Wow - for a moment I thought you had stolen my cat - nearly the same markings. Is his/her fur shiny?

The reason I ask is because mine is half snow bengal, and she inherited the “glow” bengal fur gets in certain sunlight, and it looks like the one of the parents of yours might be a bengal as well.

If so, you’ve got a rare cat on your hands - cashmere bengals (long hair) are very uncommon due to recessive gene traits, and highly sought after as their fur is hypoallergenic. If they come from the Amur leopard cat line (snow bengal), they’re even rarer - a kitten with papers can fetch $7k.

Mine came to me as part of the cat distribution system (in fact, her mom, who is feral and I can’t catch, is likely going to have another litter under my house), so no papers, but she’s the best cat I’ve ever owned. Very smart, very polite, and despite the fact I’m allergic to other cats, I can rub my face in her fur with no problems. Very needy though if she doesn’t get attention - most social cat I’ve ever owned.

Regardless of her credentials, this was clearly written to cast Newsom in the worst possible light. The article is rife with hyperbole and only targets selected statements in the transcript.

And it’s absolutely misleading to say someone “completely aligns” with someone on an over-arching concept like trans rights when they agree with one subset of the argument.

It was this statement in particular that changed the tone from an opinion piece to a hit piece IMHO:

When Newsom platforms someone like Charlie Kirk, he isn’t fostering a “discussion” on transgender people in sports—he is handing a known hate monger a microphone to denigrate an already vulnerable community. That’s the real objective. Newsom isn’t engaging in open dialogue or debate; he is recalibrating his political stance to make targeting transgender people seem palatable, selling that shift to his base as a strategic necessity. And he’s doing it by giving one of the most notorious anti-LGBTQ+ extremists a seat at the table.

Emphasis mine. Here the author makes the claim that Newsom is deliberately targeting transgender people to score political points - yet he’s not. In the interview, Kirk brought those topics up, and when they came up, Newsom was describing the political landscape, not justifying it.

I mean, hell, go ahead and call Newsom out for the dumb shit he does (and this shit was not bright), but forcing a purity test on the man who made gay marriage legal is counterproductive. Claiming that he’s deliberately trying to target transgender folk is just plain false.

I didn’t say he was right on these issues, and you’re correct in taking issue with him because of it. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the article is a misleading smear piece capitalizing on Newsom’s rather foolish attempt to “cross the aisle” and have Kirk on his show.

I have a lot of problems with Newsom, as I actually alongside his campaign for mayor in the 90s through my volunteer work at Peace Action. I ended up leaving the campaign before he won due to his anti-homeless measure, which (predictably) restricted social services and made the homeless problem worse. It was clear back then he was always going to take the side of the rich in California politics, just as it was clear that he had already been effectively anointed as an upcoming governor by the Pelosi / Feinstein machine.

He’s also kind of a dumbass (this was really clear when he was younger - just look at his taste in women), but smart enough to usually listen to the more intelligent people in the room. This has redeemed him during the governorship to some extent, but he’s definitely made a rightward turn in response to recent events that’s left me less than confident in his leadership ability.

Misleading article. The issues where Gavin pointed out alignment were regarding trans athletes in sports, in particular the competitive advantages ftm athletes possess, and whether or not the state should pay for gender reassignment for inmates. Kirk was clearly trying to bait him into an article like this

That being said, Newsom’s responses were tepid at best. However, remember that this is also the man who took the step to legalize gay marriage in California when he was mayor of San Francisco. He’s definitely not perfect, and far too centrist for my tastes, but when the chips are down he generally does the right thing.

Having Charlie Kirk on your first podcast was not one of them, however.

Here’s a link to the podcast. Transcript is available in the drop down.