Oh My. Shall We Pray For Her? 😈

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene

From Mother Jones Daily, an email newsletter that I subscribe to:

You won’t see it in the pages of Mother Jones, but I feel compelled to inform you here that one of the main characters in today’s dystopian circus is experiencing some marital turbulence.

That’s right. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s husband has filed for divorce after 27 years of marriage, calling the union “irretrievably broken.” In a statement to Fox News, the election-denying, white power-loving congresswoman from Georgia confirmed the news but felt a need to reaffirm her “firm” belief that “marriage is a wonderful thing.” Sure, darling.

But what really caught my eye in Greene’s statement is the last bit asking for privacy for her family during these trying times. That’s a pretty standard, run-of-the-mill request for someone who lives in the public eye—and I tend to think it’s almost always warranted. But for Greene, it’s a curious thing to suddenly find important while she and her Republican colleagues effectively lead the charge to decimate privacy rights for everyone else. Let’s also remember that Greene is the same woman who harassed David Hogg and literally chased Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez down the halls of Congress.

When it comes to questions of who is afforded these rights in our post-Roe world—and perhaps more importantly, who isn’t—the strangest hypocrisies always seem to emerge. Of course, I’m not advocating that we pry into Greene’s marital challenges; we all have better things to do. But it feels fitting to leave you with this Vanity Fair headline from last year: “If Marjorie Taylor Greene spent more time with polyamorous tantric-sex gurus and less time spending insane conspiracy theories, the country would be better off.”

—Inae Oh

Protection or Hypocrisy?

I doubt I’m the only one who noticed the report about weapons being banned at tRump’s recent speech to the NRA. Although it’s reported this was a condition of the Secret Service, not directly attributed to the NRA, it does raise an important question.

From a CNN article:

The Secret Service works closely with our local law enforcement partners in each state to ensure a safe environment for our protectees and the public,” the agency said in a statement.

Hmmm. Does anyone else get the connection? A safe environment = no weapons?

From Gizmodo:

The NRA is fond of saying that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But when it comes to important people, I guess the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a total ban on guns. Go figure.

Go figure, indeed.