Even so we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.
Franken... there are enough non-anonymous women telling similar stories that I'm confident it's not O'Keefe/ACORN-style bullshit (I think this list is up-to-date.) At which point... I thought he was great until this story broke. And none of the accusations are anything he should go to jail for, or anything that changed the course of anyone's life.
But he still had a casual habit of sexually abusing women when he got the chance. If eight women have come forward, then he was doing this shit all the time. And as good a senator as I think he was, we don't need to make that tradeoff: the Democratic party would manage without him if he got hit by a bus, and we'll manage without him because we don't need to leave someone who abuses women in a leadership role in the party.
Women, the moral equivalent of being hit by a bus.
I'm surprised that anyone is still surprised by Republican depravity, or fecklessness in the face of depravity. Republican office-holders, each and every one of them, cannot hold office without pandering to the deplorables. And they, the deplorables, view depravity in service of partisan tribalism as not only acceptable, but as the most important attribute.
5: I'm not at all surprised by the fake scandal to throw chaff around Trump. I am still surprised at how fucked up the tax bill was.
I had a long discussion mostly about Franken and related issues last night with a group of mostly women. (One of whom, surprising me, seemed to credit CK's protest that he genuinely thought what he did was consensual. She was very much in "slippery slope" argument territory.) But at one point someone said "I mean nobody believes Trump's truly evil, do they?" I said, "I think he's as close as it comes in the real world," and cited when he cut off health care for his grandnephew over an inheritance dispute. Not sure how they took that. Esprit d'escalier, I would have said, "He's not cackling over doing evil like a movie villain tying a woman to the railroad tracks, but he embodies absolute regard for self-interest and self-comfort over any other considerations, and that is the attitude that is the most dangerous thing out there."
The only other man in the group was lowkey saying "Well, shouldn't voters have a chance to decide now that they know?" Which, bleh. We're supposed to have high standards for even standing for election! Plus with so many women Senators on record calling for him to resign, at this point I don't think he could be effective in the Senate anymore as there's no trust left.
5: Because the greatest depravity of all is liberalism.
Not to crap on CC, but 5 is a really common sentiment, and it's starting to get under my skin. I'm really not surprised exactly. But don't tell me you don't recognize that feeling when they create a new way to be morally repulsive that hadn't occurred to you in that particular context.
We're all chronically caught in the cognitive dissonance that they walk and talk in the form of human beings, yet are reprehensible filth. Using "surprise" as shorthand for that doesn't mean the speaker is some naive houseplant.
You don't know what I've seen.
Silly heebie! Belief in human goodness is for houseplants.
We're all chronically caught in the cognitive dissonance that they walk and talk in the form of human beings, yet are reprehensible filth.
The recollection that they are Republican politicians resolves that dissonance pretty quickly.
12: Huh? Has anyone ever forgotten you to water you for two weeks straight? Belief in human goodness? As if!
But at one point someone said "I mean nobody believes Trump's truly evil, do they?"
I don't understand how anyone who isn't a delusional tribal-Republican National-Enquirer-believing mouth breather could feel like this was open for debate.
Also! Technically I said:
I thought that the establishment Republicans were not quite on the same team as Trump. Both grotesquely evil, and often with significant overlap, but with personal animosity. It brought me up short to realize quite how heavily they're trying to discredit Mueller, but also it's impossible to be surprised by their complete shithead ways.
I specifically said I wasn't surprised by their shithead ways, just that I misunderstood the particular direction of their pettiness.
And as good a senator as I think he was, we can't don't need to make that tradeoff
Nothing about the Franken story surprises or shocks me. He's been in showbiz and politics, two professions that seem to attract sexually abusive people. (The phrase "casting couch" is a cliche for a reason.) I am not aware of a male member of Congress regarding whom I would find such behavior surprising.
Used to be, you could sink a young woman into a river and still be elected to the Senate. On balance, I think the voters made the right decision in that time and place regarding Ted Kennedy. Bill Clinton, too.
But times and standards have changed, and an important subset of the electorate seems to regard women as being something close to full human beings. Whether or not one shares that belief, I think we have to acknowledge that such voters have asserted themselves to the point that their concerns have to be heeded by liberals.
Hence my edit to the original comment. As much as we might want to focus on class politics independent of gender, women and the people who sympathize with them are going to insist on certain standards. There was no choice. Franken had to go.
15 gets at something else. It didn't used to be that the National Enquirer-believing mouth breathers all voted Republican, even if you limit to just the white ones. Back in another life when I used to study public opinion, it was considered pretty well settled that bug-fuck stupid voted more or less randomly (or not at all). That the Republican elite would trade all standards (not just ethical ones) to get the whole of the bug-fuck vote did surprise me, but I've gotten over it.
My thoughts on Franken, yesterday:
1) Franken resigning seemed like the apprioriate and expected outcome.
2) That said, the process seemed a little bit messy. Given that Franken clearly didn't want to resign and was pressured, it's unclear what pressure was applied and what evidence they were basing their decisions on.
3) One the third hand, "a little bit messy" seems fine. I don't have any real objection on procedural grounds. I just personally feel like the last couple of weeks have had dueling arguments of, "why hasn't Franken resigned already" and "give him (and Democrats) a little space and time do decide how to respond" and that I don't know that the final outcome settled that argument. From my perspective the process took about the right amount of time; but I don't know that I have any basis on which to say what the right amount of time should be. These are questions that will become clearer when we have more examples to talk about.
4) Yglesias's piece yesterday makes an argument that I'm sympathetic to, but I really don't like the overall framing of essay and I want to figure out what about it bugs me.
One advantage of admitting that partisan hypocrisy is okay is it could help relieve people of the sense that "cleaning house" is somehow a bad thing for their team.
Ever since allegations against Sen. Al Franken and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) surfaced, a number of grassroots Democrats have pushed back against the calls for resignation on the grounds that it would be unfair for Democrats to suffer while Republicans continue to stand behind the more egregious cases of Trump and Moore. This is, however, backward. Moore's misconduct is jeopardizing what should be a safe Republican Senate seat. Trump is, for a variety of reasons, one of the least-popular presidents on record.
Conversely, cleaning house with regard to Franken and Conyers would leave Democrats in a stronger position. Minnesota is a blue-ish state, but the seat isn't nearly so safe that Democrats should feel complacent that a scandal-plagued nominee could hold it. They'll be better off with someone untainted. Conyers's seat, by contrast, is extremely safe. But Democrats would be better off getting someone young, dynamic, and untroubled by scandal in there to make a play to become a future leader of the party.
it's unclear what pressure was applied
I think that was his defense.
we'll manage without him because we don't need to leave someone who abuses women in a leadership role in the party
You think this ends with Franken?
That the Republican elite would trade all standards (not just ethical ones)
In fairness, while the Republicans are willing to go easy on child molestation, they will brook no compromise on their core principle of cutting taxes for the wealthy.
That was what surprised me though. They sure didn't compromise on the importance of cutting taxes for the wealthy, but the implementation is far more fucked up than I thought possible. My favorite part is how they left corporate AMT rate unchanged so that now there are basically no deductions for corporations. This means that they cannot, as a fallback, just have the House pass the Senate bill.
I also assumed Obamacare would be dead by now.
22: The Dems have made the relevant concession to Lithwick's concerns: Neither Franken nor Conyers is going to be replaced by a Republican.
Can we talk about a Franks of Arizona resigning over talking to female staff about acting as surrogates for him and his wife?
That is obviously not as evil as a Weinstein raping women, but to me it is weirdly creepier.
It's not something I would expect of an elected official - even a Republican.
23: What do you think are the consequences if it doesn't?
I'm willing to be cynical for short-term political advantage -- if Franken were in a state where he was going to be replaced by a Republican governor, I'd be advocating for him to be pressured into not running again, rather than resigning. But where that sort of immediate partisan consequence isn't at issue, yeah, I don't think we need to leave abusers running the party.
26: Franken's seat will now have to be defended in 2018 and then reportedly won in 2020 by a non-incumbent.
27: You know what makes it so creepy? There is literally no reason for him to be bringing it into the workplace. Surrogacy is a thing! He could do it like a normal person! There's a process! (Come to think, I have no idea what the process is, but I'm sure there is one.)
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that to come off as a personal affront.
29: 2018 is going to be a Democratic wave year, so no better time for it, and then the new Senator will be an incumbent by 2020. Better Franken should have not been an abusive asshole, but his resignation is as little damaging as it could be.
29: By a non-incumbent without anybody accusing her of groping (I assume). I don't see why that's not easier.
30: The only reason I can thing of is that he either wanted to find somebody willing to be a surrogate for cheaper as a way of furthering their political career or he was actually just trying to get them to sleep with him and have a baby the regular way but thinking he was being subtle.
29: The alternative was to have it defended by a scandal-scarred candidate with a lengthening history of abuse allegations. As noted above, you don't have eight women like this come forward without there being eighty more in the wings. Seems likely a Senate candidacy would bring more out of the woodwork.
But if not, Al can still run.
34: Right. The alternative to Franken's resignation isn't an unblemished Franken running for re-election, it's an embarrassed, damaged Franken. And he did that shit to himself.
Anyway, if whatever Democratic picked can't in the Minnesota senate seat in 2018, we're fucked.
thinking he was being subtle.
The human mind is a fascinating thing.
Anyway, I think losing Franken is a real loss because he was good at being a senator, especially at dealing with obvious liars during hearings. But I don't think it is a loss in terms of chances of holding a seat.
Hey baby, I was gonna suggest you go to a sperm bank, but I prefer direct deposit IYKWIM.
14: Oh, very nicely done. A pity that 17 didn't follow your strong example.
I hope Gov. Dayton has had a chat with Gov. Bullock.
For those of you who only passingly follow Montana politics, here's the quick refresher. When Sen. Baucus resigned to take the China job, Bullock appointed his Lt Gov., a retired colonel (and bronze star winner), who'd been serving as the adjutant general of our National Guard. When it came time to run for the seat, smart oppo folks determined that he's plagiarized his thesis at the Army War College several years earlier. They held this until after the primary, dropping it a bit later for maximum chaos. He dropped out of the race, leaving the Party to hand pick a nominee for a very much shortened campaign. Presto, Sen. Daines.
Franks is weird and creepy, but I don't think it meets the standard for a Republican resigning. I suspect more stories will come out.
35: Maybe it's the story he came up with that he thought might save his marriage if not his seat.
(Yes, I have mixed feelings about Gov. Bullock trolling the President in the WaPo. Keep that man away from us!)
31: It's ok! I think I anticipated it as I wrote the OP, so then I jumped all over you for fulfilling my expectations.
Anyway, I think losing Franken is a real loss because he was good at being a senator, especially at dealing with obvious liars during hearings.
Me too. It's good to have a sharp-witted person on their feet making hay out of liars.
23: You think this ends with Franken?
Most definitely not. In fact in the last day or so have seen a number of hints/questions asked (one by Josh Marshall) about a purported WaPo/CNN* story with at least a double-digit number of targets. Per some earlier discussions here, estimates of number of abusers/harassers (at some level) in House/Senate would be very high.
*Although there is a chance that it might be one that it might not name that many names but rather focus on many who were harassed but not yet willing to name names.
It is always a little surprising to me that the Republicans still refer to the "Hastert Rule." It is a fucked up thing to begin with but I think it is probably better to not follow named after a criminal sexual predator.
30: Fertility clinics have proper programs. Same with egg donors.
On the right-wing/Rep Congressdouches preparing the ground for the Mueller firing I will confess that I have been a bit surprised by the coordinated vituperativeness against the FBI and DOJ. But, yes, I probably should he not be; it is somewhat reminiscent of how moderate Republican Whitewahter special counsel Robert Fiske was demonized by the lying monkeys when it was clear he was not willing to carry out an actual vendetta against the Clintons (unlike rape apologist succesor Ken Starr.) From an article at the time: "Starr is a real Republican, and he'll give us a real investigation," Dornan said. "Republicans will have to accept whatever comes out of the Ken Starr deal."
The level of craziness on Fox around Mueller is actually a bit frightening. And I will say , that if the texts of FBI/DOJ people become fair game it is a really fucked u[p situation. I mean I'm sure those of the fucking NY office NY Times source FBI agents would be massively revealing in the other direction but ain;t any of those that would come out.
I do wish the media was paying a bit more attention to the utter insult of Trump attending the opening of the Civil Rights museum in Mississippi. Lewis (and another congressman, name forgotten) have pulled out. Eh, I guess it will get the attention tomorrow when it happens. Fuck these fuckers.
Anyway, if whatever Democratic picked can't in the Minnesota senate seat in 2018, we're fucked.
Keith Ellison is maybe the only non-Senatorial name I remember in Minnesota politics, but it would be awesome if it was Keith Ellison.
What are the contingency plans for Mueller's firing? Is it just handing things over to state atty generals like Scheiderman? Are they allowed to have those in place? Will massive amounts of evidence get destroyed?
I have serious doubts about Ellison's ability to win a statewide race, especially against a center-right republican (which we do still have here). Aipac will be out to get him, and all the big corporate money would go to his opponent.
I think they should pick a woman who is made out of uranium.
I do wish the media was paying a bit more attention to the utter insult of Trump attending the opening of the Civil Rights museum in Mississippi. Lewis (and another congressman, name forgotten) have pulled out. Eh, I guess it will get the attention tomorrow when it happens.
It will get attention from the right-wing media who will point out that poor old Trump is being very nice and reaching out an olive branch to the blacks and all he gets for his efforts is an very impolite cold shoulder. That's about it.
55: I hate Trump as much as the average guy around here, but this seems pointless. The museum thing looks like a no-win situation for him. If he didn't go, how would that look?
57: IANAExpert, but...
What are the contingency plans for Mueller's firing?
If Mueller gets fired or for that matter gets hit by a bus, presumably Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would appoint someone else. By the way, Rosenstein appointed Mueller because AG Jeff Sessions is a person of interest himself, or some similar legal term. If Rosenstein becomes a personal of interest too, his deputy and therefore Mueller's supervisor would be Rachel Brand. Among other things, she worked for Bush during the Florida recount. It seems Mueller is the best investigator we're going to get.
Is it just handing things over to state atty generals like Scheiderman
I hope there's as much cooperation between Mueller and state AGs, but they're officially completely separate, aren't they?
Will massive amounts of evidence get destroyed?
Yes. But I don't see what this has to do with Mueller.
55.1: He doesn't have to accept every invitation, and wouldn't have had to make a big show of turning this one down.
But to the extent it's a "no-win situation" for him, it's because he's a racist. Absent that, it wouldn't be any problem for him at all.
61.1, 62.1: I am not even looking at it politically, just what a big fucking insult to everybody and everything--and the Civil Rights folks in particular. I think the worst move was the governor of Mississippi inviting him in the first place. Total dick move.
Harper Lee campaigns against Roy Moore form the grave: (Although I really do not care for the misplaced good ol' days nostalgia.)
After reading a copy of my book, Alabama in the Twentieth Century, novelist Harper Lee wrote me a letter on February 18, 2005, expressing her fears about the direction her beloved state was headed based on its past: "It looks like to hell if we don't get some things changed. . . . I dread the advent of Roy Moore's administration but its coming sure as doomsday. What is wrong with us? Are you old enough to remember when people were less ignorant? I am."
63 gets it right. Should not have been invited. The right thing for Trump to do once invited is to show up, not say "Sorry folks, as you may know if you follow the news, civil rights leaders are my enemies".
Retired man writing comments to himself on a Friday afternoon... because I can.
I do find that Wonkette brings the right level of disdain and mockery for my current taste. (Of course it's not useful but it helps , Al Franken.)
First they came for Paul Manafort, but I did not care because I was not a foreign agent money launderer for Russia and Ukraine, allegedly.
These are such weird, mentally and morally undeveloped people. We would feel sorry for them if they weren't destroying America.
On the list of sins on the conscience of the governor of Mississippi, inviting Trump to this thing is not in the top 10, probably not the top 100. (I wrote that line not knowing anything about him. I assumed he was a garden-variety Republican and Wikipedia says I'm right.) Same for Trump. It's sad that Lewis had to choose between going to the ceremony and avoiding Trump. It's not, however, sadder than a hundred other days of the Trump presidency.
I don't mean to say that I feel sorry for Trump, or that people are being unfair to him, or that him going to this event is actually good, or that his bad blood with civil rights leaders isn't entirely his fault. In hindsight I guess "no-win situation" is a bad way to put it. I'm just trying to say this is a very minor issue.
Its not a minor issue that he is a racist jackass.
I'm just trying to say this is a very minor issue
I think that is total fucking bullshit. Holy fucking shit what do black people need to do in this country to get to celebrate themselves without getting shunted to the side by white folks liberal and conservative.
Damn fucking right.
Come see the liberal disarray inherent in the system.
presumably Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would appoint someone else. By the way, Rosenstein appointed Mueller because AG Jeff Sessions is a person of interest himself, or some similar legal term. If Rosenstein becomes a personal of interest too, his deputy and therefore Mueller's supervisor would be Rachel Brand. Among other things, she worked for Bush during the Florida recount. It seems Mueller is the best investigator we're going to get.
I didn't exactly mean what is the pecking order so much as what preparations can we hypothesize Mueller has made to outsmart his own future firing?
Rep Franks apparently wasn't asking for surrogacy on the cheap, he was offering $5 million: https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/939255394144268289
Cont 74: In other words, reassure me that there's some hope for justice when Mueller gets fired.
Does he or his wife have a really round head?
69-73: I sympathize with Cyrus. Whenever I pause to ask myself how much outrage a news development merits, the correct answer is frequently: "More outrage than I am feeling." And I'm feeling a hell of a lot of outrage. As Tomlin says, it's tough to keep up.
Apparently he didn't mean surrogacy in the sense of "my wife and I have ivf and then you carry the resulting embryo to term". He meant "I have sex with you and get you pregnant".
Not really what most of us think "surrogate" means. Moby nailed it in 35.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trent-franks-resigns-wife-in-hospital
So, most of the $5 million was probably for don't tell anybody/sign away all rights to your kid.
Is it even legal to pay somebody to sign away custody of their baby?
"Your honor, she's an unfit parent as evidenced by the fact that she accepted $5 million to fuck me."
Shouldn't you be puttering?
He isn't?
I didn't exactly mean what is the pecking order so much as what preparations can we hypothesize Mueller has made to outsmart his own future firing?
There have definitely been reports that he's actively coordinating with state AGs, especially NY.
81: Not in DC! I saw a tweet from somebody who actually wrote about this recently. Used to be illegal everywhere, but now mostly legal, for some reason.
Does he or his wife have a really round head?
Is there a Peanuts special I don't know about?
I guess that could explain why nobody in that town seems to have a mom.
At first, there was (IMO) legit doubt that Franken had actually done anything especially egregious. Once it became apparent that he had definitely done something, and that it was at best borderline egregious, it seemed he had to go. As everyone knows, in his specific case, that's probably OK.
But if this is the standard, there's no way that the Dems can hold the line on anyone plausibly accused of anything. Which means that we will have Dems replaced by Republicans. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
It's fine to say that this is a price worth paying, but I'm aggravated by People Online acting as if saying this out loud is some sort of attack on #metoo. The 1965 Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do. It hurt the Dems and fucked the country. Both of those sentences are true, and there's no merit in shouting down people who point out the second one (some of them are in bad faith; fine, attack the bad faith).
The main reason I wish things had shaken out differently is precedent. As somebody said, the rule has become that if you admit anything, you're gone, but if you deny everything, you're OK. That's... not a sustainable approach to justice. And I don't mean in some technical, "due process" way. I mean what justice is actually supposed to be.
Maybe Franks sets a precedent, and at least some Republicans actually resign for their sins. I'm fine with imbalance, as long as it's not an infinite ratio.
Just to spin 89.3 out a bit: there should be some form of adjudication. By definition, somewhere out there is an edge case, where the accusation is dubious or the behavior is genuinely borderline*, but the model we're setting up isn't that we have any sort of discussion or even fact-finding, we just go by whether or not the accused admits wrongdoing.
I'm not worried about whether people are getting tickets for going 54 in a 55; I'm worried that someone who says, "Sorry, officer, I was going 56" gets a ticket, while the guy who denies going 88, in the face of all evidence, walks free. That's not a good outcome on any level, with incentives that are obvious and pernicious.
To get away from the analogy, my point is that the threshold doesn't concern me--"oh no, what if I get fired for complimenting a low-cut sweater?"--what concerns me is that guilt or level of offense don't matter, only honesty. Honesty = resignation, denial = leadership position.
*as many of you have seen, local elected asshole Darryl Metcalfe went on a homophobic rant in the state leg because an adjacent legislator touched his forearm in an effort to stop a rant (or something). It's obviously insane and bad faith, but it's an IRL example of how harmless, but genuinely unwelcome, touch can be weaponized.
"Sometimes when we touch, the homophobia's too much.
And I have to close my eyes, and hide."
90.1. How about something like "due process" in the courts? I'd take that with all its flaws over "Twitter process."
92: Because that's not the right standard, for two reasons (at least): 1. I want my gov't held to a higher standard than "just this side of illegal", and 2. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is also too high a standard. Nobody's going to jail or losing property (other than the implicit wealth opportunities of office, gross), so the most stringent standard should be more like a civil suit, if even that. On top of all that, the time component is inappropriate: actual due process takes forever.
Anyway, I was kind of hoping (again, before the scope/pattern of his actions became clear) that Franken could actually set a decent precedent through the ethics committee: let's all agree on the facts, more or less, and then decide how egregious.
I mean, I think the facts are probably more or less agreed upon--the guy grabbed some asses and was kissing unwilling women on the lips, at minimum--and I'm fine with that being beyond the pale. But if dozens of electeds are going to go away, I'd like some pattern for how to deal with it that has at least some hope of consistency.
Pensacola. Wow, we're in hell.
Also another Trump accuser. And Alcee Hastings with a harassment settlement.
I assumed there'd been some awful massacre in Pensacola, so I was relieved that it was just Trump doing his shtick.
Same here. Just saying "[Name of city]" as a piece of bad news means there was a mass shooting there.
Oops, sorry.
Me being too cryptic yet again.
I thought I won spree-killer location bingo.
Yeah, this:
But if this is the standard, there's no way that the Dems can hold the line on anyone plausibly accused of anything. Which means that we will have Dems replaced by Republicans. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
And also this:
It's fine to say that this is a price worth paying, but I'm aggravated by People Online acting as if saying this out loud is some sort of attack on #metoo.
In other words, what JRoth said.
while the guy who denies going 88, in the face of all evidence, walks free.
Lot of Republicans been going 88 lately.
79: I think there are programs which do that with IUI. i.e., he donates his sperm and the woman is inseminated in a clinic.
79: If he and his wife do IVF, it's a gestational carrier.
Which means that we will have Dems replaced by Republicans. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
It's fine to say that this is a price worth paying...
Is there widespread agreement that giving up seats to Republicans is a price worth paying? "The Governor will appoint a Democrat in his place" has been a pretty big talking point during the whole Franken thing.
I would not sacrifice Franken for a Republican, no. Look at every single fucking Republican roll over for that tax plan. The best Republican is a monster compared to the worst Democrat.
Given the level of sex ed some fundamentalists have received, I wouldn't be surprised if he was angling for a threesome and thinking it would somehow work out as a surrogate situation.
Briefly confused as to whether "going 88" was a novel sex act.
"A threesome isn't homosexuality at all if it is two women with a man and neither of the women have an orgasm."
The best Republican is a monster compared to the worst Democrat.
I think that is at least in part due to the Democrats maintaining some kind of standards beyond political expediency.
Except I think the interns are supposed to be off limits for both.
One sees so many of the People, Online complaining about various aspects of electoral politics, but very few of them seem to want to do voter registration volunteers or election judges or fundraisers for progressive candidates. I hope that will not be the case too far into 2018.
doing/being totally out of control
It would be unwise to think of the Franken thing as setting a standard for politicians. It's an effort to set standards for Democrats. We know Republicans and Democrats have different standards, and we'd be dopes to expect Republicans to adopt this one.
Because we're talking about politics, these standards are situational. I don't think much of Joe Manchin, but I'm glad he's in the Senate. Whatever hairball the West Virginians would cough up as an alternative would be much worse.
Al will be replaced by a Democrat. He had to go.
I know this is bad form but was my 100 too subtle?
It's not directly related to 112, but if anyone has any cash to spare, I can warmly recommend the New Amer!c@n Le@ders Project. They are doing a bang-up job of training supporting candidates of color (almost all progressive) to run for office, and many of them are winning. Not just Congress -- they do local offices too. And they walk their walk in terms of having mentors/consultants be POC too.
It wasn't actually subtle. It just though it was a cool-sounding number.
It sounds like Bryan Singer didn't get all of the nuances of Dennis' famous "The Implication" speech from The Gang Buys a Boat.