exactly keen on this.
  • Without add-ons as we know them, Firefox basically turns into Opera on Webkit. And though they're killing add-ons as we know them first, a complete browser engine re-write is also on the way. "firefox why u so", indeed!

Invention

  • With this, the author proves he can turn something as ho-hum as a relatively obscure invention into an epic tale that covers everything from original sin to the rise and fall of civilizations to the sad state of mankind's eternal economic Shangri-La. He's also - did I mention this - a great writer.
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

I have to say, I will be glad when this election (and the votes, and the recounts, and the possible riots) is and are over. I miss the days when I used to have to think about what to write. These days my Drumpf bookmark folder (exactly what it's named) overflowth to the point I'd need the patience of five [personal profile] silveradepts to compose all I've read into anything even semi-workable. I am not [personal profile] silveradept. But my admiration for what they can do with what's otherwise just a link list is basically endless.

Anyhow...*contemplates stabbing eyes out with toothpicks to avoid writing*

Before we talk about Drumpf, let's talk about Pence.

But before we do that, let's talk about the name "Drumpf". It was Trump's grandfather's legal last name in Germany just before him and his family, *ahem*, immigrated to the US. Also, I'm German (75% spread out over my mom's and dad's sides; also something like 15% English, 10% Irish) so I'll have none of this, "Oh, that's racist against Germans" crap here, because really? I think I'm allowed. There was a legal name change in my own family, on my mom's side, to make the name conform to a more common English spelling, though it sounded the same in both English and German, so there.

When I use the name Drumpf, it's simply to point out he's an ethnic German proto-fascist with an Anglicized last name, because I'd hate anyone to forget, that's all.

Anyway, when a bunch of GOPers went all yellow-bellied like, "Trump has got to drop out over this 'grab them by the pussy' comment because I have daughters/a mother/a girlfriend/a wife" I inwardly blanched, and hard, because who seriously wants his running mate? He's from hell. His name is Mike Pence and he's the real extremist on the GOP ticket..

The number of alleged sexual assault victims Trump will sue after the election (but not before) as part of his plan for his first 100 days in office is up to 17. Assuming Trump's conducted 3,500 lawsuits, if you divide that figure by the number of years he's been old enough to sue (49 - slightly more if you say the legal age to sue might be just 18) he's conducted an average of 71.42 lawsuits per year (1.4 new lawsuits every week), so fitting just another 17 into his obviously hectic and busy, if not downright bizarre court schedule should be a breeze, and what's another 17 more between judges who likely are already quite sick of him?

Time to crash course through what it all means. First of all, it's alright to be racist, xenophobic, slyly white pride, misogynist, accused rapist, sue-happy, authoritarian, contrarian, and basically just plain nuts, but it's not alright to brag of wanting to have an affair with some man's white wife? That crossed the line? Not the "grab them by the pussy" part (though if the theoretical pussies belong to white women, all the worse), not the other parts of the conversation (like force-kissing women without expectation of nor permission given for such moments), but the part where he chased some man's white wife was the part that - perhaps together with other rancid elements of the moment in question - blew the whole thing up.

When Hillary Clinton said, "Women's rights are human rights" and when people in general say, "Political correctness is just being polite and kind to each other, what's so hard about that?" they can point to Donald Trump for what not to do. A woman has a right to not get kissed without permission nor expectation that such a kiss will occur. A woman has a right to not be grabbed by her private parts without permission nor expectation even if some arrogant man fancies his fame gives him the right to grab whatever he wants, and a woman has a right to expect better of someone running for the top office in the US than him reducing women to objects which hold more objects which in turn can be trivially obtained.

Even if you go with the line that it was all just talk, I'll gander most men don't talk like that. Men who do, or who claim they or other men do, and women who back them up and claim women talk "even worse" without, most of the time, presenting evidence, are likely a small subset of the American population, which can get raunchy but doesn't generally delight in boasting about sex crimes in colorful, LOL terms, so when the rest of us either ignore people who claim such talk is normal or argue against their remonstrations, well, I guess that's how it goes.

As to being sexually assaulted but until others come forward keeping silent over fear of retaliation, fear of the predator's denials, and the shame and stereotypes foisted upon us by people of both binary genders should we tell what happened or report it to the police (usually out of the question, even now, given strong societal norms) I've had a few rounds of that. At least four spring to mind that were bad enough to remember over the course of my life. I reported zero of them. Only one fits exactly what Trump was talking about when he claimed he grabs women by the pussy, so I'll describe that.

I was in the eight grade, and so was he; I was white; he was black. I knew him only as a face and name in my homeroom. I was passing him in the hallway during class one morning, out on a hall pass, probably to use the bathroom and/or get a drink of water. I don't know why he was in the hall. I had never spoken to him besides to say Hi, and before I could even say that, as we passed in the hall he not only grabbed my pussy, he picked me up by it and carried me several feet away, attacking the area with strong, probing fingers through the cloth of my pants the entire time, before finally slamming me to the ground, laughing. Then he walked away, high on the moment, on what happened, on what he'd done. Proud of himself.

That was my introduction to sexual assault. While it would not be my last, it was by far the weirdest, if not scariest, incident I've endured.

While I probably eventually (and by "eventually", I mean north of 20 years later) told my mom, and while I could go on about why I didn't report it (you automatically assumed it was your fault, or would be made into being your fault, and that you should feel ashamed anyone felt compelled or able to touch you sexually, because somehow that reflected poorly on you or your ability to defend yourself - even when you were as blindsided by the act as I was) I'd rather focus on the fact that I was only 13 and had never been touched in a sexual way by anyone. It was not the way I wanted any first time to be, and again, I didn't even know him outside of homeroom and didn't want to.

So I wasn't out there asking him to, nor was I waving a sign saying, "Hey, come carry me around by my pussy for a minute, would ya?" I wasn't even talking to the dude, and I never had. I was in total shock, with no time to react. While I struggled to get away from him (which made the whole situation worse, forcing him to grab me down there even harder) until he chose to let me go, there was nothing I could do except scream. Which I didn't do. Because you were taught to be ashamed.

I wish I could tell you I handled it well afterward, but I didn't. I came to see cosmic revenge by God as my best bet - since no one human would ever believe me nor somehow avenge what he did - so I probably spent the better part of my downtime for the next few summers praying his house would burn down, with him in it. He was on my bus route so I knew the house. I watched him step away from it every day to get on the bus.

I feel bad now that I didn't have more Christian charity toward him, but it took me the better part of the next 30 years to begin feeling it. He never bothered me again, for what it's worth. And somehow I knew he never would.

Lest you think Trump's some wacky innocent who's simply had some bad sexytimes with his mouth (a predator in name only, not in deed) but is otherwise perhaps maybe I dunno, a good guy...you might think again. He cheated on his first wife, Ivana, who accused him of rape, to get with Marla Maples, who eventually - but only after they had a child out of wedlock - became his wife, has several allegations of sexual assault currently standing against him in court, and by his own mouth has admitted his sexual affairs would - not could - be the undoing of any eventual run for the highest office (this was said by him back in 1999, while comparing himself to Bill Clinton, because LOL that's a good comparison).

He also called Ken Starr a total wacko for his witchhunt against Bill Clinton and expressed sympathy for what Starr put Hillary through. You can get a full rundown here and here on Trump's about-faces concerning Bill Clinton's sexual scandals and even on Hillary's fitness for the presidency (hint: as recently as 2008, he said she'd be great).

He himself has admitted - or at least not disagreed - that he's a sexual predator who victimizes his targets, with one of those admissions made with his daughter Ivanka sitting laughingly by his side. So he's no stranger to the idea that he should have seen at least 17 accusers crawling out of the woodwork of shame he ensconced them in coming long before they did. Once he claimed in the second debate that he'd never acted on any of the brags and boasts he made in his 2005 Billy Bush tape, that's when women began coming out to say, "Oh yes, you did", and I don't blame them a bit.

If you want to know why Trump ran as the candidate he did, [personal profile] needled_ink_1975 has linked us to a video by Keith Olbermann explaining a lot of inside baseball on that.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

While I tend to stay out of the debate around whether Jews should vote for Trump (my instinctual reaction is, "Yo, you crazy? Of course not!") I feel I have to jump in this time as a public service to ya'll, but by "ya'll" I mean ya'll WHITE FOLKS. PAGING YA'LL WHITE FOLKS.

As someone with a Jewish father and therefore in possession of a 50% Jewish bloodline, at least according to the anti-Semites who find this one little fact TERRIBLY INTERESTING, I'm more than inclined to defend against all attempts at slyly worded Jewish hatred.

Trump's latest canned speech in Florida is a perfect example of white supremacy on the make, specifically in the form of Stephen Bannon, who likely is writing most of Trump's speeches, which he is way too stupid to do anything with besides blindly read off the teleprompter, which are trying to draw you in through dog whistles, code words, and coded ideas which stretch waaaaay back to the early 1900s in terms of what they're identifying to nudge you into going all rabid attack-doglike against THE JOO.

In my defense, that Trump models himself after and is probably sorry he cannot be Hitler is not a new idea. He came out swinging in a candidacy announcement that you could have just swapped "Jew" for "Mexican" with and it still would have read like a typical Hitler hate manifesto. Others have noticed.

Let me cut to the chase by screencapping the relevant part of the Trump speech in question, then screencapping the relevant part of the Hitler speech in question, with thanks to Ari Ratner on Twitter for such succinct pictures and the idea, which needs to be repeated with force in every Jew-hating circle.

It's been mentioned that Trump, though perhaps not the most avid nor intellectual of readers, definitely absorbed at least a few key points from Mein Kampf and this speech leaves little room for doubt, but let's read on.

From Trumps's speech:


A screencap of part of an anti-Semitic sounding Trump speech in West Palm Beach FL, Oct. 13 2016

From Hitler's speech:


Hitler speech

JTA points out not only the Hitler-speech similarities but also similarities to a "notorious anti-Semitic tract: “The Protocols of the Elder of Zion,” the anti-Semitic forgery that has fueled anti-Jewish violence for over a century". They go on to quote and compare relevant parts of each for your edification.

I see virulently anti-Semitic types mixing typical hate speech with surprisingly strident denials that Trump's speech is anything but a literal reading of what he was told to say by Bannon. One should completely ignore such denials.

Denial and secrecy is how hatred came to be used in the creation of Nazi Germany: anti-Semites simply denied what they said and did over and over, all the way up to the interments and executions in gas chambers of so many (just "showers", we're reminded; the camps themselves just "work camps").

Donnie-boy likes to keep his secrets, too, which should scare you, especially if you're Mexican, Muslim, or a Jew (though blacks and women in general will be his next targets once he wipes out the first three groups with a little help from his army of Pepe).

Everything within Nazi Germany was secrets and lies, including the denial that any of it had happened, despite tons of physical and pictorial evidence to the contrary. That's how they get you: by trotting out a pig and calling it a donkey.

They killed over six million people, took many countries, and are set, nearly 100 years later, to commit exactly the same atrocities again, in exactly the same manner - chomping at the bit, in fact.

The question is, will you let them, or will you recognize - and call out - what you see, which they're not trying to conceal in any manner besides to deny it, so that they won't go "on the record" as defending the very hatred they so clearly spout? Are you willing to stand up and call a pig a pig?

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

Aiiiieeee...I love validation. Especially by no less than the President of the United States.

As anyone viewing might know, two days after I wrote a post blaming FOX News and not Trump so much for the portion of the electorate that's riding high on white supremacist misogyny and not using their heads for much of anything besides the sprouting of new, evergreen conspiracy theories, Obama gave a speech Thursday that blamed the GOP in general and FOX News more specifically for creating this voting block.

My elation at the fact that Obama and I can finally agree on something, after eight years of me waiting for his presidency to be over - and this, despite the fact that I voted for Obama twice, but did so the second time only to narrowly avoid offing myself over the prospect of a Romney presidency - just knows no bounds.

To wit, with added emphasis my own:

But so the problem is not that all Republicans think the way this guy does. The problem is, is that they’ve been riding this tiger for a long time. They’ve been feeding their base all kinds of crazy for years — (applause) — primarily for political expedience. So if Trump was running around saying I wasn’t born here, they were okay with that as long as it helped them with votes. If some of these folks on talk radio started talking about how I was the anti-Christ, you know, it’s just politics. (Laughter.) You think I’m joking. (Laughter.)

If somebody completely denies climate change, or is filled up with all kinds of conspiracy theories about how me and Hillary started ISIL, or that we were plotting to declare martial law and take away everybody’s guns.

We did a military exercise — the Pentagon does these periodically in Texas, and suddenly all the folks in Texas were all like, they’re going to take over right now! (Laughter.) I’m serious. And then the senator down there said, yeah, we better look into that. (Laughter.) And the governor says, well, I don’t know. What do you mean you don’t know? (Laughter.) What does that mean? (Applause.) Really? You think that like the entire Pentagon said, oh, really, you want to declare martial law and take over Texas? Let’s do it under the guise of routine training missions — (laughter) — and everybody is going to be — but they took it seriously.

This is in the swamp of crazy that has been fed over and over and over and over again. (Applause.) Look, I — and there’s sort of a spectrum, right — it’s a whole kind of ecosystem. And look, if I watched Fox News I wouldn’t vote for me. (Laughter.) I understand. If I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, I’d say, man, that’s terrible. (Laughter.) Fortunately, I have more diverse sources of information. (Applause.)

And I want to make a serious point here — because I’m really not exaggerating. Everything I’m saying are actual things that have been said and that people — a fairly sizable number of people in the Republican primaries believe. And the people who knew better didn’t say anything. They didn’t say, well, you know what, I disagree with his economic policies, but that goes too far. They didn’t say, well, I’m not sure if his foreign policy is the right one for America, but we can’t allow our politics to descend into the gutter.

People like Ted’s opponent — they stood by while this happened. And Donald Trump, as he’s prone to do, he didn’t build the building himself, but he just slapped his name on it and took credit for it. (Applause.)

My thanks to Obama for finally putting words to, well, what I already put words to, but heck, he's Obama and I'm not, so his words will travel a little further than mine. My only quibble with what he said is he spread the blame out a bit thinner than I would.

I still hold FOX News more accountable, more to blame, more responsible for the swamp fever Obama alludes to than I do the GOP. FOX News simply took the nasty rivalry that brewed around Bill Clinton - and the public witchhunt - and turned it into a 24 hour cable news cycle and there is no excusing nor forgiving it.

I want my country back - I want it back from the people who captivate it and hold the whiter and less educated blocks of it hostage to the fever dreams of so much local, federal and international conspiracy afoot (and oh, boy are we going to be discussing that last bit soon, in another post).

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

Donald Trump played to "his" base in the last debate but it's not his, nor did he create it. That base came to him FOX News-prepared for the very lines he fed them. Those were not debate lines; those lines amounted to a 90-minute long acceptance speech. By saying them he accepted a coronation by the rabid FOX News/Breitbart/white supremacist crowd to elect him King of The Lies, exactly as it was offered to anyone willing to accept it, and signaled he gets it: "the" blacks kill. Everyone should forget what he said or did 10 years ago but remember what the other candidate's husband, who is not running for president, did 20 years ago. And the emails, and the Benghazi, and the killer's religion she won't stop lettin' in, and let's not forget the devil.

The FOX News crowd's been hanging on for - wet-dreaming to - the nightmare vision of anyone - much less Trump - unloosing their claims not as mere commentary, nor as a wild-eyed Senator might, and again not as Breitbart "reporters" must, but as an actual, in-the-flesh presidential candidate. They'd given up hope of it ever happening, and then along came Trump to finally turn their vision to reality.

I'll bet they still can't believe some self-described "billionaire" former TV personality is walking, talking, and acting like one of them, and the fourth branch/fifth column is allowing it. This, more than anything, steals whatever tiny scrap of credibility they coveted in espousing everything's a conspiracy designed to keep their existence - and the hideous opinions such existences must entail - hidden from view, because if their "ideas" and "values" can see the light of day in this very fraud walking the debate stages spouting exactly what they're of a mind to think, then what or where was the conspiracy? There he is, quoting his Facebook commenters to say Hillary's "the devil", would be "in jail", is culpable for her husband's dick, and the fourth branch/fifth column is letting him go on and on! There went the last billion Facebook threads they wrote swearing they'd never be heard because the rest of us have worked so hard to hide them from view.

There was never any conspiracy, only the fact that in the late 90s it was not normal to build (or rebuild) an entire political party around hating an obscure couple from Arkansas with a failed real estate business and some quick, good luck on cattle futures who's male half happened to become a President. It was just not a thing that was done! So FOX News considered at length how abnormal it was for right-leaning political people, over a few lost bucks between buddies in real estate and some apparent jealousy over cattle future trading, to go on a witchhunt against an obscure Arkansas Bubba type who jiggled when he jogged and ate too much McDonald's, and decided to fill the vacuum this phenomena created by running a "news" station which did nothing but work to rebuild the Republican base into the image of "people who'd like to watch Bubba and his wife die".

To build this non-existent story into a political platform that serious candidates would run on would obviously require a lot of work, and a lot of lying, but they managed both. While I won't attempt a reconstruction of how it was done, suffice it to say that slant's everything and that if you can convince a white his whiteness might be at stake somehow in this, then you can turn the word 'liberal' - which this couple was - into an easy synonym for 'n* lover', an Arkansas Bubba into an 'elite' who doesn't have your best interests at heart (which are mainly preserving your whiteness for now and future generations), suicides of former friends into the silenced murders of failed business partners, cordial greetings into threats, deleted personal emails into the printing of "39,000" of them to snail-mail off to the "acid-washer", which, btw, is an expensive and difficult process, and completely fabricate the idea of sleeping through 600 emails begging for help arriving all at once from Benghazi at 3am.

When you can convince this nascent audience that their whiteness is at stake, not only will they feel threatened, but you won't have to work hard to expand it, because they will come to you for protection from the hostile world you're not only describing but fleshing out with conspiracy theories to help them make more sense of it. Intellectualism is not required; in fact, you don't need to know how to read, write nor how to think critically to "get" this kind of talk, and you'll be discouraged from doing so, anyhow, by being constantly reminded that yet another real conspiracy - the fourth branch/fifth column - is out to get you, to make you like the unwanted skin colors, weird religious flavors and wacky extremist ideas - like helping others - that obviously threaten your existence at every turn.

When the Republican party saw such "news" was working, they co-opted it. They made the audience afraid of losing their right to rule because of skin color even more afraid that if they weren't nice to Big Business by giving up their unions, insurance benefits, raises, promotions, and finally their chance to not have their own jobs sent right out of the country, then Big Business would move on without them, and so the so-called "conservative" flavor of FOX News was born - because this crowd? Swallowed these lies whole and kept swallowing so hard, for so long, that finally Big Business took advantage of the fears FOX News planted within them and did exactly what they most feared, then told them to be grateful to have any jobs at all, and to never ask for help with low pay for the part-time work they now have to do at McDonald's, like the welfare queens always demand from those snarky liberal types. And this crowd acquiesced, because if that's what it takes to stay white they'll do it, because FOX news said so, and those guys? Are aaaalways right, about everything. Their last conspiracy theory proved it! You just have to understand. But us liberal types, nope, we never do.

While the idea that you don't have to be too smart to buy into FOX News, you just have to be afraid of waking up one day no longer in charge by sheer virtue of your whiteness and that somehow this is all the Clintons' fault is the very idea that birthed and still runs it, and while there's no blaming Donald Trump for tapping into a rather large "news" audience that's been sitting on its hands in feigned helplessness screaming in media-manufactured "pain" for 20 years now and was simply waiting for somebody, anybody - even TRUMP - to "rescue" them from the deep, dark, bleak tragedy of it all - I continue to be shocked at the bad spelling, deplorable grammar, lack of punctuation and unending typos I have to deal with on a daily basis to exist on the same web and in the same world as the very people who might mock me for, of all things, being a defensible human being.

The lying, ignorance and immaturity that seems to run rampant among this crowd are bad enough. Full stop. But at least I could give my apparent enemies credit if they would at least word their nasty, defensive, rotten, hateful little screeds on Facebook, Twitter, message boards, news sites and so on just a wee mite more carefully, and they'd get tons more points if they'd stop a) using six-year old online "handles" and b) writing and thinking like six-year olds. I know this is a lot, and that I'll never get even one thing you see on this list. But I can dream. So in trying to figure out who stands for Trump, I've been visiting Facebook more in the last week than I have in many years. Anything with Make America Grope Again or on Donald's page usually gives me an idea of who I'm up against, and seeing their posts reminds me why they own five guns per person: they couldn't think their way out of paper bags, so if they ever have to, they'll just shoot.

What occurs to me is they write the same way Trump talks: he's famous for having a small, limited vocabulary, repeating himself, incoherence, choppy sentence construction, fragmented, incomplete thoughts, cyclonic speech patterns, changing the subject, refusing to admit there's a subject, mispronouncing words or making them up - bigly so - and for making fun of people, especially for their looks, so if you close your eyes and can hear his gaspy, sort of contemptuous sniffle whipping your head around like the disorganized windstorm it is, then you can see what his fans' words look like online without looking, because they're about the same.

This post, in fact, was brought to you thanks to what I had to endure in a Facebook thread on Trump's page last night, under the picture he made of himself telling Hillary, "You'd be in jail", where the commenters continually repeated some form of the bully phrase, "She said FATCHECK!", "Did I hear her say fat-check?", "She said FAT CHECKGUYS!1!!" and, "She said 'fatcheck' three times I counted. Anyone else?" While I could go on about the many childish handles used, the fake praying that Hillary's life might be spared by the Chosen One and various appeals to God to protect the Chosen One until he might be coronated because she has to lose after defending a rapist while laughing over the tie-dying of 39,000 emails even as she was so crippled by Benghazi while standing on Gennifer Flowers's face she could barely punch Bill in his, FOX News said so, and how she keeps threatening folks with thanks for their support lest Bill be outed as a Martian who merely identifies as a white dude the same way trans people put on their fake identities because they need our prayers, yes they do, oh Lord, and btw: RADICALLY MUSLIMISTIC ERRORISTS, but I think the FATCHECKER comments tell us all we need to know about how childishly, simplistically base casual discourse is becoming for many of us with, scarily enough, voting rights in this country.

marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)

...open mouth/insert foot moment to come to light (and I've been especially happy over how he's not sorry unless you're offended by it - because he'll grab p*ies all he wants, especially once he's The Most Powerful Man on Earth!) my good spirits soon evaporated after seeing the most popular Facebook defense for his comments - which I was told was "funny" and "true" - and is being offered as The One Real Reason us ladies must not be offended.

But first of all, ladies, some background: we don't have equal rights and for as long as men run the show, probably never will. It might come as a surprise but we're second class citizens. Our right to vote, to control our own bodies, and make up our own minds without a man doing so for us and then passing it off as our own decision is oh-so-generously given to us by men and might be rescinded at any time.

Right now most men are in favor of Donald Trump and don't care at all what you, a woman, might happen to think of him. With that in mind, the latest Facebook meme is as follows (this version was allegedly written by a woman, but is also being propagated or at least shared by the many oh-so-funny and agreeable men out there who genuinely support him):

If you are a woman who is offended by what Donald Trump said a decade ago but you enjoyed 'Fifty Shades of Grey' and other movies and books like this than you are a hypocrite!

Isn't that funny? Isn't that a real kneeslapper? Whoo-eeee, yeah.

See ladies, if you've ever read or - how DARE you! - enjoyed a story about people having sex, then you'll have to stop being "hypocrites" now, go vote for Donald Trump and hush up about how he treats women, because you reading or enjoying a made-up story about consensual sex is EXACTLY THE SAME as him bragging about how in real life, he can sexually assault any woman he wants because he's a star, so there.

Got it? Now off to the voting booths with you - shoo, shoo fly.

As an aside, I wonder if he'll use the line about Fifty Shades of Grey, or that if you as a woman have ever used "naughty words", then you hypocrite, you (another Facebook variation on the meme) in tomorrow night's debate - sidestepping the glaringly obvious sexual assault involved to instead focus on how it's all "just" locker room talk (although it's not: Trump claimed he actually DID or DOES these things, which pushes it way past mere talk).

I have the feeling Trump's run for office will break up a lot of families, friendships and relationships, but it might be just as well: I'd guess it's mostly men siding with whatever he says or does, up to and including the murder on Fifth Ave. we're still waiting on and might get before long. Men are digging in their heels at their Ballsy Leader to show us the One Man Way, and they know there isn't a lot we can do about it except stop speaking to or living with them.

He's been the perfect lightning rod for most of the disagreements men and women are having over race, immigration, wages, and our own status as human beings. It's not a true victory for us if he loses, just a temporary abatement in the struggle to have our ideas, values, identities and bodies taken as seriously as everybody is supposed to take a man's.