This should have been American-manufactured. For shame, France.
If you are a left-leaning person who is offended by the suggestion that there is a relationship between the nature of Bernie Sanders’ campaign and the white supremacist who killed people and was a big fan of Bernie Sanders, you’re invited to stop reading this blog…
Because, seriously: the man has led the latest iteration of a time-honored tradition of ego-driven Democratic presidential primary ‘movements’ that are politically incompetent. His campaign and him have embodied so much shitty white man *cough* *cough* – sorry, white noise in the Democratic Party.
The issues with his campaign and the associated ‘movement’ that Jamelle Bouie described and explored in April 2016 are related to some guy falling in love with Bernie Sanders as a candidate and ultimately fantasizing on Facebook about leading ‘loyal’ Bernie supporters in slaughtering Hillary Clinton supporters, four months before he killed two men who were heroes that gave their lives in defense of whatever is good about this country.
If your overarching motive in politics is fighting income inequality and political corruption, please: do something about it that’s more effective than whatever the [bleep] it is you and your allies are currently doing in the political discourse. And, unless you’re willing to make grave compromises, don’t let the door hit you on your way out of the Democratic Party of which Bernie Sanders *still* is not a member.
Rebels, radicals, and challenges to the Democratic Party as an institution are extremely necessary. But there are very definitive reasons why this blog exists in promotion of the Democratic Party, and will continue to for as long as this nation lives in a political context that is recognizably structured along the lines that were officially rung in by the passage and signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Welcome to the United States of America. This is what we’ve got.
A last note for the Bernie folks that are still reading this – don’t forget to care about the current state of affairs of ‘interest groups’ like Black people, women, and LGBT folk. Y’know, the thing that’s been the Achilles heel of your entire ‘movement’. It’s more important than y’all have given it credit for.
“The new president himself was a man who acted like a frat boy most of the time and could barely string together a coherent sentence. Recall just a few of the memorable quotes from the man who would soon be sitting in the Oval Office as these pundits were excitedly welcoming the adults back to Washington:
“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.”
— Nashua, New Hampshire, Jan. 27, 2000
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
— Florence, South Carolinea, Jan. 11, 2000
“We’ll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers.”
— Houston, Sept. 6, 2000
“Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.”
— LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Oct. 18, 2000
It was obvious that our new president’s antenna didn’t pick up all the channels, if you know what I mean. But the pundits didn’t care because it wasn’t important. The grand poobahs of the GOP establishment would make America great again.”
As a person with mental health issues that increase the likelihood of me scrambling spoken words: Fuck this fucking shit, and damn it to hell.
This kind of shit helped get Trump elected.
Not everybody finds a veneer of polished panache appealing, or reassuring.
Your falling for the adjunct professor TAing your social studies lecture class doesn’t make you ~*better*~ than the person that falls for the frat boy.
(Here’s a hint – my extension of the college context inherent to the ‘frat boy’ metaphor is quite intentional.)
This is why W’s smug look was so infuriating for you – because you made things worse for yourself whenever you tried to criticize him for being an evil shill.
Like. Fuck. The political substance of the above is almost exclusively snobbery in response to someone who sometimes garbles their words and [dramatic gasp] grammar.
Is the concept of a public official misspeaking or being [dramatic gasp, again] ungrammatical in public *that* unacceptable to you?
I guess there must be a generational gap involved when you didn’t grow up with as much AAVE in your popular music, but ‘hip’ lefty youngsters don’t abide by grammar-obsessed nonsense anymore.
Yes. This is a valid aspect of why ‘conservatives’ are so angry at ‘liberals’. Why didn’t you fucking learn this after we had a two-term president who was a Rhodes Scholar while still having ‘down-home’ charm?
Oh right. Because we can’t elect a Democrat with a more working-class sort of charm who’s not a white man from the South. But we won’t talk about how fucked that is and what to do about it, ever.
In closing: liberals, not everyone appreciates your ~cosmopolitan~, ‘enlightened’, End Of History-fueled perspectives on the universe – because, as it turns out, they’re not nearly as relevant as you thought.
“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
“Entirely possible that my plangent cries about the impossibility of rebelling against an aura that promotes and attenuates all rebellion says more about my residency inside that aura, my own lack of vision, than it does about any exhaustion of U.S. fiction’s possibilities. The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of “anti-rebels”, born oglers who dare to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall to actually endorse single-entendre values. Who treat old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backwards, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point, why they’ll be the next real rebels.”
– David Foster Wallace, “E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction
“I don’t care what you like. I don’t care how you feel. I just want to know that it is real, and that it comes from a place of genuine emotion. There is such a frightening coldness to being able to communicate with people so effectively and never feeling as though you exchanged actual thoughts. Yes, I want to be close. Yes, I want people to like each other fundamentally. Yes, I want us to be done with seeming cool or uninvested. And no, it probably won’t all happen overnight. But if I write you out of the blue one day to tell you that I absolutely love your blog and I would really like to buy you a cup of coffee someday to talk about life — don’t say I didn’t warn you.“
“Certainly those determining acts of her life were not ideally beautiful. They were the mixed result of young and noble impulse struggling amidst the conditions of an imperfect social state, in which great feelings will often take the aspect of error, and great faith the aspect of illusion. For there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by what lies outside it. A new [Saint] Theresa [of Ávila] will hardly have the opportunity of reforming a conventual life, any more than a new Antigone will spend her heroic piety in daring all for the sake of a brother’s burial: the medium in which their ardent deeds took shape is forever gone. But we insignificant people with our daily words and acts are preparing the lives of many Dorotheas, some of which may present a far sadder sacrifice than that of the Dorothea whose story we know.
Her finely touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”
– George Eliot, Middlemarch
“Why humble yourself to a system that sets limits for you? What is the point of being “humble” and, therefore “classy”, or “elegant”, and “gracious” when that system doesn’t give you a seat at the table during meetings to decide whether or not you are “gaming” their system? Why not appoint yourself the head of a new system on top of the very foundation of the system that was designed to remind you that you can only rise so high?
Beyoncé knew. She doesn’t have to tell us that she knew. She showed us what she knew.”
“I will observe, in parenthesis, that Heine says that a true autobiography is almost an impossibility, and that man is bound to lie about himself. He considers that Rousseau certainly told lies about himself in his confessions, and even intentionally lied, out of vanity. I am convinced that Heine is right; I quite understand how sometimes one may, out of sheer vanity, attribute regular crimes to oneself, and indeed I can very well conceive that kind of vanity…
[The notes of this paradoxalist do not end here, however. He could not refrain from going on with them, but it seems to us that we may stop here.]”
– Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes From Underground
Dear straight women (or women in committed romantic relationships with men),
I want to clear something up about gender roles and lesbians not being ‘ladylike’.
As a sapphically inclined woman, I thank my lucky stars every day for not having to deal with some of the shit that you do.
The idea that I might have to avoid making somebody feel like ‘less of a man’ if I wanted to get laid sounds, frankly, terrible.
Because, seriously. Sports? Video games? Ragging on somebody not because I think they’ll learn from it, but just because I feel like it?
Cursing whenever the fuck I want?
It’s awesome. And I love it.
And it’s really depressed me to realize that so many straight women and girls mortgage their competitiveness, and their desires to be powerful and take up space, for the sake of their love life and romantic future.
I don’t want to think about how much it must suck to feel like you have to choose between feeling powerful and strong, and coloring inside the lines of norms of sexual desirability.
But the fact that it’s so normalized doesn’t make it any less destructive.
So, to those of you whom it may concern:
Could you not take out your issues with the men in your life on women who don’t have any qualms about emasculating dudes who deserve it?
When you let a dude get away with being domineering and treating his insecurities as something to pick a fight with?
When you offer shelter to his toxic side?
When you do the little humorings of his bullshit that are as normal today as Ralph Kramden saying he was gonna punch his wife in the face one of these days was normal in the ’50s?
Don’t take issue with my being ‘less of a lady’ while aiding and abetting the men that represent the greatest danger to my health and safety as a trans woman in public.
Some women don’t have a womanhood defined by acquiescing to men for the sake of feeling pretty.
“If you want to understand intra-GOP warfare, the decision-making process of our president, the implosion of the Republican healthcare plan, and the rest of the politics of the Trump era, you don’t need to know about Russian espionage tactics, the state of the white working class, or even the beliefs of the “alt-right.” You pretty much just need to be in semi-regular contact with a white, reasonably comfortable, male retiree. We are now ruled by men who think and act very much like that ordinary man you might know, and if you want to know why they believe so many strange and terrible things, you can basically blame the fact that a large and lucrative industry is dedicated to lying to them.”
“The bottom-feeding amorality of the sorts of people who sponsored the right-wing press, and the crummy nature of the products and services sold, shows exactly who was supposed to be consuming it: suckers. Or, more specifically, trusting retirees, with a bit of disposable income, and a natural inclination to hate modernity and change—an inclination that could be heightened, radicalized, and exploited.
The grown-up Republicans in Washington, meanwhile, still existed in their own genteel bubble of misinformation—they convinced themselves that the occupation of Iraq would be over and done with in a few easy months—but the major figures in the Bush administration, and its allies in Congress, were not men who got the majority of their news from “Free Republic” and Alex Jones. They put their faith in a fairly traditional conservative orthodoxy: That you can use the levers of power to quietly enrich your friends and their firms, while pleasing the masses with some combination of tax cuts, loud proclamations of religiosity, and a modest, popular war or two.
But the complete and inarguable disaster of the Bush administration—a failure of the conservative movement itself, one undeniable even to many consumers of the parallel conservative media—and his abrupt replacement by a black man, caused a national nervous breakdown among the people who’d been told, for many years, that conservatism could not fail, and that all Real Americans agreed with them.
Rather rapidly, two things happened: First, Republicans realized they’d radicalized their base to a point where nothing they did in power could satisfy their most fervent constituents. Then—in a much more consequential development—a large portion of the Republican Congressional caucus became people who themselves consume garbage conservative media, and nothing else.
That, broadly, explains the dysfunction of the Obama era, post-Tea Party freakout. Congressional Republicans went from people who were able to turn their bullshit-hose on their constituents, in order to rile them up, to people who pointed it directly at themselves, mouths open.”
“Now, and for the foreseeable future, the grifter-in-chief sits alone in the White House residence every night, watching cable news tell him comforting lies—that he’s a hugely popular president, that responsibility for his myriad setbacks and failures lies with the many powerful enemies aligned against him a grand conspiracy—in between the ads for reverse mortgages and “all-natural male enhancement.” There’s an image of America in the age of the complete triumph of bullshit. You spend a few years selling lousy steaks to suckers, then one morning you wake up and you’re the sucker—and the steak.”
(This post has been edited for additional anger and satire.)
“I know some regular Republicans who are now disillusioned with Trump, but they were never that excited about him in the first place. They voted for him because he wasn’t a Democrat. J is different. He has the sensibility of the white working class voter. I don’t think he would call himself a Republican or a Democrat.
Some liberals believe that all Trump voters were consumed by racism or sexism and voted accordingly, but that’s not been my experience with Trump voters. It’s also defective political psychology. Like J, many of them thought Trump would make their life better rather than other peoples’ lives worse. And maybe a lot of them, like J, have now realized that Trump is full of hot air.”
I love TalkingPointsMemo, and it was a pleasure to meet its founder Josh Marshall once upon a time. But this is clueless, and bullshit.
“Defective political psychology” of Republican-leaning folk (among others) in the US of A invariably has traceable roots to America’s “peculiar institution”, as well as the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the indigenous folk that were here before white people.
Euphemistically referring to people being fucking idiots while pooh-poohing the most central reasons why they are being fucking idiots is outright dangerous.
Don’t say that voters like J swung at a metaphorical pitch when they were actually playing T-ball.
Maybe do a little less of the Thomas Friedman impressions, John?