*ANNOUNCEMENT *

First, allow me to apologize for the infrequency of the blog posts. I know I have people who regularly read my pieces. Thank you to the two of you! (Joking...sorta)


Honestly, I have just been tired lately and ill-equipped to put in the necessary effort to produce a quality piece. Also, this time of the year is challenging for me and my mind isn't quite right.


With that being said I will not be writing regularly until the beginning of 2020.


I have plenty of thoughts and observances on what is transpiring in politics, pop culture and sports. In fact, I do plan on posting a blog next weekend about Trump's impeachment and the absolute embarrassment that was the House Intelligence Committee Republicans during the various testimonies. Especially you, Elise Stefanik, Jim "Didn't Say A Word About His Wrestlers Being Molested" Jordan and Devin "Snowflake" Nunes.


Anyway, I appreciate your patience and readership and hope you'll stick with me. I am also hoping I can grow my audience in 2020.


I am still expressing my thoughts on social media. So, please follow me at:


www.facebook.com/robbase2110

www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.Instagram.com/robbase2110


Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Dear Anonymous Trump Book Author, Sit Yo Ass Down!

A year or so ago when a "senior White House official" wrote an op-ed in the New York Times I wrote a blog calling bs. Well, the author is back. This time with an actual book depicting the horrors of the Trump administration and the way the author and others are "saving" the democracy and Trump from himself.


Well, let me begin by saying you are effing terrible in your efforts.


The author is wanting to be heralded as some sort of hero. In fact, in the op-ed they referred to themselves as part of #TheResistance. But, the truth is they are no hero.


If this person or persons really want to save our country they would reveal who they are and detail explicitly just how inept and cruel Trump is. Instead, they have chosen to be anonymous because they are "one of the few voices of reason" left in Trump's orbit.


Bullshit!


As I said earlier, if their purpose for staying in this shitshow is to curb and derail Trump's worse impulses and draconian policies, they have failed miserably. For the love of God this buffoon is in the middle of an impeachment inquiry for doing the exact same thing he was accused of and subsequently skirted in the Russia probe. He sold out one of our greatest allies in the Middle East, the Kurds. He has continued his asinine tariffs which are devastating American farmers. Children are still being kidnapped at the southern border and separated from their families. Migrants are dying in ICE and Border Patrol's custody. White Supremacists are running around brandishing hit lists and assault rifles while President Adderall thinks he became the next Dwight Eisenhower by banning electronic cigarettes.


So, again I ask what the hell is this person subverting?!


The author acknowledged that some (many) are calling this book cowardice. But, they say that assertion is false because their sticking around as the anonymous anti-hero in the open is patriotic.


Sorry, it's not patriotic. What would be patriotic is to document Trump's shenanigans and misdeeds and take them to Congress. Be a whistleblower rather than writing a book that is an obvious angle to set themselves up as the "adult in the room" when this fascist clown show actually comes totally crashing down.


Now, don't get me wrong. I think there can't be enough listing of the atrocious things Trump has said and done. Although, nothing Anonymous put in this book is shocking.


Trump being racist, misogynistic and sexist are not exactly heart stopping revelations. Him being cruel and dismissive comes as a surprise to nobody. Unimaginable amounts of ignorance and stupidity flowing from his lips isn't shaking anyone to their core. We have heard him speak and read his tweets. It is common knowledge he is a dumbass.


My point is this administration official is not serving the country by allowing this insanity to ensue. Maybe they have kept him from nuking Greenland but that doesn't excuse locking babies in cages making them dwell in their own feces.


This person needs to come forward because if the public knows who they are at least it gives these accounts some gravitas. Or, at the very least go to Congress with documentation to get this man-child out of office.


Thinking they can manage him is obviously silly and delusional. Trump is petulant and puerile and likely mentally ill. Combine that with his malignant narcissism and it's only a matter of time before he does something that is truly irreparable.


Whoever this is cannot control that. Not to mention, if I am to give this person any kind of credibility, they are outnumbered within the administration. Trump has essentially surrounded himself with sycophants and ball washers.


I am sure Anonymous would say there are others like them. Who? Pompeo? Mulvaney? Pence? Carson? LMFAO! They have all proven to be craven incompetent toadies.


This book is nothing more than an exercise in virtue signaling, which ironically the Right claims to abhor.


I have little desire to read this. Not because I don't believe it. I believe every word is probably true. The empirical evidence backs that up.


I have no desire to read it because I think it is self-serving. As I mentioned earlier, this is groundwork being laid for when this crazy train finally goes off the rails completely Anonymous can reveal themselves saying, "See, I was right and I saved us."


No! Say something now! Do something now! Resign and expose Trump's fraudulent criminal ass. Are the tax cuts, undoing Obama's legacy and maintaining power worth watching our democracy go to hell?


Until Anonymous decides to be a true patriot and shelve Conservative goals because they are not worth allowing this batshit crazy wannabe authoritarian to totally destroy our republic I need them to *take a seat*.


No, really, sit yo ass down!

Tribalism, Willful Ignorance & Lack Of Nuance Is Decaying Our Societal Discourse

It is en vogue right now to bemoan the lack of civility and/or polarization that seems to be so pervasive in the country. Almost everyone of us do it pointing to all the folks who seemingly can't muster a smidge of basic kindness and respectful tone. But, the reality is many of us are as guilty as the people we call out.


Whether it is politics, sports, entertainment or preferred cuisine so many people get into their respective corners and fight for their team no matter what.


Look, the truth is by nature human beings are somewhat tribalistic. It is partially the reason sports are so popular. We can get behind a team or an university or a single competitor and cheer them on. It makes us feel as though we're apart of an exclusive community where we all have the same common goals and we can share the pain of losing and the thrill of winning.


Although it is on a more serious level the same can be said for politics . While we sometimes feel sports is life and death politics actually can be. We each have our own values which determine (at least in theory) our political and social beliefs. Those beliefs usually dictate which political party we choose. And, for some those beliefs make them ostensibly apolitical and they choose to not belong to any political party.


With all of this said regardless of what sports team or political party we affiliate with we acknowledged that ultimately we were all on the same team. However, in today's hyper polarized climate that is not the case.


Way too many of us have literally taken the position of either you are 100% with us or you are against us. Even 99% is not good enough. We state, if you don't think like we think, then you are not only the enemy you are unworthy of basic human empathy or courtesy. As a result one side hates the other and vice versa.


I see it in sports every day. I am an avid Atlanta Braves fan. From March to September (and hopefully October) my primary sports focus is the Braves. I love my team. So, because of my affinity for the Braves I hate (in the colloquial sense) the Washington Nationals, New York Mets and Philadelphia Phillies. Quite frankly, some of their fans are obnoxious. But, I don't literally hate them. I don't want to see harm come to those teams or their fans.


However, we now live in a time where some fans do want to see harm come to other teams' fans and in a few cases have taken action to make that desire come to fruition.


We know all too well this is true in the political spectrum. Unfortunately, we have seen way too many politically inspired violent events and mass shootings.


This has simply been the result of people defending their team or believing they are going to impress certain leaders.


Right now we are so polarized and tribalist that mostly we can't have a civil discussion with those whom we disagree without it devolving into a profanity laced ad hominem filled shouting match (whether in person or on social media). Nothing gets solved. Usually nobody actually explains their position. And, most of us don't care because we're more concerned with did we "own" them or entice enough tears for us to bathe in while we stroke ourselves really believing we proved intellectual superiority.


It is not about exchanging ideas or discussing policy disagreements. It is about repping the team and "winning".


This need to win or "own" somebody, which frankly is demented and puerile, is also causing us to lose objectivity and nuance. We used to at least pretend to not be sheep and have the ability to disaggregate.


In today's climate the ability to be nuanced has been thrown out the window.


This happens in politics and racial issues all the time. It drives me insane.


If a Republican does something obviously wrong, the vast majority of Republicans refuse to call it out. Worse, they pretend it either isn't wrong or it didn't happen.


The same goes, for example, with some black folks too. (Now, I must be clear I am not saying it's only black people. I should not have to clarify this, but I am because I know someone will likely get offended and think I'm attacking black folks. Again, lack of nuance and ability to disaggregate.)


Anyway, I hear and read black people who totally excuse pernicious behavior by other black folks because white people do it and get away with it or because of white supremacy or because the occupant in the White House did it. And, depending on the circumstance, that is very likely true but doesn't have anything to do with that person or those people doing something undeniably wrong. But, because said person(s) is ostensibly on our team we're supposed to have their back regardless. It's ridiculous.


As a society we have seemingly lost any objectivity. We no longer care about right and wrong or decency. We are only concerned with are you on our side and defending/protecting that side regardless the consequences.


Those consequences have presented themselves in our discourse and behavior. This tribalism has bore fruits that are pernicious and debilitating to our society.


Now, let me be clear, this isn't some woke scold about civility as the term is often cynically used. I am not advocating people don't fiercely and vociferously defend their positions and values. I certainly am not saying to stand down to people who are overtly offensive and bigoted. I am not saying let's all sing kumbaya. Some very nihilistic and ghoulish people are in our body politic and society writ large and should be called out at every turn.


What I am saying is to listen. I am saying argue or debate with integrity and honesty. I am saying be objective in your critiques. Don't defend team for the sake of team. Please stop demonizing and dehumanizing those you disagree with simply because they disagree. Take others' position on a case by case situation and proceed accordingly. Do not just broad brush because it is easier to that than take a few moments to employ critical thinking and nuance.


Many of us love to talk about others being sheep. But, let me inform you, when you take up for someone because they simply are on your "team" and not because of the merits of the situation it is you who is being the sheep.

Candace Owens Is Toxic: Here Is Why

Candace Owens is a pollutant to political discourse, the African-American community and society writ large. Full stop!


This may sound a bit hyperbolic or just flat outrageous. But, I believe it to be wholly true, and I make no apologies for the statement.


If you follow this blog or any of my social media posts, you are likely well aware of my disdain for Stacey Dash's broke down cousin aka the low rent Omarossa. My contempt for Candace, I believe, is firmly buoyed by evidence.


Recently, at a Summit Tv panel featuring Candy, T.I., Killer Mike and Katrina Pierson T.I. asked Owens, "What era are we trying to replicate when America was last great?" Now, this is a question I've asked frequently and have yet to receive an actual answer. I know this is because Trump supporters cannot answer it honestly without being boxed into a corner forced to defend the indefensible. If they do attempt to answer it they go to the predictable playbook of employing red herrings and non-sequiturs, which is exactly what Candace did.


She started babbling about how "slavery was all over the world". T.I. cut her off and demanded she answer the question, which she insisted she was. She was not. She was making an attempt to justify America's actions with the always thoughtful "Well, they did it too" defense.


This weak ass sauce is a part of what encapsulates what Candace Owens is all about.


I have a plethora of issues with Candace Owens. I stringently feel her entire spiel is pernicious and distracting. Her rhetoric is often ahistorical, fallacious and disingenuous. When she does state facts it is void of context and perspective. Candace is frequently intellectually dishonest in her arguments and positions.


What I find the most disturbing is her absolute willingness to fetishize herself for a subset of white rightwingers and alt-righters who receive some sort of demented pleasure from seeing people of color go on tv or audio media trashing other people of color or poc as a whole. Even more disturbing is her regurgitating white nationalist/white supremacist talking points so they essentially can be laundered giving white nationalists and white supremacists cover to promote their hateful and insidious ideology.


An example of this is her so-called Blexit campaign which is an effort to convince African-Americans to leave the Democratic Party "plantation". She frequently reminds us that Democrats were in favor of slavery and against Civil Rights. 'Ol girl loves to spew the Republican talking point it was a Republican who freed the slaves. She loves to mention the Klu Klux Klan was supposedly a Democrat group. Candace claims social safety net programs such as welfare were created by Democrats to keep black folks in a slave mentality.


Now, here is where Stacey Dash's broke down cousin inserts some truth into her bullshit propaganda but it's drenched in disingenuousness. Yes, Democrats promoted slavery and were vehemently against Civil Rights. However, what she conveniently neglects to mention is it wasn't all Democrats it was southern Democrats (and southern Republicans for the record). The same regarding the Klan. As for welfare, if it is a trap to keep black people on the plantation it's putting some white folk there too since there are more white people per capita on welfare than blacks. Another oversight by the black Ann Coulter.


Candy also loves to spout another alt-right talking point which is this feigned concern for the absence of black men in the home. When she speaks about the detrimental effect the absence of a father can have on a family she is correct. She blames this on Democrats which they actually possess some culpability. But, their culpability lies in their cosigning rightwing projects which favors increased incarnation of young African-American men. People like Joe Biden advocated for engaging in the drug war which was nothing more than a war on black people. Not only did increased incarceration occur but so did blatant disproportionate sentencing which literally has black men in prison for multiple decades, if not life, for non-violent drug offenses. Shall I even go into stop and frisk. All of these things were Republican projects that, yes, were supported by some Democrats. But, for some reason Candace leaves the Republicans' responsibility out of it.


Something that Candace Owens has done which directly bolsters white supremacy by completing being ahistorical is her depiction of the Republican Party's strategy the last 50 plus years. A few months ago she went onto Ari Melber's show on MSNBC saying the "southern switch" and the "southern strategy" aren't real and are lies perpetrated by the Democrats. This is demonstrably false!


The "southern switch" most certainly took place. After the passage of Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965 respectively the vast majority of southern Democrats were so angry they left the Democratic Party. Where did they go? The Republican Party where they were welcomed with open arms and where they have been ever since.


Regarding the "southern strategy" it also is very real. It was created by Lee Atwater. Atwater was a campaign advisor for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, the campaign manager for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, as well as George H.W. Bush's campaign manager in 1988.


The "southern strategy", as described by Atwater in a now infamous recorded interview with a reporter, is a strategy that utilized racism and racial resentment to stir up the Republican base but did so by employing dog whistled and coded language. Atwater said Republicans can't say, "Nigger, nigger, nigger anymore" but must use phrases like "law and order" (which is code for keep the blacks in line) and make welfare synonymous with black people thus where phrases like "welfare queens" and "young bucks buying Cadillacs with their welfare checks" came into play. Any of that sound familiar?


On his deathbed Atwater claimed he felt great remorse over what he did and the stigmas he helped place on black people. He allegedly begged for forgiveness. Whatevs.


So, for Candace Owens(an African-American woman) to go on national television and lie about things that manifestly had an adverse negative effect on the black community and the body politic as a whole and still does til this day is abhorrent. It is indefensible. She knows she's full of shit but she does it anyway.


Why? Why does she do it? It is simple. Turning Points USA (a far rightwing organization geared toward college and high school students), billionaires such as TPUSA bankroller Foster Fries and conservative media like Fox News pays her quite handsomely. Also, she receives massive exposure which a narcissistic clout chasing grifter like Candace Owens craves almost as much as the money.


Owens is willing to suspend her conscience and integrity to play a role. As I stated before she fetishizes herself for a segment of rightwingers whom literally get off to seeing poc demean and denigrate other poc under the guise of "helping them". It is especially exciting when it is a black woman. They get all warm and fuzzy and horny inside. Some day perhaps I'll go into the psychosis of this perverse lunacy but not now. And, if they throw in a few ridiculous rightwing talking points along with the white nationalist ones all the better.


The perfect example of this and what truly sums Candace Owens up was her interview a year or so ago with Joe Rogan on his podcast. Rogan, who full disclosure I like despite him often being a conduit for alt-right ghouls like Candy, asked her about climate change. (Rogan strongly and correctly believes climate change is real.) Predictably like a good little rightwing oligarch funded girl Candace said she didn't believe in it. Rogan asked why. She said, "I just don't." Somewhat baffled Rogan again asked why. Owens responded she just doesn't believe it because it is not really proven. Amazed at this stupidity Rogan said, "Over 99% of scientists agree it's real." Candace said they "have an agenda" although she didn't say exactly what that agenda was. She then went to a Trumpism and said it was a "Chinese hoax". Visibly staggered by the utter ignorance coming out of Owens' mouth Rogan was about to have his mind blown little did he know. He again pressed Aunt Tomasina why exactly she didn't believe in climate change. Then she says, "Well, honestly, I've never actually read up on it." Incredulous Rogan retorted, "How can you say you don't believe in something you've never actually read up on?" Her response, "I'll read on it, but I just don't believe it."


Upon hearing this exchange any doubt I had about what Candace Owens actually is was unequivocally removed. She is nothing more than a shill regurgitating talking points. But, more disturbing and telling was she couldn't even articulate the talking points because she hadn't even taken the time to learn them and craft an argument. Not only is she a sellout and a fraud she is lazy.


Of course, she can be because her backers don't care as long as she plays the part. In fact, the reality she does appear to be lazy just plays into the narrative they're wanting to propagate.


What Candace Owens does is noxious. It is malevolent. She intentionally disseminates fallacies and ahistorical references. That is not helpful to political discourse.


It is more than I disagree with her politics. It is what she's doing is frankly dangerous. She is laundering an evil and pernicious ideology that has already shown itself a deadly hazard to society.


The truth is I could go on to cite so many other examples of her ignorance and malfeasance.


And, it must be noted literally six weeks before her "conservative awakening" Candace ran a website mocking Donald Trump and questioning his penis size. Her website also featured such intellectually thoughtful pieces as "I Can Take Your Man". But, then suddenly she realized Trump was awesome. I'm sure the Brinks truck of money she was given had nothing to do with her political rebirth.


I don't like Candace Owens. I don't respect her. Frankly, I have little to no patience for people who defend her.


Her Auntie Ruckus act is so obvious. She doesn't care about black people. If she did she would come talk to us regarding solutions instead of babbling vacuous Trump talking points about how he has done so much to help black folk when we all know he hasn't and his racism has been quite apparent. Seriously, name one positive thing Candy has done for black people.................


She is not here for us. Her ostensible purpose is to help African-Americans progress. However, her entire shtick is geared toward white crypto-racists, white supremacists and people who are mildly bigoted but susceptible to being pulled further right. She goes on cable tv and YouTube saying things these people want to say but feel they can't. She gives them cover. They can say, "Sure, what I said sounds racist but Candace Owens said the same thing so it can't be."


It is repugnant and disgusting! It is extremely harmful. And, I'll continue to call her out and debunk her bullshit just like I do with any extreme rightwing and alt-right garbage.


I don't think Candace Owens believes most of the shit that comes out of her mouth. But, it really doesn't matter if she does. What she says is putrid! And, it must be called out as such.

Biden Has A "Black" Problem (Stop Pretending He Doesn't)

Through any objective lens Joe Biden has some problematic views and perceptions regarding race.


For the last four years the common media narrative has been that it is Bernie Sanders who has an African-American voter problem. However, that narrative is disingenuous and misleading. Please contain your shock that the media would propagate a disingenuous narrative. Sanders actually has a favorability rate with black voters under the age of 45. It is the older contingency where his issues lie, which is the case across the racial spectrum, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.


The current Democratic presidential candidate whom actually has the real "black" issue is Joe Biden.


As has been heavily reported Biden has quite an extensive history of holding questionable views on certain racial matters,  making (if I am being kind) tone deaf comments regarding black folks and promoting legislation that has been detrimental to the African-American community.


Over his near 50 years in government he has repeatedly used language that sounded like it came out of Mitch McConnell's mouth more than the civil rights advocating liberal he claims he is. For example, when Biden was pushing for the 1994 crime bill, which by the way he authored, he routinely referred black male youths as animals, predatory and often hopeless. In a famous speech on the Senate floor he rhetorically instituted imagery that suggested little white women like his mother were susceptible to these brooding dangerous criminals (who were black).


Biden has often employed condescending statements that are dripping with tropes and implicit racism. During the 2008 presidential election he said about Barack Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Now, I am quite sure some will read that and say, "So, what is wrong with that?" Well, aside from being horribly historically inaccurate it also implies that Obama was "one of the good ones". I understand some people believe that is a compliment. I assure you it is not!


During this 2020 Democratic Primary Biden has repeatedly placed his foot in his mouth. He bragged about his ability to work and be friendly with segregationists back in the day. As if the bragging about befriending virulent racists wasn't bad enough, the "working with" he boasted about was the effort to fight bussing.


At a campaign stop he equated black people with poor people. He said (while discussing struggles of African-Americans) that poor kids are just as talented and bright as white kids.


To be fair I understand what he was attempting to convey. However, it is troubling that in his mind black kids are unilaterally the same as poor kids.


Then there was the last Democratic debate on the campus of Texas Southern, a HBCU. Biden was asked about a comment he made in the 1970s essentially regarding reparations and what responsibility people today have about healing the wounds and repairing the damage from slavery which still affects the country today as well as the racial inequalities in our schools. [And, it does regardless of what fantasyland some rightwingers want to dally in.] Biden said (in the 70s) that he "wasn't responsible for what happened 300 years ago but what his generation has done today".


Here is how Biden responded to the question:


"Look, there's institutional segregation in this
country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Red lining, banks, making sure we are in a position where — look, you talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend from $15 to $45 billion a year.


We have [sic] make sure that every single child does in fact have ... three, four, and five-year-olds go to school, not daycare.


We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It's not that they don't want to help, they don't know quite what to do.


Play the radio, make sure the television — the, excuse me — make sure you have the record player on at night ... make sure the kids hear words."


Lawd Jesus where do I begin with this hot mess?


He started off fine. He is 100% correct about redlining, institutional racism from the banks and the lack of funding for schools which is swallowed up in systemic racism. It is so engulfed I can't go into it here because it is way too detailed
and a couple of sentences won't do it justice. I suggest watching Contrapoints YouTube video about Baltimore. It explains Baltimore's contemporary issues which can be paralleled with nearly every other innercity and predominantly black and/or brown poor community in this country.


But, then he goes off into some ramble about three, four and five year olds going to school and not daycare. Honestly, I am not quite sure where he was going there.


Then he goes off the rails into implicit racism territory. He essentially questions black folks' ability to raise children and then more or less implies they don't know how to raise children. It was very condescending and Daniel Moynihan-ish. He literally sounded like one of those moderate Democrat from the 1980s that didn't believe black people were descendant from monkeys and of course were deserving of equality but are a "little bit inferior" and in need of a white savior.


He concluded his mind-numbing diatribe saying have the record player on and making sure the kids hear words. Look, I don't know what the "record player" fuckery was about. I can't even pretend I do.


However, I think his meandering about kids hearing words was in reference to some education and child development experts believing the more words children hear the more likely they are to excel and have robust vocabularies. Now, I have no desire to go down that road right now. I will just say I believe there is merit to that.


Is that what Biden was saying? I really don't know.


Regardless, the gist of his comments were troubling. They added to a pattern of Biden's that is less than flattering to people of color. It can be said his comments added to a few narratives, all of whom are problematic for someone wanting to be the Democratic nominee tasked with defeating the most corrupt, amoral bigoted president of the last 100 years.


Hey, the fact is Biden is the frontrunner. He possesses the majority of African-American support. I would argue his position on both fronts is tenuous. I believe as the time for actual voting nears and more people start actually paying attention Biden could be in trouble.


Aside from the fact people are not paying attention now and are so effin apathetic what is troubling me that these gaffes and views aren't seemingly affecting those who are paying attention right now. I guess I understand this obsession with electability, which I believe is actually an obsession with this delusion Trumpsters can be swayed away from Cheeto Jesus and they'll "see the light". That strategy is dangerous, naive and ill-conceived.


I am also aware segments of the Democratic electorate believe Biden's problematic racial views are actually beneficial. What those people don't seem to grasp is such an approach will alienate chunks of their base and voters who stayed home in 2016. For many of them Trump being a wannabe fascist menace isn't enough if they believe they are just voting for Republican light which partially got us into our current mess.


And, I want to be clear. I don't believe Joe Biden is a racist. If he is the nominee, of course, I will support him over that fool in the White House.


However, Biden has some very bothersome cringy racial views. Frankly, that is only a fraction of my issues with him.


Again, if he is the nominee, I'll down a shot of rubbing alcohol and vote for him. But, there are significantly better choices, so let's just go with one of them instead of during the general election enduring Uncle Joe deciding to reminisce about as a kid how he just loved Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben because they were "good role models for [the] blacks".

It's A Primary Debate; Not A Love-In

Apparently, some Democrats are very confused about exactly how a presidential primary works.


One of the reoccurring themes throughout the Democratic Primary thus far has been this mind-numbing lamenting over candidates and their supporters criticizing other candidates.


Everyone from Bill Maher to Neera Tanden to even President Obama has whined about candidates sniping at each other and critiquing others records. A few months ago Obama referred to it as a "circular firing squad". That is just silly.


This is a presidential primary with an ungodly-and I mean an ungodly- number of people running. These candidates have to distinguish themselves and their policy sets from their opponents. They have to put forth a platform convincing the Democratic electorate why they should be the nominee to take on #CheetoJesus himself, Donald Trump. The way they do that is by selling themselves AND by ripping other candidates' records and pointing out issues. This is how campaigns have worked since....oh, I don't know.....FOREVER!


This ridiculous notion (honestly, mostly pushed by centrists, Neoliberals and hating Trump consumed liberals) that candidates should just stroke each other and not ever seize on any mistake or questionable policy stance is infantile and counterproductive. Frankly, it's undemocratic.


As I just mentioned there are certain types of folks doing all of this bemoaning and unfortunately it is a bit more nefarious than it seems.


Much of this nonsense stems from moderates, centrists and corporate media who wants a centrist candidate like Joe Biden or for some ungodly reason Amy Klobuchar because either they believe in centrism, want to maintain the status quo/return to "normalcy" or they think a centrist is most electable. Others are pushing this "everyone hold hands" narrative because they are capping for Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris because they are actually more in-line with their politics and they think will be more palatable to moderates than, say, Bernie Sanders. Also, regardless the motivation, they also believe in-fighting will lead to a repeat of 2016.


Now, on a surface level I get that. However, the argument is specious. Hillary Clinton didn't lose the election because Bernie supporters didn't show up for her. In fact, 85% of Sanders' voters voted for Hillary. She lost, in part, because of her own political malfeasance. But, I am not here to yet again re-litigate the 2016 Presidential election.


The reality is critiquing candidates and vetting their records is good for the political process. It is vital in helping voters determine whom they feel is the candidate who will best represent them. Not you! Not me! Not the donor class! Them!


And, some people really need to cease with this false equivalency nonsense that combing through one's public service record is analogous to attacking them personally. It is absolutely asinine to bemoan people questioning Joe Biden about his past comments on race and racial issues. These matters are important. And, I already know some tool is saying, "Oh my Gawd! It's not like Biden is like Trump." Right. Not saying he is. But, it's mine and others prerogative to have someone a bit more progressive on race as the person representing us.


In the same respect I believe it is beyond fair to question Elizabeth Warren on her votes regarding the increase in military spending. It is fair game to go after Bernie Sanders on his record in Congress. Kamala Harris should be forced to defend her sketchy record as California district attorney. Julian Castro should most certainly be asked about his questionable decisions while in the Obama administration. Cory Booker needs to answer about his ties to charter schools which have ostensibly disaffected the inner-city communities he's always talking about. Marianne Williamson, whom I adore, should absolutely be pushed on her "it's all about love" strategy and asked what the hell is she talking about.


All of the candidates should be picked apart and pushed. These people aren't running for the head of the Blueberry Festival committee. They are running to be President of The United States!


But, I am not naive. As I previously noted, some people are simply hawking this childish lunacy because they want the status quo or centrism. They don't want Biden or Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg critiqued or dug into because they fear if they are the Democratic base will reject them and pick Warren or Sanders who they either feel isn't electable (which is ridiculous) or they will threaten their influence and/or wealth hoarding (which is why one of them should probably be the nominee).


The primary season is not a kumbaya fest. Primary debates are not for candidates to get on a stage and slob each other up because...you know...civility.


Grab a dictionary or get on the 'ol Google machine and look up the definition of debate.


Understand, I don't believe personal attacks are good. Although, the truth is voters respond to them whether folks want to acknowledge that or not. But, some spirited discussion and calling each other out for past (and current) words and deeds is not only acceptable it is healthy.


It is called democracy.


Oh, and let me be clear, regardless who the nominee is I'll support them. All of them are significantly more qualified and infinitely better human beings than the current occupant of the White House. This should go without saying.

Bill Maher's Problematic Shift To The Center

Since 2016 comedian and Real Time host, Bill Maher, has steadily shifted his politics to the center. This is disappointing and troublesome.


Maher built a reputation as a someone who was an outlier and a check not only on Republicans but the Democratic establishment. He was seen as a standard bearer for the Left-the actual political Left.


He said the quiet parts aloud about America's role in fostering Al-Qaeda's rise and its perpetual defense of and covering for Saudia Arabia. Maher was a vociferous voice against the Iraq War at a time when media figures like Phil Donahue were getting fired for their anti-war stances.


Bill Maher was a rare voice in the mainstream beating the drum about climate change in a period when political pundits and analysts weren't discussing it with any type of substantive seriousness. Maher spoke frequently about wealth inequality. And, of course, he pushed legalizing marijuana and stopping the drug war.


However, this was pre-2016 Maher. That Bill Maher early on endorsed Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.


Since that time Maher has steadily devolved into centrism and all its nonsensical talking points and vapid neoliberalism. He has become a cheerleader for the establishment he once ostensibly resented on some level and certainly didn't hesitate to criticize.


Now, this could be the result of him getting older. They (whoever the hell they are) say people become more conservative the older they get. Although I find myself becoming more progressive the older I get, but I am weird. Or, so that is the impression I discern some have.


Frankly, I believe it is a combination of factors as to Maher's shift. Maher has become entrenched in the mainstream. The mainstream he once ostensibly was a reluctant member of he now embraces.


Maher is a face of #TheResistance. Although I am sure he would pretend to recoil at such a label.


The idea of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is largely ludicrous. What rightwingers call derangement most people call being decent human beings repulsed by a repulsive man in Donald Trump and his draconian policies. However, some people are obsessed with despising him for the sake of despising him. Bill Maher seems to fit that description.


It should be noted Maher and Trump have a history. Google Trump suing Maher over him questioning whether Trump's father was an orange haired orangutan or not. Of course, it was a joke (the best Maher ever had in my opinion) but we all know Daddy is quite thin skinned. So, predictably he threw a hissy fit.


Anyway, another factor in Maher's shift has to do with his somewhat illogical war on social media, college campuses and political correctness. Honestly, his incessant grievance mongering about it has turned him into "get off my lawn guy".


This unrelenting whiny railing against political correctness has led him to have people such as Milo Yianopoulous, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Sam Harris on his show which, frankly, was a sign of his disturbing shift.


Look, having these grifters on his show is fine if he gave any semblance of substantive pushback against them. But, he didn't do that. Instead, he essentially laundered their toxic nonsense. In the cases of Shapiro and Milo he allowed them to seem reasonable instead of the monsters they actually are. And, when it came to Petersen and Harris, he basically had a love fest where they stroked each other off instead of providing any check on their pseudo science and crypto-bigotry. It was disgusting.


Herein lies why in part Maher's shift to the center is so problematic. His newfound ideology allowed him to provide a platform for overtly toxic cretins like Shapiro and Petersen. It gave them a vehicle to present themselves as "just logical people with a right bent". It presented them as civil when that is far from the truth.


Shapiro is a religious zealot, bigot and demagogue who has said and wrote heinous things about Muslims, Palestinians, Hispanics and African-Americans. Let's not even mention Benjamin is a shameless grifter who presents himself as an intellectual when he is the opposite of intellectual.


Something is undoubtedly wrong when a known staunch rightwinger on the BBC provides infinitely more objective checks on Shapiro than the supposed mainstream voice of the Left does.


And, Petersen literally is a conduit for incels. They see him as their Svengali. He is daddy. Yet, when he was on the show Maher was more interested in talking about 19 year old college kids upset about Richard Spencer giving speeches on their campuses and how snowflakey it was.


The other obvious problematic feature of Maher's newfound centrism is its affect on his viewpoint of the 2020 Democratic primary.


Hey, when a nominee is determined I'm all about pragmatism and realism. For the love of God Donald Trump is president. It goes without saying this buffoonish unintelligent unfit monster has to go. I get it!


However, right now pragmatism isn't required nor is it necessary. The entire reason primaries supposedly exist is for people to properly access the merits and policies of the people running for office. So, candidates must establish themselves and what distinguishes them from the other candidates. That is done by criticizing other candidates and pointing out why their policies and/or records aren't better than their opponents'.


This notion that Maher and others (including President Obama) push about the ills of a circular firing squad is utter nonsense. On recent shows Maher has lamented the critiquing of Biden's, Harris', and Buttigieg's records as bullshit nitpicking Twitter induced woke purity tests. That is demented.


Of course, Joe Biden's record matters. His refusal to acknowledge past mistakes matter.


Diminishing Kamala Harris' actions as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General as, "She was a prosecutor who prosecuted. How dare she?", is at best infantile. It certainly matters that Harris was prosecuting parents for truant children but flatly refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchikin after he essentially stole millions of dollars and left numerous people penniless. That speaks to character.


It's not "woke Twitter bullshit" to hold Mayor Pete to account for his handling of policing issues. Nor is it unreasonable to critique policy ideas of the other candidates. It's called vetting.


Regarding the 2020 election what is perhaps most troublesome about Maher is his seemingly pushing the idea that Democrats just settle and pick an extremely flawed Joe Biden or a moderate because they have the best chance of winning. Choosing a candidate based upon "electability" is a stupid idea and has historically been proven to be a counterproductive one. History has shown the candidate people believe those outside of their tent will choose is rarely the actual right choice. See 2016. If Bernie Sanders was the nominee he would've won. I've had to atone many times for not understanding that.


But, Bill Maher's push for Biden or any centrist candidate I suspect is more than about electability. The dude who at one time was all about aspirational politics suddenly is an avid cheerleader for the status quo and incrementalism. The one time proponent of Medicare for all and increased taxation on the wealthy so they pay their fair share is like, "Well, let's slow down with that. It sounds like socialism which I have no problem with but..."


Translation: Maher is a really rich guy and like most rich people he doesn't want to give a dime of it up.  Now, I am sure he would say he's being pragmatic and an adult. Three years ago he was squawking about we need Medicare for all.


It is disheartening to see someone I looked up to descend into this neoliberal centrist self-serving black hole. The guy who advocated for environmental protections and making sure all people are looked after is now openly pushing an agenda that ultimately only looks out for the privileged. The man who was a progressive icon is now more concerned with rightwingers disingenuously whining about free speech allegedly being suppressed on college campuses than he is actual voter suppression across this country. The guy who was honestly the only semblance of a progressive voice in mainstream media is way more upset about Ilhan Omar making a substantive accurate critique of Israeli lobbyists that was disgustingly characterized as anti-Semitic than he is the President's overt Islamaphobia.


Maher has a huge platform he is simply using irresponsibly. And, because of his platform his politics are greatly problematic.


As I mentioned before, he will have on his show Petersen, Shapiro, Harris and Bret Stephens but never once has he invited Cenk Uguyr or Ana Kasparian or Sam Seeder all of whom viewers of his show know. And, sorry, Van Jones is not someone to use as a retort. Van is progressive but his progressivism is a bit too fluid.


I really hope this shift of Maher's is a simple product of wanting Trump gone but I sincerely fear it's not. It's been coming for awhile.

Here's The Thing: Strawmanning Democratic Socialism

VENEZUELA! VENEZUELA! VENEZUELA!


Screaming this is literally an innate response for rightwingers every time Democratic Socialism or Medicare for all is mentioned. And, it's such a silly strawman.


If you have ever watched Fox News (I'm sorry for the loss of brain cells if you have) or had a conversation with Conservatives and rightwingers you are familiar with the following:


Rightwinger: Socialism is bad and evil.


Progressive (or anyone with a lick of knowledge and/or nuance): Well, I would say a system that encourages healthcare and criminal rehabilitation be based upon profit margin is evil. But, I digress. Progressives and people like Bernie and AOC don't want socialism. They're advocating Democratic Socialism which is different.


RW: No it's not! Democratic socialism is socialism.


P: No, that is incorrect. Democratic socialism has aspects of socialism, yes, but is distinctively different.




RW: VENEZUELA!


P: What?! Huh?


RW: VENEZUELA!


P: But...


RW: VENEZUELA! CUBA!


P: Are you having an episode of some kind?


RW: VENEZUELA! CUBA! You want to turn us into Venezuela!


P: No, we don't. We don't want authoritarian socialism, which by the way Cuba is communist...


RW: Bullshit! VENEZUELA! You want us eating dog food like they do there.


P: Good Lawd! No, we don't. First of all, the authoritarian regime in VENEZUELA has a lot to do with the conditions there. However, American foreign policy has wielded significant influence in how the conditions are as well. But, that's beside the point. We are talking about the Nordic countries and the medical coverage they have in Canada and virtually every other major industrial country in the world; not Venezuela.


RW: Whatever. VENEZUELA! And, those Scandinavian countries are small so they can do that there. Besides, those countries pay ridiculous taxes.


P: Well, those countries rank significantly higher than us in education, industrialization, healthcare, job productivity, quality of life, life longevity and overall happiness.


RW: Well, we're the greatest country ever! If you think those countries are so great, leave! Stand up for the flag!


P: What does standing for the flag have to do with this?


RW: You want Venezuela! I love my country! Respect the vets! Respect the anthem! Respect the flag! Damn Marxist!


P: 😐...Um, anyway, I don't see what any of that has to do with Democratic socialism. You're sounding ridiculous.


RW: Everything! And, now, you're saying I am racist because I don't agree with you.


P: WTF! How did racism get into this?


RW: See! There you go bringing race into it. You libtards always have to bring race into everything and call names.


P: What is the fucking color of the sky in your world?


RW: It's red, white and blue because I love America unlike you communist Democrats.


P: Um....whatever. You do realize we already implement socialism in this country, right?


RW: How dare you? This is America! We believe in capitalism here! There ain't no damn socialism! Damn commies!


P: *Sigh* We do have socialism. The police, the fire department, the roads...


RW: Damn, you liberals are stupid. That is not socialism. Our taxes pay that.


P: Yeah, that the government decides how that taxpayer money is allocated. The government directly runs all of those entities that serve the greater public good. And, social security, the military and Medicare are also socialist programs.


RW: No they're not! Those are all programs that simply bolster our capitalist system.


P: 😐 Medicare isn't socialist?


RW: No! And, you libtards are supposed to be educated.


P: If that is so, then why do you so vehemently oppose MEDICARE for all?


RW: Because, that is socialism. You want to raise my taxes and make me pay for other people's free healthcare.


P: How do you walk upright? That is what Medicare is now. Except under Medicare for all your taxes would literally go toward funding your own healthcare instead of just those 65 years old and older.


RW: You're wrong. You want Medicare for all so you can get rid of Medicare! We don't want your socialism here. You, AOC and that Omar take that shit somewhere else. Keep your damn government hands off my Medicare and social security.


P: No. Child. Left. Behind. Is. A. Damn. Lie.


And, this kids, is what I mean when I say many rightwingers work backwards from their conclusions.


This conversation was based on actual conversations others and me have had both online and in person. They're real.


The struggle is real.

Your Silence, Equivocation And Apathy Is Complicity (Being Anti-Racism Is Not A Stand On The Sidelines Event)

It is way past time I fully address an issue that pisses me off! I have written a couple of blogs previously that in retrospect just danced around the elephant in the room.


It is just this simple, if you stand silently by while racist things are said and done, you are complicit. If you defend someone who says something racist by employing equivocation, you are complicit. If you give a milquetoast "rebuke" of a racist statement or someone who is racist, you are complicit.


I realize that many people want to be allowed to dictate the narrative about their words and actions. They want to have their cake and eat it too. However, that is not how it works with certain issues and racism is one such issue.


You cannot claim, "I'm not a racist";yet, go on these apology tours defending racism. Neither, can you say something that is racist or racially insensitive
then become all indignant when called out on it resorting to inane equivocations and what-aboutism.


One thing I have noticed people do which just makes my head explode is strawman racism. Some do it because they are simply racist and want to gift themselves some wiggle room for deniability for claims of racism. Others do it because they, too want plausible deniability. They want to be able to defend racists and racist rhetoric without the racism stench.


What these people do is constrict the construct of racism to such a narrow lane that virtually anything short of burning a cross in someone's yard while shouting, "I hate (all) niggers" is not considered racist.


For example, telling an American born person of color to "go back (another country) to where they come from" is racist. Everyone whether they are a poc or white knows this is a racist statement. Up until three or so years ago saying "go back to where you came from" was a red line for everyone except virulent avowed racists.


However, now it has been turned [by racists and racist sympathizers] into a referendum statement on one's patriotism and critique of the President. Aside from the obvious un-Constitutionality and pure idiocy of such a defense it's also a boldface lie.


I am keeping it real here. If you utter such garbage in defending this ostensibly racist statement you are actively being complicit in racism. Be triggered if you must but the truth is the truth.


It is becoming increasingly tiring, disappointing and infuriating to watch people-some whom I know, like and love- stay silent while avowed racists march in the streets or populate social media and in a few distinct case have jobs in the current presidential administration. It saddens and angers me that these same people, while telling me how much they love me and how not racist they are, remain radio silent while others say blatantly racist things. It incensed me when they simply shrugged their shoulders or regurgitated some dumbass false equivalencies about #Charlottesville.


Look, you cannot be anti-racism or abhor racism yet never call out actual racism. You can't claim to be against racism but act as if "reverse" racism is a thing while racism against poc is all in our imagination and a mere example of our desire to be victims. YOU just CANNOT!


And, part of this ignoring, deflecting and defending of racism is a result of sticking with one's team. We have become so tribal in this country that some people think if they actually criticize someone who aligns with their broader political ideology they'll be seen as a betrayer.


Of course, I am not naive. I know some people are just truly bigots and racists who are attempting to keep up some facade.


And, let me make clear, just because you have a black friend or a Hispanic co-worker you like or a gay cousin you still talk to doesn't give you categorical exemption from being a bigot or racist. Stop being a disingenuous tool.


All of these things could very well be true. But, if you believe black people as a whole are lazy and stupid, Hispanics are rapists and filthy and homosexuals are perversions and mentally ill it doesn't matter what you think about those individual people you know. You are a bigot! Period!


If you hear someone whether they be family, friends, co-workers or fellow parishioners spew racist, homophobic or xenophobic crap and you stay silent or worse laugh and/or join in you are complicit. There is no equivocation. There are no excuses. There is no defense. At best you are complicit in the racism and bigotry.


If you are, as you claim, wholeheartedly against bigotry and racism it shouldn't be hard to speak out against it. Speak out against it even if it is someone you don't like who is the target of the bigotry. It should not take it being someone you like or those "magic" words or slurs being used for you to speak out if you truly detest racism and bigotry. And, it should not have to take a poc to be present for you to speak up. Rail against racism and bigotry even a poc or LGBTQ aren't around. If you don't, it's quite telling.  


I am so sick and tired of folks acting as if they are on some moral high plane yet refusing to engage in the most basic acts of human decency.


I am fed up with people saying they are Christians yet staying silent while other Christians are being dehumanized and demeaned.


I am over people who take great offense at the mere hinting they could be racist yet will defend racism in a hot second while hemming and hawing to condemn it.


It is easy. It really is. Regardless who says it, what their political affiliation is or the target call out racism when it is done and said. Just call it the eff out! No equivocation! No what-aboutism! No "but they..."! No weak ass apologist nonsense! No milquetoast responses. Just speak up, speak out and condemn it.


If you truly are not racist or sympathize with racism/racists it should be easy. Right?...

Centrism Is Trash Politics

At one time I was a rank and file member of centrism. I completely bought into the triangulation politics that Bill Clinton sold and which he created a political dynasty. I really believed that being in the center on certain "touchy" issues was the most prudent position even if in my heart I was not in the center.


But now...I realize how idiotic and craven that was. I realize that compromising on certain issues doesn't work when the people you are compromising for don't nor have any intention of giving you an inch.


Now, that doesn't mean a sincere moderate position on an issue is not ok. If that is how one truly feels then that is how they feel. However, some issues-those of human decency and human rights- cannot have a moderate position.


For example, racism. Joe Biden's record and history on race has been under scrutiny the last few weeks.


I sincerely don't believe Biden is a racist or even a bigot, but I do believe he has some racial issues. He is the prototypical example of the "white moderate" Dr. Martin Luther King warned about.


Biden knows racism is wrong. He even realizes the very concept is immoral and illogical. Yet, he has a pattern of sympathizing with racists. He refuses to fully acknowledge and call out racism in a significant swath of this country's electorate.


Instead, he chooses to lay the pestilence of racism at Donald Trump's feet. He said the "fever will break" (regarding the Republican Party) once Trump is out of office. He fails to realize or acknowledge that Trump is a symptom and not the cause. And, I believe he does this because if he acknowledges the racism and bigotry he would then have to acknowledge that a section of the electorate he is ambitiously wanting to sway to his corner is racist and the country is more racist than he wants to accept.


And, a staple of centrism is to acquiesce to the fact some issues (such as race) exist but it's "not that bad" or just wait it out because the racists will come around. It's literally the same tact some rightwingers will utilize to strawman arguments about issues like the pervasiveness of racism.


One more thing about Biden is the bussing issue. Biden's stance on bussing is easily obtainable to anyone that would do 10 minutes of research.


I am sure most people are aware of Biden's bragging about working with well-known segregationists on a multitude of issues including bussing back in the 1970s. In fact, he is quite proud of the collaboration he did with them.


Biden's defenders say, "Hey, it was a different time. Besides only 9% of African-Americans approved of bussing and only 5% of the country." 


Now, let me take the second sentence first. Yes, only 9% of blacks wanted bussing, but context matters. I am guessing black folks' reasons for being against bussing was distinctly different from white folks' reasons.


This is classic centrism bullshit. Let's just take a poll result that gives us cover from not taking a principled stand and pretend said poll doesn't have hella context surrounding it.


Ok, allow me to address the first sentence. Perhaps, nothing infuriates me more than when people excuse grown ass folks' racism and bigotry by saying "it was a different time". I don't give a shit!


The argument that [insert horrific thing] was more "socially acceptable" then doesn't fly. In fact, it's cowardice.


People knew 45 years ago segregation was immoral and wrong. Don't babble shit to me about it is wrong to judge past times by today's standards. They knew it was wrong. Biden knew it was wrong.


Fact is, he didn't think black kids should be going to "white schools". I don't think his stance was because he was necessarily racist. I really believe it was because he thought things were moving to fast and white folks were still dealing with the whole "Negras having rights" thing.


Biden, like most centrists, is all about incremental change. The problem with incremental change is it usually results in no change. Biden's bussing bill was in 1974-20 years AFTER Brown v Board of Education. Obviously the time for incremental change was over.


Another issue with centrism is it's about keeping the status quo even if the status quo is hot garbage. Insert Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.


Pelosi says ad nauseam she is a progressive, but her record decidedly says otherwise. She does what centrists frequently do. They taut populism or at least a firm principled ideology when in reality they're just interested making sure the corporatist machine is well oiled.


Pelosi has been in the news recently over her condescending remarks regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar aka #TheSquad or as I call them #ProgressiveGoddesses She has been dismissive and resentful of them since they were elected because they represent true progressive values and signal where the Democratic base truly is. Oh, and they're not interested in kissing corporate ass, which in Pelosi's book is almost as blasphemous as suggesting she sucks at her job.  


Pelosi's latest ire toward The Squad stemmed from their audible disagreement with the decision of Pelosi and Democratic leadership to cave to Republicans and centrist Democrats passing a bill giving Trump money on immigration. AOC and Tlaib, in particular, voiced concern because of the Trump administration's obvious callousness toward migrants at the southern border and the conditions of the detention centers. They and others questioned (legitimately) if the Trump administration would properly allocate the money.


It should also be noted The Squad and other Democrats (from the entire party spectrum) have publicly began questioning Pelosi's refusal to begin impeachment proceedings on Trump and what is seemingly a cursory effort to hold him accountable for anything. This, too, has Nancy all in her feelings .


Her response to criticism of the immigration appropriation bill was basically BIPARTISANSHIP. How very centrist of her.


It didn't seem to matter Trump locking kids up in cages allowing the children to sit in shitty pissy snot drenched clothing. It appeared to not be enough of an issue that these detention centers were grotesquely overcrowded and it ostensibly is by design they're that way. It is apparent that while Pelosi and Democratic leadership certainly find the fact people were going 15 days without showers, being told to drink out of toilets and women are being denied feminine hygiene products deplorable it's not deplorable enough to deny him what he wanted on an IMMIGRATION appropriations bill.


Why? Incrementalism! The term after corporate donor that gets them the wettest.


I could literally write a volume of books on why centrism is a trash ideology. And, it is an ideology.


The notion that a centrist is someone who just doesn't like rightwing or leftwing politics but is a pragmatist is just disingenuous and silly. The truth is centrism is essentially rightwing politics without the racial dog whistles, overt bigotry, culture war grievances and naked corporate welfare. Sorry. It is.


And, it is time that people who are truly for inclusion, equality, fair wages and a country that works for all its citizens and not just a select group realize that incremental change is not real change. It's just less toxic and more palatable. Saying, "Racism bad" isn't nearly enough to bring forth true equality. Same goes for sexism, homophobia, misogyny, islamophobia and transphobia. Sincere principled stances must be taken even if those stances aren't popular or receive pushback.


Leading isn't putting your finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. True leadership is going in the right direction even if it is going against the wind.


People like Biden and Pelosi aren't tethered to their beliefs they claim are principled. They are way to willing to compromise on issues that should not be compromised.


They are more interested in getting along to get along instead of holding principled positions and having actual beliefs. To be fair in some instances they were never truly principled in the first place. As an example, they are all about railing against Trumpism but when it comes to actually holding it accountable and calling it out for what it is they go, "It's not the people (it is) but that bad orange man."


That is centrism.


Hey, let's just all be happy even if we aren't happy. Yes, you deserve a 100 but just be ok with your 20. We'll get you another 20 in 15 years or so. We gotta take it slow. It's all about bipartisanship. (Although we all know the other side isn't going to give you 20 because they don't want you to have the 20 you have now, but be patient because we're working on them.)


Uh-huh.


Compromise is fine if it's actual compromise. Otherwise, it's just being a cuck!


Centrism is trash politics!

"This Is Not Who We Are!" Isn't It Though

In contemporary times every time the current administration proposes some draconian policy or commits some amoral reprehensible action (such as at the southern border separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in cages under horrific conditions) people scream, "This isn't America! This isn't who we are!"


But, it is.


*Gasp* How can I say such a thing I'm quite certain someone is saying right now. Well, I can say it easily because it is the truth.


One of the most destructive and annoying things we do in this country is promote this flawed ideal of American exceptionalism.


Now, before some folks get all in their feelings allow me to be clear. America is my country and I love it dearly. For all its flaws there is no other place I would rather be.


However, that doesn't mean it is perfect or infallible or hasn't been home to some of the world's most treacherous human rights violations. Because, it has. That is just an empirical irrefutable fact.


I love this country, but let's keep it real about what it has been in the past and is currently.


If you can't understand that, I am really saddened and depressed by your lack of nuance and insufferable stupidity. Moving on...


Since before this country's inception it has committed atrocities and human rights violations.


Slavery is always called America's original sin. But, I would argue our original sin is how this land became colonized.


Some people like to parse history and be flippant by saying Europeans were just savvier than the Natives they "acquired" the land from. The reality is Europeans (who later became Americans) pretended to befriend the Natives. Then, they not "acquired" but stole the land. They did it by literally intentionally infecting Native populations with diseases. They murdered people including children. They raped the women.


This vile activity continued well after the country's origins. The American government isolated Native Americans on reservations denying them access to adequate education and healthcare. And, they separated children from parents.


The same atrocities happened with slavery. It was not enough to enslave an entire group of people. Blacks were denied education. They were basically treated like cattle. And, families were constantly separated.


Look at how this country treated the Irish, Italians and the Chinese in the mid to late 1800s.


Let's remember World War II. Initially America had no interest in getting involved in the war even though we knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews. Hell, in the late 1930s there was an "America First" (sound familiar) campaign running strong  that ostensibly was an apologist and empathizer for Hitler and fascism.


Then, after we entered the war the American government placed all Japanese Americans in internment camps.


Oh, we certainly can't forget the 1950s and early 1960s with the despicable way Civil Rights protesters were treated. Bull Connor having his deputies sic dogs on and spray high powered water hose toward protesters with little rebuke from the United States government.


I mean we can discuss Jim Crow, which lasted 100 years after slavery ended. Some disingenuous folks love to pretend all was well after Lincoln freed the slaves but nothing could be further from the truth.


I would be remised if I didn't mention the rampant misogyny and sexism that held women down in this country decade after decade. They were viewed as second class citizens whose only useful purposes were to cook, clean, give birth and dish up pussy whenever demanded. Women couldn't possess credit cards until 1974. 1974!!! Let that shit sink in!


Rape wasn't necessarily seen as criminal unless it was a black man raping a white woman. By the way it was routine for black men to be convicted of rapes that white men committed or never happened at all.


So, my entire point with this trip down memory lane is that what we're seeing now with child separation, trans women being murdered with little retribution, the LGBTQ community writ large being discriminated against and marginalized, racism seemingly being normalized and rape culture being coddled if not fully embraced is nothing new.


Many say, "We're better than this!" We should be! But, are we?


Look, the truth is a pesky bish sometimes. It certainly can be uncomfortable.


Fact is this country has a long infamous history of mistreating certain groups of people. We love to "otherize" folks.


A certain pattern has existed since this country's origins and before. People of color and marginalized communities are constantly dehumanized. Native Americans were labeled savages. Slaves were labeled animals. Irish and Italians were labeled "anomalys". Today African-Americans are labeled thugs and animals. Hispanics are called rapists, murderers, vermin and infestations. The LGBTQ community is smeared with being called perversions, child molesters and abominations.


All of these labels and stigmas are employed to dehumanize. The purpose of these attacks is to marginalized and demean these people as much as possible.


Why? If you make someone seem less than human it is easier to belittle, abuse and mistreat them. It is easier for others to accept the mistreatment because they don't seem legitimate. What I find ironic about all of this is many of the same cretins who have no problem dehumanizing other human beings and treating them like animals lose their fucking minds anytime an actual animal is mistreated.


Kind of let's you know how folks of this ilk view people of color and LGBTQ.


The next time someone laments or cries, "This isn't who we are" ask them,"Then, who are we?"


I will close with this. A segment of this country (at times larger than others and pertains to people of all races, genders and sexual orientations) has always been just fine with the cruelty and depravity. People must understand for many folks the current administration's reprehensible actions aren't the bug but the feature and they love it! They must also accept there is another swath (and there always has been) of people who are somewhat uncomfortable with the dehumanizing actions but largely stay silent because they don't wanna rock the boat and on some level feel the same way about the marginalized. They're just not as virulent.


It was that way regarding the treatment Native Americans, during slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, treatment of LGBTQ people and on and on and on.


So, of course, this not whom we should be. However, history and empirical evidence says, "It is though."

Preview Of The First Democratic Primary Debate (Night Two)

In my previous blog (https://robbase2110-ezel.blogspot.com/2019/06/preview-of-first-democratic-primary.html) I provided a brief analysis of the 10 candidates participating in night one of the first Democratic primary debate (June 26 and 27) in Miami.


Now, I will go over the 10 candidates who will appear in the second night. This second group has substantially more name recognition and relevant candidates than the first group.


As in the previous blog I will list in ascending order based upon personal preference, policy and realistic chances of winning. (Note: These three qualities will not have equal weight necessarily as you'll see.)


So, let's get this ish started shall we.


10. Gov. John Lickenhooper- The former governor of Colorado entered the race a few months ago. And, I am still wondering why. He is not a household name. I mean I am a political junkie and I tangentially know who he is. But, what I do know is not impressive. His politics are guised as liberal but he's really more a centrist. He has ties to the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. A notable moment for Hickenlooper was a Morning Joe appearance awhile back when he had difficulty saying whether he's a capitalist or not. (He is.) The moment was funny, awkward and a bit cringy. It does seem apparent he knows he has no shot at the nomination. So, in recent weeks he has moved into the lane of protecting Joe Biden while attacking Bernie Sanders and more broadly progressive ideals.


9. Micheal Bennett- Like Hickenlooper Sen. Bennett is from Colorado. Look, I don't have much to say about this dude. He is a prototypical milquetoast neoliberal. He is even less known than Hickenlooper. The only reason he's ahead of Hickenlooper is because back during the government shutdown he hilariously clapbacked and dragged Ted Cruz. And, he did it on the Senate floor. I give him credit for calling out Cruz for the hypocrite and shitty human being he is instead of doing mealy mouth political speak. But, this dude has a razor thin better chance than me of winning the nomination.


8. Eric Swalwell- The Congressman from California is young (37 years old) but does have significant name recognition. He has made numerous appearances on MSNBC and Fox News. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, and is known for being one of the biggest proponents of the Mueller investigation. He is a vociferous critic of the President. His politics are mostly liberal. However, his substantial corporatist ties are troubling. Even more troubling he is a member of the "reach across the aisle" delusional sect who mind-bogglingly believe Republicans are really interested in bipartisanship. They just need the right person to extend the olive branch. Totally naive...or effin stupid.


7. Joe Biden-Whaaaaat? Biden is seventh? Yeah, and the only reason he is not lower is because he is the former vice president and is currently leading the polls. I set these rankings last week before Biden decided to repeatedly deepthroat himself with his own foot. I am trying to keep these analyses brief, but Joe Biden is a hot mess! Look, I don't think Biden is a racist or even a bigot. I almost wanna say it's ridiculous to suggest he is. However, Biden is out of touch. He's one of the white liberals MLK warned us all about and my mama personally warned me about. He believes racism is wrong but understands why some white folks don't like the coloreds. That is problematic. And, if it needs to be explained why this country really is in trouble. Biden working with virulent racists in Congress isn't as bothersome as the fact he seems quite tone deaf to racial issues. (Much like he is to boundary issues with women.) Also, let's keep it real here. His politics are corporatist and always has been. His delusion that once Trump is gone the Republicans' "fever will break" is, if I am being kind, naive and idiotic. But, this inane fantastical horseshit is emblematic of his broader issues. He is out of touch with the Democratic base and reality. Seriously, Biden deserves an entire lengthy blog. For now let's just break this shit down to the barebones. He cannot be the nominee, but if he is, of course I will vote for him over Mango Unchained!


6. Pete Buttigieg- Ah, Mayor Pete. I like Mayor Pete, but he has some serious flaws. He is way too centrist. The issues with the South Bend police force and the firing of its first African-American police chief is to say the least troubling. Also worrisome is while his policies unquestionably brought a thriving economy to South Bend it seemed to have left behind its more marginalized citizens. But, some people seem to be more enthralled with the fact he speaks multiple languages and is quite cultured. I get it. He is an impressive guy. Speaking multiple languages is intriguing. Especially when the current president can't even speak one. However, his politics aren't progressive despite his claims they are.


5. Kirsten Gillibrand- The Senator from New York is pretty milquetoast. Sure, she is better than the other senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, but that is not exactly a high bar. She has some good policy on immigration. She supports Medicare For All. But, her ties to Wall Street are disqualifying. And, frankly I find her boring. A substandard policy set and being boring is not a good combo. That said, she is head and shoulders better than the five candidates below her.


4. Kamala Harris-Let me state up front. I have a huge crush on the Senator from California. Just keeping it 100. And, I struggled with whether I should place her fourth or third. My crush aside I have some concerns regarding Sen. Harris. Her record as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general is beyond bothersome. Her truancy policy of jailing parents is draconian. She had a shitty record regarding nonviolent drug offenders. Her attempts to keep inmates incarcerated longer because the state was using inmates as free labor is abhorrent. It's often said during her time in the Senate she has the most progressive record of any Democratic senator. That is objectively true. She has legislated considerably more progressive than she ran the San Francisco District Attorney's office or the California Attorney General's office. I believe she is the most intriguing candidate in the field. And, there is certainly a particular petty joy I would receive from her being able to unseat Trump. But, her ties to Wall Street along with her prosecutorial record gives me significant pause.


3. Andrew Yang- Yang is a candidate who deserves his own full length blog. He is a venture capitalist who has caused some waves in the primary field. His signature policy is UBI (universal basic income). Basically, Yang says every American will receive $1000 a month with the ability to opt out. UBI is something that has been kicked around for decades. In principal I like the idea because it would give those struggling the most extra income that theoretically could get them back on track and supplement low wage earners. The problem with Yang's UBI is that he would get rid of the social safety nets. That is unacceptable and untenable. Another troubling issue with Yang is he does seem to be an apologist for the billionaires who have a hand in the current wealth gap that exists in this country. Yang has also been a source of controversy because he's seems to be liked by some alt-righters. Now, I don't believe Yang is a racist or a Neo-Nazi sympathizer. However, whether intentional or unintentional, he does appear to dog whistle to the alt-right with tweets about declining white birth rates and lamenting the ignoring of the "working class" in favor of others. All that being said Yang does have progressive policies about criminal justice reform and immigration. He is ostensibly on the correct side of the culture war issues. He is for Medicare For All. He is a noninterventionist. As I eluded to earlier I struggled with whether Yang or Harris should be in the third slot. I settled on Yang because while I do have some reservations he is more aligned with my politics than Kamala. And, he has a strong loyal base and the debate could provide him a real possibility to expand his support.


2. Marianne Williamson- I absolutely love Marianne Williamson! She doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, but I love her nonetheless. If she can't win, why is she number two you are likely asking. Because she is clearly the second most progressive candidate in the entire field (not just this group of 10). If you don't know who Marianne is read up on her. She is a motivational speaker/help guru who has written multiple best selling books. Normally, I would have no interest in someone like her. But, I watched numerous full length interviews she had and I came away deeply impressed. She is a bit too cheerful and ra-ra. However, her political instincts are great and her policies are awesome. She is for Medicare For All, criminal justice reform, marijuana legalization and the Green New Deal. She understands what must be done about income inequality and racial inequality. She is someone who truly believes in inclusion. She is noninterventionist. She has a sincerity in helping the poor and the marginalized communities. To some she'll come across as a "flower child", but she is actually quite an intelligent articulate thoughtful substantive candidate. Again, she has zero chance of winning the nomination but in a setup like this debate she could easily win the night.


1. Bernie Sanders-Do I really have to explain why Bernard is number one? He is the clear frontrunner if you are a dye in the wool Progressive. He is now and has been for decades the leader on progressive issues. He's labeled a socialist but is a Democratic Socialist. There is a difference and if you care about nuance and fact you know it. I love Warren and Williamson but Bernie is the clear choice.


The debates are this Wednesday and Thursday nights (June 26 and 27) on MSNBC, NBC and Telemundo. I implore you to watch despite some of it likely being a shitshow.

Preview Of The First Democratic Primary Debate (Part: One)

I must be honest. I have dreaded and avoided writing about the Democratic primary field. Fewer men belong to the Taylor Swift ex-boyfriends club than people who are running for president. (Barely.)


But, I feel an obligation to discuss this shitshow for the three people out there who give a crap what I have to say.


The first Democratic Primary debate is June 26th and 27th. It will be televised by NBC and it's family of networks which means not one but two nights of Chuck Todd. Please hold your excitement. I understand though. I, too, am waiting with baited breath for consecutive nights of fun and insight with Chuckie.


Anyway, the debate has to be spread across two nights because 23 people are in the race. However, only 20 can participate in the debates. The DNC used polling and small dollar donation criteria to determine who was eligible.


So, in part one of this blog post I am going to give a quick analysis of the 10 people who will participate in night one. The other 10 will be covered next week while the three who didn't make it I have no interest in discussing. Just being honest. Frankly, about 12 or 13 of the 20 who did make it aren't worth discussing.


Supposedly the makeup of the groups were determined by a random draw. A representative from each campaign went to NBC headquarters where the names were drawn.


The order which they will appear on stage has not been determined.


For this analysis I will do a countdown from the candidate I view as the 10th candidate to the one I see as the top candidate. My criteria is simple. I'm basing this on whom I see as the best candidate and their viability to the Democratic base.


10. John Delaney-I don't know a whole lot about Delaney. I do know he is a centrist, which immediately gets the side-eye from me. His centrism was on full display when was booed at a California Democratic event when he shit all over Medicare For All. He babbled some nonsense about it was not practical, but of course he supports universal healthcare. That is centrist doubletalk for, "Medicare For All would mean my donors...errrr...the pharmaceutical and medical insurance companies would no longer be able to turn ungodly profits on the backs of sick people." Next.


9. Amy Klobuchar-I gotta say I like the senator from Minnesota. When I saw her on television she impressed me as the sweet nerdy woman who is lowkey super attractive. (I know that sounds a bit piggish.) But, then I actually researched and listened to her. Her treatment of her staff which in and of itself isn't disqualifying but certainly says something about her temperament and character. What is even more disturbing is her centrism and corporatism. She seems way too interested in "getting back to normal" instead of actually addressing the real problems that face this country. She is also very dismissive of Progressives and our ideas which the majority of Americans support. She is stuck on this asinine belief that bipartisanship is the answer and Republicans will be receptive to that. Anyone that tone-deaf and naive can't be the nominee.


8. Julian Castro-I don't have much to say about the former Obama official. He has some strong policies toward criminal justice reform which is super important. He supports Medicare For All. But, his approach to most issues is Republican light. Even his healthcare stance despite supporting Medicare For All is sketchy in areas.


7. Tim Ryan-The representative from Ohio is another (of way too many) centrist Democrats in the field. He does have some strong populist ideas on trade. However, he is quite conservative on some issues and neoliberal on others. He is an admirer of third way politics which is largely responsible for the mess we're in now. He jumped on the Medicare For All train but quickly began hedging. Overall the guy is to the right of clowns like Steny Hoyer! Yeah, no thanks!


6. Beto O'Rourke- I have probably pissed off some folks having him this low. But, you know what I say about being pissed off...Anyway, I actually like Beto. It's hard not to. However, his politics are trash and we all know it. Dude has no policy ideas. He is all platitudes and disingenuous energy. Beto is trying to be white chocolate Obama. The problem is he doesn't have anywhere near Obama's charisma. And, whether you liked what he was saying or not, Obama's speeches were littered with substance. O'Rourke can't even provide solid reasons for wanting to be president other than he "was born for this". Muthaf****a, really?! If B really wants to help his party and his country he will stop this farce and run again for the senate seat in Texas. He almost beat Ted Cruz in 2018 and John Cornyn is more vulnerable than Cruz was. The Democrats could greatly use that seat. But, no, Beto is on some inane misguided ego trip.


5. Cory Booker-Lawd. Lawd. Lawd. Sen. Cory Booker. Some people think Booker is pretentious and phony. I don't. That cringy corniness is real, sadly. Now, what is fake is Cory's persona he is a Progressive. Sen. Booker is the quintessential neoliberal corporatist Democrat. Simply look at his ties to the banking industry and charter schools. His support of charter schools which actually are often detrimental to low income urban students (regardless of the bullshit charter proponents spout) is borderline disgusting. He says he cares about low income and inner-city people but his policies make that extremely difficult to reconcile. He didn't exactly help inner-city people in Newark, New Jersey when he was the mayor. Now, in fairness to Booker his stance and actions on criminal justice reform should be greatly commended and I would argue is extensively more substantive than anyone else in the Democratic field. That said though he is not a good candidate. And, his "can't we all get along" mantra is ridiculous. He has been in the Senate long enough to know Republicans have zero interest in "getting along".


4. Bill de Blasio-Look, honestly de Blasio is fourth because he isn't as awful as the six people beneath him. He fancies himself a Progressive but often has corporatist twinges. He has done some awesome things as the New York City mayor. He certainly has cleaned up (some) the relationship between the police and communities of color. He was on the right side of the Amazon headquarters deal. Although he did attempt to somewhat be on both sides. I like the dude, but his progressiveness is a bit too fluid for me.


3. Jay Inslee-The governor of Washington doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. He knows that. He is in the race to push one issue, climate change. That is enough for me. He understands the existential treat we are facing. Outside of climate change Inslee's politics are bordering between liberal and progressive. In some ways that might make his #3 spot too high, but again, his harping on the climate change issue is more than enough to deserve being this spot.


2. Tulsi Gabbard-Some of y'all...most of y'all about to be triggered in some way. Whatevs. I stated my issues regarding Tulsi in a video a few months ago. She seems to possess a cursory affinity for authoritative leaders. She has a very disturbing and strange appeal to some alt-righters and the Jimmy Dore left. Her position on Syria's president, Bashir Al-Assad, is a bit unsettling. However, with all of that said she is unquestionably the second best candidate in this field of 10 and in the overall top five. Tulsi has an impressive progressive record in Congress. Despite her past views she has proven to be an advocate for the LGBTQ community. She is mostly on the correct side of surveillance and torture issues. Some of her past recent comments about torture are troubling. (See her 2014 interview with an Indian morning show tv host.) Gabbard's approach to cultural and immigration issues is largely correct. She stood in solidarity with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khana in opposition to "PayGo" which was a House resolution that significantly hampers the ability of genuine progressive bills to be brought to the House floor let alone passed. More than anyone else in the Democratic caucus she has said the absolute correct and moral things about Venezuela, Iran and Ilhan Omar. Tulsi is a complicated figure but she's head and shoulders above the eight folks below her!


1. Elizabeth Warren-Do I really need to explain this? Nobody, and I mean nobody, in the field of 23 has provided more policy substance than Warren. Almost weekly she has introduced a new different well articulated and ardently substantive policy idea. Some critics say she's been too wonky and that's fair. But, for people who constantly squawk about the importance of policy over platitudes they should be ecstatic with Warren's wonkiness. Another critique she has received from her left is that many of her policy ideas don't go far enough (ie: aren't Democratic Socialist enough). Again, that is a fair criticism which I somewhat agree with. No doubt Warren is more interested in "fixing" capitalism than completely overhauling the system. But, her policies directly address income inequality, corporate cronyism, unbalanced taxation (the rich not paying their fair share) and excessive corporate/wealth greed. Elizabeth Warren has also been able to (I believe brilliantly) strike the balance of addressing how these income inequality and cronyism issues adversely affect communities of color in a true progressive manner that those to her left can't accuse her of identity politics. She has also more than adequately addressed climate change, criminal justice reform and immigration. Her most glaring flaw has been her hedging on going full board for Medicare For All. Frankly, it's a sign of how she has great political instincts but also has a twinge of neoliberalism. This twinge is what caused her to stay neutral in 2016 and not endorse Bernie Sanders, which who she was clearly more politically aligned. Some on the progressive left have not forgiven her for this and are holding it against her. I won't go into that clusterfuck right now. (Let me just say: let it the eff go!) Warren is the clear premiere candidate of this group. I would've liked to see her go up against Biden and Buttigieg and destroy their craven bs but I am sure Bernie will do it just fine.






The debates will be at 8pm cst each night in Miami.


Hopefully, the debates will expose some of the frauds and shave this ridiculousness down.


Next Saturday I will discuss the other 10.

Many In The Anti-PC Brigade Are Disingenuous

"Political correctness has run amok and the policing of language is authoritarian like."


The previous quote is a very fair and accurate statement. Political correctness has become ridiculous.


However, many of the people who share this sentiment are simply being disingenuous when they express it. Hell, I'd saying several are just straight up lying!


Now, let's get this straight up front. I am not coming at this as some crazed hypersensitive Twitter sjw.


But, I am coming at this from a practical view. And, yes, I do believe there are some things that shouldn't be said or expressed because they are objectively offensive and their intention is to malign, insult and demean.


The anti-pc crowd loves to depict themselves as people who are just tired of being boxed into a corner where they can literally say anything without offending someone. Ya know, they are victims for decrying victimhood.


Anyway, there is truthfulness to the anti-pc lament. We do live in a culture where some people will find grave offense to anything anyone says. Among some sjws a sense of humor is all but void. Any joke considered ethnic or racial is automatically dubbed racist regardless of content or intent. The most innocuous tweet can be twisted into a full-blown controversy.


But, several anti-pc folks use this argument speciously to mask what their real issues are. Truth is they are not generally upset or dismayed that a totally innocuous comment is portrayed as a virulent racist tweet or an unintentional statement about women is made into a barrage of misogyny.


No, what their problem is that without repercussions they can no longer say whatever they want about whomever they want whenever they want.


All you have to do is question them a little and they usually will give the game away.


What I have noticed is that the most ardent of anti-pc folks get the most riled up after someone has been confronted about an objectively obvious offensive statement. When someone like, oh...I don't know, Rep. Steve King says shit such as Mexican immigrants have "calves the size of cantaloupes from hauling 75 pounds of weed on their backs" they become extremely upset about political correctness run amok. When dudes are on social media not so subtly inferring women are obligated to give men the "p" and subsequently get hammered for it then they display consternation over a society that is "too sensitive".


The undeniable reality is that many who rail against pc culture simply want the "freedom" and un-tethered ability to tell racist and homophobic jokes or to use epithets to describe minorities and women (not the "bad ones" though). And, they'll tell you as much. I guarantee if you're someone who has called out someone for being offensive you've heard, "People are too easily offended. I remember when you could say anything to any group of people and they would laugh along with us."


A couple of years ago I became involved in this Twitter thread. A lady used the word "fag" to describe someone. (Btw the person called the slur wasn't homosexual).


Well, someone else in the thread called her out. Predictably she became upset and offended. She defended herself saying she didn't mean anything by it. The person who called her out suggested she apologize. She refused.


Instead, she embarked on a rant about pc culture and people's "oversensitivity". She bemoaned how "soft" people had become. Then, she ironically went full victim lamenting, "You can't say anything any more without people getting butthurt. Can't say 'fag'. You have to use the pc terms or you're labeled homophobic or racist. I remember when people could use 'regular' language in this country. This pc shit has to stop!"


At this point I interjected saying, "Well, while it's undeniable political correctness has gone too far I don't think it's being pc to not use homophobic slurs or epithets. That is just being a decent respectful human being."


Her response was, "No. It's being pc. This country is too liberal. I remember when I was a kid in the '80s we told 'racial' jokes about blacks in front of this black kid all the time and he laughed with us. He never got his feelings hurt or offended."


I inquired, "What do you mean 'racial'?" She said, "Oh, we said the 'n' word a few times. We didn't mean anything by it. We were just joking. It's not like I am racist. I have a black friend."


And, yes, this heffa really said that. I tweeted back, "LMAO! Wow! Really! Let me assure you that black person might have laughed in front of you, but I guarantee they weren't laughing when you weren't around. In fact, they probably called you 'ignorant'. And, the fact you interjected you have a black friend to justify your comments tells me all I need to know about you."


She snapped, "What does that mean?" I quickly responded, "Boo, it means you are ignorant as fuck. And, you're racist and homophobic. If you or anyone else thinks not saying racist or homophobic shit is being too pc you are showing your trifilin ass for all to see!"


She promptly said, "Fuck you! You blacks always play the victim." I responded, "Honey, you only wish you could fuck me. It would never happen because I have standards. And, I find it amazing that you are the one crying about not being able to say whatever you want but I am playing the victim. Chile, please! GTFOH!"


I didn't get a response back from her.


This exchange is indicative of many back and forths over political correctness I have had on social media and in person. They always devolve into the other person giving away the tell and becoming childish. The railing against pc is hardly ever substantive or sincere, but always a mask for the lamenting the "nostalgia" of the "good 'ol days".


The fervent anti-pc crowd do not come from a principled place. This is why I roll my eyes every time someone rants about political correctness. Why are they ranting? Because some people have taken something way too far or because someone can't say "nigger" any longer without consequence? More often than not it's the latter more than the former.


The entire pc debate is simple. Being respectful to who and what people are is not difficult if you are a decent person. Refraining from using ostensibly bigoted language or telling hurtful offensive jokes isn't being overly politically correct. It is being decent. I don't see why it is so difficult to not be offensive, but then again I am not an asshole who is racist, homophobic, misogynistic or xenophobic.


Without question pc culture has gone way too far overboard, but some shit is not pc but just common courtesy and general respect.


Basically, don't be an asscrumb and you'll be fine.