Friday 8th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the "culture wars"...

vanity fair

There is a rise in the conservative ranks of uncertainty and half-hearted fight-back on moral issues. Most of the conservatism, especially in the USA, is faith-based. The social interaction of conservatives depends on moral values as given by god to follow. There is little give or take on this one, except when one (or more sons and daughters) in their rank falls to the pressure of sin, usually of a sexual nature, the button of forgiveness/redemption is pressed. Amen. 

Presently the religious conservatives find themselves under pressure in a "culture war" in which certain new social "freedoms' go against their strict values, which of all things are strongly family and faith based — little more. But for many years, these values were also the tenet of the governments, whether Democrat or Republican. This ruling conservatism held the other sides of society, which existed, below the plimsol line. Homosexuals, trans, eccentrics, extremists, loonies, freedom seekers did not have a voice. All were to be treated as perverse, dangerous even, and the general public was to be kept in the dark about these aspects of society by a very narrow minded media. Most doctors knew, though. Some idealism like communism and socialism were to be made illegal. The USA even had a go at prohibition.


But now, this "conservatism" has become embroiled in what they call "the culture war". The conservatives are loosing their grip on the governmental laws in which a greater acceptance of diversity is slowly building up. 

One should note that a lot of conservatism was also built on sexism and racism. The conservatives lost these two "wars" a while back, but for many conservatives these vexing issues are still latent, the place of women is defined as inferior or subservient to that of men. Racism still prevails in many Australian conservative circles, not so much as hate but as a form of educated paternalism in which the voice of the subservient is kept at a minimum. White conservative history also powerfully hides a lot of sin committed under the name of god and country. 

Thus "marriage equality" "abortions" and a hoist of "new" ideas are challenging this conservative white picket fence. I placed "new" between quotes, because the issues that are flustering the right wing conservatives are not new. They are only new in the sense that these long existing issues have raised to the surface. The conservatives even recognise this by placing the fall of the Roman Empire on debauchery. I place the fall of the Roman Empire on being too thinly spread, into areas where allegiances were easy to be compromised, a bit like what we see in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Hordes of Visigoth could easily outfight the roman Empire on its edges until they reached the core. The empire needs its core troops to maintain the imposed idealism in such far distant lands, but there is a limit as how many core troops one has and the willingness of the public at large to accept this drain on the coffers and political order at home. So the Romans employed "locals" to do the fighting on their behalf. This does not work well for obvious reasons as we see today.

Some of the conservative still cling to straws, like to the "values that kept the moral compass going during the middle ages", at the level of small communities, while the state was... Well most of the state did its fighting under the name of god, with the help of the papal religious centre. The small "communities" provided the fodder, the soldiers to defend a godly self-appointed king during these middle ages often called the dark ages. Why the dark ages? Well because, during these times, most of the human curiosity in Europe had gone underground. Nothing much was invented, developed or investigated with proper philosophical insight. It was a time of survival with very little trimmings. Customs became quite stale under the weight of bigoted traditions. 
This is the environment in which the Cathars came into. They developed a new social order which of course displeased the status quo of ignorance. The Cathars made cash, probably using a variety of currencies and charged interest. They financed merchants and explorers for profit — all under the nose of the ruling Christian king and pope. They advocated equality between men and women. 

Scholars sometimes asked why the Huguenots "were" allowed to survive while the cathars were not. It could have been a question of power and influence. But the clincher probably was that the Cathars decreed that the world had been created by the devil and our duty was to escape this hell-hole through a mechanism of "improved" reincarnation. While the Huguenots were still Christians, the Cathars were not. 

Thus even in the middle ages, the dark ages, there were undercurrents that needed the attention of the powerhouse. Meanwhile druids, witches and other arcane social network knew how to survive in the shadows and make magic potions.
So The conservatives are thinking up some kind of retreats. One of them is the "Benedict option". Basically it's a return to the Middle-Ages, during which "local communities sustained civilization and moral life through the Dark Ages". This is totally deluded of course. The romancing of moral life during the Dark Ages amounts to having been asleep since the fourth century AD, like Sleeping Beauty awaiting her kissing Prince Charming. 

That Middle-Ages moral life was maintained by royal armies, repressing "police" forces and the fear of Hell from a church that was getting richer and richer, by being in bed with whoever was the king of the day. Depending in which country you lived, the policing was organised by community militias or by the Lord of the Manor's armies. Punishment was harsh, from stock, imprisonment, to death, and mutilation — even for minor infringement. False denouncement was rife. Because of this fear, many allegiances were done through compromising others. Everyone of importance would have had "dirt files" on others, knowing well they could also be exposed to daylight.
Life was mostly toil and public humiliation for entertainment, while the "dark" arts of the occult did its utmost to remain hidden. Thus then, as there is now, there was many social currents, though the main officialdom was that of purity and fear of god. Not a pure look in my book. 

So two more news items have shaken the present strong foundation of the conservative outlook. First the revelation of one in the Duggar family involved in impure acts, possibly the tip of an iceberg in such screwed-up environment. This attracted a lot of "I'm not one to comment, but let's forgive as god would" darkish ink from most conservative scribes. 

The second item that really shook the conservatives was the Caitlyn Jenner exposure. 
Jenner, when she was a man, Bruce, was a god to the sporting and conservative communities. Olympic medals, World records and a hoot of prowesses that made the bloke a hero to the blokesy conservative folks. I was not going to mention this sex change in my articles, treating it as just another sex change amongst many, until I noticed the terrible trauma the conservatives were in, in regard to this particular case. Jenner is a committed Christian and a right-wing conservative. Apparently most of the Democrats have moved on. Jenner got a pat on the back from the White House, but nothing from the "other side". Total silence. Stunned silence. One of the things that also pissed off the conservatives was that Jenner got the ESPN "Medal of Courage". Of course conservative commentators though this was ludicrous and mentioned amongst others, the case of a Veteran from some recent war who, having lost two legs, should have got the "Medal of Courage" for defending his country... One can harp on this one. 

The other aspect that would demoralise any conservatives is that Jenner has been involved with the socially fleeting family, the Kardashians... Apparently, Jenner stopped his "hormone change" treatment to marry into the "family" and have another two kids, while still cross-dressing. One can't know the turmoil that would have gone in Caitlyn's mind. Meanwhile, one must note that the Kardashians represent the second pedal to the powerhouse of conservatism: vacuous capitalism. The first pedal being faith. Religious faith.

So a lot of virtual ink is being used trying to make sense of all this in the framework of conservatism, while trying to remain put, though one of the "Benedict options" is to "Move to Canada"... A frightful thought for some dedicated conservative flag flier patriots. 

Gus Leonisky 
Your local social expert...

 

a watershed moment for transgender people...

 

Social conservatives think they are losing the culture wars | MSNBC

 

MSNBC.com 
It was a watershed moment for transgender people. To conservatives - it's a
reminder that they're losing the culture wars in this country

Even in the conservative press:

In a world where it feels like change is coming at light speed, the Caitlyn Jenner story poses yet another conundrum for conservatives: Whether to embrace this high-profile Republican, or to take, as the Washington Post describes, an apocalyptic view of this development.  (A third option is to just shut up and mind our own business.)

At the micro level, the conservative instinct is to live and let live. But this issue is a macro issue — it’s a national cultural issue — and conservatives have an obligation to weigh in on what appears to be the next front in the culture wars.

People who subscribe to a “slippery slope” theory of politics cannot help but suspect that, with gay marriage now having won acceptance (that fight seems so quaint in comparison!), transgenderism is the next great civil rights struggle we’re expected to embrace.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/caitlyn-jenner-and-why-conservatives-keep-losing-ground-in-the-culture-war/#ixzz3cKgX0tTY

 

 

Read article at top...

 

Meanwhile:

A growing public backlash has forced Hillsong Church to review its decision to host a disgraced US pastor who once described women as "penis houses" and has since been shunned by his own congregation.

Mark Driscoll, who resigned from his Seattle "mega church" last year after being found "guilty of pride" and other leadership abuses, has been invited by the Australian evangelical church to appear on the main stage at its national conference in Sydney this month.

An online petition calling for his invitation to be revoked had attracted almost 3000 signatures as of Sunday morning. It argues Hillsong was "both endorsing and legitimising" Mr Driscoll's views about women by hosting him at the event.

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hillsong-church-to-review-its-decision-to-host-controversial-us-pastor-mark-driscoll-20150607-ghifct.html

on changing sex...

 

There are quite a few commentators in the conservative press who are trying to destroy Jenner's happiness by looking for excuses in rationally despising what he/she has done. Their arguments do not wash well. They link the sex change operation of Jenner to mutilation and self-mutilation, or like one of them, Gene Callahan, even parallels the deed with the failures of Marxism.

Callahan mentions "ideology" and parrots views similar to Voegelin who proposed something like “ideology” signified the attempt to create an abstract “second reality” that somehow seems preferable to the real world for the ideologue. The ideologue then attempts to live in that constructed reality, and to force others to do so as well. Callahan:

 

As Voegelin noted in The New Science of Politics, “The gap between intended and real effect [of utopian schemes] will be imputed not to the [ideological] immorality of ignoring the structure of reality but to the immorality of some other person or society that does not behave as it should according to the dream conception of cause and effect.

Unfortunately, as in the case of Marxism, secondary realities exist only in the ideologue’s mind, and all of us must actually live in primary reality.

 

 

Gus: here the concept of ideology does not fit the Jenner case. If Jenner wants to do whatever, that is her choice. She is not demanding we all do it, just that we should be aware of her new status, like people changing address. 

Also, we must mention that reality, the "primary reality" of Voegelin has been muddled for humans by many other factors such as religion and the worship of heroes and cash. Religion is a third-rate reality of strong magnitude. Politics is a second poor reality. Economics is not a science. And let's be clear here, contrary to what Callahan states in regard to Marxism not paying attention to scarcity of supply, the most offending system in regard to scarcity and management thereof is Capitalism. Capitalism only survives with the concept of never ending boon and growth, even using crash as a fear factor for growth. Capitalism will artificially constrict scarcity of supply to achieve value, but it cannot survive with the concept of limited supply. Unlimited growth is the engine of the capitalist game. 

But this dissertation about Marxism here is totally incongruous with Jenner's situation. Ideal and idealism are two different propositions, which Gene Callahan confuses.

As well, Callahan mentions that after a sex change the recipient is 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the average punters. Here again stats can be read to fit a certain picture. For example should one count 2 suicide per 100,000 punters and 0.5 suicide per twenty sex change recipient as something that can make sense. It does not. The sample of the second part is far too small comparatively to the first. Many sex change people feel happier than ever before. This may be an illusion but we all carry illusions, delusions and hopes in order to see ourselves through life and who we are. If we don't like it we may have to change dreams, grow a beard or have a sex change... 

Another strong minded commentator is Noah Millman who tells us fair and square that a sex change operation is self-mutilation and mentions the cases of the transabled who try to cut of one of their limbs as they don't feel it belongs to them... These cases, of which there is a lot of discussing blogs about, are actually quite rare. Millman:

I’m afraid I’m going to re-enter the fray. Rod Dreher has a piece today wondering whether the next step in our cultural development (or decline) will be the normalization of trans-ablism – that is, the normalization of people who deliberately make themselves (or have themselves made) disabled. If, after all, people who suffer from gender dysphoria have the right to address that psychic hurt through gender-reassignment surgery – nay, should be applauded for having the courage to do so – then why shouldn’t people who suffer from a profound sense of alienation from one of their limbs have the right to lop it off?

It’s not at all a ridiculous question. It is indeed difficult, if you start from the (true) proposition that such people are suffering from great psychic distress, and proceed to the (more debatable) proposition that absent strong evidence to the contrary we should assume that people know what is best for themselves, to conclude that self-mutilation is self-evidently wrong in all cases.

The only thing I find strange is the assumption that there’s something profoundly un-Christian about self mutilation. After all:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

----------------------

Gus : with this beginning, Noah Millman goes into a somewhat distracting dissertation. 

Of course, the medical technology of changing the sexual nature of a person who thinks he/she is in the wrong body has progressed since the beginning of human time, and of course the change is a form of mutilation. So? Having a tonsil op is mutilation as well. Hospitals perform many "mutilations" daily, some to save lives some not... One can here refer to M*A*S*H, when one of the main surgeons, Hawkeye, performs an unnecessary appendectomy on a healthy captain to stop him from sending more soldiers to their death to take one hill from the enemy, after having failed a couple of times with great amount of casualties. The moral issue here is divided by the Hippocrates' oath and the common sense which becomes quite coarse...

But we are advised by Millman that:

 

That’s Matthew 5:29-30, in the King James version.

Noah rushes to satirically say: 

But of course, Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Nobody would ever have actually done such a foolish thing as to mutilate himself for the sake of salvation.

Gus: but oh no... Some religious people followed the message literally... Flagellants were a hoot after the winter that never left...

For many early Christians, martyrdom was a glorious passage to eternity. I was given fully descriptive books with big engravings on the glory and gory of martyrdom, when I was in primary school... very educational. In my article on De Revolutionibus, I mention Blaise Pascal who said: "Sickness is the natural state of Christians."...

One wonders thus whether one is sick in the mind or in the body... And we are always in the throes of our own idiocy and acceptance of it. But sometimes our desires are real as much as we feel these. The proportion of people that wish to self-mutilate beyond a certain dangerous point is in fact very rare.

Castration is not new. The Chinese did it a long time ago, including the removal of appendage, and some monks (Chinese, Japanese?) used to go from village to village showing their shrivelled member in a jar as a proof of their allegiance to the order. Many of the high ranking Chinese were castrated. It was believed to improve performance in administrative duties.. Castration happened in many ancient societies...

In the catholic church, there were singers called Castrato, not for nothing. There has been a lot of mutilation in the Muslim religious application of the law "an eye for an eye", etc.

That religious beliefs, madness, personal choice, sickness or sadomasochism lead to mutilation is one notch for the fireplace. That many people endure tattooing is also borderline and in many "primitive" societies, tattooing and scarring was a form of test of resistance to pain and a test of survival. 

In the secular view we know that some people are not the sexual person they wish, think they are or feel. There are people born with dubious packages and at some stage modern medicine will have to make a choice, unless one leaves the undifferentiation alone. In the past, people with such "problem" would have been ostracised.

Now that one adult person, in full possession of his/her mind decide to change sex is a very challenging idea. One must say that most adolescent male or female would feel the pressure of being operative, but show me a person who never though of being of the "other" sex (including sleep dreams) and I'll show you a liar. I have met women who were devastated because their sexual organs never developed and thus never had periods... A difficult "conversation" to have. 

The fact that much of England waterways are sometimes tainted with oestrogen, or oestrogen-like products,  could also have an effect on the development of some individuals, including the wildlife. Some of us are more sensitive than others. 

As I have mentioned on this site before, I was experimented upon, with GH, possibly before it was legal to do so. But animal GH had no effect on humans though, while animal insulin (another hormone) did. GH was used mostly to treat "short" people, but also people with bone problems. I had a severe case of "rickets". 

In the late 1980s, It was discovered that coming from cadavers, GH could eventually induce CJD later in life, as some of the dead bodies had had CJD. This source used since the late 1950s, was thus discontinued as this annoying side effects became known. Medicine had to make a great leap of knowledge in order to make the correlation when some people who had received GH from cadavers started to show CJD symptoms 40 years later and died from it. 

As also mentioned before on this site, some fish species change sex naturally. After having been a male for seven years a Barramundi fish turns into a female. Even for a fish, this would present some twists. 

For one to decide that one has the wrong body or image of oneself, I would suggest that this decision is not instantaneous. A long process of thinking, feeling and looking at oneself should and would take years before a decision is made — even if made in an illusory compulsive manner. I know some people who had a sex change but regretted it because they were not "mature" enough and were too young to take such a drastic step. Psychologists usually are involved as well as doctor. It's not as simple as let's cut the bits off and all will be well. There are issues, but nothing that cannot be dealt with. 

I also know some who are very happy with the change...

Modern medicine has an array of hormone therapies which can and will affect human life beyond imaginings. A lot of other "operations" such as transplant rely on various "chemicals" that will suppress rejection of imported organs and others that will induce chemical castration. Surgery in most cases is invasive and mutilating. 

Some people will do some "cosmetic" surgery to change their appearance such as liposuction and die. And of course there is a big industry around the whole caboodle.

Soldier will have little choice in participating in actions in which they know they could be maimed "for life" or die with much higher odds than ordinary punters. One lives in hope on the battlefields.

In the end the choice for the modern person, including Caitlyn, is one of knowing the consequences, including other people mixed reactions, but the possible happiness from the change. No regrets. Jenner, being about 64, should know by now what she wanted all his/her life. And she would have had the cash to do the op without placing a drain on the public purse. It's a personal issue, with a public profile.

Jenner is also lucky that modern medical surgery and hormone treatment can give her the luxury of a chosen "appearance" to a point. Some people are not so lucky.

Should one be less accepting of people's weird idiosyncrasies and greatness, one should look at one self.  Our idiocy may be the least normal. Reading Dante as Gallahan suggests in his article is not a primary reality. It's another form of delusion. 

The Jenner sex change is not for me, and I suppose nor anyone, to judge or to approve, but that it is a reality that should be allowed for Jenner. That this affect the conscience of a lot of Christian conservatives is their problems, not Jenner's.

Have a good life, Caitlyn...

 

 

the americanisation of jesus...

 

From Rod Dreher

Writing in The Economist, Will Wilkinson astutely diagnoses the reason why sexual counterrevolutionaries, even within churches, are fighting a losing battle. Excerpt:

 

"" Ms Jenner, it bears mentioning, is also a committed Christian. In the Washington Post Josh Cobia relates what Ms Jenner, then known as Bruce, taught him about Jesus, and life, at a nondenominational evangelical church they both attended. “Jesus wasn’t one to turn away from those the world had labeled broken,” Mr Cobia concluded. “He was the one who would walk toward them with open arms”.

The tolerant Jesus of Mr Cobia and Ms Jenner may not be the Jesus of Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther or John Knox or John Wesley. He is a Jesus perhaps more thoroughly invested in the “autonomous eroticised individualism” of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman than a first-century re-interpretation of the Judaic law. But that is the American and still-Americanising Jesus of many millions of American believers who, like Caitlyn Jenner, attend nondenominational evangelical churches, and who, like Caitlyn Jenner, vote Republican.

This is why going after Ms Jenner is ultimately a loser for Republicans presidential wannabes. Caitlyn Jenner of Malibu is a leading indicator not of the secularisation of America, but of the ongoing Americanisation of Christianity. There’s no point dying in the last ditch to defend Old World dogma against the transformative advance of America’s native faith if it may leave you out of step with a growing number of voters who find divinity by spelunking the self. ""

 

That’s good writing, that last paragraph. In the current age, not only has Christianity lost its hold on America, but America, rather, is conquering Christianity.

Read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christianity-american-problem/

 

Gus is an atheist...

divorce or sex change choice in tasmania...

 

Tasmania's Attorney-General has refused to rule out changing laws to force a married person who has a sex change to divorce before their new gender is recognised.

The Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act does not permit a married person to register a change of gender.

Greens MP Nick McKim asked Attorney-General, Vanessa Goodwin, whether she thought that was a fair choice during a budget estimates hearing on Monday.

"Do you think it's fair that a married person who has undergone sexual re-assignment surgery has to choose between having their gender recognised or divorce," he said.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-10/laws-forcing-a-couple-to-divorce-if-one-undergoes-gender-change/6536102

 

meanwhile at the merde-och press in australia...

 Cate McGregor, political writer, cricket commentator and author, was plastered all over the News Corp papers on Tuesday, in a story about taxpayers paying for gender reassignment operations for members of the Australian defence force.

“EXCLUSIVE: Taxpayers were hit with a bill for $648,000 over 30 months for sex change and breast enhancement procedures for serving members of the Australian defence force (ADF),” national defence writer Ian McPhedran wrote.

McGregor is referred to in the article as “one of the most prominent military gender reassignment cases”. Photographs of McGregor, a transgender woman, and videos of her giving a speech were also included. But as the cricket columnist for the Australian said on Twitter she has never had any surgical procedure at taxpayer expense. McGregor contacted McPhedran and News Corp for a clarification.

Two days later News published an amended article which made it clear she had not had taxpayer funded surgery. McGregor said on Thursday she would rather try to re-educate the people involved than take legal action.

Follow

the world is flat...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/clarke-and-dawe-a-refusal-to-be-bullied-by-the/6540438

the lesser and safer of possible indignities...

 

Seventeen days after Caitlyn Jenner appeared in airbrushed glory on the cover of Vanity Fair, Sara Simone woke up in her rented Alexandria bedroom and considered the tools at her own disposal: a $9 bottle of Revlon ColorStay foundation — “Mahogany” — a spritz of Paris Hilton perfume, a plunging black T-shirt showcasing the breasts she had patiently earned with hormones. Was the shirt too racy? Maybe. But it was better, she’d decided when she transitioned four years ago, to have men stare at her chest than to have them scrutinize her face and ask whether she was a man or a woman. “Better they whistle at me than jump me,” she sometimes said, because in her particular existence as a transgender woman, catcalling seemed the lesser and safer of possible indignities.

Sara added a set of false eyelashes, one retrieved from the carpet where it had escaped. Two tan hormone patches, one for each buttock.

She slid gold sandals onto her feet, a gold ring onto her toe, and onto her lower half, a pair of snug neon pants which she planned to keep in rotation “as long as my legs can pull it off.”

 

 

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2015/07/29/life-as-sara-what-its-like-to-be-a-transgender-woman-when-youre-not-caitlyn-jenner/?hpid=z1

 

read from top

before jenner...

 

HOUSTON — Nearly four decades before Caitlyn Jenner introduced herself to the world, Phyllis Randolph Frye came out as a transgender woman in a far less glamorous way. No Diane Sawyer, no Vanity Fair.

It was the summer of 1976. As Bruce Jenner, 26, was celebrating his decathlon victory at the Montreal Olympics, Phillip Frye, 28, was admitting defeat in suppressing his gender identity. He, becoming she, had already lost a lot: He had been forced to resign from the military for “sexual deviation.” He had been disowned by his parents, divorced by his first wife and separated from his son. He had been dismissed from several engineering jobs.

Now, with the encouragement of his second wife, Trish, he was starting to transition and wanted to be forthright. Going door to door, he distributed letters to advise the community that the neighbor formerly known as Phil — the husband, father and born-again Christian; the former Eagle Scout, Texas A & M University cadet and Army lieutenant — was going to start living full time as Phyllis.

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/us/transgender-judge-phyllis-fryes-early-transformative-journey.html?_r=0

 

Read from top...

 

a dance with the gracious star...

President-elect Donald Trump is being urged by some advisers to save at least one dance, as he celebrates his inauguration on Friday night, for a very special Republican lady — Caitlyn Jenner.

“It’s a brilliant idea,” a member of the incoming administration told me.

Besides mollifying the LGBTQ community — wary of conservative Republicans in general, and of Trump in particular — dancing with Jenner could mend fences within the party.

“Time heals all wounds,” one GOPer pointed out.

Bruce Jenner was a stalwart Republican long before the parent of six (10 if you count stepkids) transitioned into Caitlyn.

The image of Trump dancing with Caitlyn would send a strong message that he supports gay rights and trans rights,” the Republican said. “A picture is worth a thousand tweets.”

Jenner’s publicist said, “Can’t deal in hypotheticals. We’ll just have to wait and see.”

Also among the throngs at the inauguration will be Rowanne Brewer Lane, who dated Trump in 1990, and blasted the New York Times in May for mischaracterizing their relationship.

“They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump,” Brewer Lane said. “He never offended me in any way. He was very gracious.”

read more:

http://pagesix.com/2017/01/19/advisers-urge-trump-to-dance-with-caitlyn-...

jenner's bid...

 

Caitlyn Jenner announces bid for California governor

 

Caitlyn Jenner has announced she has filed the paperwork to run for California governor. 

The former Olympic athlete and reality TV star will run as a Republican in the Democratic stronghold state. 

A recall election in the state could be confirmed this month after a petition against current governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, reached the number required to trigger a vote. 

Voters would be asked if they want Mr Newsom to stay or another candidate. 

According to the Axios news site, Ms Jenner has put together a team that includes some of former President Donald Trump's advisers. 

"Californians want better and deserve better from the governor," a statement from Ms Jenner said, confirming the news on her Twitter account on Friday. 

 

"For too long, career politicians have over-promised and under-delivered. We need a leader with the vision and resolve to see it through," she added. 

Ms Jenner promised that her campaign will be one of "solutions" and provide a "roadmap back to prosperity to turn this state around". 

She added that she will formally launch her campaign at a later date.

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56864649

 

 

Read from top.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!