Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Chaos Is Not A Sustainable Political Or Life Strategy
Most people would say a chaotic environment is a non-productive environment. The majority of folks would say a chaotic person is not a stable person and causes turmoil for those in their immediate radius at least. More people than not would probably say chaotic individuals might slide by for awhile but eventually they will not be able to allude the inevitable pitfalls and calamity chaos inherently births.
Yet, when it comes to the President of the United States chaos is presented as, if not admirable, an appreciative trait.
Many in the mainstream media (or so-called left-wing media) present President Trump's affinity for tumultuousness and disorder as some sort of mad genius strategy. They will criticize his impetuous nature while simultaneously low key praising him for being able to go through his life (personal and business) and becoming President with an irreverence for orthodoxy.
Of course, they frequently leave out the facts that Mr. Trump was born halfway between third base and home. Although he acts as if he hit a liner into the right-centerfield gap he is turning from a triple to an inside the park home run.
It is often unmentioned that Trump's daddy, Fred Trump, perpetually bailed him out of failed businesses and ventures due to Trump's refusal or inability to employ order and structure. Now, some (not I, of course) would say his failed ventures were wholly due to the fact he is an effin moron. Again, some say.
Trump has had a chaotic personal life throughout the years. He once said his, "Vietnam was avoiding stds." Translation: He was dipping his little mushroom into all sorts of cobbler dishes. Although, I am confident it was not nearly as much as he was bragging.
It is extremely well known Mr. Trump divorced his first wife, Ivana , because he was having a very public affair with Marla Maples. Without regard for his children's feelings or the turmoil being levied upon them Mr. Defender of Christian Values was publicly flaunting his affair. In fact, this led to an extended period of time where the relationship between Trump and Donald Trump Jr. was quite frosty.
Then, Mr. Trump publicly flaunted his cheating on Marla Maples with his current wife, Melania.
Of course, we all know the philandering Trump has partook within the last 15 years or so. Only weeks after Melania gave birth to their son Trump was having unprotected sex with porn star, Stormy Daniels, and Playboy Playmate, Karen McDougal.
Trump's chaotic style continued on into the White House. He hasn't been president two full years; yet, he has had almost as much turnover as presidents Clinton, Obama or Bush had in their terms. They all served eight years.
President Trump is on his third chief of staff. He has had three communications directors. There have been three national security advisers as well as FBI directors. Over half of State Department positions are unfilled. Actually, this can be said across the government.
President Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. He didn't drain he stockpiled it. The administration has been littered with scandals. Health and Human Services director, Tom Price, had to resign because of corruption. The same goes for Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zeinke, former EPA and Interior secretaries respectively. And, plenty of other officials and department heads have been embroiled in controversies but somehow have staved off resignation or termination.
This lunacy has extended to his policies and their implementation. Trump's initial attempt to enact the Travel Ban was shot down because of the slap-assed way it was written. His border policy has been not only cruel but haphazard. His 100% detain policy led to children being separated from their parents. Some of whom still haven't been reunited with their parents despite a judicial order demanding it be done.
Time after time the President has made foreign policy decisions without informing our allies let alone U.S. officials.
For example, Trump decided to withdraw our troops from Syria. Let's be clear that this is a good thing. The motives are sketchy but withdrawing troops is the prudent decision because we had no business being there in the first place. However, Trump didn't bother to give our allies in the region ample warning.
Just this past week Trump and the First Lady decided to visit troops in Iraq. It was a long overdue visit since Trump had not visited any troops in a war zone. Again, this was a great decision by the President. However, again, it was haphazardly done. Trump didn't inform the Iraqi prime minister until two hours before Air Force One landed he was coming. He then demanded the prime minister come meet him but he couldn't because he was in the opposite side of the country. Predictably, this irritated Trump.
Well, apparently, it irritated the Iraqis more. A damn near international incident has been caused because the Iraqi government feels it's been disrespected. Thus, they are demanding the United States pulls its troops from the region.
Then, here at home the country is in the midst of a partial government shutdown which is affecting 800,000 federal employees. Thousands more are having to work for free.
The shutdown is due to an impasse between Trump and Senate Democrats over funding for the border wall, which is not even going to be a wall but a fence.
This is another example of Trump's impetuousness and frenzied political stances. Almost three weeks ago on national television" Trump told Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, and incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, "I'll take the mantle. I'll shut down the government. I'll be proud to shut down the government. Chuck, I won't blame you."
Well, the government is now shutdown and Trump is blaming the Democrats. Here's the thing, Trump doesn't calculate things.
Almost 70% of the country doesn't believe the wall would stop illegal immigration while only 25% believe obtaining the $5 billion Trump is seeking for the wall is worth shutting down the government. And, the only people who believe the Democrats are at fault are his die hard base who blame the Democrats if the slurpee machine at their local 7-11 breaks down.
The chaos, turnover and constant turmoil Trump chooses to live his life in and now the country isn't good for the country. Soon he is going to be made painfully aware it is not good for him neither. This is not the Hunger Games. Nor is it the WWE.
People's livelihoods and in some cases their lives are at stake. Rash irrational decisions are not representative of some type of mad genius. Not giving allies or essential personnel within our own government an adequate heads up before implementing a policy change or military decision is not a sign strategic secrecy and cunningness. Enthralling yourself and everyone around you in uncertainty and a frantic pace isn't a winning strategy.
This is all a sign of instability and lack of preparation, if you are being kind. In actuality it's closer to being a sign of sheer lunacy.
Hey, some people seem to thrive in chaos. Grant you that. However, even in those situations some apparatus of structure and foresight exist.
But, when it is literally a free for all when things can literally change minute to minute certain catastrophe is inevitably going to ensue.
Trump and his administration are the equivalent of an out of control chimpanzee. Sure, at first he's funny and maybe even a little endearing. You get pissed when he's hanging from the chandelier and knocking shit over but he's somewhat adorable so you let things slide. But, then while he's hanging from the chandelier or lurking behind furniture he begins indiscriminately hurling his shit at you. I literally mean feces. He is just chunking shit at the walls, in your food, wherever. You are afraid to walk in a room because you don't know if your eye is going to get done with some poo-poo.
This is Trump. A dude just hurling shit everywhere. And, it works initially because while people are concentrating on one mess he is creating another one. That is awesome if you're a monkey. When you're the leader of the free world it is an inevitable anchor that will bring you down.
Trump is embroiled in so many scandals and controversies he can't see straight. And, they are all of his own doing.
So, his response to them is to look for someone to bail him out while simultaneously hurling feces everywhere. The issues are there is nobody to bail him out. His sycophants in the House no longer have power. At this point firing Mueller, which is a significant chunk of his problems, would not lighten his burdens but make them untenable.
And, the other issue is hurling shit all over the place is a shortsighted plan-plan is a term being employed extremely lightly. The vast majority of people have no interest in dwelling in a place that is covered in shit. Eventually the stench becomes overwhelming and nobody wants it on them. Also, the shit thrower will eventually wear themselves out and will have no plan for recourse.
Our government is shut down, half of necessary positions for diplomacy and military execution are unfilled, the personnel structure in the White House is in utter turmoil, the President is under numerous investigations all of which are beyond legitimate and credible and the President is at best emotionally flustered but really is just borderline clinically insane. Not to mention unread, willfully ignorant and a buffoon. Does it really need to be stated those traits coupled with mental fragility is not a
desirable combination?
Let this be food for thought especially for Trump supporters. In any other area of life and with any other human being would bathing in chaos and unpredictability be seen as a good thing or at least a long term sustainable mode of operation? Do you know anyone who is encircled in chaos who is actually stable and productive?
Yet, when it comes to the President of the United States chaos is presented as, if not admirable, an appreciative trait.
Many in the mainstream media (or so-called left-wing media) present President Trump's affinity for tumultuousness and disorder as some sort of mad genius strategy. They will criticize his impetuous nature while simultaneously low key praising him for being able to go through his life (personal and business) and becoming President with an irreverence for orthodoxy.
Of course, they frequently leave out the facts that Mr. Trump was born halfway between third base and home. Although he acts as if he hit a liner into the right-centerfield gap he is turning from a triple to an inside the park home run.
It is often unmentioned that Trump's daddy, Fred Trump, perpetually bailed him out of failed businesses and ventures due to Trump's refusal or inability to employ order and structure. Now, some (not I, of course) would say his failed ventures were wholly due to the fact he is an effin moron. Again, some say.
Trump has had a chaotic personal life throughout the years. He once said his, "Vietnam was avoiding stds." Translation: He was dipping his little mushroom into all sorts of cobbler dishes. Although, I am confident it was not nearly as much as he was bragging.
It is extremely well known Mr. Trump divorced his first wife, Ivana , because he was having a very public affair with Marla Maples. Without regard for his children's feelings or the turmoil being levied upon them Mr. Defender of Christian Values was publicly flaunting his affair. In fact, this led to an extended period of time where the relationship between Trump and Donald Trump Jr. was quite frosty.
Then, Mr. Trump publicly flaunted his cheating on Marla Maples with his current wife, Melania.
Of course, we all know the philandering Trump has partook within the last 15 years or so. Only weeks after Melania gave birth to their son Trump was having unprotected sex with porn star, Stormy Daniels, and Playboy Playmate, Karen McDougal.
Trump's chaotic style continued on into the White House. He hasn't been president two full years; yet, he has had almost as much turnover as presidents Clinton, Obama or Bush had in their terms. They all served eight years.
President Trump is on his third chief of staff. He has had three communications directors. There have been three national security advisers as well as FBI directors. Over half of State Department positions are unfilled. Actually, this can be said across the government.
President Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. He didn't drain he stockpiled it. The administration has been littered with scandals. Health and Human Services director, Tom Price, had to resign because of corruption. The same goes for Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zeinke, former EPA and Interior secretaries respectively. And, plenty of other officials and department heads have been embroiled in controversies but somehow have staved off resignation or termination.
This lunacy has extended to his policies and their implementation. Trump's initial attempt to enact the Travel Ban was shot down because of the slap-assed way it was written. His border policy has been not only cruel but haphazard. His 100% detain policy led to children being separated from their parents. Some of whom still haven't been reunited with their parents despite a judicial order demanding it be done.
Time after time the President has made foreign policy decisions without informing our allies let alone U.S. officials.
For example, Trump decided to withdraw our troops from Syria. Let's be clear that this is a good thing. The motives are sketchy but withdrawing troops is the prudent decision because we had no business being there in the first place. However, Trump didn't bother to give our allies in the region ample warning.
Just this past week Trump and the First Lady decided to visit troops in Iraq. It was a long overdue visit since Trump had not visited any troops in a war zone. Again, this was a great decision by the President. However, again, it was haphazardly done. Trump didn't inform the Iraqi prime minister until two hours before Air Force One landed he was coming. He then demanded the prime minister come meet him but he couldn't because he was in the opposite side of the country. Predictably, this irritated Trump.
Well, apparently, it irritated the Iraqis more. A damn near international incident has been caused because the Iraqi government feels it's been disrespected. Thus, they are demanding the United States pulls its troops from the region.
Then, here at home the country is in the midst of a partial government shutdown which is affecting 800,000 federal employees. Thousands more are having to work for free.
The shutdown is due to an impasse between Trump and Senate Democrats over funding for the border wall, which is not even going to be a wall but a fence.
This is another example of Trump's impetuousness and frenzied political stances. Almost three weeks ago on national television" Trump told Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, and incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, "I'll take the mantle. I'll shut down the government. I'll be proud to shut down the government. Chuck, I won't blame you."
Well, the government is now shutdown and Trump is blaming the Democrats. Here's the thing, Trump doesn't calculate things.
Almost 70% of the country doesn't believe the wall would stop illegal immigration while only 25% believe obtaining the $5 billion Trump is seeking for the wall is worth shutting down the government. And, the only people who believe the Democrats are at fault are his die hard base who blame the Democrats if the slurpee machine at their local 7-11 breaks down.
The chaos, turnover and constant turmoil Trump chooses to live his life in and now the country isn't good for the country. Soon he is going to be made painfully aware it is not good for him neither. This is not the Hunger Games. Nor is it the WWE.
People's livelihoods and in some cases their lives are at stake. Rash irrational decisions are not representative of some type of mad genius. Not giving allies or essential personnel within our own government an adequate heads up before implementing a policy change or military decision is not a sign strategic secrecy and cunningness. Enthralling yourself and everyone around you in uncertainty and a frantic pace isn't a winning strategy.
This is all a sign of instability and lack of preparation, if you are being kind. In actuality it's closer to being a sign of sheer lunacy.
Hey, some people seem to thrive in chaos. Grant you that. However, even in those situations some apparatus of structure and foresight exist.
But, when it is literally a free for all when things can literally change minute to minute certain catastrophe is inevitably going to ensue.
Trump and his administration are the equivalent of an out of control chimpanzee. Sure, at first he's funny and maybe even a little endearing. You get pissed when he's hanging from the chandelier and knocking shit over but he's somewhat adorable so you let things slide. But, then while he's hanging from the chandelier or lurking behind furniture he begins indiscriminately hurling his shit at you. I literally mean feces. He is just chunking shit at the walls, in your food, wherever. You are afraid to walk in a room because you don't know if your eye is going to get done with some poo-poo.
This is Trump. A dude just hurling shit everywhere. And, it works initially because while people are concentrating on one mess he is creating another one. That is awesome if you're a monkey. When you're the leader of the free world it is an inevitable anchor that will bring you down.
Trump is embroiled in so many scandals and controversies he can't see straight. And, they are all of his own doing.
So, his response to them is to look for someone to bail him out while simultaneously hurling feces everywhere. The issues are there is nobody to bail him out. His sycophants in the House no longer have power. At this point firing Mueller, which is a significant chunk of his problems, would not lighten his burdens but make them untenable.
And, the other issue is hurling shit all over the place is a shortsighted plan-plan is a term being employed extremely lightly. The vast majority of people have no interest in dwelling in a place that is covered in shit. Eventually the stench becomes overwhelming and nobody wants it on them. Also, the shit thrower will eventually wear themselves out and will have no plan for recourse.
Our government is shut down, half of necessary positions for diplomacy and military execution are unfilled, the personnel structure in the White House is in utter turmoil, the President is under numerous investigations all of which are beyond legitimate and credible and the President is at best emotionally flustered but really is just borderline clinically insane. Not to mention unread, willfully ignorant and a buffoon. Does it really need to be stated those traits coupled with mental fragility is not a
desirable combination?
Let this be food for thought especially for Trump supporters. In any other area of life and with any other human being would bathing in chaos and unpredictability be seen as a good thing or at least a long term sustainable mode of operation? Do you know anyone who is encircled in chaos who is actually stable and productive?
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Reflections On 2018 And Aspirations For 2019
Just over seven months ago I re-launched this blog. I didn't really have any expectations although I hoped it would do well.
Honestly, I did it for me without any real anticipation of success. Writing along with sports are my first loves. Politics and social issues are my infatuations.
Writing is something I thoroughly enjoy. It relaxes me. I don't know if I am necessarily good at it although my ego tells me I am pretty damn good. Regardless I feel it's my calling.
It allows me to actually tie together my love for sports and infatuation with politics and social issues. Writing is my outlet.
I am quite opinionated. I like expressing my opinions. Not because I arrogantly believe I am right and know everything but because I feel I offer a certain, perhaps unique, perspective and insight and hopefully I can generate dialogue. Problems only get solved and connections made through discussion.
So, restarting this blog has allowed me the opportunity to do that.
Now, I said I held no tangible expectations regarding the success of this blog. Frankly, I am not sure what is thought of regarding the blog. I seem to possess a moderate dedicated readership. I estimate the blog receives 60 to 70 views per post. Although I certainly would prefer more that is a number I can live with. I have received some positive feedback as well.
In recent months I have pondered the idea of taking the blog to video. A few people mentioned I should start a YouTube channel. Admittedly, I initially scoffed at the idea. This face on video isn't exactly an appetizing idea. Y'all can be honest. I'm not exactly photogenic. The camera does not love me. It usually says, "Ewwww. Boy, please! Lawd have mercy."
However, as time passed and I gave more thought to it, I realized (my ugly mug aside)having my own YouTube channel is something I would like and it would actually in a way fulfill a dream.
When I was a kid I always dreamed of being on SportsCenter and hosting special political events. I admired and idolized Chris Berman, Dan Patrick, Keith Olbernan, Skip Carey, Hannah Storm and Dick Schapp. But, I also idolized the political pundits I would see on tv. And, even now I find myself fascinated with people like Rachel Maddow, Tucker Carlson and Chris Hayes. I certainly look admiringly at people like Sam Seder, Cenk Ugyur, Ana Kasparian, Michael Brooks and Kyle Kulinski and think I love what they are doing and on a smaller scale would not only love to do what they are doing but believe I would be good at doing it.
So, I have decided to go for a dream. I am launching my own YouTube channel called "Robbase2110".
I am aware I may not obtain any subscribers or many views. But, you are certain to fail if you don't try and you can't succeed unless you are willing to take a chance.
I will still write because, again, it's my passion. My intention is to do write blogs and produce content on YouTube. I acknowledge it will be difficult since I have a job I love and, of course, it comes first. Thus, as this blog does now, it will have to come in my free time. I will just have to make sure the time is there for me to write, read, research, enjoy my other interests, follow my youngest son's high school sports career as it's in its latter stages and produce quality content on my fledgling YouTube channel.
My 2018 was so-so. I definitely found some peace and direction through rediscovering my political ideology and my love/concern for societal issues like race, feminism and combating racism and misogyny. I have done some introspection and re-evaluating of my own role in misogyny and feminism. And, I certainly have regained a passion for fighting for equality across the board.
I am on a constant search for contentment; not happiness. I have always known I deserve happiness but happiness is a bit of a myth because contentment, inner strength, self-respect and peace are the things we should obtain. And, we all should surround ourselves with people who desire to aid us in the pursuit of these things and who want the best for us. I am fortunate in that I have and have had those folks around me. Sometimes we , I included, must learn to disavow negativity and negative people who seek to hold others under foot. But, enough about that.
I don't do resolutions because they are usually not tethered to any real intentions or aspirations. They are goals that sound good but people aren't really interested or dedicated in achieving.
Instead I am adhering to aspirations. I don't know what 2019 will bring. I know what I hope it brings. I hope for peace and contentment. I am looking for positivity to engulf my life. I am going to go for a dream.
I am starting this YouTube channel with aspirations. I will do the best I can and pray for the best. I will be myself and express my thoughts and opinions and deal with whatever comes after.
Of course, I hope I garner a following. I hope the readers of this blog will subscribe to my channel. I, also, intend to improve this blog and become a better and more polished writer.
To all those who have followed this blog I thank you! I appreciate your friendship and support. I do ask your support extends to my fledgling endeavor.
I have set up a Patreon page although I am awful at promoting it. I feel like I am begging for money, which I am not! I, of course, want people to become a patron but just becoming a patron would thrill me. I don't expect a penny. I just want to produce good content that all of you enjoy.
Happy New Year to you all!!! I sincerely hope 2019 brings you everything you desire!
Honestly, I did it for me without any real anticipation of success. Writing along with sports are my first loves. Politics and social issues are my infatuations.
Writing is something I thoroughly enjoy. It relaxes me. I don't know if I am necessarily good at it although my ego tells me I am pretty damn good. Regardless I feel it's my calling.
It allows me to actually tie together my love for sports and infatuation with politics and social issues. Writing is my outlet.
I am quite opinionated. I like expressing my opinions. Not because I arrogantly believe I am right and know everything but because I feel I offer a certain, perhaps unique, perspective and insight and hopefully I can generate dialogue. Problems only get solved and connections made through discussion.
So, restarting this blog has allowed me the opportunity to do that.
Now, I said I held no tangible expectations regarding the success of this blog. Frankly, I am not sure what is thought of regarding the blog. I seem to possess a moderate dedicated readership. I estimate the blog receives 60 to 70 views per post. Although I certainly would prefer more that is a number I can live with. I have received some positive feedback as well.
In recent months I have pondered the idea of taking the blog to video. A few people mentioned I should start a YouTube channel. Admittedly, I initially scoffed at the idea. This face on video isn't exactly an appetizing idea. Y'all can be honest. I'm not exactly photogenic. The camera does not love me. It usually says, "Ewwww. Boy, please! Lawd have mercy."
However, as time passed and I gave more thought to it, I realized (my ugly mug aside)having my own YouTube channel is something I would like and it would actually in a way fulfill a dream.
When I was a kid I always dreamed of being on SportsCenter and hosting special political events. I admired and idolized Chris Berman, Dan Patrick, Keith Olbernan, Skip Carey, Hannah Storm and Dick Schapp. But, I also idolized the political pundits I would see on tv. And, even now I find myself fascinated with people like Rachel Maddow, Tucker Carlson and Chris Hayes. I certainly look admiringly at people like Sam Seder, Cenk Ugyur, Ana Kasparian, Michael Brooks and Kyle Kulinski and think I love what they are doing and on a smaller scale would not only love to do what they are doing but believe I would be good at doing it.
So, I have decided to go for a dream. I am launching my own YouTube channel called "Robbase2110".
I am aware I may not obtain any subscribers or many views. But, you are certain to fail if you don't try and you can't succeed unless you are willing to take a chance.
I will still write because, again, it's my passion. My intention is to do write blogs and produce content on YouTube. I acknowledge it will be difficult since I have a job I love and, of course, it comes first. Thus, as this blog does now, it will have to come in my free time. I will just have to make sure the time is there for me to write, read, research, enjoy my other interests, follow my youngest son's high school sports career as it's in its latter stages and produce quality content on my fledgling YouTube channel.
My 2018 was so-so. I definitely found some peace and direction through rediscovering my political ideology and my love/concern for societal issues like race, feminism and combating racism and misogyny. I have done some introspection and re-evaluating of my own role in misogyny and feminism. And, I certainly have regained a passion for fighting for equality across the board.
I am on a constant search for contentment; not happiness. I have always known I deserve happiness but happiness is a bit of a myth because contentment, inner strength, self-respect and peace are the things we should obtain. And, we all should surround ourselves with people who desire to aid us in the pursuit of these things and who want the best for us. I am fortunate in that I have and have had those folks around me. Sometimes we , I included, must learn to disavow negativity and negative people who seek to hold others under foot. But, enough about that.
I don't do resolutions because they are usually not tethered to any real intentions or aspirations. They are goals that sound good but people aren't really interested or dedicated in achieving.
Instead I am adhering to aspirations. I don't know what 2019 will bring. I know what I hope it brings. I hope for peace and contentment. I am looking for positivity to engulf my life. I am going to go for a dream.
I am starting this YouTube channel with aspirations. I will do the best I can and pray for the best. I will be myself and express my thoughts and opinions and deal with whatever comes after.
Of course, I hope I garner a following. I hope the readers of this blog will subscribe to my channel. I, also, intend to improve this blog and become a better and more polished writer.
To all those who have followed this blog I thank you! I appreciate your friendship and support. I do ask your support extends to my fledgling endeavor.
I have set up a Patreon page although I am awful at promoting it. I feel like I am begging for money, which I am not! I, of course, want people to become a patron but just becoming a patron would thrill me. I don't expect a penny. I just want to produce good content that all of you enjoy.
Happy New Year to you all!!! I sincerely hope 2019 brings you everything you desire!
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Empathy's Absence Explains So Much About Current Society
No question we live in a self-absorbed, if not full blown narcissistic, society. It seems most people do nothing unless it somehow centers around them or is in some way self-serving.
Often, people appear to be apathetic and indifferent toward what is taking place in their community or society as a whole. Not only do they seem unconcerned about the world around them but for individuals including those people they know personally.
If it doesn't directly affect them (or even sometimes if it does), they could not care less.
In a nutshell a lack of empathy causes this.
Many in our society simply will not or, perhaps, cannot place themselves in other people's shoes. This, what should be a common human trait, is what allows people to be compassionate and prevents them from being cruel or pitiless.
Now, I am quite positive people will pushback on my assertion. They will say, "I care about other people. It makes me feel bad when people have something tragic happen. It's makes me sad when I have to walk around the homeless on the street."
It is fine they feel "bad". What they are expressing is sympathy and that is terrific.
But, what I am talking about is empathy. I am talking about the ability to do more than feel bad and move on, but to want to see those homeless folks' circumstances change. I am talking about the ability to embrace people and provide them some comfort after a traumatic event without making it about you. And, the ability to do that with not only those in your inner circle but people generally.
In the example I used above, which is a pretty common statement, notice that it was in actuality all about them. Something tragic happening to others made them feel bad. They felt sadness because they had to walk around the homeless. I am going to guess the homeless feel even worse because... they are homeless!
The absence of empathy seems most apparent, perhaps, in any proposed public policy that would help people or right wrongs. For example, Medicare for all. Now, look, if you think it would be too costly or cumbersome we can have that conversation. But, the fact is millions of Americans don't have healthcare.
The current system, Obamacare, has several deficiencies but is certainly better than what we previously had, which was nothing. Millions of Americans have healthcare because of Obamacare. However, there is a concerted effort to repeal Obamacare with no actual replacement in place, which means millions of Americans would be without healthcare.
For a swath of folks in this country that is just fine. They have healthcare so they aren't too concerned with those who don't. That is an awful attitude and is caused by a basic lack of empathy.
Another example is the southern border situation. If you are someone who feels or says we can't take in all these migrants, again, we can have that discussion. But, to demonize and dehumanize these folks is wrong. It is abhorrent to belittle their plights. Quite frankly, it is immoral to pass judgment on these people for bringing their children with them when it is well established fact they are fleeing situations where they are persecuted, terrorized and raped.
It would seem that empathy would kick in. I don't, nor do I personally know anyone, who has endured such hardship. But, I can imagine how I would feel if I were in that position. I know that I would most definitely bring my children with me on the dangerous trek for a chance at peace and happiness. I sure as hell wouldn't leave them behind in a situation where they're being persecuted, starved and raped. I mean, for the love of God, that is just commonsense. And, it's common human decency to understand that. Yet, many people don't understand it or don't care because they possess little to no empathy.
As I go through life daily, it amazes and depresses me how many folks I am surrounded by who really just don't care about anyone other than themselves and maybe a minute amount of people they deem worthy of their inner circle. In fact, in an apparent effort to justify their lack of empathy they are quick to blame people for those people's adverse circumstances. It should be noted rarely does that assertion of victim blaming ever extend to them when they are the victim.
I am not saying everyone should be a "bleeding heart", but exhibiting common empathy should not be a chore. Empathy is the barrier between humans being, well, human and being barbaric. It provides us the ability to make sound rational decisions. It gives us prospective.
But, the truth is our current society isn't nearly as benevolent and caring as we purport it to be. We are not what we would like to think we are.
Our society is pretty self-absorbed, which actually is a cause for the tribalism. Not only do we not see things from others perspective we don't want to see it. If it isn't something that directly effects us, we don't care. It's not our problem.
Look, it can be summed up like this. Societal attitude is if we have not experienced it nor are currently living it, it doesn't exist. It is irrelevant if it is someone else's reality. If it's not mine, it's not real.
That is quintessentially empathy being absent.
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
robbase2110@gmail.com
Often, people appear to be apathetic and indifferent toward what is taking place in their community or society as a whole. Not only do they seem unconcerned about the world around them but for individuals including those people they know personally.
If it doesn't directly affect them (or even sometimes if it does), they could not care less.
In a nutshell a lack of empathy causes this.
Many in our society simply will not or, perhaps, cannot place themselves in other people's shoes. This, what should be a common human trait, is what allows people to be compassionate and prevents them from being cruel or pitiless.
Now, I am quite positive people will pushback on my assertion. They will say, "I care about other people. It makes me feel bad when people have something tragic happen. It's makes me sad when I have to walk around the homeless on the street."
It is fine they feel "bad". What they are expressing is sympathy and that is terrific.
But, what I am talking about is empathy. I am talking about the ability to do more than feel bad and move on, but to want to see those homeless folks' circumstances change. I am talking about the ability to embrace people and provide them some comfort after a traumatic event without making it about you. And, the ability to do that with not only those in your inner circle but people generally.
In the example I used above, which is a pretty common statement, notice that it was in actuality all about them. Something tragic happening to others made them feel bad. They felt sadness because they had to walk around the homeless. I am going to guess the homeless feel even worse because... they are homeless!
The absence of empathy seems most apparent, perhaps, in any proposed public policy that would help people or right wrongs. For example, Medicare for all. Now, look, if you think it would be too costly or cumbersome we can have that conversation. But, the fact is millions of Americans don't have healthcare.
The current system, Obamacare, has several deficiencies but is certainly better than what we previously had, which was nothing. Millions of Americans have healthcare because of Obamacare. However, there is a concerted effort to repeal Obamacare with no actual replacement in place, which means millions of Americans would be without healthcare.
For a swath of folks in this country that is just fine. They have healthcare so they aren't too concerned with those who don't. That is an awful attitude and is caused by a basic lack of empathy.
Another example is the southern border situation. If you are someone who feels or says we can't take in all these migrants, again, we can have that discussion. But, to demonize and dehumanize these folks is wrong. It is abhorrent to belittle their plights. Quite frankly, it is immoral to pass judgment on these people for bringing their children with them when it is well established fact they are fleeing situations where they are persecuted, terrorized and raped.
It would seem that empathy would kick in. I don't, nor do I personally know anyone, who has endured such hardship. But, I can imagine how I would feel if I were in that position. I know that I would most definitely bring my children with me on the dangerous trek for a chance at peace and happiness. I sure as hell wouldn't leave them behind in a situation where they're being persecuted, starved and raped. I mean, for the love of God, that is just commonsense. And, it's common human decency to understand that. Yet, many people don't understand it or don't care because they possess little to no empathy.
As I go through life daily, it amazes and depresses me how many folks I am surrounded by who really just don't care about anyone other than themselves and maybe a minute amount of people they deem worthy of their inner circle. In fact, in an apparent effort to justify their lack of empathy they are quick to blame people for those people's adverse circumstances. It should be noted rarely does that assertion of victim blaming ever extend to them when they are the victim.
I am not saying everyone should be a "bleeding heart", but exhibiting common empathy should not be a chore. Empathy is the barrier between humans being, well, human and being barbaric. It provides us the ability to make sound rational decisions. It gives us prospective.
But, the truth is our current society isn't nearly as benevolent and caring as we purport it to be. We are not what we would like to think we are.
Our society is pretty self-absorbed, which actually is a cause for the tribalism. Not only do we not see things from others perspective we don't want to see it. If it isn't something that directly effects us, we don't care. It's not our problem.
Look, it can be summed up like this. Societal attitude is if we have not experienced it nor are currently living it, it doesn't exist. It is irrelevant if it is someone else's reality. If it's not mine, it's not real.
That is quintessentially empathy being absent.
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
robbase2110@gmail.com
Friday, December 21, 2018
Random(Ish): December 21, 2018
Dayum! I have literally been attempting to write a blog all week. Either fatigue or un-foreseen distractions have gotten in the way.
My goal is to churn out at least three blogs a week. Not because they're in high demand, which would be awesome if they were, but because I think writing at least three times a week will make me better and keep me sane. I have so many thoughts, ideas and unsolicited opinions occupying space in my mind. And, as those who know me would attest, space inside my mind is rather limited.
Anyway, this post isn't about one specific issue or group of sub-issues, but one of the blogs I like to write every so often that touches on multiple topics.
First, Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, resigning. I have my issues with Mattis because he is a typical Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal war hawk. His innate inclination more than not sides on being an interventionist. He generally agrees with the multiple illegal wars the United States, which we are the aggressor.
His resignation comes within a day or so of #CheetoJesus deciding to withdraw troops from Syria. Just like the sun shines on a dog's ass some days Donald Trump did the right thing. The U.S. really had no business being in Syria in the first place.
Mattis, most of the military brass, the neocon Republicans and centrist/neoliberal Democrats disagree with Trump's decision. The military complex loves conflict because it generates cash flow, so needless to say withdrawing troops from Syria will stifle profits. But, Mattis and others say they fear withdrawing troops will endanger the Kurds from potential attack by Turkey and/or ISIS, whom in contrast to Trump they say hasn't been defeated.
The truth is the Syria issue is just one of a number of disagreements Mattis has with President Five Time Deferment. Trump also is vastly reducing troops in Afghanistan. Or, so he says.
Damn! Trump is all of a sudden concerned with pulling troops out of unnecessary wars. If he had only been so concerned with his pullout game regarding Usay and Qusay....errrrr....Don Jr and Eric, the world would be a somewhat nicer place and animals in Africa would have two less assholes attempting to shoot them so they can be unnecessary trophies. But, I digress.
In his resignation letter Mattis mentioned Trump's treatment of allies, which has alienated those allies. He implicitly mentioned Trump's impetuous (some would call fucking batshit cra cra) nature. And, he conspicuously noted #Cheets' affinity for authoritarianism particularly the Russians and the Chinese.
Jim Mattis is one of the very few decent human beings that were left in this shitshow administration. Now, that he's gone (along with John Kelly's bigoted ass and Nikki Haley's milquetoast #resistance bs)there are even fewer checks on his insanity and foreign policy ignorance. Mattis was quoted as saying Trump has a fifth or sixth grader's understanding of world affairs, although he is sorta denying he said it. Truth is Mattis did say it and he was being generous. It is more likely a third grader's knowledge.
Mattis leaving isn't a good thing. It is not even close.
What else is going on....Oh yeah, this idiotic GoFundMe page for Trump's racist stupid wall. Within four days the page has generated almost $15 million. Sweet Baby Jesus! Never underestimate folks' sheer stupidity. And, racism.
The dude who started the page is a triple amputee veteran. He also apparently is a known racist conspiracy theory peddler and a grifter. So, he's Donald Trump's soul mate.
What these donors are failing to see here is this is likely all for naught, if they aren't just being swindled. Some real legal questions exist if the government can even take the money. The legality of the GoFundMe page itself is in question. And, parts of the border where Trump wants this wall is private property. People can't just go building walls on others' property and most of the residents at the border have displayed an antipathy for the wall.
And, I certainly don't wanna be a downer near Christmas time but......THE WALL WON'T DO ANYTHING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CURB ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Most people who arrive in this country illegally do so by plane. How is a wall going to stop that?
Illegal immigration isn't even funny real problem. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians, Australians and Eastern Europeans here on expired visas but strangely nobody is bitchin about them. They are only upset about people from south of the border. I know. I know. It has nothing to do with their skin color. And, y'all except me to believe Candace Owens is a deep thinker too.
I must mention one more thing before I go. I have been doing some research on incels for a future blog. Let me say that not only among incels but a large swath of men misogyny and sexism not only is pervasive it is immensely toxic. The views many men have of women is astonishing. A real intense searing hatred of women exist in the world and it's frightening.
Please take time to read my other blogs and become a subscriber.
Check out my social media pages and my Patreon page. Become a patron!
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
www.tumblr.com/robbase2110
robbase2110@gmail.com
My goal is to churn out at least three blogs a week. Not because they're in high demand, which would be awesome if they were, but because I think writing at least three times a week will make me better and keep me sane. I have so many thoughts, ideas and unsolicited opinions occupying space in my mind. And, as those who know me would attest, space inside my mind is rather limited.
Anyway, this post isn't about one specific issue or group of sub-issues, but one of the blogs I like to write every so often that touches on multiple topics.
First, Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, resigning. I have my issues with Mattis because he is a typical Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal war hawk. His innate inclination more than not sides on being an interventionist. He generally agrees with the multiple illegal wars the United States, which we are the aggressor.
His resignation comes within a day or so of #CheetoJesus deciding to withdraw troops from Syria. Just like the sun shines on a dog's ass some days Donald Trump did the right thing. The U.S. really had no business being in Syria in the first place.
Mattis, most of the military brass, the neocon Republicans and centrist/neoliberal Democrats disagree with Trump's decision. The military complex loves conflict because it generates cash flow, so needless to say withdrawing troops from Syria will stifle profits. But, Mattis and others say they fear withdrawing troops will endanger the Kurds from potential attack by Turkey and/or ISIS, whom in contrast to Trump they say hasn't been defeated.
The truth is the Syria issue is just one of a number of disagreements Mattis has with President Five Time Deferment. Trump also is vastly reducing troops in Afghanistan. Or, so he says.
Damn! Trump is all of a sudden concerned with pulling troops out of unnecessary wars. If he had only been so concerned with his pullout game regarding Usay and Qusay....errrrr....Don Jr and Eric, the world would be a somewhat nicer place and animals in Africa would have two less assholes attempting to shoot them so they can be unnecessary trophies. But, I digress.
In his resignation letter Mattis mentioned Trump's treatment of allies, which has alienated those allies. He implicitly mentioned Trump's impetuous (some would call fucking batshit cra cra) nature. And, he conspicuously noted #Cheets' affinity for authoritarianism particularly the Russians and the Chinese.
Jim Mattis is one of the very few decent human beings that were left in this shitshow administration. Now, that he's gone (along with John Kelly's bigoted ass and Nikki Haley's milquetoast #resistance bs)there are even fewer checks on his insanity and foreign policy ignorance. Mattis was quoted as saying Trump has a fifth or sixth grader's understanding of world affairs, although he is sorta denying he said it. Truth is Mattis did say it and he was being generous. It is more likely a third grader's knowledge.
Mattis leaving isn't a good thing. It is not even close.
What else is going on....Oh yeah, this idiotic GoFundMe page for Trump's racist stupid wall. Within four days the page has generated almost $15 million. Sweet Baby Jesus! Never underestimate folks' sheer stupidity. And, racism.
The dude who started the page is a triple amputee veteran. He also apparently is a known racist conspiracy theory peddler and a grifter. So, he's Donald Trump's soul mate.
What these donors are failing to see here is this is likely all for naught, if they aren't just being swindled. Some real legal questions exist if the government can even take the money. The legality of the GoFundMe page itself is in question. And, parts of the border where Trump wants this wall is private property. People can't just go building walls on others' property and most of the residents at the border have displayed an antipathy for the wall.
And, I certainly don't wanna be a downer near Christmas time but......THE WALL WON'T DO ANYTHING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CURB ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Most people who arrive in this country illegally do so by plane. How is a wall going to stop that?
Illegal immigration isn't even funny real problem. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians, Australians and Eastern Europeans here on expired visas but strangely nobody is bitchin about them. They are only upset about people from south of the border. I know. I know. It has nothing to do with their skin color. And, y'all except me to believe Candace Owens is a deep thinker too.
I must mention one more thing before I go. I have been doing some research on incels for a future blog. Let me say that not only among incels but a large swath of men misogyny and sexism not only is pervasive it is immensely toxic. The views many men have of women is astonishing. A real intense searing hatred of women exist in the world and it's frightening.
Please take time to read my other blogs and become a subscriber.
Check out my social media pages and my Patreon page. Become a patron!
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
www.tumblr.com/robbase2110
robbase2110@gmail.com
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Apparently, Christian Values Are Subjective (Who Knew?)
This post will likely piss some people off. It could very likely cause some hate to come my way and some folks to unfriend me.
*Dave Chappelle voice* Sorry.
It seems that many Christians seem to have a very fluid morality system when it comes to politicians and their policies from their preferred side of the aisle. If you have been living under a rock for the last 60 years, that preferred side of the aisle is the staunch conservative to far right segment of the Republican Party.
This fluidity and subjectivity is something I have noticed since I was a child. As an adolescent I would often see hypocrisy and double standards but usually kept the observations to myself for various reasons. Many many times I would hear Christians whether it was on television or in person advocate policies, laws and behavior that was antithetical to the Word of God I had been and was being taught.
But, 20 or 30 years ago it did seem there was some consistency to the Christian Right or Evangelical position. If a right leaning politician did something immoral or supported an immoral un-Christian policy, Evangelicals would call them out although the rebuke was likely cursory and tepid. Now, of course, if they were a Democrat the rebuke would likely be much harsher.
The Evangelical position at that time was every politician regardless of position or party must be above board and moral to be elected. In fact, 700 Club host and founder Pat Robertson jumped into the political arena starting in the 1980s under the guise of bringing morality and Christian principles back into American politics. (It seems hilarious now to use the words "morality" and "Christian principles" with Pat Robertson considering he has been repeatedly exposed as a charlatan and grifter. Also, at the time the guise Robertson and other Evangelicals entered politics under was at best flawed, if I am being super generous, because this country has supported politicians and policies throughout its history that are direct antithesis to Christ and his principles.)
However, even at the time (20, 30, 40 years ago) many evangelicals were using the Bible and the Lawd as justification for supporting some draconian policies. They were using the Bible as a basis to hate certain groups or marginalize others.
And, they were completely ignoring a staple of the United States Constitution, which is the separation of church and state. They were (and still are) vociferously attempting to meld the two entities into one another. Honestly, they were actively attempting to turn our democracy into a theocracy. However, that a specious goal which many Christians would cheer, but the reality theocracies never turn out well. And, that type of rule is exactly what the Founding Fathers pulled away from and why they fought for independence. What did these people think the Revolutionary War was about? Jesus take their wheel and give them a history book or two.
Anyway, the Christian Right claim was always that their advocacy or apparent political alliances had nothing to do with partisanship. They aligned with the Republican Party because they more adhered to family values. (Which, by the way, was always a nonsensical assertion.) And, whenever the hypocrisies in the GOP "family values" platform was pointed out, evangelicals would say, "Both parties lack God but Republicans are the lesser of two evils."
Now, let me pause here and make something clear. If the majority of Christians make the calculation the GOP is the "lesser of two evils", that is fine. I can clearly understand why. However, it is hard to justify staying silent on policies that are in stark contrast to God's Word or worse advocating for policies (such as blatant discrimination against the LGBTQ community), which contradicts what Jesus said. They can be a good Republican and criticize things the party or individual politicians do but when they just blindly go along and cheer such things on it's a bit more than "choosing the lesser of two evils". It seems they don't think the lesser evil is evil at all, and their argument is complete trash when they do mental gymnastics to make the Bible justification for it.
As we have moved to present day, the Evangelical Right has become more hard right and their is no attempt to hide their partisanship even at the risk of the Christian principles and morals they claim to stand upon.
They have began to wear their Christianity as some cultural badge rather a guideline to buoy their moral compass and standing. Christianity is being used as a political tool to implement their value system on nuanced social issues. When these culture wars get revved up they're usually on the front lines. And, they are frequently attempting to mesh God with these culture wars to "prove" God is on their side so their stances are justified.
For example, the NFL anthem protest controversy. Most evangelicals I know or have heard/read have expressed vehement antipathy for the protests. They regurgitate the party line about it's disrespectful to the troops and veterans. I have expressed my opinions on the subject so I don't have any interest in litigating the validity or sincerity of that argument.
What disturbs me is how many folks I have actually heard and read who have said the anthem protests are an affront to God. One person actually said to me, "What those players are doing is disrespectful. Not standing up for the anthem is disrespecting God." 😐 This opinion is shared by many many folks.
So, let me get this straight. Kneeling for the national anthem is blasphemy to God. I didn't realize God was an American. All these years I thought he was the Lord for all people. My bad.
The antipathy and outrage sparked this absolutely silly meme, "I stand for the anthem; I kneel at the cross" as if the two are synonymous. They are not. Not to mention most of the people I saw posting that ridiculous meme don't do either unless an audience is around. Tell me I'm lying!
What I really don't get from Christians is when did Christianity and American patriotism (or what they think is patriotism) become one in the same? Many Canadians are Christians, so is it an affront to Jesus if everyone doesn't stand for the Canadian anthem? There are Kenyans who are Christians, so isn't offensive to not stand for the Kenyan anthem?
And, save your "this is a Christian nation" retort because the Constitution clearly states there is no national religion and every citizen has the right to religious freedom which includes choice of religion even if the choice is no religion.
Let us move along to a stance that is very perplexing to me and actually is a cornerstone of the anthem protest. The evangelical view on racism is mind numbing to me. Of course, every Christian says they abhor racism and love everyone. Many of those who say that are sincere and many are lying through their teeth.
I keep it real, so I am going to keep it real now. Many Christians often find themselves and historically have found themselves on the wrong side of racial issues.
I will not go into the entire slavery issue and how it's biggest most adamant proponents were Christians who repeatedly bastardized Bible verses to justify enslaving an entire group of people along with callously and amorally separating families from those groups on the regular. Family values tho......
Instead, I want to talk about more recent times like the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement was spearheaded by several Christians, but don't get it twisted. Just as many, if not more, Christians fervently opposed Civil Rights.
Evangelical heroes such as Jerry Falwell were avowed segregationists and racists. Others like Billy Graham said nothing. In fact it is only within the last 15 years or so the university Falwell founded, Liberty, allowed interracial dating. Needles to say, it's still frowned upon despite being "allowed". Heck, didn't even begin admitting students of color until 20 years after passage of the Civil Rights bill. Uh-huh.
And, right up to present day many Christians have a lukewarm, if not tepid, response to racial issues. Even if they firmly disagree with the NFL anthem protests they should acknowledge the root cause of the protests which is the unjustified killing of unarmed men of color. Instead they choose to either pretend the problem does not exist or they look the other way keeping in line with the right-wing ideology.
It says in the Gospels that Jesus was an advocate for the marginalized and disenfranchised and that we are supposed to emulate Christ. That doesn't seem to be happening.
Racism is a blatant sin. However, many Christians repeatedly use the Bible as justification for harboring racist beliefs and supporting bigots. They offer these specious arguments which, if I were to be generous, are vapid bullshit word salads.
It has always stunned me how a majority of the most ardent racists I know are Christians. They will use the Bible to justify their anti-interracial relationship stance in one breath but then say, "We are all God's children equal in his eyes." Well, if that's the case, then why the disdain for interracial relationships? Why display open hostility and aloofness toward anyone who looks different from you? C'mon. Put some effort in your bullshit, will ya?
Another example of evangelicals hypocrisy and selective choosing what they adhere to is the topic of homosexuality. Right off the bat the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. However, it doesn't say it is a sin worse than any other. Sin is sin.
But, while the Word of God does list homosexuality as a sin what it expressly does not do is give license to homosexuals being discriminated against or called derogatory names such as faggot, butt pirates and "mistakes". It most certainly does not give express permission for haughty indignant people to act holier than thou and judge them. "Do not judge lest ye be judged" is something someone once said. I think it was Tupac. Or maybe not.
Regardless, Jesus instructed us to "hate the sin" but love the sinner did He not? I'm sure many Christians will say, "That's exactly what you do." No, it isn't!
Advocating for blatant legalized discrimination and segregation of the LGBTQ community is in no way "loving them". If a Christian chooses to have nothing to do with a LGBTQ member because they can't condone their "lifestyle", fine. Not having anything to do with them doesn't seem very Christ-like but whatevs. However, it's categorically and indefensible wrong to believe and openly advocate for homosexuals to be allotted no civil rights and not be allowed to live their lives as guaranteed them under the United States Constitution. (The document some think Jesus himself wrote. 😐 Some of yo chirrhens, Lawd. I just don't know about 'em.)
I am fairly confident in saying it is antithetical to Christ's principles to ostracize and dehumanize them.
I'll refrain from embarking upon the obvious hypocrisies we see all the time. Ya know. People who are avowed proud homophobes who rail against homosexuality all the time. The people who get up in church on a Sunday morning with pious moral authority calling homosexuals an abomination to God when 12 hours earlier they were in a LaQuinta Inn with a dude named Precious. But, I digress.
Earlier I mentioned the Christian Right's foray into politics began in the early 1980s with Pat Robertson. But, if there was a spark that ignited the push into politics by evangelicals it was the abortion issue. Roe v Wade was and still is the rallying cry.
Needless to say, Christians are morally opposed to abortion. Several Bible verses can be cited to substantiate their moral objection. However, it can be easily argued there are other verses which advocate abortion in specific nuanced circumstances.
However, I am not interested in arguing the Biblical stances on abortion. What I am interested in is the evangelical stance.
The argument is women don't really have reproductive rights because once the baby is conceived it's a person. Science contradicts that assertion but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion. Because, from the majorly Christian perspective life begins at conception. The Bible is clear that the taking of innocent life is a sin. Thus, abortion is a sin.
But, what boggles my mind is they have no outrage over innocent people of color like Trayvon Martin being killed. They could care less about Philandre Castill or Tamir Rice being unjustly murdered. Now, if an illegal immigrant kills someone it is an unspeakable tragedy and something must be done immediately! An innocent black or brown person gets shot, "We send our thoughts and prayers."
The blatant hypocrisy just eludes them.
And, the other obvious infuriating hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is they're all about the "innocent" babies until those babies are born and then the attitude is essentially "eff 'em". They decidedly rail against any welfare or public safety net that would help the child and parents. The only solution they ever provide is "get a job" but they never offer suggestions on how, for example, a single mother is supposed to maintain a job and make sure her child is well supervised. Child care costs are ungodly and not everyone has a support system who is willing to help out. Everyone doesn't have a mother or sister or friend who can or is willing to watch the baby for free.
I won't even go into the plethora of children in the foster care and adoption system who desperately want to be in a good home but there aren't enough people available who are willing to take the children in.
It is sorta hard to hear rants about "pro-life" when it appears the entire mantra is subjective.
The most openly blatant hypocrisy is the very convenient moral standards employed to politicians. More than anything else this displays the utter political hackiness of the Christian Right as opposed to the moral ground they claim to stand upon.
I am old enough to remember when sexual indiscretions were automatic disqualifiers. Politicians are the leaders of the nation and must maintain some moral authority they would say. I would hear, "If they can't stay faithful to their wedding vows and exercise proper judgment, then how can we expect them to stay faithful to the laws of the land and be the country's moral compass."
These were the primary excuses used against Bill Clinton. They said his infidelity not only disrespected his wife (as if they gave a shit she was disrespected) but the country. And, what about the chirrhens? What kind of example is being set for the chirrhens? Ya know, it's always about the kids. *Eyes rolled all the way into the back of my head*
When John Edwards got caught dippin his North Carolina tar hell into the lake the moral majority howled. "Can't have an immoral man running the country." That was 11 years ago or so.
But, now under the current situation, the attitude isn't outrage or indignation. Oh, no no no! It is, "We need to give a mulligan." It is, "A man's indiscretions are between he and his wife." And, my personal fav, "He's just a man. None of us are infallible. Besides, those who judge will be judged. It's not your place to judge."
Are you shitting me? I mean they just took all the self-awareness and threw that bish in the trash compactor.
And, for those who realized how audaciously hypocritical and idiotic those "defenses" sounded they played the "It's about the Supreme Court and the transgenders" card. But, they now have the Supreme Court they want and transgender rights along with the rest of the LGBTQ community is being gutted almost daily. Yet, they have now adjoined the "So, he raw dogged some porn stars while his wife was at home with their infant son. What's your point" crowd.
Really unbelievable!
I am a Christian and I certainly don't live up to the standards Christ set as I should. However, I also do not hold myself out to be embodiment of Jesus as many of the Evangelical Right does.
Their political hackiness is evident despite their facade they are "just following the Bible". At best that argument is specious. At worst it's reprehensibly spurious.
Like I said in the beginning I am sure I will and have pissed some folks off. But, before you go all the way inside your feelings tell me where I am wrong. I want to be wrong, actually. But, looking at this empirically I am not.
The hypocrisy is blatant. And, I already know, it's all apart of God's plan. But, says who?
It seems quite curious to me how God only excuses GOP bad behavior. It's odd how God always seems side on the side of the far right.
What is really stupefying is that the Lord is always punishing the country for homosexuality, sexual "deviancy", no prayer in school, women dressing "slutty", and of course the election of Barack Obama but He has never nor never punishes the country for slavery, it's genocide of Native Americans, disenfranchising and marginalizing people based specifically on their skin color, refusal to help the poor, worshipping of money or blatant unabashed hypocrisy.
Isn't that peculiar?
*Dave Chappelle voice* Sorry.
It seems that many Christians seem to have a very fluid morality system when it comes to politicians and their policies from their preferred side of the aisle. If you have been living under a rock for the last 60 years, that preferred side of the aisle is the staunch conservative to far right segment of the Republican Party.
This fluidity and subjectivity is something I have noticed since I was a child. As an adolescent I would often see hypocrisy and double standards but usually kept the observations to myself for various reasons. Many many times I would hear Christians whether it was on television or in person advocate policies, laws and behavior that was antithetical to the Word of God I had been and was being taught.
But, 20 or 30 years ago it did seem there was some consistency to the Christian Right or Evangelical position. If a right leaning politician did something immoral or supported an immoral un-Christian policy, Evangelicals would call them out although the rebuke was likely cursory and tepid. Now, of course, if they were a Democrat the rebuke would likely be much harsher.
The Evangelical position at that time was every politician regardless of position or party must be above board and moral to be elected. In fact, 700 Club host and founder Pat Robertson jumped into the political arena starting in the 1980s under the guise of bringing morality and Christian principles back into American politics. (It seems hilarious now to use the words "morality" and "Christian principles" with Pat Robertson considering he has been repeatedly exposed as a charlatan and grifter. Also, at the time the guise Robertson and other Evangelicals entered politics under was at best flawed, if I am being super generous, because this country has supported politicians and policies throughout its history that are direct antithesis to Christ and his principles.)
However, even at the time (20, 30, 40 years ago) many evangelicals were using the Bible and the Lawd as justification for supporting some draconian policies. They were using the Bible as a basis to hate certain groups or marginalize others.
And, they were completely ignoring a staple of the United States Constitution, which is the separation of church and state. They were (and still are) vociferously attempting to meld the two entities into one another. Honestly, they were actively attempting to turn our democracy into a theocracy. However, that a specious goal which many Christians would cheer, but the reality theocracies never turn out well. And, that type of rule is exactly what the Founding Fathers pulled away from and why they fought for independence. What did these people think the Revolutionary War was about? Jesus take their wheel and give them a history book or two.
Anyway, the Christian Right claim was always that their advocacy or apparent political alliances had nothing to do with partisanship. They aligned with the Republican Party because they more adhered to family values. (Which, by the way, was always a nonsensical assertion.) And, whenever the hypocrisies in the GOP "family values" platform was pointed out, evangelicals would say, "Both parties lack God but Republicans are the lesser of two evils."
Now, let me pause here and make something clear. If the majority of Christians make the calculation the GOP is the "lesser of two evils", that is fine. I can clearly understand why. However, it is hard to justify staying silent on policies that are in stark contrast to God's Word or worse advocating for policies (such as blatant discrimination against the LGBTQ community), which contradicts what Jesus said. They can be a good Republican and criticize things the party or individual politicians do but when they just blindly go along and cheer such things on it's a bit more than "choosing the lesser of two evils". It seems they don't think the lesser evil is evil at all, and their argument is complete trash when they do mental gymnastics to make the Bible justification for it.
As we have moved to present day, the Evangelical Right has become more hard right and their is no attempt to hide their partisanship even at the risk of the Christian principles and morals they claim to stand upon.
They have began to wear their Christianity as some cultural badge rather a guideline to buoy their moral compass and standing. Christianity is being used as a political tool to implement their value system on nuanced social issues. When these culture wars get revved up they're usually on the front lines. And, they are frequently attempting to mesh God with these culture wars to "prove" God is on their side so their stances are justified.
For example, the NFL anthem protest controversy. Most evangelicals I know or have heard/read have expressed vehement antipathy for the protests. They regurgitate the party line about it's disrespectful to the troops and veterans. I have expressed my opinions on the subject so I don't have any interest in litigating the validity or sincerity of that argument.
What disturbs me is how many folks I have actually heard and read who have said the anthem protests are an affront to God. One person actually said to me, "What those players are doing is disrespectful. Not standing up for the anthem is disrespecting God." 😐 This opinion is shared by many many folks.
So, let me get this straight. Kneeling for the national anthem is blasphemy to God. I didn't realize God was an American. All these years I thought he was the Lord for all people. My bad.
The antipathy and outrage sparked this absolutely silly meme, "I stand for the anthem; I kneel at the cross" as if the two are synonymous. They are not. Not to mention most of the people I saw posting that ridiculous meme don't do either unless an audience is around. Tell me I'm lying!
What I really don't get from Christians is when did Christianity and American patriotism (or what they think is patriotism) become one in the same? Many Canadians are Christians, so is it an affront to Jesus if everyone doesn't stand for the Canadian anthem? There are Kenyans who are Christians, so isn't offensive to not stand for the Kenyan anthem?
And, save your "this is a Christian nation" retort because the Constitution clearly states there is no national religion and every citizen has the right to religious freedom which includes choice of religion even if the choice is no religion.
Let us move along to a stance that is very perplexing to me and actually is a cornerstone of the anthem protest. The evangelical view on racism is mind numbing to me. Of course, every Christian says they abhor racism and love everyone. Many of those who say that are sincere and many are lying through their teeth.
I keep it real, so I am going to keep it real now. Many Christians often find themselves and historically have found themselves on the wrong side of racial issues.
I will not go into the entire slavery issue and how it's biggest most adamant proponents were Christians who repeatedly bastardized Bible verses to justify enslaving an entire group of people along with callously and amorally separating families from those groups on the regular. Family values tho......
Instead, I want to talk about more recent times like the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement was spearheaded by several Christians, but don't get it twisted. Just as many, if not more, Christians fervently opposed Civil Rights.
Evangelical heroes such as Jerry Falwell were avowed segregationists and racists. Others like Billy Graham said nothing. In fact it is only within the last 15 years or so the university Falwell founded, Liberty, allowed interracial dating. Needles to say, it's still frowned upon despite being "allowed". Heck, didn't even begin admitting students of color until 20 years after passage of the Civil Rights bill. Uh-huh.
And, right up to present day many Christians have a lukewarm, if not tepid, response to racial issues. Even if they firmly disagree with the NFL anthem protests they should acknowledge the root cause of the protests which is the unjustified killing of unarmed men of color. Instead they choose to either pretend the problem does not exist or they look the other way keeping in line with the right-wing ideology.
It says in the Gospels that Jesus was an advocate for the marginalized and disenfranchised and that we are supposed to emulate Christ. That doesn't seem to be happening.
Racism is a blatant sin. However, many Christians repeatedly use the Bible as justification for harboring racist beliefs and supporting bigots. They offer these specious arguments which, if I were to be generous, are vapid bullshit word salads.
It has always stunned me how a majority of the most ardent racists I know are Christians. They will use the Bible to justify their anti-interracial relationship stance in one breath but then say, "We are all God's children equal in his eyes." Well, if that's the case, then why the disdain for interracial relationships? Why display open hostility and aloofness toward anyone who looks different from you? C'mon. Put some effort in your bullshit, will ya?
Another example of evangelicals hypocrisy and selective choosing what they adhere to is the topic of homosexuality. Right off the bat the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. However, it doesn't say it is a sin worse than any other. Sin is sin.
But, while the Word of God does list homosexuality as a sin what it expressly does not do is give license to homosexuals being discriminated against or called derogatory names such as faggot, butt pirates and "mistakes". It most certainly does not give express permission for haughty indignant people to act holier than thou and judge them. "Do not judge lest ye be judged" is something someone once said. I think it was Tupac. Or maybe not.
Regardless, Jesus instructed us to "hate the sin" but love the sinner did He not? I'm sure many Christians will say, "That's exactly what you do." No, it isn't!
Advocating for blatant legalized discrimination and segregation of the LGBTQ community is in no way "loving them". If a Christian chooses to have nothing to do with a LGBTQ member because they can't condone their "lifestyle", fine. Not having anything to do with them doesn't seem very Christ-like but whatevs. However, it's categorically and indefensible wrong to believe and openly advocate for homosexuals to be allotted no civil rights and not be allowed to live their lives as guaranteed them under the United States Constitution. (The document some think Jesus himself wrote. 😐 Some of yo chirrhens, Lawd. I just don't know about 'em.)
I am fairly confident in saying it is antithetical to Christ's principles to ostracize and dehumanize them.
I'll refrain from embarking upon the obvious hypocrisies we see all the time. Ya know. People who are avowed proud homophobes who rail against homosexuality all the time. The people who get up in church on a Sunday morning with pious moral authority calling homosexuals an abomination to God when 12 hours earlier they were in a LaQuinta Inn with a dude named Precious. But, I digress.
Earlier I mentioned the Christian Right's foray into politics began in the early 1980s with Pat Robertson. But, if there was a spark that ignited the push into politics by evangelicals it was the abortion issue. Roe v Wade was and still is the rallying cry.
Needless to say, Christians are morally opposed to abortion. Several Bible verses can be cited to substantiate their moral objection. However, it can be easily argued there are other verses which advocate abortion in specific nuanced circumstances.
However, I am not interested in arguing the Biblical stances on abortion. What I am interested in is the evangelical stance.
The argument is women don't really have reproductive rights because once the baby is conceived it's a person. Science contradicts that assertion but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion. Because, from the majorly Christian perspective life begins at conception. The Bible is clear that the taking of innocent life is a sin. Thus, abortion is a sin.
But, what boggles my mind is they have no outrage over innocent people of color like Trayvon Martin being killed. They could care less about Philandre Castill or Tamir Rice being unjustly murdered. Now, if an illegal immigrant kills someone it is an unspeakable tragedy and something must be done immediately! An innocent black or brown person gets shot, "We send our thoughts and prayers."
The blatant hypocrisy just eludes them.
And, the other obvious infuriating hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is they're all about the "innocent" babies until those babies are born and then the attitude is essentially "eff 'em". They decidedly rail against any welfare or public safety net that would help the child and parents. The only solution they ever provide is "get a job" but they never offer suggestions on how, for example, a single mother is supposed to maintain a job and make sure her child is well supervised. Child care costs are ungodly and not everyone has a support system who is willing to help out. Everyone doesn't have a mother or sister or friend who can or is willing to watch the baby for free.
I won't even go into the plethora of children in the foster care and adoption system who desperately want to be in a good home but there aren't enough people available who are willing to take the children in.
It is sorta hard to hear rants about "pro-life" when it appears the entire mantra is subjective.
The most openly blatant hypocrisy is the very convenient moral standards employed to politicians. More than anything else this displays the utter political hackiness of the Christian Right as opposed to the moral ground they claim to stand upon.
I am old enough to remember when sexual indiscretions were automatic disqualifiers. Politicians are the leaders of the nation and must maintain some moral authority they would say. I would hear, "If they can't stay faithful to their wedding vows and exercise proper judgment, then how can we expect them to stay faithful to the laws of the land and be the country's moral compass."
These were the primary excuses used against Bill Clinton. They said his infidelity not only disrespected his wife (as if they gave a shit she was disrespected) but the country. And, what about the chirrhens? What kind of example is being set for the chirrhens? Ya know, it's always about the kids. *Eyes rolled all the way into the back of my head*
When John Edwards got caught dippin his North Carolina tar hell into the lake the moral majority howled. "Can't have an immoral man running the country." That was 11 years ago or so.
But, now under the current situation, the attitude isn't outrage or indignation. Oh, no no no! It is, "We need to give a mulligan." It is, "A man's indiscretions are between he and his wife." And, my personal fav, "He's just a man. None of us are infallible. Besides, those who judge will be judged. It's not your place to judge."
Are you shitting me? I mean they just took all the self-awareness and threw that bish in the trash compactor.
And, for those who realized how audaciously hypocritical and idiotic those "defenses" sounded they played the "It's about the Supreme Court and the transgenders" card. But, they now have the Supreme Court they want and transgender rights along with the rest of the LGBTQ community is being gutted almost daily. Yet, they have now adjoined the "So, he raw dogged some porn stars while his wife was at home with their infant son. What's your point" crowd.
Really unbelievable!
I am a Christian and I certainly don't live up to the standards Christ set as I should. However, I also do not hold myself out to be embodiment of Jesus as many of the Evangelical Right does.
Their political hackiness is evident despite their facade they are "just following the Bible". At best that argument is specious. At worst it's reprehensibly spurious.
Like I said in the beginning I am sure I will and have pissed some folks off. But, before you go all the way inside your feelings tell me where I am wrong. I want to be wrong, actually. But, looking at this empirically I am not.
The hypocrisy is blatant. And, I already know, it's all apart of God's plan. But, says who?
It seems quite curious to me how God only excuses GOP bad behavior. It's odd how God always seems side on the side of the far right.
What is really stupefying is that the Lord is always punishing the country for homosexuality, sexual "deviancy", no prayer in school, women dressing "slutty", and of course the election of Barack Obama but He has never nor never punishes the country for slavery, it's genocide of Native Americans, disenfranchising and marginalizing people based specifically on their skin color, refusal to help the poor, worshipping of money or blatant unabashed hypocrisy.
Isn't that peculiar?
Saturday, December 15, 2018
AOC Is A Clapback Boss While Chuck Schumer...Well, Is Not
The Democratic Party, both as a collective and individually, has many shortcomings. This is not a secret. But, no shortcoming is as apparent and frustrating as their inability or lack of desire to fight back against verbal attacks and political malevolence. As a progressive, it is one of the most infuriating and deflating characteristics.
Now, I will not front here. In the past (even the somewhat recent past) I have been as guilty of this as anyone. We liberal and progressive types tend to err on the side of pacifism and misguided civility. Democrats seem to possess an innate logic that the best way to respond to insults or verbal assaults or character assassination is by either ignoring the perpetrators or "killing them with kindness".
In theory the above responses seem appropriate. In a perfect world meanness and callousness could be adequately combated with kind words.
But, with some folks that simply will not work. Sometimes that shade has gotta be thrown. With some mofos they will only be put in their place if that clapback is put on their ass. Ya know what I mean.
Unfortunately, way too many Democrats and Lefties don't understand this or don't wanna accept it. Time after time Republicans, Conservatives and Alt-Right trolls will lie, spew half-truths and inject false and/or misleading narratives about Democrats and/or their policies. They do it because they know they'll receive little, if any, pushback. They know they can control the public discourse because Democrats and Progressives tend to cower or fear if they pushback substantially at all they will be labeled "uncivil" which, of course, is a bullshit label. As I have said before the "uncivil" charge is a jedi mind trick Conservatives play on Liberals to make them look weak. And, it usually works.
Democrats always take the bait, which allows them to be beat up and bloodied. So, they can take the spurious high road they allow themselves to be brow beaten and denigrated. Sadly, this causes some Dems to be feeble and feckless.
Speaking of feeble and feckless let me introduce one Charles E. Schumer, the U.S. Senate Minority Leader. The term "leader" is used in the loosest sense of the word.
Schumer is the prototype for what not to do when political enemies and antagonists attack.
Look, I acknowledge Schumer is definitional low hanging fruit. Political leaders are always easy fodder.
But, let's make no bones about this. As Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer FUCKING SUCKS!
The man has almost zero political skills or instincts. He has no backbone whatsoever. He will sell the Democrats or their political agenda down the river at the drop of a hat.
Remember, a year ago? DACA was on the table. The Democratic Party base made it clear the million or so DACA recipients had to receive citizenship before any federal budget was accepted. President Trump publicly berated Schumer over DACA and an impending government shutdown. The shutdown happened for a day or something. Schumer caved and no DACA deal was made.
Just this past Tuesday Schumer along with soon to be House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, met with Trump to discuss Trump's idiotic border wall and the federal budget. Trump decided to hold the trio's "discussion" about it in public. I am sure he thought he could embarrass Schumer and Pelosi publicly by doing his pseudo alpha male bullshit.
Well, it backfired with Pelosi and somewhat backfired with Schumer but not as much as the press played it up.
While Pelosi stood up to Trump, Schumer looked like a younger brother getting scolded by his older brother. Trump was spewing his usual bluster and lies about immigration and his "I need to make my penis look big" wall. To Trump's credit he was right in Schumer's space making his case. He challenged Schumer and was frankly confrontational without being threatening or menacing.
Now, this is Trump we're talking about so much of what he said was utter nonsense. But, he actually looked commanding with his pseudo alpha male facade.
So, did Schumer buck up back to him? Did he forcefully call him out on his bs? Nope. Chuckie was hunched over almost melting into the couch. He would barely make eye contact with Trump. He looked like a whipped dog, frankly. Well, like he always does. No bite. No fight.
Now, contrasting Schumer is the 29 year old congresswoman-elect from New York's 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
AOC, as her admirers and supporters call her which I am one, has been the target of ridicule, lies, smears and soft-core quasi misogyny and sexism ever since she upset long termed incumbent, Joe Crowley in the primaries. She has received criticism and heat from Democrats and Republicans.
AOC, who is a Democratic Socialist and will be the youngest member of Congress when she is sworn into office in January, has been the frequent target of Conservatives and Fox News especially. They really seemed obsessed with her. Conservative intellectual, Ben Shapiro, challenged her to a debate even though he wasn't her opponent in the general election. AOC refused saying she wouldn't be "catcalled", which sent Benjamin into a tizzy because a good Jewish Conservative like him would never be so crass as to solicit a woman.
Some tool from NewsMax, whose name escapes me and it doesn't really matter anyway, decided to play detective on Twitter and "expose" AOC as a fraud because she was not a simple struggling girl from the Bronx but was an Ivy League grad who grew up in Westchester, New York which is largely (but not totally) an affluent area. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted back informing this assclown she graduated from Boston University, which is not an Ivy League school, and she spent her "formative years" in Westchester when her mother decided the Bronx schools were inadequate. Her mother worked multiple jobs sacrificing so they could afford to live in Westchester. Their home, which I encourage you to see a picture of, was beyond modest and placed in one of the more middle class areas of Westchester.
This idea that Ocasio-Cortez is a fake populist is one Fox News and Conservatives have repeatedly attempted to push often falling flat on their faces. Of course, the hilarious irony these are the same people who support a self-proclaimed born into wealth billionaire who has never did a blue collar thing in his life, yet claims to be a blue collar populist , is not lost on me but it certainly is on them apparently.
AOC has received multiple attacks on her intelligence and youth.
A few weeks back she posted a tweet decrying Trump's treatment of migrants at the border citing the various times in history people have fled to America in an attempt to escape persecution and violence. Naturally, she used the Jews escaping the Holocaust as an example. This triggered South Carolina senator and newly volunteered Trump balls cleaner, Lindsey Graham, to tweet at AOC she should visit the Holocaust Museum and perhaps she is a little young and naive.
Again, the lack of awareness and the overwhelming irony is hilarious. The President literally coddles white supremacy and is an apologists for Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists.
Ocasio-Cortez responded by first tweeting, "I heard your "joke" about ethnic DNA preferences last month. Perhaps, you would enjoy a visit (or revisit) to the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture." She was referring to Graham's racist comment on Fox and Friends where he said, "It would be like terrible if a DNA test revealed he has Iranian ancestry." No response was given.
It was an excellent retort. She called out his racism while not personally attacking him. She used his own words against him. And, she used the same condescending tone to him he used towards her. Thus, why there was no response. Shade had been thrown and Graham knew it was a battle he'd lost.
Just a couple of weeks ago Washington Examiner "reporter", Eddie Scarry, tweeted out a pic of the back of AOC as she was walking down a hall. Scarry used the pic to point out her jacket saying something to the effect she doesn't look like she's a struggling girl from the Bronx.
On its face the pic was somewhat creepy and the implication was just stupid. But, if you dig into Scarry's pension to take secret pics of women it is really creepy. Not to mention his implication that AOC is a fraud was just idiotic because you could not tell how expensive the jacket was or wasn't from the pic. It was a plain back suit jacket with no visible label or markings.
Once again, Ocasio-Cortez displayed the correct way to fight back. She didn't stay silent nor did she start trippin with accusations of lewdness, which she would have been well in her right to do.
First, she tweeted that she was grateful Scarry thought her jacket was designer clothing. She said it made her feel good her thrift store shopping skills were on point. (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)
Then, she became a bit more serious by pointing out how revealing it was the Right focuses so much attention not only on her but her clothing apparel. Also, she said it was not lost on her how obsessed some on the Right seem to be with her backside, and it was a bit odd for people to be lurking in the halls of Congress taking pics of her.
Scarry deleted the tweet afterwards and provided some absolutely asinine defense that he was simply "complementing" her. No, he was not. He was backtracking because the queen of political shade was exhibiting her skills yet again.
Another example of AOC fighting back the right way is last week when Mike Huckabee attacked her. Ocasio-Cortez had said that what she, Rashida Tlaib, Ayonna Pressley and the other Congressional Progressive women of color had achieved by winning their elections was historical. She listed a plethora of events that people said could not happen but did. She included the moon landing. Of course, she was not comparing her election to the moon landing but was simply illustrating what people say is impossible is possible.
Any intelligent human being could easily see this.
Well, here came Mike Huckabee. His Twitter finger got itchy. He decided to fire off a tweet basically calling her stupid. He totally took what she said out of context. Then, he decided to be a comedian saying AOC comparing her election win to the lunar landing was "looney".
Oh, Michael, you funny summabitch, you. You are as good a comedian as you were a governor or a preacher. Bruh, stick to your day job of being a crypto white nationalist and hiding your head in shame you produced Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Speaking of 'ol Smokey Eye, Ocasio-Cortez mentioned her as she retorted beautifully to Mike Huckabee. AOC tweeted at him to stop lying on her and leave the lying up to Sarah Huckabee Sanders "because she is better at it". Next, she asked Huckabee, "Why do call yourself 'governor'? You haven't been a governor for 10 years."
Oh, snap! Someone needs to check on Mikey to see if he got back up from that clapback!
Again! AOC went for the jugular without being overly mean or nasty. She simply used facts and intellect which we know to right-wingers like Huckabee are like sunlight to vampires or the truth to Donald Trump.
Needless to say, no response was forthcoming from Huckabee.
Democrats and Lefties must emulate AOC and stop acting like Schumer. It is just a fact Republicans fight dirty. They will say whatever they have feel they must to control the narrative. Facts and truth are but mere inconveniences. And, this is why they seem to always have a public perception of being strong while Dems are seen as docile and feckless.
Now, don't take what I am saying out of context like I am quite sure some will. I am not saying Democrats and Progressives should start lying, telling half-truths, making false equivalencies and conducting repugnant smear jobs. Leave that to the experts.
What I am saying is when attacked defend yourself and/or your position by going on offense. Do not just take shit and cower in the corner in the name of civility or because you are just being weak. Come out swinging. Take it to the bullies but not with rancor, venom, demonizing and certainly not violence. Go at them with facts, empirical evidence, wit, sarcasm and humor. You don't need to be cruel but be fierce and unyielding.
The Left must do what the Right does, which is stand up for their principles, convictions and policies. The Queen of Political Shade, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, has provided us a template. When she's attacked and maligned she fights back with intellect, facts and humor which quality "sit yo ass down" shade consists.
Doing the Chuck Schumer/Hillary Clinton thing of taking the high road hasn't worked and isn't going to work in this current political climate. I adore Michelle Obama but she's wrong when she says if they go low, we go high unless she means slap 'em in their teeth. Of course, I'm speaking figuratively.
Honestly, what makes Republicans appear strong is they fight. They are not interested in fighting fair. They just fight. Frankly, it's admirable.
Democrats better begin doing the same shit. People like AOC understand this.
President Obama made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. None, perhaps, so egregious as his overarching affinity to capitulate to the Conservatives in the name of bipartisanship despite Conservatives spitting in his face every time. But, one thing he did that made them hate him was his innate ability to throw shade at them in a manner they were intellectually ill-equipped to respond.
I have never seen anyone else be able to do that until AOC. She gets under their skin the same way Obama does.
Yes, like with Obama, the obvious reasons exist for why that is. But, also like Obama, it's because they fear her.
We need to give them cause to fear us too.
Now, I will not front here. In the past (even the somewhat recent past) I have been as guilty of this as anyone. We liberal and progressive types tend to err on the side of pacifism and misguided civility. Democrats seem to possess an innate logic that the best way to respond to insults or verbal assaults or character assassination is by either ignoring the perpetrators or "killing them with kindness".
In theory the above responses seem appropriate. In a perfect world meanness and callousness could be adequately combated with kind words.
But, with some folks that simply will not work. Sometimes that shade has gotta be thrown. With some mofos they will only be put in their place if that clapback is put on their ass. Ya know what I mean.
Unfortunately, way too many Democrats and Lefties don't understand this or don't wanna accept it. Time after time Republicans, Conservatives and Alt-Right trolls will lie, spew half-truths and inject false and/or misleading narratives about Democrats and/or their policies. They do it because they know they'll receive little, if any, pushback. They know they can control the public discourse because Democrats and Progressives tend to cower or fear if they pushback substantially at all they will be labeled "uncivil" which, of course, is a bullshit label. As I have said before the "uncivil" charge is a jedi mind trick Conservatives play on Liberals to make them look weak. And, it usually works.
Democrats always take the bait, which allows them to be beat up and bloodied. So, they can take the spurious high road they allow themselves to be brow beaten and denigrated. Sadly, this causes some Dems to be feeble and feckless.
Speaking of feeble and feckless let me introduce one Charles E. Schumer, the U.S. Senate Minority Leader. The term "leader" is used in the loosest sense of the word.
Schumer is the prototype for what not to do when political enemies and antagonists attack.
Look, I acknowledge Schumer is definitional low hanging fruit. Political leaders are always easy fodder.
But, let's make no bones about this. As Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer FUCKING SUCKS!
The man has almost zero political skills or instincts. He has no backbone whatsoever. He will sell the Democrats or their political agenda down the river at the drop of a hat.
Remember, a year ago? DACA was on the table. The Democratic Party base made it clear the million or so DACA recipients had to receive citizenship before any federal budget was accepted. President Trump publicly berated Schumer over DACA and an impending government shutdown. The shutdown happened for a day or something. Schumer caved and no DACA deal was made.
Just this past Tuesday Schumer along with soon to be House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, met with Trump to discuss Trump's idiotic border wall and the federal budget. Trump decided to hold the trio's "discussion" about it in public. I am sure he thought he could embarrass Schumer and Pelosi publicly by doing his pseudo alpha male bullshit.
Well, it backfired with Pelosi and somewhat backfired with Schumer but not as much as the press played it up.
While Pelosi stood up to Trump, Schumer looked like a younger brother getting scolded by his older brother. Trump was spewing his usual bluster and lies about immigration and his "I need to make my penis look big" wall. To Trump's credit he was right in Schumer's space making his case. He challenged Schumer and was frankly confrontational without being threatening or menacing.
Now, this is Trump we're talking about so much of what he said was utter nonsense. But, he actually looked commanding with his pseudo alpha male facade.
So, did Schumer buck up back to him? Did he forcefully call him out on his bs? Nope. Chuckie was hunched over almost melting into the couch. He would barely make eye contact with Trump. He looked like a whipped dog, frankly. Well, like he always does. No bite. No fight.
Now, contrasting Schumer is the 29 year old congresswoman-elect from New York's 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
AOC, as her admirers and supporters call her which I am one, has been the target of ridicule, lies, smears and soft-core quasi misogyny and sexism ever since she upset long termed incumbent, Joe Crowley in the primaries. She has received criticism and heat from Democrats and Republicans.
AOC, who is a Democratic Socialist and will be the youngest member of Congress when she is sworn into office in January, has been the frequent target of Conservatives and Fox News especially. They really seemed obsessed with her. Conservative intellectual, Ben Shapiro, challenged her to a debate even though he wasn't her opponent in the general election. AOC refused saying she wouldn't be "catcalled", which sent Benjamin into a tizzy because a good Jewish Conservative like him would never be so crass as to solicit a woman.
Some tool from NewsMax, whose name escapes me and it doesn't really matter anyway, decided to play detective on Twitter and "expose" AOC as a fraud because she was not a simple struggling girl from the Bronx but was an Ivy League grad who grew up in Westchester, New York which is largely (but not totally) an affluent area. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted back informing this assclown she graduated from Boston University, which is not an Ivy League school, and she spent her "formative years" in Westchester when her mother decided the Bronx schools were inadequate. Her mother worked multiple jobs sacrificing so they could afford to live in Westchester. Their home, which I encourage you to see a picture of, was beyond modest and placed in one of the more middle class areas of Westchester.
This idea that Ocasio-Cortez is a fake populist is one Fox News and Conservatives have repeatedly attempted to push often falling flat on their faces. Of course, the hilarious irony these are the same people who support a self-proclaimed born into wealth billionaire who has never did a blue collar thing in his life, yet claims to be a blue collar populist , is not lost on me but it certainly is on them apparently.
AOC has received multiple attacks on her intelligence and youth.
A few weeks back she posted a tweet decrying Trump's treatment of migrants at the border citing the various times in history people have fled to America in an attempt to escape persecution and violence. Naturally, she used the Jews escaping the Holocaust as an example. This triggered South Carolina senator and newly volunteered Trump balls cleaner, Lindsey Graham, to tweet at AOC she should visit the Holocaust Museum and perhaps she is a little young and naive.
Again, the lack of awareness and the overwhelming irony is hilarious. The President literally coddles white supremacy and is an apologists for Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists.
Ocasio-Cortez responded by first tweeting, "I heard your "joke" about ethnic DNA preferences last month. Perhaps, you would enjoy a visit (or revisit) to the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture." She was referring to Graham's racist comment on Fox and Friends where he said, "It would be like terrible if a DNA test revealed he has Iranian ancestry." No response was given.
It was an excellent retort. She called out his racism while not personally attacking him. She used his own words against him. And, she used the same condescending tone to him he used towards her. Thus, why there was no response. Shade had been thrown and Graham knew it was a battle he'd lost.
Just a couple of weeks ago Washington Examiner "reporter", Eddie Scarry, tweeted out a pic of the back of AOC as she was walking down a hall. Scarry used the pic to point out her jacket saying something to the effect she doesn't look like she's a struggling girl from the Bronx.
On its face the pic was somewhat creepy and the implication was just stupid. But, if you dig into Scarry's pension to take secret pics of women it is really creepy. Not to mention his implication that AOC is a fraud was just idiotic because you could not tell how expensive the jacket was or wasn't from the pic. It was a plain back suit jacket with no visible label or markings.
Once again, Ocasio-Cortez displayed the correct way to fight back. She didn't stay silent nor did she start trippin with accusations of lewdness, which she would have been well in her right to do.
First, she tweeted that she was grateful Scarry thought her jacket was designer clothing. She said it made her feel good her thrift store shopping skills were on point. (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)
Then, she became a bit more serious by pointing out how revealing it was the Right focuses so much attention not only on her but her clothing apparel. Also, she said it was not lost on her how obsessed some on the Right seem to be with her backside, and it was a bit odd for people to be lurking in the halls of Congress taking pics of her.
Scarry deleted the tweet afterwards and provided some absolutely asinine defense that he was simply "complementing" her. No, he was not. He was backtracking because the queen of political shade was exhibiting her skills yet again.
Another example of AOC fighting back the right way is last week when Mike Huckabee attacked her. Ocasio-Cortez had said that what she, Rashida Tlaib, Ayonna Pressley and the other Congressional Progressive women of color had achieved by winning their elections was historical. She listed a plethora of events that people said could not happen but did. She included the moon landing. Of course, she was not comparing her election to the moon landing but was simply illustrating what people say is impossible is possible.
Any intelligent human being could easily see this.
Well, here came Mike Huckabee. His Twitter finger got itchy. He decided to fire off a tweet basically calling her stupid. He totally took what she said out of context. Then, he decided to be a comedian saying AOC comparing her election win to the lunar landing was "looney".
Oh, Michael, you funny summabitch, you. You are as good a comedian as you were a governor or a preacher. Bruh, stick to your day job of being a crypto white nationalist and hiding your head in shame you produced Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Speaking of 'ol Smokey Eye, Ocasio-Cortez mentioned her as she retorted beautifully to Mike Huckabee. AOC tweeted at him to stop lying on her and leave the lying up to Sarah Huckabee Sanders "because she is better at it". Next, she asked Huckabee, "Why do call yourself 'governor'? You haven't been a governor for 10 years."
Oh, snap! Someone needs to check on Mikey to see if he got back up from that clapback!
Again! AOC went for the jugular without being overly mean or nasty. She simply used facts and intellect which we know to right-wingers like Huckabee are like sunlight to vampires or the truth to Donald Trump.
Needless to say, no response was forthcoming from Huckabee.
Democrats and Lefties must emulate AOC and stop acting like Schumer. It is just a fact Republicans fight dirty. They will say whatever they have feel they must to control the narrative. Facts and truth are but mere inconveniences. And, this is why they seem to always have a public perception of being strong while Dems are seen as docile and feckless.
Now, don't take what I am saying out of context like I am quite sure some will. I am not saying Democrats and Progressives should start lying, telling half-truths, making false equivalencies and conducting repugnant smear jobs. Leave that to the experts.
What I am saying is when attacked defend yourself and/or your position by going on offense. Do not just take shit and cower in the corner in the name of civility or because you are just being weak. Come out swinging. Take it to the bullies but not with rancor, venom, demonizing and certainly not violence. Go at them with facts, empirical evidence, wit, sarcasm and humor. You don't need to be cruel but be fierce and unyielding.
The Left must do what the Right does, which is stand up for their principles, convictions and policies. The Queen of Political Shade, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, has provided us a template. When she's attacked and maligned she fights back with intellect, facts and humor which quality "sit yo ass down" shade consists.
Doing the Chuck Schumer/Hillary Clinton thing of taking the high road hasn't worked and isn't going to work in this current political climate. I adore Michelle Obama but she's wrong when she says if they go low, we go high unless she means slap 'em in their teeth. Of course, I'm speaking figuratively.
Honestly, what makes Republicans appear strong is they fight. They are not interested in fighting fair. They just fight. Frankly, it's admirable.
Democrats better begin doing the same shit. People like AOC understand this.
President Obama made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. None, perhaps, so egregious as his overarching affinity to capitulate to the Conservatives in the name of bipartisanship despite Conservatives spitting in his face every time. But, one thing he did that made them hate him was his innate ability to throw shade at them in a manner they were intellectually ill-equipped to respond.
I have never seen anyone else be able to do that until AOC. She gets under their skin the same way Obama does.
Yes, like with Obama, the obvious reasons exist for why that is. But, also like Obama, it's because they fear her.
We need to give them cause to fear us too.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Sweet Baby Jesus! Paulie Walnuts Is Our President
Anyone who is a fan of The Sopranos, whether they be a casual one or a superfan, knows all of the characters are on the surface stereotypical mob figures. Excuse me, I mean waste management. Everyone knows there is no such thing as the mob. Anyway, fans also know that every character has more complexity than the initial cursory impression.
Naturally, the show characters are flawed. Of course, they would have to be because balanced people don't walk around killing people and sawing bodies up so they can be easily exposed. Well adjusted people tend to not live life on the edge of either imprisonment or death when there are no logical reasons to do so. Normal people don't see everything and everyone (including family) as transactional.
Perhaps, the most must see character on The Sopranos (besides maybe Tony Soprano) was Paulie Walnuts. Paulie was one of Tony's most trusted lieutenants, but was also his most frustrating one.
The other night I was watching The Michael Brooks Show podcast. Michael and comedian, Mike Reccine, were discussing The Sopranos and Paulie Walnuts came up. They were saying how Paulie was the most captivating character on the show because he was a scumbag, amoral and an idiot. But, on one level he was too stupid to realize the depths of his stupidity while on another level he was aware he was intellectually lacking which made him transparently insecure.
As I sat there listening to them reminisce about all of Paulie's treacherous and idiotic moments it hit me. I had an epiphany. The President of the United States is Paulie Walnuts.
Yes, Donald Trump (the wannabe gangster) is the real life equivalent of Paulie.
Hear me out on this.
Paulie was a cruel dude who lacked much of a moral compass. He was essentially a sociopath. Walnuts often lacked empathy unless it was toward Tony or someone/something he saw him in.
Trump can be cruel. Look at his migrant child separation policy. Trump gave military personnel at the southern border the orders shoot to kill any migrants who threw rocks.
Trump has an inability to exhibit empathy. All you have to do is think about the numerous times he was supposed to comfort hurricane victims; yet, he couldn't help but make it about him. Remember, the phone call to the widow of the fallen soldier in Niger. Trump all but said to her, "Shit happens."
Paulie Walnuts was always cracking jokes. He would always seek an opportunity to belittle someone. Especially if it were somebody he was jealous of or felt inferior to.
Trump is the personification of this. He really thinks he is a comedian. Some of his reasons for believing that is because his cult followers laugh at the things he says. The truth is he is sorta funny in a twisted way. If you look through the lens of he is a parody of a bad lounge comic then he is amusing. However, when you realize he is not a bad lounge performer but the President of the United States with the responsibility of millions of lives he is not funny at all.
Paulie would belittle people or mock them because he was insecure. Paulie always seemed envious of Sil. Sil was Tony's boy. That's because Sil was competent and loyal.
Now, take Trump's mocking of people. His endless attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not strictly because of his opposition to their ideology as his supporters would like to believe or convince themselves is the case. He attacks them because he is jealous of them and their intellect. Much in the same way it always ate at Paulie how beloved Sil was it eats at Trump the affinity people have towards Obama.
In fact, it is no secret Trump becomes jealous of anyone who gets more attention than he does. It was well reported how pissed he became at the attention John McCain received in the aftermath of his death. It was also reported Trump became the same way recently after President George H.W. Bush's death. Just petty, petty, petty.
Another commonality between the two is the pension for self-aggrandizement, tackiness and ostentatiousness. If you are familiar with Paulie Walnuts, you are familiar with the hair. Walnuts trademark was his black dye job on top with the gray on the sides hairdo. He looked like a tacky skunk.
Paulie was also known for his flashy Cadillacs and overtly "gangsta" suits. Everything about him was "look at me". He loved to brag on himself and his possessions. Paulie believed these things spoke to his greatness although most people saw him as an obnoxious douchebag. He was an obnoxious douchebag.
Well, Trump's trademark is that ridiculous hair. You know the 'do with it's odd chameleon like ability to alternate between orangutan orange and bad dye job blonde. Trump doesn't drive Caddies but he does love a golf cart. But, his ostentatiousness is displayed in gold plated shitters and six foot tall portraits of himself. Instead of "look at me" suits Trump litters the walls of his golf resorts and homes with framed fake Time magazine covers. He is famous for calling media publications pretending to be publicist, John Baron, spinning tales of how women were falling over themselves to be with him and that he is the most virile of men with "huge" sexual potency. (Gawd! This dude is pathetic.) Too bad Stormy Daniels "mushroomed" that narrative and nobody came to Trump's defense. Sad.
Perhaps, where Paulie and Donnie have the most synergy is their Dunning-Krueger. Paulie definitely thought he put the "wise" in wise guy. Paulie thought he was extremely intelligent despite his constant screwups. Walnuts had zero awareness.
Now, if that doesn't sound like our favorite tweeting word misspelling President I don't know what does.
Trump is famous for proudly not being well read. He is famous for acting like he is the smartest person in the room when he isn't even the smartest person in the room when he is the only person in the room.
Trump has a reputation for being a business genius, which is really one of the world's great mysteries. The man filed bankruptcy six times. He ran a casino into the ground. I mean who does that? That is the equivalent of going broke selling ice water in hell.
He possesses little knowledge about science, math, grammar or history. He once justified placing tariffs on Canada to Canadian President Justin Trudea by claiming he was extracting revenge for the War of 1812 except Canada wasn't even a thing until the 1860s. Up until February of 2017 he thought Frederick Douglass was still alive. Hell, I'm still not sure he knows he's dead. The man believes a plane can actually be invisible.
It is astounding and depressing that Paulie Walnuts is essentially the leader of the free world.
Trump thinks he is a mobster. He runs Trump Organization like it's a crime family. He is doing his best to run the country the same way.
He values one way loyalty over competency and intelligence. He believes he, like a mob boss, should have unilateral decision making. Anyone who is not loyal to the boss deserves to be "whacked". For now, this is in the figurative sense. Although his looking the other way on the Saudis murder of Jamal Khashoggi screamed Sopranos.
Paulie Walnuts was a captivating figure. He was even a likeable figure until you realized he was a piece of shit. Paulie was amoral, which led to him being heartless. He was cursory and vapid, which led to him being myopic and shortsighted. Paulie, while having some street smarts, was intellectually lacking and possessed little if any critical thinking, which often led to him making incompetent decisions. Paulie was more concerned with style than substance, which frequently led him to looking foolish and ridiculous and being humiliated.
Of course, Paulie didn't realize nor understand any of this because he lacked self-awareness. He, instead, wallowed in paranoia, self-pity and a belief everyone including the universe was out to get him.
Sounds like Don The Con doesn't it.
Naturally, the show characters are flawed. Of course, they would have to be because balanced people don't walk around killing people and sawing bodies up so they can be easily exposed. Well adjusted people tend to not live life on the edge of either imprisonment or death when there are no logical reasons to do so. Normal people don't see everything and everyone (including family) as transactional.
Perhaps, the most must see character on The Sopranos (besides maybe Tony Soprano) was Paulie Walnuts. Paulie was one of Tony's most trusted lieutenants, but was also his most frustrating one.
The other night I was watching The Michael Brooks Show podcast. Michael and comedian, Mike Reccine, were discussing The Sopranos and Paulie Walnuts came up. They were saying how Paulie was the most captivating character on the show because he was a scumbag, amoral and an idiot. But, on one level he was too stupid to realize the depths of his stupidity while on another level he was aware he was intellectually lacking which made him transparently insecure.
As I sat there listening to them reminisce about all of Paulie's treacherous and idiotic moments it hit me. I had an epiphany. The President of the United States is Paulie Walnuts.
Yes, Donald Trump (the wannabe gangster) is the real life equivalent of Paulie.
Hear me out on this.
Paulie was a cruel dude who lacked much of a moral compass. He was essentially a sociopath. Walnuts often lacked empathy unless it was toward Tony or someone/something he saw him in.
Trump can be cruel. Look at his migrant child separation policy. Trump gave military personnel at the southern border the orders shoot to kill any migrants who threw rocks.
Trump has an inability to exhibit empathy. All you have to do is think about the numerous times he was supposed to comfort hurricane victims; yet, he couldn't help but make it about him. Remember, the phone call to the widow of the fallen soldier in Niger. Trump all but said to her, "Shit happens."
Paulie Walnuts was always cracking jokes. He would always seek an opportunity to belittle someone. Especially if it were somebody he was jealous of or felt inferior to.
Trump is the personification of this. He really thinks he is a comedian. Some of his reasons for believing that is because his cult followers laugh at the things he says. The truth is he is sorta funny in a twisted way. If you look through the lens of he is a parody of a bad lounge comic then he is amusing. However, when you realize he is not a bad lounge performer but the President of the United States with the responsibility of millions of lives he is not funny at all.
Paulie would belittle people or mock them because he was insecure. Paulie always seemed envious of Sil. Sil was Tony's boy. That's because Sil was competent and loyal.
Now, take Trump's mocking of people. His endless attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not strictly because of his opposition to their ideology as his supporters would like to believe or convince themselves is the case. He attacks them because he is jealous of them and their intellect. Much in the same way it always ate at Paulie how beloved Sil was it eats at Trump the affinity people have towards Obama.
In fact, it is no secret Trump becomes jealous of anyone who gets more attention than he does. It was well reported how pissed he became at the attention John McCain received in the aftermath of his death. It was also reported Trump became the same way recently after President George H.W. Bush's death. Just petty, petty, petty.
Another commonality between the two is the pension for self-aggrandizement, tackiness and ostentatiousness. If you are familiar with Paulie Walnuts, you are familiar with the hair. Walnuts trademark was his black dye job on top with the gray on the sides hairdo. He looked like a tacky skunk.
Paulie was also known for his flashy Cadillacs and overtly "gangsta" suits. Everything about him was "look at me". He loved to brag on himself and his possessions. Paulie believed these things spoke to his greatness although most people saw him as an obnoxious douchebag. He was an obnoxious douchebag.
Well, Trump's trademark is that ridiculous hair. You know the 'do with it's odd chameleon like ability to alternate between orangutan orange and bad dye job blonde. Trump doesn't drive Caddies but he does love a golf cart. But, his ostentatiousness is displayed in gold plated shitters and six foot tall portraits of himself. Instead of "look at me" suits Trump litters the walls of his golf resorts and homes with framed fake Time magazine covers. He is famous for calling media publications pretending to be publicist, John Baron, spinning tales of how women were falling over themselves to be with him and that he is the most virile of men with "huge" sexual potency. (Gawd! This dude is pathetic.) Too bad Stormy Daniels "mushroomed" that narrative and nobody came to Trump's defense. Sad.
Perhaps, where Paulie and Donnie have the most synergy is their Dunning-Krueger. Paulie definitely thought he put the "wise" in wise guy. Paulie thought he was extremely intelligent despite his constant screwups. Walnuts had zero awareness.
Now, if that doesn't sound like our favorite tweeting word misspelling President I don't know what does.
Trump is famous for proudly not being well read. He is famous for acting like he is the smartest person in the room when he isn't even the smartest person in the room when he is the only person in the room.
Trump has a reputation for being a business genius, which is really one of the world's great mysteries. The man filed bankruptcy six times. He ran a casino into the ground. I mean who does that? That is the equivalent of going broke selling ice water in hell.
He possesses little knowledge about science, math, grammar or history. He once justified placing tariffs on Canada to Canadian President Justin Trudea by claiming he was extracting revenge for the War of 1812 except Canada wasn't even a thing until the 1860s. Up until February of 2017 he thought Frederick Douglass was still alive. Hell, I'm still not sure he knows he's dead. The man believes a plane can actually be invisible.
It is astounding and depressing that Paulie Walnuts is essentially the leader of the free world.
Trump thinks he is a mobster. He runs Trump Organization like it's a crime family. He is doing his best to run the country the same way.
He values one way loyalty over competency and intelligence. He believes he, like a mob boss, should have unilateral decision making. Anyone who is not loyal to the boss deserves to be "whacked". For now, this is in the figurative sense. Although his looking the other way on the Saudis murder of Jamal Khashoggi screamed Sopranos.
Paulie Walnuts was a captivating figure. He was even a likeable figure until you realized he was a piece of shit. Paulie was amoral, which led to him being heartless. He was cursory and vapid, which led to him being myopic and shortsighted. Paulie, while having some street smarts, was intellectually lacking and possessed little if any critical thinking, which often led to him making incompetent decisions. Paulie was more concerned with style than substance, which frequently led him to looking foolish and ridiculous and being humiliated.
Of course, Paulie didn't realize nor understand any of this because he lacked self-awareness. He, instead, wallowed in paranoia, self-pity and a belief everyone including the universe was out to get him.
Sounds like Don The Con doesn't it.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
"Y'all think everything is racist." (The New Bigot Strawman)
"Ya know not everything is racist", says the bigot or bigot sympathizer.
"You think everything is racist. Not everything has to be racist. Some things are just innocent humor or slips of the tongue", says crypto-racists.
These are real quotes. They are repetitive quotes. They are the quotes hard-core racists, soft-core racists, crypto-racists and racists sympathizers employ every day to excuse or minimize theirs and/or others racist statements and actions.
The truth is, no, I nor most racial diversity embracing people think everything is racist. We believe racist words and actions are racist.
The "You think everything is racist" response is a strawman. Usually, it is a non-denial denial. It is a weak attempt at deflection and getting those who are calling out racism to chase a red herring. I say it's weak, but actually it works too often, unfortunately.
A recent example is the Florida gubernatorial race. The day after the primaries Republican nominee (and eventual governor-elect), Ron DeSantis said during an interview on Fox News Floridians should not vote for Democratic nominee, Andrew Gillium (who is African-America), because they couldn't risk "monkeying up" the so-called "progress" that had been made under current governor and now senate-elect, Rick Scott.
The comment immediately sparked a public relations firestorm. Almost immediately Fox News issued a statement condemning the comment. Other Republicans, including Scott, distanced themselves from the controversy spewing the usual cursory bullshit about how they don't condone racially insensitive language and yada yada. Although, of course, they do. But, I digress.
DeSantis, however, didn't apologize nor back down. He and his campaign said the comment was innocent and not racist whatsoever. They pushed back against the narrative it was racist by saying the Democrats and mainstream media make everything about race. They contended the phrase was a common idiom.
But, "monkeying up" is not a common idiom. In fact, it's not even a phrase. "Monkeying around" is but even if he meant that the phrase had no place within the context of the sentence. Not to mention considering the dynamics he should have known better than to use such a phrase.
Of course, that is if you were to provide him a liberal benefit of the doubt, which I do not. DeSantis knew exactly what he was saying and so did his supporters.
However, employing the strawman "not everything is racist" was meant to put those correctly calling out racism on the defensive. Get inside their heads, so to speak. And, it offers a perfunctory plausible deniability.
We actually see this strategy instituted often. Donald Trump consistently says things that are at the very least racist in nature, if not flatly racist. Yet, after almost every time he says something racist his supporters and sycophants inherently respond by clutching their pearls. Then, they slip into full snowflake mode with "You Libs think everything is racist."
Again, no, just racist ish is racist.
Sadly, this strawman does work sometimes. First, as with most strawman and generalizing statements there is a grain (albeit usually a minutely small) of truth to counteraccusation. We all know those people who see racism, sexism, ect in everything. The amount of those people is usually quite small but for the purposes of a deflector they're enough.
Second, people become self-conscious and off-balanced when having this nonsense thrown at them. I have certainly been guilty of this. "Maybe I did read too much into her comment about a tendency of the urban demographic to possess a less instinctive ability to be well read. Perhaps, by urban" she meant 'people who attended more metropolitan schools'. Of course, when I took offense she didn't clarify herself by saying that. She said, 'You know it's true. You have to stop thinking everything is littered with racist connotations.'"
Some people, such as the example above which was an actual conversation I once had, are very astute at this game. They always give themselves or those they are defending wiggle room for plausible deniability and just enough cause to make you seem overly sensitive or too social justice warrior like. It can actually be an admirable albeit distasteful skill.
The way to combat this is to turn the tables back around. If someone says something racist and this is pointed out to them, their response (given they truly intended no malice) should be to ask why what they said was racist or do some retrospection on what they said. If the innate response is to put you on the defensive or make themselves the victim, then you probably should have a good idea the intent behind the comment or action or what they believe was the intent if they are defending someone else.
Remember, a non-denial is not a denial.
It is an innate human response to become defensive when accused of something you don't feel you did or feel your intent has been misunderstood or maligned.
It is also a innate human response to become defensive and deflective and accusatory when you have been correctly accused of something you said or did.
A common ploy of racist and their sympathizers is to always flip it over on you so they don't have to actually confront what they are accurately being accused of because they don't have a defense. It is extremely similar to the person who has been confronted by their significant other accusing them of cheating.
A truly innocent person denies it and then demands proof and seeks to know why their love thinks they are cheating. The person who's been creepin responds, "No! Why do you think everyone cheats? Not everyone cheats. Maybe it's you who is the cheater. People who always think everyone is cheating is the actual cheater."
See, the non-denial. See, the flipping it around. See, the strawman and grain of truth about people who always think everyone is cheating is the cheater.
But, they aren't talking about everyone cheating. They are specifically talking about them. And, nowhere in that rambling was a denial or request for proof. Why? They know the other person knows what time it is.
The same applies to the "not everything is racist" crowd.
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
"You think everything is racist. Not everything has to be racist. Some things are just innocent humor or slips of the tongue", says crypto-racists.
These are real quotes. They are repetitive quotes. They are the quotes hard-core racists, soft-core racists, crypto-racists and racists sympathizers employ every day to excuse or minimize theirs and/or others racist statements and actions.
The truth is, no, I nor most racial diversity embracing people think everything is racist. We believe racist words and actions are racist.
The "You think everything is racist" response is a strawman. Usually, it is a non-denial denial. It is a weak attempt at deflection and getting those who are calling out racism to chase a red herring. I say it's weak, but actually it works too often, unfortunately.
A recent example is the Florida gubernatorial race. The day after the primaries Republican nominee (and eventual governor-elect), Ron DeSantis said during an interview on Fox News Floridians should not vote for Democratic nominee, Andrew Gillium (who is African-America), because they couldn't risk "monkeying up" the so-called "progress" that had been made under current governor and now senate-elect, Rick Scott.
The comment immediately sparked a public relations firestorm. Almost immediately Fox News issued a statement condemning the comment. Other Republicans, including Scott, distanced themselves from the controversy spewing the usual cursory bullshit about how they don't condone racially insensitive language and yada yada. Although, of course, they do. But, I digress.
DeSantis, however, didn't apologize nor back down. He and his campaign said the comment was innocent and not racist whatsoever. They pushed back against the narrative it was racist by saying the Democrats and mainstream media make everything about race. They contended the phrase was a common idiom.
But, "monkeying up" is not a common idiom. In fact, it's not even a phrase. "Monkeying around" is but even if he meant that the phrase had no place within the context of the sentence. Not to mention considering the dynamics he should have known better than to use such a phrase.
Of course, that is if you were to provide him a liberal benefit of the doubt, which I do not. DeSantis knew exactly what he was saying and so did his supporters.
However, employing the strawman "not everything is racist" was meant to put those correctly calling out racism on the defensive. Get inside their heads, so to speak. And, it offers a perfunctory plausible deniability.
We actually see this strategy instituted often. Donald Trump consistently says things that are at the very least racist in nature, if not flatly racist. Yet, after almost every time he says something racist his supporters and sycophants inherently respond by clutching their pearls. Then, they slip into full snowflake mode with "You Libs think everything is racist."
Again, no, just racist ish is racist.
Sadly, this strawman does work sometimes. First, as with most strawman and generalizing statements there is a grain (albeit usually a minutely small) of truth to counteraccusation. We all know those people who see racism, sexism, ect in everything. The amount of those people is usually quite small but for the purposes of a deflector they're enough.
Second, people become self-conscious and off-balanced when having this nonsense thrown at them. I have certainly been guilty of this. "Maybe I did read too much into her comment about a tendency of the urban demographic to possess a less instinctive ability to be well read. Perhaps, by urban" she meant 'people who attended more metropolitan schools'. Of course, when I took offense she didn't clarify herself by saying that. She said, 'You know it's true. You have to stop thinking everything is littered with racist connotations.'"
Some people, such as the example above which was an actual conversation I once had, are very astute at this game. They always give themselves or those they are defending wiggle room for plausible deniability and just enough cause to make you seem overly sensitive or too social justice warrior like. It can actually be an admirable albeit distasteful skill.
The way to combat this is to turn the tables back around. If someone says something racist and this is pointed out to them, their response (given they truly intended no malice) should be to ask why what they said was racist or do some retrospection on what they said. If the innate response is to put you on the defensive or make themselves the victim, then you probably should have a good idea the intent behind the comment or action or what they believe was the intent if they are defending someone else.
Remember, a non-denial is not a denial.
It is an innate human response to become defensive when accused of something you don't feel you did or feel your intent has been misunderstood or maligned.
It is also a innate human response to become defensive and deflective and accusatory when you have been correctly accused of something you said or did.
A common ploy of racist and their sympathizers is to always flip it over on you so they don't have to actually confront what they are accurately being accused of because they don't have a defense. It is extremely similar to the person who has been confronted by their significant other accusing them of cheating.
A truly innocent person denies it and then demands proof and seeks to know why their love thinks they are cheating. The person who's been creepin responds, "No! Why do you think everyone cheats? Not everyone cheats. Maybe it's you who is the cheater. People who always think everyone is cheating is the actual cheater."
See, the non-denial. See, the flipping it around. See, the strawman and grain of truth about people who always think everyone is cheating is the cheater.
But, they aren't talking about everyone cheating. They are specifically talking about them. And, nowhere in that rambling was a denial or request for proof. Why? They know the other person knows what time it is.
The same applies to the "not everything is racist" crowd.
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
Friday, December 7, 2018
America's Repugnant Contemptible Ignominy: Domestic Violence Response
Look, I am about to get o my soapbox. I will not apologize nor feel shame for it. I will likely come across as high-minded and judgmental. I probably will piss some people off (especially the alpha male types). I do not really care.
The way too many people in this country react to domestic violence and its victims is abhorrent.
It is said slavery is America's original sin and racism her greatest shame. Both are irrefutably true. But, it should also be said sexism misogyny are among America's most enduring ignominies.
Last week the Kansas City Chiefs released second year running back, Kareem Hunt. TMZ obtained and subsequently released a video detailing Hunt pushing a woman to the ground and then kicking her while she lay on the ground.
The incident occurred outside Hunt's hotel room in Cleveland. According to Hunt and a witness the woman, who is 19, had been outside the hotel room causing a scene for approximately 30 minutes. The witness said she was told to leave the room after she called him a "nigger".
Now, the woman says she was a guest of Hunt's but unbeknownst to her was invited to his room to "entertain" him and his friends. After she refused to be what she implied was a sex toy she left.
That is when the incident of Hunt assaulting her took place.
The video clearly shows Hunt pushing the woman away from him and then pushing her down. Once she fell he proceeded to kick her in the side.
Now, I can't say if the woman called Hunt or his friend a "nigger". The video had no audio. I am not certain what happened in the hotel room prior to what was captured on video. I can take some guesses. Hunt has a history of violent reactions and altercations which occurred before and after this particular incident in Cleveland. But, it really doesn't matter, does it?!
He should not have placed his hands on her let alone kicked her! Period!
However, some of the reaction to this has said otherwise.
Before I go off about the usual domestic abuse/rape culture/misogyny apologists that always appear to lament the "mistreatment" of men and the "treacherous tramps always out to bring a brotha down" allow me to address the NFL, Cleveland Police Department and the Kansas City Chiefs.
Supposedly, the Cleveland P.D. looked into the matter. It was sparsely reported in the media.
According to the Cleveland P.D. a report was given to the NFL and the Chiefs. However, the Chiefs nor the league did anything. Hunt received no reprimand nor punishment.
Now, the Chiefs nor the NFL said they were aware of a tape. The Cleveland P.D. is also claiming they were unaware of a video tape. Forgive me if I have some doubt about that.
But, once TMZ obtained the video, both the NFL and Chiefs acted swiftly. The NFL placed Hunt on the non-injured inactive list. The Chiefs just released him. What neither mentioned was they were fully aware of all the details of the incident.
So, the question is why did this matter go un-adjudicated? Why did it take a public release of a video showing Hunt's heinous actions for him to be properly punished? Did the Chiefs or the NFL have knowledge about the video? If so, why did TMZ obtain a copy but they didn't? Or did they?
Let us not forget the NFL has a checkered past when it comes to this sort of thing. Remember, Ray Rice? Greg Hardy? Hell, Reuben Foster had just been signed by the Washington Redskins the day before the Hunt video was released. He was cut by the San Francisco 49ers four days before because of a domestic abuse accusation, which was his second such accusation this calendar year.
It appears Hunt's domestic abuse was swept under the rug. It also appears, once again, the NFL isn't necessarily too concerned with having domestic abusers on their rosters. Now, a socially conscious guy protesting racial injustice? Not so much. Dudes who slap and kick women? If they are talented and still productive, sure!
As repulsive as the NFL's attitude toward domestic abuse seems, many in the general public is worse and leads to the condoning nonchalant attitude the National Football League has.
I expected to see near universal condemnation of Hunt and his actions. (I, honestly, don't know why. Misguided optimism, I guess) But, what I heard and read instead was an apology tour for Hunt, trashing of the victim and questions about whether Hunt would play again without any qualifiers about him apologizing and seeking the help he so obviously needs.
Sure, the usual social justice warriors and defenders of decency were speaking out. However, a lot of what I saw was blame being placed on the Kansas City Chiefs. And, yes, they deserve a huge share of blame but it was Hunt who perpetrated the crime.
I then saw the victim being blamed. Boy, we love to victim blame in this country don't we. Anyway, the conspiracy theories were flying fast and furious. "Hunt was set up by her to bring a rich black athlete down."
"That white girl was a tool of white supremacy to entrap him." 😐
Seriously, this is the utter bullshit I read online. I mean we'll just effin ignore all his other incidents. We'll just ignore how this happened damn near a year ago appeared to be actively swept under the rug. Oh, and we'll just ignore the fact he couldn't have been taped kicking a woman if....oh, I don't know...he hadn't FUCKING KICKED HER!
Of course, the allegation she called Hunt and/or his buddy a "nigger" was repeatedly cited.
I am certainly not defending her about that if she said it. But, I have some doubt regarding that accusation. It allegedly happened in the hotel room, which led to her expulsion from the room, right? Apparently, she was outside the room for a minute causing a disturbance. If being called a nigger is what incited Hunt, why the delayed reaction? Why not call the police? It doesn't add up.
Regardless, Hunt shouldn't have touched her.
It is really simple, fellas. Do not put your hands on a woman! Do not slap her, punch her or kick her! Ever! Don't do it!
No man should place his hands on a woman!
But, the innate response of many people when a domestic violence incident is reported isn't to say the above. It is to make excuses and blame the victim.
It is astonishing how congenitally people will just blame the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. "What did she do to make him do that? Did she say something? Why would he do that unless provoked?"
Even worse is the intrinsic response to "protect" the abuser and frame them as the victim. "Why would she accuse him of that? She's going to ruin his career-his life. She shouldn't have even been there. She attacked him. She knew why she was in that hotel room. She teased him and his boys, then bolted because she got cold feet. Now, because she's a dick tease and doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut she's ruined this guy's promising career. Poor guy will probably never play ball again."
This insidious insolent bullshit is spewed every single time an act of violence against women is perpetrated or accused. Especially, if the alleged abuser is famous or politically relevant.
It is sick! Perverted.
Anyone who doesn't believe misogyny is pervasive and persistent in the United States either is pathetically naive, apart of the patriarchy or benefits from the patriarchy.
And, don't roll your fucking eyes, because you know it's empirically true!
We always here the condemnations of the violence against women. Some of them are sincere while some are cursory and feigned. They are cloaked in the appropriate language but are really just apology tour statements, vapid justifications for misogyny and sexism.
And, some folks just put it out there. They don't really hide their disdain and contempt for women. Just because they wouldn't want such horrible incidents to befall their mothers or sisters doesn't mean they give a shit about every other woman, which often includes their own wife or girlfriend.
Also, I would be woefully remised if I didn't mention their are women who participate in this misogyny too. Just because someone belongs to the victim group or the disenfranchised it doesn't mean they actively participate in the oppressive actions and words.
I saw some women low-key defending Kareem Hunt also.
Some day, I hope, we get to the point in this country where a clear case of domestic violence can be widely repudiate and condemned without qualifications. I hope that saying we respect women isn't just some empty platitude but actual tangible evidentiary reality.
Women are and always have been the backbone of our society. Would it not be wonderful if they were no longer subjected to malignant misogyny? Would it not be terrific, if unfortunately they are raped or abused, that the innate response is not to blame, trash and minimize theme essentially traumatizing them a second time but to embrace, empathize and demand and seek justice for them?
Would it not be great if we actually begin holding every single man accountable who abuses or assaults any woman?
I think it would be fucking splendid! I also think it's a disgrace I even have to ask these questions in 2018!
The way too many people in this country react to domestic violence and its victims is abhorrent.
It is said slavery is America's original sin and racism her greatest shame. Both are irrefutably true. But, it should also be said sexism misogyny are among America's most enduring ignominies.
Last week the Kansas City Chiefs released second year running back, Kareem Hunt. TMZ obtained and subsequently released a video detailing Hunt pushing a woman to the ground and then kicking her while she lay on the ground.
The incident occurred outside Hunt's hotel room in Cleveland. According to Hunt and a witness the woman, who is 19, had been outside the hotel room causing a scene for approximately 30 minutes. The witness said she was told to leave the room after she called him a "nigger".
Now, the woman says she was a guest of Hunt's but unbeknownst to her was invited to his room to "entertain" him and his friends. After she refused to be what she implied was a sex toy she left.
That is when the incident of Hunt assaulting her took place.
The video clearly shows Hunt pushing the woman away from him and then pushing her down. Once she fell he proceeded to kick her in the side.
Now, I can't say if the woman called Hunt or his friend a "nigger". The video had no audio. I am not certain what happened in the hotel room prior to what was captured on video. I can take some guesses. Hunt has a history of violent reactions and altercations which occurred before and after this particular incident in Cleveland. But, it really doesn't matter, does it?!
He should not have placed his hands on her let alone kicked her! Period!
However, some of the reaction to this has said otherwise.
Before I go off about the usual domestic abuse/rape culture/misogyny apologists that always appear to lament the "mistreatment" of men and the "treacherous tramps always out to bring a brotha down" allow me to address the NFL, Cleveland Police Department and the Kansas City Chiefs.
Supposedly, the Cleveland P.D. looked into the matter. It was sparsely reported in the media.
According to the Cleveland P.D. a report was given to the NFL and the Chiefs. However, the Chiefs nor the league did anything. Hunt received no reprimand nor punishment.
Now, the Chiefs nor the NFL said they were aware of a tape. The Cleveland P.D. is also claiming they were unaware of a video tape. Forgive me if I have some doubt about that.
But, once TMZ obtained the video, both the NFL and Chiefs acted swiftly. The NFL placed Hunt on the non-injured inactive list. The Chiefs just released him. What neither mentioned was they were fully aware of all the details of the incident.
So, the question is why did this matter go un-adjudicated? Why did it take a public release of a video showing Hunt's heinous actions for him to be properly punished? Did the Chiefs or the NFL have knowledge about the video? If so, why did TMZ obtain a copy but they didn't? Or did they?
Let us not forget the NFL has a checkered past when it comes to this sort of thing. Remember, Ray Rice? Greg Hardy? Hell, Reuben Foster had just been signed by the Washington Redskins the day before the Hunt video was released. He was cut by the San Francisco 49ers four days before because of a domestic abuse accusation, which was his second such accusation this calendar year.
It appears Hunt's domestic abuse was swept under the rug. It also appears, once again, the NFL isn't necessarily too concerned with having domestic abusers on their rosters. Now, a socially conscious guy protesting racial injustice? Not so much. Dudes who slap and kick women? If they are talented and still productive, sure!
As repulsive as the NFL's attitude toward domestic abuse seems, many in the general public is worse and leads to the condoning nonchalant attitude the National Football League has.
I expected to see near universal condemnation of Hunt and his actions. (I, honestly, don't know why. Misguided optimism, I guess) But, what I heard and read instead was an apology tour for Hunt, trashing of the victim and questions about whether Hunt would play again without any qualifiers about him apologizing and seeking the help he so obviously needs.
Sure, the usual social justice warriors and defenders of decency were speaking out. However, a lot of what I saw was blame being placed on the Kansas City Chiefs. And, yes, they deserve a huge share of blame but it was Hunt who perpetrated the crime.
I then saw the victim being blamed. Boy, we love to victim blame in this country don't we. Anyway, the conspiracy theories were flying fast and furious. "Hunt was set up by her to bring a rich black athlete down."
"That white girl was a tool of white supremacy to entrap him." 😐
Seriously, this is the utter bullshit I read online. I mean we'll just effin ignore all his other incidents. We'll just ignore how this happened damn near a year ago appeared to be actively swept under the rug. Oh, and we'll just ignore the fact he couldn't have been taped kicking a woman if....oh, I don't know...he hadn't FUCKING KICKED HER!
Of course, the allegation she called Hunt and/or his buddy a "nigger" was repeatedly cited.
I am certainly not defending her about that if she said it. But, I have some doubt regarding that accusation. It allegedly happened in the hotel room, which led to her expulsion from the room, right? Apparently, she was outside the room for a minute causing a disturbance. If being called a nigger is what incited Hunt, why the delayed reaction? Why not call the police? It doesn't add up.
Regardless, Hunt shouldn't have touched her.
It is really simple, fellas. Do not put your hands on a woman! Do not slap her, punch her or kick her! Ever! Don't do it!
No man should place his hands on a woman!
But, the innate response of many people when a domestic violence incident is reported isn't to say the above. It is to make excuses and blame the victim.
It is astonishing how congenitally people will just blame the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. "What did she do to make him do that? Did she say something? Why would he do that unless provoked?"
Even worse is the intrinsic response to "protect" the abuser and frame them as the victim. "Why would she accuse him of that? She's going to ruin his career-his life. She shouldn't have even been there. She attacked him. She knew why she was in that hotel room. She teased him and his boys, then bolted because she got cold feet. Now, because she's a dick tease and doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut she's ruined this guy's promising career. Poor guy will probably never play ball again."
This insidious insolent bullshit is spewed every single time an act of violence against women is perpetrated or accused. Especially, if the alleged abuser is famous or politically relevant.
It is sick! Perverted.
Anyone who doesn't believe misogyny is pervasive and persistent in the United States either is pathetically naive, apart of the patriarchy or benefits from the patriarchy.
And, don't roll your fucking eyes, because you know it's empirically true!
We always here the condemnations of the violence against women. Some of them are sincere while some are cursory and feigned. They are cloaked in the appropriate language but are really just apology tour statements, vapid justifications for misogyny and sexism.
And, some folks just put it out there. They don't really hide their disdain and contempt for women. Just because they wouldn't want such horrible incidents to befall their mothers or sisters doesn't mean they give a shit about every other woman, which often includes their own wife or girlfriend.
Also, I would be woefully remised if I didn't mention their are women who participate in this misogyny too. Just because someone belongs to the victim group or the disenfranchised it doesn't mean they actively participate in the oppressive actions and words.
I saw some women low-key defending Kareem Hunt also.
Some day, I hope, we get to the point in this country where a clear case of domestic violence can be widely repudiate and condemned without qualifications. I hope that saying we respect women isn't just some empty platitude but actual tangible evidentiary reality.
Women are and always have been the backbone of our society. Would it not be wonderful if they were no longer subjected to malignant misogyny? Would it not be terrific, if unfortunately they are raped or abused, that the innate response is not to blame, trash and minimize theme essentially traumatizing them a second time but to embrace, empathize and demand and seek justice for them?
Would it not be great if we actually begin holding every single man accountable who abuses or assaults any woman?
I think it would be fucking splendid! I also think it's a disgrace I even have to ask these questions in 2018!
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
The War On Christmas (A Pretentious Holiday Tradition Like None Other)
That special time of the year has arrived. The time of the year filled with the smell of cookies and warm cider. The time of the year featuring sleigh rides and caroling. The time of the year we embrace the ideal "it is better to give than receive". Oh, and the time of the year people instigate fraudulent culture wars insisting there is a war on Christmas.
No such war actually exists.
In an admitted hypersensitive and at times overly politically correct culture the Christmas season falls prey to the affinity not to offend others.
But, some people take this bullshit hyper-political correctness and strawman it into a full blown war on Christmas.
They cite as their main piece of evidence the saying, "Happy Holidays!". To me and millions of others we find "happy holidays" to be a quite innocuous joyful greeting or well wishing statement. However, some hear a slap in the face to Christmas when they hear that.
Actually, saying "happy holidays" is usually a way for people to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year without having to say both of those things individually. Now, in fairness, this is a greeting used by some people who (for whatever reason) don't celebrate Christmas.
Those people defending Christmas say not only is saying "happy holidays" a sign Christmas is being disrespected but that a concerted effort is being made by the government and liberals to take Christmas out of the public space. They claim faith is being assaulted. They say it's becoming frowned upon to say, "Merry Christmas".
Now, I must be honest. I am not sure what these people are talking about. I am fairly confident that in most places in America you can freely say "Merry Christmas".
Sure, it might not necessarily be well received in a synagogue or a mosque or at The Grinch's humble abode to say "Merry Christmas". But, then why would you be at those particular places wishing the inhabitants of those places a "Merry Christmas" knowing they don't celebrate Christmas? I am pretty certain if on the street you wished a Jew, a Muslim or anyone else who doesn't observe Christmas a "Merry Christmas" they would likely not care and courteously wish you back a "happy holidays". In the vast majority of cases I doubt a hostile response would be given.
As for it being an assault on faith, uhhhhhh, well let's talk about that.
I think it is fair to say Christianity is under some assault in this country. Religion as a whole is. People are tending to distance themselves from religion. I would say Christians and other religious believers actually hold a fair amount of culpability in that, but that is a discussion for another day. It should be noted well over 70% of Americans (one poll has it at 76%) consider themselves to be a Christian.
When it comes to the nuance of Christmas I find the entire claim of Christmas being assaulted to be rather disingenuous, honestly. Many people will bring up the "real meaning of Christmas" and how it's often ignored and minimized. I could not agree more.
Christmas is really supposed to be about the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The "real meaning" of Christmas is supposed to be about the heartwarming story of two wayward immigrants, Joseph and Mary, and their travel to Bethlehem so Mary could give birth to the son of God immaculately conceived. The story of Christmas is about the joys of giving and acceptance and sacrifice.
Yet, that is not what Christmas has become. Many...many of the soldiers defending Christmas have been at the forefront bastardizing the meaning of Christmas. And, y'all know it.
Christmas has been commercialized. The holiday isn't about Jesus. It is about trees, ornaments, tinsel and how much can be sold of each. It is about wreaths, sexy elves costumes and tacky (I mean tacky) Christmas sweaters.
Christmas has become about glutton. How many Christmas cookies and candy can we shove down our throat without having to be on the toilet shitting ourselves until New Year's.
People aren't concerned with the actual story of the Nativity. They are concerned with how elaborate a Nativity scene they display in front of their house and how badly "It will kick that prick next door, Bob's ass!"
The birth of Jesus or embracing the meaning and symbolism behind it isn't nearly as important as putting up the most ostentatious, gaudy, god-awful house lights and decorations display. The amount of money poured into this by folks every year is immoral.
I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am. But, I am fairly confident that the proper way to celebrate the Messiah's birth is not by attending work or private holiday parties getting shit faced on eggnog or Crown Royal. And, I almost certain wearing a "naughty" Ms. Claus outfit to aforementioned holiday...errr....Christmas party and after becoming shit faced begin playing "Let me show you my jingle bells and special mistletoe" with all the fellas is not quite the Christmas spirit that is supposed to be shown. Nor do I think sneaking sips of the Yuletide Jack and Coke is the way the Lawd wants his son's birthday celebrated but I could be wrong.
And, for those feet dug in dedicated Christians pushing the myth of Santa Claus upon your children and grandchildren giving that fat clown almost equal, if not totally equal, weight as Jesus is pretty unfathomable isn't it? I mean isn't it?
Santa is a pagan mythical figure. He is not what Christmas is about. I won't even go into bs of how kids are sold a bill of goods that jackass squeezes his fat ass down a chimney when it's by the grace of God he slides his way in and out of the door to his workshop. The poor elves whose job it is to grease those doorways. But, I digress.
Millions of Christian parents, many of whom lament how liberals and pagans are executing a vicious and secular war on Christmas, cheerfully and without a hint of irony and self-awareness push the myth of Santa Claus and his elves. They tell the stories of how the elves make the toys for kids (without receiving a wage might I add) so Santa can load his sleigh (pulled through the night sky by reindeer) and deliver toys to all the good boys and girls. And, we know that is a crock of shit. How many Christmases did Donald Trump and Bill Clinton receive Christmas gifts from Santa when he knew damn well they had been grabbing pussy without asking throughout the year? I guess Santa figured it was ok because when you are a star they just let you do it.
Look, the reality is this "war on Christmas" is much like the antipathy to NFL anthem protests. It is fake outrage wrapped disingenuous bullshit. It is nothing more than an engineered culture war.
You can still freely say, "Merry Christmas" in America. You are not going to be jailed or reprimanded. I say "Merry Christmas" hundreds of times every Christmas season without incident.
I mean, I guess Starbucks switching to a "holiday" cup is the beginning of the Apocalypse. Or, maybe not.
I suppose people saying, "Happy Holidays" is literally a gateway to atheism and agnosticism. Or, maybe not.
Decorating our front yards with tacky and pretentious Nativity and light displays is fueling the war on Christmas. Or, maybe not. That is cool. Everybody loves seeing it.
I imagine emphasizing Santa instead of or equally to Christ is a sign secularism is stripping the true meaning of Christmas. Oh, wait. That is ok.
Saying "happy holidays" or Starbucks selling a "holiday blend" instead of a "Christmaspuccino" is not and the ultimate sign society is in decay. Right?
No such war actually exists.
In an admitted hypersensitive and at times overly politically correct culture the Christmas season falls prey to the affinity not to offend others.
But, some people take this bullshit hyper-political correctness and strawman it into a full blown war on Christmas.
They cite as their main piece of evidence the saying, "Happy Holidays!". To me and millions of others we find "happy holidays" to be a quite innocuous joyful greeting or well wishing statement. However, some hear a slap in the face to Christmas when they hear that.
Actually, saying "happy holidays" is usually a way for people to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year without having to say both of those things individually. Now, in fairness, this is a greeting used by some people who (for whatever reason) don't celebrate Christmas.
Those people defending Christmas say not only is saying "happy holidays" a sign Christmas is being disrespected but that a concerted effort is being made by the government and liberals to take Christmas out of the public space. They claim faith is being assaulted. They say it's becoming frowned upon to say, "Merry Christmas".
Now, I must be honest. I am not sure what these people are talking about. I am fairly confident that in most places in America you can freely say "Merry Christmas".
Sure, it might not necessarily be well received in a synagogue or a mosque or at The Grinch's humble abode to say "Merry Christmas". But, then why would you be at those particular places wishing the inhabitants of those places a "Merry Christmas" knowing they don't celebrate Christmas? I am pretty certain if on the street you wished a Jew, a Muslim or anyone else who doesn't observe Christmas a "Merry Christmas" they would likely not care and courteously wish you back a "happy holidays". In the vast majority of cases I doubt a hostile response would be given.
As for it being an assault on faith, uhhhhhh, well let's talk about that.
I think it is fair to say Christianity is under some assault in this country. Religion as a whole is. People are tending to distance themselves from religion. I would say Christians and other religious believers actually hold a fair amount of culpability in that, but that is a discussion for another day. It should be noted well over 70% of Americans (one poll has it at 76%) consider themselves to be a Christian.
When it comes to the nuance of Christmas I find the entire claim of Christmas being assaulted to be rather disingenuous, honestly. Many people will bring up the "real meaning of Christmas" and how it's often ignored and minimized. I could not agree more.
Christmas is really supposed to be about the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The "real meaning" of Christmas is supposed to be about the heartwarming story of two wayward immigrants, Joseph and Mary, and their travel to Bethlehem so Mary could give birth to the son of God immaculately conceived. The story of Christmas is about the joys of giving and acceptance and sacrifice.
Yet, that is not what Christmas has become. Many...many of the soldiers defending Christmas have been at the forefront bastardizing the meaning of Christmas. And, y'all know it.
Christmas has been commercialized. The holiday isn't about Jesus. It is about trees, ornaments, tinsel and how much can be sold of each. It is about wreaths, sexy elves costumes and tacky (I mean tacky) Christmas sweaters.
Christmas has become about glutton. How many Christmas cookies and candy can we shove down our throat without having to be on the toilet shitting ourselves until New Year's.
People aren't concerned with the actual story of the Nativity. They are concerned with how elaborate a Nativity scene they display in front of their house and how badly "It will kick that prick next door, Bob's ass!"
The birth of Jesus or embracing the meaning and symbolism behind it isn't nearly as important as putting up the most ostentatious, gaudy, god-awful house lights and decorations display. The amount of money poured into this by folks every year is immoral.
I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am. But, I am fairly confident that the proper way to celebrate the Messiah's birth is not by attending work or private holiday parties getting shit faced on eggnog or Crown Royal. And, I almost certain wearing a "naughty" Ms. Claus outfit to aforementioned holiday...errr....Christmas party and after becoming shit faced begin playing "Let me show you my jingle bells and special mistletoe" with all the fellas is not quite the Christmas spirit that is supposed to be shown. Nor do I think sneaking sips of the Yuletide Jack and Coke is the way the Lawd wants his son's birthday celebrated but I could be wrong.
And, for those feet dug in dedicated Christians pushing the myth of Santa Claus upon your children and grandchildren giving that fat clown almost equal, if not totally equal, weight as Jesus is pretty unfathomable isn't it? I mean isn't it?
Santa is a pagan mythical figure. He is not what Christmas is about. I won't even go into bs of how kids are sold a bill of goods that jackass squeezes his fat ass down a chimney when it's by the grace of God he slides his way in and out of the door to his workshop. The poor elves whose job it is to grease those doorways. But, I digress.
Millions of Christian parents, many of whom lament how liberals and pagans are executing a vicious and secular war on Christmas, cheerfully and without a hint of irony and self-awareness push the myth of Santa Claus and his elves. They tell the stories of how the elves make the toys for kids (without receiving a wage might I add) so Santa can load his sleigh (pulled through the night sky by reindeer) and deliver toys to all the good boys and girls. And, we know that is a crock of shit. How many Christmases did Donald Trump and Bill Clinton receive Christmas gifts from Santa when he knew damn well they had been grabbing pussy without asking throughout the year? I guess Santa figured it was ok because when you are a star they just let you do it.
Look, the reality is this "war on Christmas" is much like the antipathy to NFL anthem protests. It is fake outrage wrapped disingenuous bullshit. It is nothing more than an engineered culture war.
You can still freely say, "Merry Christmas" in America. You are not going to be jailed or reprimanded. I say "Merry Christmas" hundreds of times every Christmas season without incident.
I mean, I guess Starbucks switching to a "holiday" cup is the beginning of the Apocalypse. Or, maybe not.
I suppose people saying, "Happy Holidays" is literally a gateway to atheism and agnosticism. Or, maybe not.
Decorating our front yards with tacky and pretentious Nativity and light displays is fueling the war on Christmas. Or, maybe not. That is cool. Everybody loves seeing it.
I imagine emphasizing Santa instead of or equally to Christ is a sign secularism is stripping the true meaning of Christmas. Oh, wait. That is ok.
Saying "happy holidays" or Starbucks selling a "holiday blend" instead of a "Christmaspuccino" is not and the ultimate sign society is in decay. Right?
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Guys Should Probably Not Be Male Feminists
I have always felt that I am really supportive of women, their plight and feminism. I have felt I have done a good job of speaking up for women when they have been degraded, belittled or marginalized.
However, lately I have been doing some thinking. I have wondered if I have been the supporter of women I like to think I am.
The #MeToo movement has certainly spurred some introspection about how I really view and have treated women. I took a fine tooth comb to not only my behavior and thoughts but my reaction to others whether they be friends or family members.
I have always considered myself a male feminist. Although, I have never really given any substantive thought to what that actually means. While I don't introduce myself, "Rob Easley, male feminist" I believe my affinity for women and feminism speaks for itself.
But, in the last year or so since the emergence of the #MeToo movement I have really re-evaluated myself and where I stand within the "struggle". Honestly, I have been in this place since the infamous Access Hollywood tape featuring a certain tangerine skin toned cretin. His name escapes me at the moment.
So, what I decided to do was listen. I began listening to what feminists said about #MeToo. I listened to what feminists said about men who are allies of feminists. I listened to what feminists said about opponents of feminism. I also listened to what feminists said about men who say they're allies of women but what they practice is not what they preach. I paid attention when they said actually what they say is usually a precursor of what they'll do. A little scratching beneath the surface will reveal many male feminists aren't the "woke enlightened fellas" they purport.
I listened when these women warned, "Beware of male feminists!"
Now, I would be lying if I my initial reaction wasn't, "Hold the hell up! I consider myself a male feminist and I am not being fake!"
But, instead of becoming defensive or resentful I thought it better to listen some more and read.
What I discovered is a schism among feminists about the role and existence of male feminists. However, I also noticed a commonality among these women, which is they don't trust male feminists.
The existing schism is between the feminists who believe men are essential to furthering their cause and embracing them is better than potentially alienating them and those who feel feminism is a strictly female cause so men should just stay away.
However,, even the latter side have disagreements. One section believe men should stay out of the way but be on the sidelines providing some type of support. The other side, perhaps the more radical feminists, believe men should literally stay out of the movement.
But, why do most feminists mistrust and are leery of male feminists? Is it because they have a general mistrust of men? Do they believe men are inherently evil?
As I read numerous articles on this, I begin seeing a different pattern. A disturbing pattern. It is actually one I noticed firsthand.
Many self-professed male feminists possess, cradle and exhibit the same atrocious oppressive characteristics that have led to marginalization and objectification of women throughout history. They claim to understand the detriment of patriarchy but, in fact, perpetuate it in within their personal nuanced interactions with women. (See: Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Louie C.K.)
I have seen this myself. I know dudes who are "woke", "progressive" "pro-women's lib"; yet, display a resentment for #MeToo that would make that fella with the tangerine skin tone (whose name still escapes me) say, "Damn! That's sorta fucked up." These same dudes proclaim to be defenders of women but almost always finds themselves either defending or being low-key apologists for sexual assaulters and sexual harassers. These "woke" guys say the believe in equality and respect for women; yet, openly practice misogyny, chauvinism and belittlement.
Something else I noticed that was consistently mentioned is that male feminists tend to hijack feminism and make it about them whether it's exclusively or inclusively.
A common statement that is said is, "Patriarchy adversely affects men too." While this empirically true, men using this to victimize themselves (even if it's implicitly) is just wrong. Of course, patriarchy has a negative effect on men and how they view and treatment women. However, the consequences of the negative effects are infinitely and definitively more detrimental to women. This is inarguable.
It is similar to saying white supremacy adversely affects white people. It is apparent that is true. However, it is more apparent the affects on black people has and is much worse.
Another disturbing trend among male feminists goes back to the misogyny. They tend to objectify women.
Now, on a macro level these dudes say and likely even believe that women shouldn't be objectified or degraded. However, when it comes to their personal individual interactions with women they offer degrade and objectify women.
They will denounce the practice of slut shaming or catcalling on social media or in front of an audience, but will have little hesitation in slut shaming their significant other for how many men she's slept with. When they are with their boys they'll participate in catcalling and/or ogling women. Ya know so the fellas won't think they've gone soft or have abandoned their alpha male nonsensical toxic masculinity.
All this propelled me to begin some introspection. I certainly don't feel I have ever attempted to hijack feminism for my own or for men. I don't think I have ever sought to repress or oppress women. I do not have violent or controlling tendencies.
But, have I objectified women? Have I unfairly categorized women? Have I degraded women in some way even if it was subtle? If I am being honest, the answers are "yes".
I struggle with objectifying versus admiring women. If I notice a woman I find attractive or her body parts attractive, am I a pig for looking? I don't stare or ogle but I glance long enough to take it all in. Is that objectifying? I feel that it is regardless if I do it "respectfully" or "not creepily".
Often I want to say to a woman, "You look nice today." Or, "You are really beautiful." But, I always hesitate and most usually pass on saying anything because how does saying that not sound creepy? Especially coming from a Gary Coleman look-a-like. I don't want it to sound like, "Oh, you look pretty today as compared to other days you don't" and I don't want to sound like I'm hitting on her, so I usually say nothing.
But, even on a macro less personal level I wonder how enlightened I am. When it comes to commenting on actresses, singers or media personalities I catch myself making a comment about their personal appearance that I intend to be complementary but when I repeat it to myself or see it in a published post it sounds crass and boorish. And, I used to tell myself, "They're celebrities; it's different." But, truth is it's different whatsoever!
I certainly am guilty of using demeaning demeaning slut shaming language. It in my past social media posts. I've used the word "skank" to describe porn stars or sex workers. That was wrong. It was used as an all encompassing term without proper context.
I am not saying all this seeking forgiveness or absolution. I am bearing my soul here a little to reach a better place. I want to understand what is the correct path and action.
What I have most definitely realized is being a male feminist isn't something I necessarily should want. Women don't want sympathy nor do they appreciate appropriation. They want empathy. They want support. They want encouragement.
The feminist's expectation from men about feminism is very similar to what African-Americans want from whites about civil rights and social equality and justice. I don't speak for all black folks but most, I believe, don't expect white people to fully understand the struggle and where we're coming from. They can't. I hate to throw this out here but if you are not black and have not experienced racism (systemic and individualized) and endured the trappings of the system and been susceptible to oppression, you cannot possibly fully grasp what our struggle and conflict is.
Black people want white people to empathize.
Civil Rights wouldn't have been possible without white people. That is just simply a fact. For blacks to make their voices heard they not only needed to protest but to have white allies infiltrate and influence the power structure-a power structure blacks had minimal access to at the time. Not only did those whites understand that they also understood the struggle wasn't theirs. They didn't appropriate it nor attempt to control it. They supported it and realized the best way they could show blacks they cared was by being a friend and calling out the wrong that their own was perpetrating.
A similar dynamic should exist with men who are pro-feminism. It is imperative men understand being a male feminist in the strict meaning of the term may be counterproductive. Men cannot further the feminist cause by appropriating the movement. Nor, can they help by always attempting to take over. We sure as hell aren't conducive to the movement by spewing platitudes while literally participating in the very patriarchal and misogynistic practices we claim to abhor.
Most feminist women want us there. They want our help. They just want us to walk the walk. Speaking of the walk, men need to grasp we aren't entitled to walk side by side and certainly not in front of women. We can't fully understand their plight. And, before any brothas or their allies come at me I, of course, no the extent of our struggle. That doesn't mean we can fully understand women's struggle just like they can't understand ours.
Anyway, women don't need or want our guidance. They want our empathy. We should happily walk behind them in their march providing support.
And, we all could stand to do some introspection regarding our attitude and treatment of women. I know I can and will continue seeking to be better. Not just be a better man or a better feminist ally but a better citizen and human.
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
www.tumblr.com/robbase2110
www.pintrest.com/robbase2110
robbase2110@gmail.com
However, lately I have been doing some thinking. I have wondered if I have been the supporter of women I like to think I am.
The #MeToo movement has certainly spurred some introspection about how I really view and have treated women. I took a fine tooth comb to not only my behavior and thoughts but my reaction to others whether they be friends or family members.
I have always considered myself a male feminist. Although, I have never really given any substantive thought to what that actually means. While I don't introduce myself, "Rob Easley, male feminist" I believe my affinity for women and feminism speaks for itself.
But, in the last year or so since the emergence of the #MeToo movement I have really re-evaluated myself and where I stand within the "struggle". Honestly, I have been in this place since the infamous Access Hollywood tape featuring a certain tangerine skin toned cretin. His name escapes me at the moment.
So, what I decided to do was listen. I began listening to what feminists said about #MeToo. I listened to what feminists said about men who are allies of feminists. I listened to what feminists said about opponents of feminism. I also listened to what feminists said about men who say they're allies of women but what they practice is not what they preach. I paid attention when they said actually what they say is usually a precursor of what they'll do. A little scratching beneath the surface will reveal many male feminists aren't the "woke enlightened fellas" they purport.
I listened when these women warned, "Beware of male feminists!"
Now, I would be lying if I my initial reaction wasn't, "Hold the hell up! I consider myself a male feminist and I am not being fake!"
But, instead of becoming defensive or resentful I thought it better to listen some more and read.
What I discovered is a schism among feminists about the role and existence of male feminists. However, I also noticed a commonality among these women, which is they don't trust male feminists.
The existing schism is between the feminists who believe men are essential to furthering their cause and embracing them is better than potentially alienating them and those who feel feminism is a strictly female cause so men should just stay away.
However,, even the latter side have disagreements. One section believe men should stay out of the way but be on the sidelines providing some type of support. The other side, perhaps the more radical feminists, believe men should literally stay out of the movement.
But, why do most feminists mistrust and are leery of male feminists? Is it because they have a general mistrust of men? Do they believe men are inherently evil?
As I read numerous articles on this, I begin seeing a different pattern. A disturbing pattern. It is actually one I noticed firsthand.
Many self-professed male feminists possess, cradle and exhibit the same atrocious oppressive characteristics that have led to marginalization and objectification of women throughout history. They claim to understand the detriment of patriarchy but, in fact, perpetuate it in within their personal nuanced interactions with women. (See: Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Louie C.K.)
I have seen this myself. I know dudes who are "woke", "progressive" "pro-women's lib"; yet, display a resentment for #MeToo that would make that fella with the tangerine skin tone (whose name still escapes me) say, "Damn! That's sorta fucked up." These same dudes proclaim to be defenders of women but almost always finds themselves either defending or being low-key apologists for sexual assaulters and sexual harassers. These "woke" guys say the believe in equality and respect for women; yet, openly practice misogyny, chauvinism and belittlement.
Something else I noticed that was consistently mentioned is that male feminists tend to hijack feminism and make it about them whether it's exclusively or inclusively.
A common statement that is said is, "Patriarchy adversely affects men too." While this empirically true, men using this to victimize themselves (even if it's implicitly) is just wrong. Of course, patriarchy has a negative effect on men and how they view and treatment women. However, the consequences of the negative effects are infinitely and definitively more detrimental to women. This is inarguable.
It is similar to saying white supremacy adversely affects white people. It is apparent that is true. However, it is more apparent the affects on black people has and is much worse.
Another disturbing trend among male feminists goes back to the misogyny. They tend to objectify women.
Now, on a macro level these dudes say and likely even believe that women shouldn't be objectified or degraded. However, when it comes to their personal individual interactions with women they offer degrade and objectify women.
They will denounce the practice of slut shaming or catcalling on social media or in front of an audience, but will have little hesitation in slut shaming their significant other for how many men she's slept with. When they are with their boys they'll participate in catcalling and/or ogling women. Ya know so the fellas won't think they've gone soft or have abandoned their alpha male nonsensical toxic masculinity.
All this propelled me to begin some introspection. I certainly don't feel I have ever attempted to hijack feminism for my own or for men. I don't think I have ever sought to repress or oppress women. I do not have violent or controlling tendencies.
But, have I objectified women? Have I unfairly categorized women? Have I degraded women in some way even if it was subtle? If I am being honest, the answers are "yes".
I struggle with objectifying versus admiring women. If I notice a woman I find attractive or her body parts attractive, am I a pig for looking? I don't stare or ogle but I glance long enough to take it all in. Is that objectifying? I feel that it is regardless if I do it "respectfully" or "not creepily".
Often I want to say to a woman, "You look nice today." Or, "You are really beautiful." But, I always hesitate and most usually pass on saying anything because how does saying that not sound creepy? Especially coming from a Gary Coleman look-a-like. I don't want it to sound like, "Oh, you look pretty today as compared to other days you don't" and I don't want to sound like I'm hitting on her, so I usually say nothing.
But, even on a macro less personal level I wonder how enlightened I am. When it comes to commenting on actresses, singers or media personalities I catch myself making a comment about their personal appearance that I intend to be complementary but when I repeat it to myself or see it in a published post it sounds crass and boorish. And, I used to tell myself, "They're celebrities; it's different." But, truth is it's different whatsoever!
I certainly am guilty of using demeaning demeaning slut shaming language. It in my past social media posts. I've used the word "skank" to describe porn stars or sex workers. That was wrong. It was used as an all encompassing term without proper context.
I am not saying all this seeking forgiveness or absolution. I am bearing my soul here a little to reach a better place. I want to understand what is the correct path and action.
What I have most definitely realized is being a male feminist isn't something I necessarily should want. Women don't want sympathy nor do they appreciate appropriation. They want empathy. They want support. They want encouragement.
The feminist's expectation from men about feminism is very similar to what African-Americans want from whites about civil rights and social equality and justice. I don't speak for all black folks but most, I believe, don't expect white people to fully understand the struggle and where we're coming from. They can't. I hate to throw this out here but if you are not black and have not experienced racism (systemic and individualized) and endured the trappings of the system and been susceptible to oppression, you cannot possibly fully grasp what our struggle and conflict is.
Black people want white people to empathize.
Civil Rights wouldn't have been possible without white people. That is just simply a fact. For blacks to make their voices heard they not only needed to protest but to have white allies infiltrate and influence the power structure-a power structure blacks had minimal access to at the time. Not only did those whites understand that they also understood the struggle wasn't theirs. They didn't appropriate it nor attempt to control it. They supported it and realized the best way they could show blacks they cared was by being a friend and calling out the wrong that their own was perpetrating.
A similar dynamic should exist with men who are pro-feminism. It is imperative men understand being a male feminist in the strict meaning of the term may be counterproductive. Men cannot further the feminist cause by appropriating the movement. Nor, can they help by always attempting to take over. We sure as hell aren't conducive to the movement by spewing platitudes while literally participating in the very patriarchal and misogynistic practices we claim to abhor.
Most feminist women want us there. They want our help. They just want us to walk the walk. Speaking of the walk, men need to grasp we aren't entitled to walk side by side and certainly not in front of women. We can't fully understand their plight. And, before any brothas or their allies come at me I, of course, no the extent of our struggle. That doesn't mean we can fully understand women's struggle just like they can't understand ours.
Anyway, women don't need or want our guidance. They want our empathy. We should happily walk behind them in their march providing support.
And, we all could stand to do some introspection regarding our attitude and treatment of women. I know I can and will continue seeking to be better. Not just be a better man or a better feminist ally but a better citizen and human.
www.facebook.com/robbase2110
www.twitter.com/robbase2110
www.instagram.com/robbase2110
www.patreon.com/robeasley
www.tumblr.com/robbase2110
www.pintrest.com/robbase2110
robbase2110@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)