First They Came for the De-Platformed Snowflakes

Plenty of whining these days about idiots being "de-platformed," deprived of their God-given right to make a fat living spreading lies and abuse and wink-wink-nudge-nudge racism. Oh, what will become of poor Milo or Carl or Gavin, or whatever pied pissant is trying this month to coax the virtual hordes of incels and basement losers into the good life of flame-tweeting uppity bitchez and minorituhs?

Look, it's too bad that Milo Yiannopoulos is $2M in debt. Maybe, in the true ethos of the committed fiscal conservative bootstrapper lot, he should have made sure to secure gainful employment sufficient to support his high-on-the-cock lifestyle. Just as NBC isn't required to sell and broadcast advertisements for Pornhub or crush videos (even the latter of which was at one point ruled free speech), Patreon and other such outlets have the right to refuse service. This is less a matter of corporate control, and more a matter of cost-benefit analysis, the knowledge that for every one of these dipshit "provocateur" losers they take on, they'll lose a hundred or a thousand or a million users and contributors -- in other words, their revenue model.

Do people still need an explanation of how the free market works? It's suboptimal in many ways, but at least its one true ethos holds firm throughout -- no matter how stupid or awful it is, if it makes money, it gets in the arena. That's how Rush Limbaugh has stayed on the air for thirty years. That's how you got half a decade of Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo types, a decade of Kardashians, or two decades of various strains of "reality" teevee. They're all terrible, and entirely useless, even as entertainment. But they sold or sell ad time.

I mean, are these people fucking kidding? If one thing about teevee and the internets holds true over anything else, it's that Sturgeon's Law is pretty much the main operational guideline. Does anyone seriously think that putatively librul (in the sense that it's possible that they may have voted Democratic at least as often as they voted Republican) scumbags such as Jeff Zucker and Les Moonves think twice about all the free publicity they gave that jabbering baboon during the 2016 campaign? They held their noses and deposited their checks.

Mark Burnett is an even better example -- he's actually on record as being a Democratic voter and donor over the years, but when he smelled cheap pelf, he ran with the devil and never looked back. Not only was Burnett richly rewarded, he has broadcast properties all over the place. No one's boycotting him or cutting him loose. Why do you think that is?

Why doesn't Milo just start up a website with all his deep thoughts and put a PayPal link on the sidebar, get a mailing list going and shake down his readers? Or start up a YouTube channel and sell subscriptions? People make bank on YouTube watching other people play video games, or teaching people how to put on makeup. Surely these renegade thinkers can coordinate their thoughts to the same extent Jenna Marbles or Pewdiepie has, and figure their principled way out of the corporate Marxist gulag.

This is kinda what Sarah Palin ran into when she tried to monetize her grift after getting her tight ass kicked in the 2008 election. She tried the reality show, the Fixed Noise commentary gig, the paid subscription grift -- but they all required work, effort, content, attention. Or you have to pay someone to do that content creation-curation shit for you. So now she sits up in the tundra, tweeting her deep thoughts now and then, when she's not busy trying to keep her dope-addled son from pulling a murder-suicide with whatever dingbat he's hooked up with this year.

Same thing with these other yahoos, to some degree or other. They're not broke and desperate because they're being blackballed by mythic corporate librul fascists; they're broke because they're incompetent boobs whose schtick has worn thin. Sure, the basement dipshits looking for the daily outrage pellet in their Skinner-box lives will read it for free until the die-uh-beet-us finally keels them over. But they won't pay for it.

The Koch Brothers, worth over $100 billion dollars between them, each one averages something like a million dollars a day, they dump hundreds of millions into each electoral cycle, they bankroll think tanks and magazines. Say what you want about them, but you can't say they aren't engaged in every facet of the political and policy-making process. They invest a lot of fucking money every year in strategy, legislation, influencing, and who knows what else.

You think if poor destitute Milo was doing anything worth half a shit that they could use to their benefit, the Koch boys or one of their swollen failsons couldn't sweep in and give him a sinecure somewhere, a Reason column or such like? One of the conservatard vanity publishers couldn't throw him a bone after his debacle with Simon and Schuster?

Jesus H. Christ, rich assholes keep Dinesh D'Souza, who is a failure on every level -- moral, ethical, financial, legal -- solvent. If they wanted to, they would and could, and they wouldn't even notice the money. This nation is openly run by psychotic billionaires. If they wanted these Patreon numbskulls on their roster, they'd have signed 'em up already.

And again, it's not just Milo, who obviously has his own image problems to deal with. He's just the highest-profile example, but the end result is true for the rest of these slugs -- they don't do anything that their self-reinforcing audience of angry dupes is actually willing to pay for. Why should they, when they can get their pellets for free? They're not worried about any issues of "quality" or a higher level of thinking or writing skill. They don't want prime rib, they're fine with Cheez Doodles. And you can find those anywhere.

Balls to the Wall, Slight Return: An Obvious Theory

There is another highly likely reason they don't want to cut bait on Kavanaugh, and it's basically the same reason he was nominated in the first place:  because he's compromised. They obviously knew it; they had that stupid letter ready the very second Christine Blasey Ford's accusation got out.

Look at all the major players Clownstick has had working with and for him over the years, starting with Roy Cohn back in the day. Think what you know about (for just one example) Rudy Giuliani and his utter lack of character, and now try to imagine (without making yourself sick) all the things you don't know about him.

I don't mean weird sex shit, either; Ghouliani is an arm-twister, born and bred. Five of his uncles were supposedly made guys. He was a popular mayor in NYC well before 9/11, because of the feeling that he got shit done, and could and would (and did) do pretty much anything to make sure things got done.

Ghouliani's just one sordid example. Michael Cohen fancies himself a Ray Donovan-style fixer, and you should have no doubt that if someone were to grab a shovel and dig in the right spots, they'd find worse things than what you know. Kushner is balls-deep in debt to the Saudis and Qataris and the Chinese. Scratch just about any name in Clownstick's inner circle and you will find grime under your fingernail. Obviously, that's no accident. This is the problem with prizing loyalty over ability.

These are the kinds of people Clownstick has always liked to surround himself with, because they're compromised, because no one with any ethics will touch them and so they're grateful, they owe him and will be intensely loyal because there's nowhere else for them to go.

You think anyone wanted Huckabilly Sanders or Kellyanne Conway for anything before they hitched their wagons to that loser, much less now? Come on. Baghdad Barb would be hustling the mail-order swag for her dirtbag old man, and Conway was lamely shilling for Ted Cruz, talking days of shit about Clownstick, before she saw which way the wind was blowing.

So Kavanaugh makes perfect sense in that regard -- if he squeaks through, he'll owe Clownstick more than ever; if not, the next contestant will have to find ways to distance himself from the emperor's fat shadow. Awk-ward!

Balls to the Wall

Brett Kavanaugh attempted-rape accuser Christine Belsey Ford has asked for an FBI investigation into her claims before she testifies. Unfortunately, but all too predictably, this will not go her way -- the bureau will not investigate unless directed to do so, which obviously won't happen, and if Dr. Belsey Ford doesn't show up next Monday, Chuck Grasshole and the rest of the He-Man-Woman-Haters Club will just say, "Hey, we offered."

There is so much bad faith baked into this whole process it's sickening, just layers upon layers of naked cynicism. Should Ford have come forth at some earlier stage in Kavanaugh's ascent up the judicial ladder? Absolutely. Do we perhaps understand why women might be reluctant to come forward with these sorts of accusations? If we don't, we should by now.

For all the hacks doubting her account, one thing should still be clear:  liars don't typically ask the FBI to investigate their claims. Maybe it turns out to be bullshit, but no one knows yet, it deserves to be checked out thoroughly, and ferchrissake, you'd get dumped from an interview with Target or Walmart for this sort of thing.

Which makes sense, since the asshole-in-chief wouldn't last a day at a real job, at a company owned by anyone else. He wouldn't last a month even at the managerial or executive level of one of those companies, much less as floor staff. Those folks actually have to show up and work hard and behave themselves.

Perhaps most frustrating is that it's come to this point in the first place. Kavanaugh should have been disqualified or at postponed already regardless:  he has very likely perjured himself in this and past confirmation hearings; he seems unable to give clear answers regarding his opinions on important privacy rulings such as Roe and Griswold; he has yet to explain how someone with his means spends a quarter-million dollars on baseball tickets, and then pays down the credit card debt with a suspicious quickness.

Then there's the matter of only ten percent of his documentation being released for senatorial review. It is somewhat difficult to fulfill an "advise and consent" role for this lifetime appointment when you're only being given a fragment of the record to review, and over 100k pages are being deliberately withheld from review, on orders of a lawyer who represents Kavanaugh, Don McGahn, and George W. Bush's administration. Small world.

Obviously, this is no longer about Kavanaugh specifically, or even filling a SCOTUS seat generally. (And let's not forget Anthony Kennedy's role in all this. May he rot in hell.) This is about power, and the naked exercise thereof. This is about Republicans scrambling to fill the seat before the midterms, because they know or at least believe strongly that they're going to take a hit in about six weeks. This is about Not Backing Down.

Face it, they obviously have a list of knuckle-draggers if this one doesn't work out. There is no reason not to cut bait on Kavanaugh and move on to the next one, no reason to die on that particular hill. Except they clearly feel that this is their last best chance, that shit's coming down soon, and they now don't have enough time to try to ram through another mossback.

The Democrats do not have to pitch their tent on this single issue, as awful as it is. As noted, there are several salient issues regarding Kavanaugh, any of which should be at least enough to hit the "pause" button and get more information. Hell, there would still be time to confirm him before election day, if it came to that.

Even if this had been a last-minute stalling tactic, so what? The Goopers are trying to push this guy through without a proper review for purely political reasons. Their hypocrisy re Merrick Garland is wide open, and defying you to call them on it. The other valid questions about Kavanaugh have been summarily brushed aside, questions that they would have spent weeks grilling an Obummer-appointed candidate on. And we all know it. Why is only one side allowed to play cutthroat rules? This is the game you wanted, assholes. Well, you got it.

But their real strike date for this is the end of next week. Because some of these shitbirds -- lookin' at you, "Ted" Cruz -- need to get back home and campaign in October, to try and keep their seats.

The fact that they've managed to keep Clownstick from twit-bashing Ford, and that the senators invited her to testify, clearly indicate that they're worried at least a bit. There's just the slightest stutter-step in their rush to ram Kavanaugh into his seat (giggity). This is a weakness that must be exploited as much as possible.

There has been some talk of future Dem court-packing, and that doesn't sound too thrilling either. Given how ludicrously compromised this process has become, it might be better to approach it from another angle, and set limits, albeit long ones -- say twenty to twenty-five years. This removes the "lifetime appointment" gambit that has become a cynical football, and it also reduces the chance of a judge going senile on the bench, having their clerks do all the work. No one should be working past the age of eighty or eighty-five, including Supreme Court judges and members of Congress. And no one needs to hold the same powerful position for more than a generation.

The trick is where to start, to cast some semi-random future date, say 2025 or 2030, after which appointments would be for the aforementioned 20-25 year term. But it's something to consider, and might even alleviate what has become a hopelessly cynical and debauched process.

Troll Playing

Like most other self-styled conservatard "thinkers," Kevin Williamson is more concerned about being a "provocateur" than actually saying something. I probably fail more than I succeed, but the goals of any writer -- especially an opinion writer -- should be clarity and organization. By the end of any opinion piece, the reader should have a very clear idea of the specifics of the writer's opinion on the subject. Otherwise, what's the point?

So we have a general idea by now that Williamson is anti-abortion. Fair enough. As a basic rule of principle, if you are calling for the criminalization for something that is currently legal, you should at least be able to provide some level of detail as to the punishment for engaging in this (again, currently legal) activity. This is especially true for something as culturally volatile as abortion.

(Gun rights would be another -- for example, it turns out that the father of Waffle House shooter Travis Reinking gave him back his weapons after they were confiscated at the White House last summer. Unfortunately, that does not break any current laws, but if you were to pass a law prohibiting that, what should the penalty be? Should it be open-ended and connected to whatever the person you know is mentally unstable does with the weapons you give him, and prosecuted accordingly? Discuss.)

But given his already problematic history of saying "provocative" things on the subject, Williamson has a particular responsibility to clarify his earlier musings. He's had plenty of opportunity to do so, and yet he keeps playing this stupid game.

On tonight's episode of The Jim Jefferies Show, he goes to Ireland to discuss that country's draconian abortion policies, and chats for a few minutes with a virulently anti-abortion politician. To his small credit, the politician actually answers the "penalty question" quite specifically:  fourteen years in prison for the mother, death for the doctor. Okay then. For better or worse, a voter can actually make an informed decision with that.

Kevin Williamson, despite repeated entreaties, seems to think that the penalty question is just a cheap librul ruse. But it's central to the very question of repealing Roe v. Wade. Either you believe abortion should be legal (possibly with certain constraints), or you believe it should be a criminal offense. Given the pro-life movement's consistently strident rhetoric about it being murder, it's a fair question to ask whether they mean that literally, and would prosecute it as such if they got their way.

The fact that Williamson bleats that it's an unfair question, and resists every opportunity to clarify his previous published writings on the subject (right up to the end where he offers to write a paid article) reveals what everyone already knew about him, and the endless supply of "conservative" writers like him -- they talk a good game about first principles, but in the end, they're all just hacks and trolls. Under the bridge is where the money is.

All We Want for Christmas is a Level Playing Field

The next time some dipshit conservabot, be it online troll or angry drunk uncle, pulls that "what about George Soros" bullshit on you, they deserve two responses:

1. A fervent wish that they get cancer in an extremely painful and sensitive area of the body.
2. What about George Soros? Seriously, what about him?

It's one of the more asinine articles of faith among the cultards that Soros (who's a wink-wink-nudge-nudge J-O-O, y'know) underwrites every act or article of librul perfidy that rankles their tender buttholes. Every protest, every op-ed -- hell, every vote against Dear Leader is taken as gospel proof of Soros' nefarious, far-reaching ways.

As with most of the plaints from these simpering simpletons, it's either total projection or complete ignorance. The fascist wingnut welfare system has flourished for at least half a century, and has been in full bloom at least since Saint Reagan (PBUH) doddered his way through the office, setting a precedent for the current sundowner.

There is no truly liberal counterpart to Faux News or to the welter of wingnut rags (National Review; Weekly Standard; ad nauseam), not when you take into account the respective ownership, audience, influence, and operating procedures. Your typical "liberal" "lamestream" news outlet spends a certain amount of time quivering in dickless equivocation, a futile attempt to pre-emptively placate the critics who simply find something else to critique.

And there is simply no responsible publishing outlet who would bother with loss-leader screeds from the likes of Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham or Dinesh D'Souza. It's not just because they're performative liars, as a deliberate career choice. It's because they're a bad business investment -- no intelligent person actually reads their jabber. That stuff is there merely to provide the veneer of legitimacy for the losers on the various Faux panel shows to impart to the suckers watching them.

The wingnut outlets spend no time at all on such equivocation. They are quite open about their agenda, and are not in thrall to such outmoded concepts as objectivity and probity and contextual analysis. It is pure Skinner-box hamster-smacking-a-metal-plate-to-get-the-daily-outrage-pellet agitprop. To the extent that there is even an acknowledgement of the quiet funding of the Koch brothers or the Mellons or Scaifes or what-have-you, it is only as a supposed equalizer to the nefarious pelf from the Soros types.

Except there really aren't any Soros types to speak of. You really don't have any deep-pocket true-blue libruls who bother with it on that level. Even back in the day when Ted Turner owned and operated CNN, he delegated most of the daily ops and opinion pieces, and did not interfere on any level approaching how Rupert Murdoch has always run his rape-and-golden-parachutes network.

I keep seeing this stupid Tom Steyer commercial about getting some sort of movement going to impeach Fuckface Von Clownstick. Great, except that doesn't happen without a serious electoral landslide for the Dems, and that doesn't happen without changing some minds out there in Real 'murka. If Steyer wants to help out, maybe he should fund a few House and state legislature candidates or a media outlet, maybe some agitprop books to incite the faithful.

An actual liberal propaganda machine would make hay out of -- just for an easy starter -- this useless asshole, and there are plenty more like him. The problem is that all rich people, regardless of the political badge they flash when they need to, swim in the same pool, and it's a pool that keeps everyone else out. So the putatively liberal ones will only exert so much effort, while the Kochsuckers are tireless -- and their efforts have finally paid off bigly.

The Witch Hunt Claims Another Scalp

Well, this is fun -- it's rare that I find myself in agreement with Rod Dreher, but when he's right, he's right. That the New Yorker dumps one if their better reporters, Ryan Lizza, over allegations from a single, unnamed accuser, is a bad sign. We are heading into some nasty waters with this me-too trend, where every man will get an opportunity be Harvey Weinstein for at least a few minutes, just long enough to lose his livelihood.

Oh, who are we kidding? Only liberal and Democrat males have anything to worry about; the Republican party and its propaganda arm are more than happy to employ the most thuggish of sexual harassers and gropers. Hell, what Roger Ailes did to the women at Fox was essentially rape, but with financial and professional coercion rather than physical force. He got a $40 million golden parachute.

But again, only one side will police themselves; as always, the first resort of the true liberal is to unilaterally disarm, no evidence required and the accuser can remain anonymous. The reason is because they are as concerned with virtue signaling as they are with doing anything constructive.

I don't give half a shit about overcooked hacks like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, or Mark Halperin. They have been part of a movement of careerist hacks that has corroded what remains of actual journalism in this country. They are starfuckers. The profession is better off without them.

But Lizza is a real reporter, who investigates and writes real stories about real issues that affect real people. If people should know about why Lizza got fired, then they should know the specifics. There is a spectrum of offenses when we say "sexual misconduct," and there is a difference between Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken. And I'm betting there's a difference between Lauer and Lizza.

Regardless, it won't be much longer before it won't matter whether charges can be substantiated or not -- it will simply be part of damage control to fire people first and investigate later. And if it turns out that it was bullshit, well, them's the breaks.

Uncle Sam's Cabin

Via Charles Pierce, here's a little tale that oughta make your blood boil. The entire article is excerpt-worthy; suffice to say that there's a modernized version of the old southern work farms going on here, except this one is a food-industry-created temp agency where the "employees" don't get paid at all.

Should anyone be surprised that this particular slave-diversion outlet pretends to be a christian rehab, even though most of the "participants" have committed no drug-related crimes? No more than one would be surprised that the vile cow overseeing this scam is well-paid, runs some of the slaves to work her daughter's egg farm, etc.

Most exposés of the ever-expanding, ever-more-privatized carceral state focus (with good reason) on the disproportionate ratio of minority inmates exploited and abused under the system. But it's really a socioeconomic issue -- the slave drivers are just as happy to exploit poor whites as they are any other poor person. The race of the exploited person doesn't matter nearly as much as the captivity of the victim, the complete inability to fight back or resist against the evil perpetrated on them.

Considering the article mentions plenty of popular food brands that buy product from these slave farms, it would be nice to think some sort of economic pressure could be pushed onto these companies. In the real world, however, this is an unfortunate fart in a now endless hurricane. Beef is relatively easy to buy locally sourced, chicken much less so. But maybe if enough people hear about this atrocity, these monsters can be shut down and shunned.

In the meantime, this serves as an apt metaphor for the way our wonderful world really is:  you're either profiting from the racket, or being victimized by it. That's their ultimate goal.

Shot in the Dark

Let's just say it's not unreasonable to be just cynical enough to sincerely believe that at least part of this verdict and sentence is based on a white cop shooting a black child in Loozy-anna. As with most police shootings, though, race is more of a distraction than a useful observable component of an avoidable situation.

Officer Stafford and his partner fired a total of eighteen shots into the SUV in question; Stafford fired fourteen of those himself. The mitigating factor is that all of those shots, captured on video, were fired after the SUV had given up trying to flee, and the driver (father of the child) held both hands out the window, indicating surrender.

Based on the evidence and testimony, it sounds like the correct decision was made, but again, it's not difficult to believe that it wouldn't have even gotten this far if the cops had been white, and especially if the victim(s) had been black.

Forget all that for the moment. Compare and contrast the above case with this recent decision regarding another police shooting. If this doesn't infuriate and concern you, you aren't paying attention:

Andrew Scott and his girlfriend were playing video games in their Florida apartment late at night when they heard a loud banging at the front door. Scott, who was understandably disturbed, retrieved the handgun that he lawfully owned, then opened the door with the gun pointed safely down. Outside, he saw a shadowy figure holding a pistol. He began to retreat inside and close the door when the figure fired six shots without warning, three of which hit Scott, killing him. Scott hadn’t fired a single bullet or even lifted his firearm.

The figure outside was Deputy Richard Sylvester. He failed to identify himself as a law enforcement officer at any point. He had no warrant and no reason to suspect that Scott or his girlfriend had committed a crime. He did not attempt to engage with Scott at all after he opened the door; he simply shot him dead. And on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit held that Scott’s parents and girlfriend cannot sue Sylvester because the officer’s conduct was not “clearly” illegal.

This is more than simply "bad" or "sad" or "wrong." This decision is monstrous, and extraordinarily dangerous. The practical ramifications of this ruling make it almost literally impossible for a person to defend themselves in their own home.

A few more details about the case in question, since the Slate article focuses on the legal consequences:

• It wasn't just "late at night," it was 1:30 AM.
• Scott was completely innocent; the Lake County police had fucked up and gone to the wrong apartment, pursuing a suspect who had fled on a motorcycle.
• At no point did Richard Sylvester identify himself as law enforcement; in fact, it was the policy of the Lake County Sheriff's Department to not identify themselves, which seems bizarre, stupid, reckless, unnecessarily dangerous for cops and civilians alike. But, y'know, Florida.

So, to recap:  Andrew Scott is sitting at home, minding his own business, when someone starts banging on his door at one-thirty in the morning, without identifying themselves. Scott legally keeps a gun for self-defense, and reasonably assumes that something is wrong. He opens the door -- his door, to his domicile -- and sees some asshole lurking in the shadows, still not identifying himself as A FUCKING COP. Scott goes to close the door, still only holding his gun at his side, not having lifted it or pointed it at anyone, and is blown away in a hail of bullets.

Richard Sylvester and the Lake County Sheriff's Department, through poor policy and sheer incompetence, murdered Andrew Scott, pure and simple. The citizens of Lake County are less safe by having these uniformed mutants on the street. Sylvester should not be in the law enforcement profession, based on lack of qualification, and if he had any sense of honor, he would end himself for what he did to an innocent man in his own fucking house. I hope it haunts him to his final breath, never giving him a moment of peace.

That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee, but it won't bring any justice for the murder of Andrew Scott, or the ongoing evisceration of our most basic rights to be safe in our homes -- not only from criminals, but from idiot fuck-up cops who think they have more rights than the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving. Maybe they do have more rights; if that's the case, then simply say so out loud, and we can all have that collective discussion.

But at the very least, maybe someone from the "justice" system or the sheriff's department should explain to the kids in the cheap seats what exactly Andrew Scott should have done, when a stranger beats the shit out his door in the middle of the night and refuses to identify themselves. Seriously, what the hell are you supposed to do in such circumstances? Scott literally would have been better off by shooting Sylvester right away, and trying his luck by claiming that he saw a gun and Sylvester didn't identify himself. He'd still probably have been murdered, though.

Maybe Scott should have kept a video camera handy to record the proceedings, but even then he probably would have faced prison time and had to defend himself over that. They have rigged the system in their favor, everywhere you turn. The rule is maximum accountability for the peons, no accountability at all if you carry a badge. Or not; it's surprising some criminal or gang hasn't made some sort of enterprise out of shaking down unsuspecting mooks under feigned authority.

Again, this guy was at home, minding his own business, when these inept cops showed up and gunned him down for no goddamned reason at all. It's bad enough that they did it in the first place; it should be completely unacceptable that they get away with it.

This is precisely how police states come into existence, when citizens stop questioning the insane, awful events occurring right in front of their noses, under the color of authority. They try to tell themselves that the person who got shot had it coming for whatever reason, even as they quietly keep the truth to themselves, thankful only that it wasn't their turn.

Yet.

Our Liberal Media

Oh good, it's been a few hours since a putatively "centrist" or "liberal" publication has written something unbelievably stupid. Then again, the New Republic didn't really "write" it so much as repost it from Open Mike Allen's new Axios website, which appears to still be under construction.

I mean, for fuck's sake. Neither one of these "articles" features so much as a single fresh thought or insight; instead they both (again, since one is simply a poor rehash of the other) show the absolute laziest both-sides-do-it clichés. Open Mike Allen has engaged in the worst sort of lazy journamalistic fart-knockery, and then the New Republic -- which, I hear, was something of a respectable publication at some point in the time-space continuum -- has uncritically stenographed Allen's ludicrous assertions.

Stop the Inanity

Company man Peter Wehner, in Commentary (hey, I was just there to jerk off to the pictures, not read the articles, m'kay?) finds himself on the horns of a dilemma, what with the bumptiousness of Trump and all, undermining Serious People Doing Very Important Work.

Citing not just the popularity of Corbyn but the rise of Donald Trump and avowed socialist Bernie Sanders in America, as well as unfolding events in Greece and France, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair argues, “There is a politics of parallel reality going on, in which reason is an irritation, evidence a distraction, emotional impact is king and the only thing that counts is feeling good about it all.”

He went on to say this:

The explanation for this parallel reality is something to do with people feeling empowered by their ability through it, to “fight back” against “the system”, the traditional ways of thinking about politics with all its compromises, hard decisions and gradual increments. It is the clarity of full-throated opposition versus the chin-stroking nuance of: “What would we do if we were in government?” It’s a revolution but within a hermetically sealed bubble…

Mr. Blair concluded this way:

Because it is a vast wave of feeling against the unfairness of globalisation, against elites, against the humdrum navigation of decision-making in an imperfect world, it persuades itself that it has a monopoly on authenticity. They’re “telling it like it is”, when, of course, they’re telling it like it isn’t.

Jesus H. Christ. Talk about a hermetically sealed bubble. Blair is firmly encased away from the consequences of his decisions, and the decisions of his friends, hard and otherwise. Corbyn's election, and the candidacy of Trump -- and yes, that of Bernie Sanders as well -- do in fact all share a common thread of frustration with the mendacious tendencies of "the system" Blair worked within. There is much talk about "hard decisions" and "compromises" but no talk at all about who bears the brunt of those things, every goddamned time.

You have to wonder sometimes if these assholes really and truly don't get it, or if they're just Oscar-caliber actors. If one of their hectomillionaire backers loses, say, 10% of their net value in a recession, well, it sucks, but fortunately they have many other tens of millions of dollars with which to cushion the blow. Not so for an average lower-middle-class (since the US hates the fucking middle class, and has driven it into the dirt) family, whose net worth is mostly tied up in the value of their home, which went underwater in the recession, and will take years to recoup its value, assuming he can hang on to it long enough.

Joe Hecto has cash flow, cash reserves, and an economy of scale to help him get back on his feet and recoup his losses quickly and reliably, while Joe Schmo has none of those things, and has to hope his job doesn't pull up stakes from under him and leave him destitute while he's trying to recover from the economic downturn -- the naturally foreseeable result of all those "compromises" Tony Blair described with such smug anguish.

Whatever policies Blair and his ilk -- and this includes the Clintons and the Bushes alike -- the outcomes are predictable: successes accrue to the elites, while failures fall on those least able to bear it. The rich do not send their kids to die or get maimed in some bullshit war, don't have to deal with a fracking company turning their water table into flammable chemicals, never have to worry about their job getting sent to Bangalore so some cocksucker can make one more million on top of the dozens or hundreds he already has.

If the risk-reward scenario were spread out more evenly, if Our Betters (bettors?) faced even remotely the same consequences for their own decisions that everyone else does, it would be a different story. But they never do, and it's not even close. And now Tony Blair has the fucking gall to come out of the woodwork and chastise the peons for their ingratitude. Look, asshole, I'm about the last person to defend a troglodyte like Donald Trump, or the ignorant mouth-breathers who support him. But it's almost impossible not to get why they're frustrated, and that they intuitively understand that the politicians are out to get them.

I don't know enough about Corbyn to comment one way or the other, but that's really the brass ring that just barely evades the Trump-lodytes. They are correct that the system is out to fuck them over; what they miss is that their boy is playing them like a fiddle as well. Like any good huckster, he's going to pull the rubes along until the critical moment, and then pull the rug out from under them.

What's tough to figure out here is what Trump's endgame is. He's almost certainly not as wealthy as he claims, but he is wealthy. And he's already taken some hits, between losing his deals with NBC and Univision. Unless he's got some mad scheme to compete with Shelly Adelson for some Macau casino real estate, where's the financial gain for him? Secondly, while Trump is not as smart as he thinks he is, he's not stupid, either; in fact, primarily because of his immense ego, he probably understands the ideals of rational self-interest more than most people. And he has to know that the odds of actually succeeding are against him; a snake-oil salesman knows better than anyone that the media is geared to a build-them-up-and-tear-them-down cycle, and that his time is coming.

Maybe his ego outweighs his better sense, who knows? Again, this is a guy who spends his time -- or at least pays someone to spend their time -- fucking around on Twitter, picking and responding to fights over the most mundane, idiotic things. You don't see Warren Buffett doing that, you don't see Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, any other billionaire, doing that stupid shit. Trump's a queer duck, no doubt. Good luck figuring out his master plan.

But whatever it is, the fact is that the rage he's channeled, however poorly, to whatever end, much of that rage is justified. Because these elites, these transnational merchant princes and their political dogsbodies, like Tony Blair, with no loyalty but to themselves and each other, have screwed them over royally. The plebes don't know much, and they don't know what exactly to do about it, but they know that much well enough. When they finally figure out the proper direction to focus their anger and frustration, it might be a good idea to look at property in The Okanagan or some such.

Injustice for All

So here's a nutty story about justice gone weird before finally setting somewhat right. Three questions immediately spring to mind:

1. Will the Commonwealth of Virginia now pursue false accusation charges against Chelsea Steiniger, and if not, why not?
2. Is this the standard of jurisprudence and evidentiary analysis applied to crimes with higher penalties, including the death penalty ?
3. What if Mark Weiner had been black?

This is the main problem with the American "adversarial" system of justice. Prosecutors and judges have vested interests in not revisiting their mistakes. But when you have a clear carriage of misjustice (as Deep Purple once put it) like this, where the judge and prosecutor essentially colluded to withhold exculpatory evidence, this calls for more scrutiny. Prosecutor Denise Lunsford's hinky sex life doesn't exactly help matters, but then maybe she and her partner have an open relationship. Keep swingin'!

This is not a small matter. Our justice system depends upon the officials entrusted with implementing it being above reproach. Sexual peccadilloes aside, Lunsford's conduct in handling Weiner's (giggity) case is questionable at best, and more likely willfully corrupt. She and the judge were willing to throw the man's life away; the only reason they finally walked back on the matter is because Steiniger is such a piece of shit, she got busted in February for trying to sell cocaine to two cops.

Forget that Steiniger had already told her boyfriend and her jailbird ex that she had fabricated the whole thing; forget that her accusations were completely impossible from a scientific perspective, that there is no magic teevee chemical that knock you out instantaneously, nor was there any cloth found with traces of such a chemical. The piece that got Virginia to do the right thing was the potential embarrassment this numb cow would cost them.

Well, bullshit. Lunsford and Higgins need to be removed from their positions, or at least rigorously investigated, at least as thoroughly as the Ferguson Police Department. How many other people have been railroaded by these two, with no recourse?

Given the prior complaints against Mark Weiner, it is entirely possible -- hell, likely -- that something happened. A good guess would be that Weiner propositioned Steiniger, she either declined or wanted more cash than Weiner had on him, so Weiner dropped her off at her mother's house and went to look for the next prospect. Sleazy, but nothing you throw people in prison for.

The main thing is that when you make false accusations, you should be prosecuted. Are obstruction of justice and perjury still crimes, or not? Would this potentially scare away legitimate accusations, especially with sexual offenses? Possibly. But think about if something like that happened to you or someone you cared about, that some sociopath could lob some random accusation and fuck up your life, just because they felt like it, and there were no consequences for any of that.

Mark Weiner is a free man now, after spending nearly two years in prison for something he didn't do, but in the meantime he lost his job, his family, his savings. Someone needs to be held responsible for all that, otherwise there is no point to any of this, no incentive whatsoever to stay within the bounds of law.

The justice system is a lot like the financial system -- most of the value lies in whether you believe in it or not. If people can't expect a fair shake, if they're at the mercy of lying accusers and corrupt officials, then it's really just another racket designed to drain people's lives and pocketbooks.

Person of Influence

Pro tip for all you folks who might be thinking of making a living telling other people how to live their lives, just because your mommy is famous for being a burbling quitter:  Remember, you can walk away at any time, if you find the kitchen getting too hot for comfort. Just a thought, but maybe you can spend the free time overcoming whatever it is in your life that finds you with three broken engagements and two out-of-wedlock children (by two different men) by the time you're 25 years old.

(Not to mention that the assumption that former fiancé Dakota Meyer is the father of this child may not necessarily be true, which would be really scandalous 'mongst the fambly valyews types. This is what happens when you don't take your whore pills.)

It's bad enough that Bristol Palin makes decent money doing nothing more than being a sanctimonious, hypocritical dunce, but what's unforgivably obnoxious is the "respect our privacy" nonsense. There's no one stopping you from going away, sweet cheeks. Trust me, no one will miss you. Go get a real job, toil away in obscurity with whatever other skill you might possess. No one's stopping you, and no one will check up on your comings and goings at the burger stand. You chose to put yourself in the public eye, no gun was put to anyone's head.

Ah, but that's always the problem in our "reality" teevee addled excuse for a society -- whenever one of these morons steps on their dicks, their first impulse is to exercise their right to privacy, but they still want to keep their public platform, their show, their blog, whatever revenue source they have to monetize their meager talent. They think they should be able to have it both ways, to use said platform to influence behavior and promote their social causes, and then when they're caught being hypocrites (which, you know, tends to undermine whatever value is created by their promotions), they want a pass and privacy. No. It doesn't work that way, unless you want to do the right thing and just go away already.

But that won't happen. The only that terrifies them more than having the easy money spigot turned off is finding out that they could completely disappear and nobody would notice.

Thought Leaders

I don't have a philosophy degree, nor do I want one. But I do know people, and so I have to disagree with Scott Alexander when he says Phil Robertson is "doing moral philosophy exactly right." It is difficult to see how that could be any further from the truth.

Setting up extreme scenarios to make a point is, of course, one of the oldest rhetorical devices known to our peculiar species. But Robertson's deranged scenario does not fall into that category, because his premise -- that atheists literally believe that since there is no "right" or "wrong," any and all manner of behavior is acceptable -- is categorically untrue. His "premise" is not extreme so much as intellectually dishonest from the outset.

It's an important distinction to observe, because people such as Phil Robertson have real boundary issues with politics and religion.  For Robertson, politics must be informed by religious precepts, and therefore religion is inherently political. There is no compromising this dynamic for him and his audience. In this, there is a startling resemblance to how your Islamic Republics and variegated terrorist movements operate.

Is Phil Robertson going to start beheading unbelievers? Of course not. For one, it might damage his ratings. But don't doubt for a second that he views them as second-class citizens -- and more perniciously, as the usual traitorous fifth column damaging 'murka's greatness from within.

The notion that there might be an opportunity there for fruitful dialogue, a rigorous exchange of ideas, is fanciful at best. Robertson is not attempting to evoke Kant or whoever, he's affirming for his audience the basic idea that atheists are amoral assholes who are gonna get what's coming to them, whether by divine retribution or simple home-invasion karma.

The target audience will not challenge him for the same reason they don't challenge serial prevaricator Ted Cruz, who seems to be determined to live down to the "Palin with a penis" standard he initially set. That audience doesn't give two shits that the IRS actually has only 14,000 agents and not 110,000 (as Cruz asserted), nor that it would be stupid to use them to guard the border. It sounds good to them, it affirms their imaginary grievances and ludicrous grudges.

Nor does it matter to them that Scott Walker sounds borderline retarded when he tries to talk about foreign policy. It's one thing to assert (however false) that Iran and Israel seem to have traded places in our foreign policy pecking order, quite another to say that it's like the movie Trading Places. (Personally, my favorite scene in that movie was where Ralph Bellamy tries to explain to Iran -- or maybe Israel; again it's unclear who Walker thinks is whom -- what bacon is used for. And ironic, amirite? Because, you see, neither Jews nor Muslims are supposed to eat bacon. Thanks for coming, remember to tip your waitress.)

Of course we're all used to this nonsense, inured to the reductio ad absurdum nature of political rhetoric. But it's now more like reductio ad nihilo, their bullshit doesn't even make sense anymore, because it doesn't have to. They know their audience, and the most important characteristic of that audience is that they don't care about facts.

Actually, even that's not quite accurate -- it's more than not caring about facts, but more like a hostility to facts. Debunking Cruz' lies, or pointing out that Walker is a fucking maroon who doesn't know what he's talking about, isn't just a useless endeavor, it's liable to provoke them.

It's a shame that that's what it's all come down to -- a political system owned and operated by indifferent psychopaths, who use their pelf to rile up the emotionally damaged and the certifiably insane over phantom issues. When Jay Gould said he'd hire half the working class to kill the other half, he wasn't kidding.

The War of Art

[with regards to the terrific book]

Can't possibly agree more with these authors over the idea of an app that bowdlerizes e-books. I have been working on a couple of (I hope) creative writing projects here and there, and so I suppose I'd have some sort of dog in the fight should I decide to publish any of it. Even the small stuff I have published on Amazon, the annual blog roundups and Asshole compilations, it would be annoying to think that someone was reading them with one eye squinted, ever on alert for Those Terrible Words.

What a way to go through life, needing everything cleansed, sanitized for your protection. Life generates in the soil, and in art, the most interesting signs of life can be found in the things that take you out of your comfort zone, that provide at least a frisson of danger and menace, of unseemliness.

I can't begrudge an app maker his opportunity to turn a buck; I'm sure the people who buy and use the app to its full capacity will love their squeaky-clean reading experiences, as sparkly and dull as a mass-produced Kincade litho, the light beaming just so on the cobblestone, whilst the dappled waterfall courses just beyond, glistening in the sun, a unicorn astride a perfect rainbow at the edge of the image.

Obviously spectra shift; just as most professional Democrats now lionize the eminently moderate, reasonable conservatism of Ronald Reagan, simply because Reagan (like Nixon and Eisenhower) would have to run in that party these days, so too do artistic boundaries shift. Music and movies re-align much more quickly, of course, due to the ephemeral nature of those media and their promotional mechanisms, and also because Americans read less frequently, and less challenging material. (In the aggregate, of course -- I'm not talking about you, Gentle Reader!)

But the thing is, as Chuck Wendig (and go check out The Kick-Ass Writer if you're so inclined, good stuff throughout) points out, the problem with the pecksniffs is that they have somehow conflated profanity as being inversely (or at least obliquely) proportional to overall quality. And that's just not true, not in general anyway.

I should probably do a couple of different word counts here someday, when I have the time (which will be roughly the 12th of never; mark your calendars), both in total count and in the usage of (let's say) Carlin's seven words, plus any others I've conjured in my more inventive moments. The thing is, I (and I assume every other person who writes regularly, regardless of whether they are professional writers) strive to use words with intent. Whether the word is fork or friend or fuck, rest assured that while there may be a clunker or a forced one here or there, ninety-nine times out of a hundred it is placed with intent. This is true as much for "regular" words as for "profane" ones.

Profanity, the pecksniffs and bowdlerizers should understand, is useful in its emphasis and versatility, its immediacy and impact, its ineffable rhythm. I can describe a villainous person in a hundred words or more, beat around the bush, try to convey my perception, or I can cut to the chase and say this guy's a fucking asshole. Boom. Even your pearl-clutching Aunt Minnie knows by-gawd right away what that is all about. There is no misinterpretation possible. The intent is clear, as is the degree of intent.

Look. As a parent, I get it, to a certain extent. We try to strike a noble balance between protecting our kids from the ugly shit that a small but noisy chunk of humanity (or something perilously close) has to offer, and raising a sheltered veal that's unprepared for at least recognizing said ugliness when the time comes to fly from the nest.

And it's not like the Clean Reader folks are forcing anyone to buy their app, not like a fascist, theocratic state is forcing the peons to use the app. This is not Saudi Arabia, folks, despite what some of our fellow morlocks and their anointed dogsbodies might prefer.

But to me, redacting or changing the words of a writer, even an f-bomb, whether from Chuck Wendig, Stephen King, whoever -- that's a desecration. King's a great example, in fact; I've enjoyed his writing since I was in junior high school, and it would be hard to think of a modern contemporary writer who throws down the word fuck with more passion, precision, humor.

Certainly some writers, like hack comics, rely on it to a gratuitous extent. Changing one of King's fucks would be like removing a couple of key notes from, say, Clapton's Crossroads solo, or penciling a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Most of it's there, but something's off. Remember when they tried to syndicate The Sopranos on A&E? What a monkey-fuck that was.

Lesson:  If it ain't broke, don't fuck with it.

Dingbat Logic

NewsCorpse has a nice rundown on Palin's latest delusional stab. Whether or not it's a good idea for Obama to personally back-channel communications with the Iranian mullahs, even a mouth-breathing dimwit like Palin should know by know that the ISIS thugs and the Iranians are deadly, bitter enemies -- in fact, the whole reason ISIS gained traction in Iraq is because the government, led by the Shiite (and thus an Iranian stooge for all intents and purposes) politically marginalized the Sunnis who comprise the ISIS movement.

And of course, to invoke Saint Reagan -- you know the guy who traded arms for hostages with those same Iranian mullahs -- should drive home the cold, hard fact that Palin is even dumber than you thought. She should stick to what she's good at, which seems to be crashing parties and pissing off her neighbors with her drunk, obnoxious brood.

Karma may be coming in the form of Palin's web channel (started by a lamestream media weasel, doncha know) derping along at low traffic levels, perhaps because her low-info demo actually has at least a couple of IQ points to rub together.

King for a Day, Fool for a Lifetime

If there is a creature more lacking in self-awareness than jerkoff emeritus Jorge Fredo Arbusto, I'll be damned if I know who it could be, though there's certainly no shortage of his fellow party members to give him a run for his money.

"....I think you have to earn your way into politics. I don’t think that anything is ever given to you."

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this guy? His name is exactly what got him into politics; no one in their right mind would stake money behind a joker like him otherwise. Bush seems genuinely incapable of seeing what is so obvious to any honest observer -- that if he hadn't been the son of a president and the grandson of a senator (and the descendant of yet another president, Franklin Pierce), and born into considerable means that literally 99% of his fella 'murkins cannot even conceive of, he'd have been some dipshit floor manager at some random retailer, at best.

Shame on our complicit corporate media for giving this asshole a platform. But got into politics because of his last name, got into high office thanks to James Baker and the Supreme Court the first time, and Diebold the second time. He lawn-darted this country, setting off an expensive war that will take another generation to pay for, and is still going on in the region.

And he's got the fucking balls to sit there and whine to Bob Schieffer that poor ol' Jeb won't get a fair shake should he decide to run, because these days, people can say whatever they want without any consequences. What the hell would he know about being held accountable for things said and done? His entire life has been one of escaping the accountability that the rest of the world considers routine.

George Walker Bush should not be listened to on any subject whatsoever; in fact, the sooner he's ignored and forgotten, the better off we'll all be.

Shotgun Blues

White people will probably never get what black people have always understood -- if you're an old, angry, drunk white asshole you can rant in the street while brandishing a rifle and menacing police and passersby, but if you're black, you literally have to be aware that pulling your wallet or cell phone too quickly can get your ass shot dead in the street, like a mangy dog. No warning shot. No attempt to reason, or to find out that you're completely unarmed. Just boom, dead.

The question about Michael Brown, and John Crawford, and all the other unarmed black guys shot down for no goddamned reason other than their pigmentation made cops nervous and trigger-happy, is not whether or not they had done something to "provoke" or "warrant" their public execution, but whether such a thing could ever possibly happen to a white person.

And in a country where angry, fat, suburban white assholes are constantly agitating for their "right" to go strapped into a Chipotle or a Starbucks, not only do you have to acknowledge "hell no", but you know perfectly well that if and when minorities start organizing and demanding their 2nd Amendment rights as well, those same pudgy freedom fighters will change their tune with a quickness.

All Poodles Are Dogs, But Not All Dogs Are Poodles

I've seen Ayaan Hirsi Ali in a number of interview and panel segments over the years, and I get where this writer is coming from, in that Hirsi Ali is one of the more caustic critics of Islam in general, and militant Islamists in particular. I suppose having one's clitoris forcibly removed, and having a friend murdered in the street, with a death threat to oneself attached to said murder victim, will sort of do that to a person.

That said, it is a crude comparison at best to categorize the collective lumping of over a billion individuals in with the few thousand most violent practitioners, with anti-Semitic or anti-gay criticisms. It shouldn't even need to be said that, while perhaps Jews and gays no longer face the horrors of genocide or systematic violence, it really hasn't been all that long since they did face those things (and in fact still do in many countries -- how are gays faring these days in, say, Uganda or Iran?).

It is not fair to insinuate that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of a small but virulent percentage of lunatics, but when seemingly nothing at all is said or done in that regard, it doesn't absolve them from any responsibility whatsoever to address the issue. The experiences Hirsi Ali has endured in her life, both from outdated "cultural" traditions and from ideological fanatics, are real, and for many areas in the world, still normative. I mean, ten bucks to the first person who can guess the religion of the folks behind this, or this.

I don't know what to make of people who emigrate to other countries that already have long-established legal systems, and expect those new places to conform to the female-hating third-world holes they left behind. It can be difficult to parse cultural norms from religious precepts in many instances, but uh, I can assure you that as a decadent, hedonistic westerner, I am a great deal more offended by the consistent treatment of women as illiterate chattel, than they are by a satirical drawing of the prophet (PBUH). But since I am a rational person, and not guided and goaded by this or that collection of Levantine folk tales and regressive sky-buddy whispering, I can fight their bad ideas with better ideas, and still express my resentment at my own gubmint thinking that it can and should handle the situation with a fleet of killbots raining hell on villages. Some of these folks seem not to have made that seemingly modest intemellectual leap.

It might be more productive for concerned Muslims to address the fanatics in their attic already, instead of raising false equivalences about what sort of speech is offensive, as if the typical respective reactions to being offended were remotely the same -- someone maybe losing their job for talking shit about Jews or gays, versus riots and violence over comic strips and movies.

Off-topic but still fun, given the post title:  the one and only Ken Ham discourses on poodles.

Some Folks Is Even Whiter Than Me: The Romneying

In which we are reminded yet again that only Democrats apologize, that no matter who they fuck or who they fuck over, Republicans, conservatives, and teabaggers never ever apologize for anything, however grievous the transgression. You could catch Mitch McConnell abusing puppies and farm animals, and Redneck 'murka would respond with a #StandWithMitch Facebook page. Because fuck you, pussy librul.

On the other hand, every slight from a "liberal" or a "Democrat," however picayune or imaginary, demands blood for blood. You will never hear Willard Mitt Rmoney apologize for calling 47% of Americans moochers and parasites. But some dingbat MSNBC commentator makes a ham-fisted funny, and lawd-a-mercy-Goshen-ta-Christmas, it's on, muthafuckaz.

Hopefully Harris-Perry has learned her lesson, and will reserve future insights and opinions for comparing homosexuality to murder and drunkenness, or talking about how happy blacks really were in the Jim Crow South, before welfare made them all wards of the state. You can say that kind of shit all the live-long day, and people will back you on it. How you like them apples, podna?

Also, too. Holy shit.

The Golden Rule

Can't deny that Obama gives a hell of a speech, when he chooses to do so. So what? Does anyone seriously think anything will come of this, that suddenly the industrialists and financiers and rentier scumbags that own fucking everything are suddenly going to have a come-to-Jesus moment on their lives of hoarding, grifting, and accumulation?

Please. This is like Lucy with the football for poor ol' Charlie Brown. Maybe the minimum wage gets bumped up fifty cents, or even a buck. That would almost give it the purchasing power it had in 1968, while gas and food typically go up what, four or five percent per year in some cases? Is that going to take even a nibble out of the 1% owning 40%, of 6 Wal-Mart heirs being worth over $100bn, just for picking the right parents?

Everyone talks a good game about the virtues of hard work, and the promise of economic justice and opportunity. But who gets rewarded? Spreadsheet-diddlers and influence peddlers. Wake me when the talk turns into walk. There is zero credibility, and zero chance that anything actually gets accomplished that will return even a smidgen of the stolen pelf to its rightful owners.

When any name politician finally screws up the nerve to tell Jamie Dimon and his ilk to go fuck themselves already, then you'll know that you're finally getting on the right track.