Trump Is Still Defending Charlottesville

We are over a year and a half removed from #Charlottesville. We have all seen the video footage multiple times. Several people have been convicted for violent crimes that took place that day. Even the organizers of the Charlottesville rally have acknowledged what its real purpose was.


Yet, the current President of the United States keeps saying regarding the rally goers, "There were some very fine people."


In fact, he repeated the assertion yesterday.


Here's the thing, people promoting hate, racism and anti-Semitism are not "very fine people"! Actually, they are the complete opposite!


As he has every other time he's uttered the "very fine people" garbage, he qualifies it (he thinks) by saying some of the attendees at the Unite The Right rally were there protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue from the town square. However, that empirically is not true.


Yes, the rally was billed publicly as a protest against political correctness and a perceived assault on Confederate history. But, those reasons were at best tangential.


Jason Kessler, the avowed white nationalist who set up the rally, didn't invite any historians to speak. No public officials were asked to give a word or two. No, the invited speakers were all avowed vitriolic white nationalists and white supremacists.


And, let's discuss the night before that fateful Saturday in August 2017. Hundreds of folks (the vast majority white men) clad in white Polo shirts, khaki pants and Make America Great Again caps (as an homage to their great white hope, the Orange Menace) and carrying tiki torches (presumably from the local Home Depot) descended upon the town square chanting and screaming. They then stormed and invaded a church where people of all races and religions were inside praying for peace and unity.


Yes, "very fine people", indeed.


One thing of note that night was the chanting these "very fine people" were doing. Interestingly, they didn't chant about Robert E. Lee, "southern heritage" or even preserving Confederate history.


No, they were chanting, "Blood and soil"; "Jew will not replace us"; "White lives matter" and "Bring on the ovens".


Yes, Lawd, "very fine people"!


Then next day at the actually rally those same very loving peaceful sayings were chanted again. And this time instead of tiki torches these good folks showed up waving Confederate flags, Nazi flags and brandishing semi-automatic assault rifles. You know because it was a peaceful protest.


One huge misnomer I am getting out of the way now is that Antifa and Black Lives Matter started the riot that broke out. I realize some people are antagonistic toward facts but that's too damn bad! That claim is categorically untrue. It was the "peaceful protestors" who attacked the counter-protestors, and that is buoyed by empirical evidence, video evidence and eye witness accounts from people on "both sides".


Also, we should not forget it was not someone from Antifa or Black Lives Matter who used their vehicle to run down and kill Heather Heyer. It was one of these "very fine people".


Naturally and sadly, none of this phases Trump or Trumpsters. The President rebuts by saying Robert E. Lee was a "great general" and a "great man". That, of course, has nothing to do with the things these disgusting abhorrent racists did and said.


Speaking of disgusting abhorrent racists let's discuss General Lee some since Trump and his fanbase love him so.


I have no interest in equivocating whether Lee was a good general or not. I'll just note he lost the Civil War and lost it decidedly. But, whatevs.


As far as him being a good man, I vehemently disagree.


One of the many failures of our educational system is it inadequately teaches history and often-very often- literally whitewashes it. Unless folks go to college or possess some intellectual curiosity to read on their own they frequently are left with a cursory and distorted knowledge of history. And, an excellent example of this is General Robert E. Lee.


Here's the real tea about the man Trump and so many on the right hold up as a great historical figure. Lee was an awful human being! Many of his slaves said he was the "worst man they ever knew".


Now, in fairness, I imagine most slaves said that about their slaveholders. But, Lee was exceptionally racist and evil when it came to black people.


For example, in his will Lee's father instructed the general to free the family's slaves. Robert E. Lee refused to do it and went to court to contest the provisions of the will. He eventually lost the court case.


Some slave owners had a policy of not separating families. Lee, however, not only separated families but took glee in it. He wanted to literally break the slaves down to nothing.


Most slave owners were evil when it came to punishing runaway slaves. But, Lee was known for personally lashing runaways and then instructing his overseer to pour toxins into the slaves' open wounds.


During the Civil War Lee wrote his wife a letter acknowledging slavery was immoral but necessary. According to his logic black people were nothing more than property and slavery was necessary to properly impart Christianity into their lives. He actually said blacks were better off as slaves because they were incapable of thought or intellectual depth and enslavement would make them better people down the road.


This is the MUTHAFUCKA TRUMP AND HIS ILK HOLD UP AS A HISTORICAL ICON!


So, that is who Robert E. Lee really is.


And, one last thing about Trump's bullshit assertions of "very fine people". Let's say I take at face value that some of the people in Charlottesville that August weekend were really there to simply protest the removal of the General Lee statue and this perceived "assault" on Southern heritage. When it became obvious the rallies weren't about that why did those people stay? When they heard "Jew will not replace us" and "Bring on the ovens" why didn't they bolt? The next day when people were waving Nazi flags and sporting swastikas while intimidating people with assault rifles was that not an impetus to abandon the rally and go home?


We all know why they didn't. Trump knows why. His slavishly loyal supporters know why.


So, when some people say Trump is a white nationalist it's extremely difficult (in my opinion) to counter that argument when he continues to insist there were "good people on both sides" and some of the alt-righters in Charlottesville are "very fine people". They are not very fine people nor were there good people on both sides. That is just an inane argument.


And, I know many Trump supporters aren't racists but the fact is if you are someone who continues to defend Trump and/or agrees with his assertions then I'm side-eying you.


People who hate others simply because of their skin color, nationality or religion and who advocate for a genocide of those who aren't white, which is exactly what white nationalists and white supremacists advocate for regardless of what they claim, aren't fine people! That ideology is abhorrent and and antithetical to Christ and just basic human decency. There is no equivocation here! None whatsoever!


The fact that knowing the truth of what happened in Charlottesville and who those protestors really are yet, Trump and his fanbase keep defending and being apologists for them speaks volumes. And to quote Trump, "You all know it!"

It's Come To Jesus Time Regarding Westbrook And The Thunder

Straight up! I am not sure the Oklahoma City Thunder can win a title without Russell Westbrook. I, however, am not sure they can win one with him either.


Russ is Oklahoma's favorite adopted son. He is the dude who chose to stay as opposed to that mama's boy who bolted to No Cal so he could "coattail" the Splash Brothers for a ring (or two...or three).


But, as often is the case with sports teams' fans, some revisionist history has taken place.


When the "mama's boy" or cupcake as he has become known as in the Sooner state was here he was the golden boy. He was the ultimate good guy hero.


Westbrook, on the other hand, was the angry often sulky sidekick that was tolerated...barely.


After many a game radio stations, social media posts and online media comments sections were filled with fans bitchin and moanin about Russ' hero ball, excessive turnovers and mind numbingly dumb shot selection. It was pointed out a time or two how efficient Cupcake was whereas Westbrook would often have more turnovers than made field goals and took decidedly more shots.


Many fans constantly clamored for Westbrook to be traded because he was "selfish" and "costing the team wins". Both of whom it could be argued were objectively true.


But, on July 4, 2016 everything changed. Cupcake headed west for the Bay Area. This left Westbrook as the remaining star, which I personally believe he loved.


In a heartbeat public sentiment changed. The morose moody "little brother" became beloved because he was all OKC had.


He cemented his endearment to the fanbase by signing a year extension right before training camp started in September '16.  He earned "favorite son" status by signing a max five year extension the following summer.


However, the last three years have been disappointing for Thunder fans. The team has reached the playoffs all three years but have been first round exits all three years as well.


After the 2017 season GM Sam Presti struck a deal for elite player, Paul George. George signed a four year deal last summer. However, the last two seasons were the same as the first after Cupcake left, which was solid regular seasons with first round playoff exits.


Here's the thing. I'm not solely blaming Russ for the early postseason exits. Head Coach, Billy Donovan, deserves some blame. Donovan is a great coach but his offensive scheme seems stale and predictable at times.


General Manager, Sam Presti, holds some culpability also. He has not put together a roster that is conducive to the current style of play in the NBA.


But, it could be argued both Donovan and Presti's failures are the result of capitulating or attempting to accommodate Westbrook's playing style.


All the criticisms fans possessed regarding Russ before the "great betrayal of 2016" are still present.


Sure, he's matured some but he still plays hero ball. Russ' shot selection is still mind boggling. His shooting percentage has gotten worse, not better.


Russ stans will be quick to point out the record breaking triple doubles as a defense for not only his production but against claims he is selfish. And, yes, the triple doubles are amazing. Stats don't lie. But, they always don't tell the whole story.


Yes, Russ has high assist totals but that's because he always has the ball in his hands. He also has a high turnover rate.


Russ scores lots of points but he also takes lots of shots. His usage rate is through the roof and his efficiency rate is garbage.


It's undeniably true Russ is one of the best rebounding guards in the Association. Also, his aggression causes him to often be in foul trouble and take unnecessary risks causing his transition defense to lack.


The Oklahoma City Thunder might be a lottery team without Russ. But, they also might be in the same position they are now. Why? Because Paul George is a selfless player who would facilitate and if he was paired with a similar minded point guard the offense would have more fluidity.


The OKC offense goes into extended periods of impotence because there is no ball movement. There are many possessions Westbrook has the ball entirely in his hands until the last couple of seconds of the shot clock. Some possessions the entire shot clock is used and only one guy touches the ball. You can't win games that way.


Say whatever you will about the manner Cupcake left the City, but his reasons for leaving were beyond valid. Not only that they have been proven to be accurate.


He went to Golden State citing he wanted to be in an offense that encouraged ball movement and unselfishness. Isolation ball was something that dominated the 1990s but in the current NBA it wasn't feasible. The three point shot is too much apart of the game and ball movement is vital. Because, the floor has to be open and spacing is necessary for the three point shot.


Mama's boy knew he was never going to reach the next level with a point guard who dominates the ball, doesn't move it and can't shoot. So, he chose to align with Steph Curry. And, if you know anything about basketball you would've too.


Look, Russ seems to be a good dude. He is certainly a great player. But, truth is, he's a flawed player and a flawed dude.


The chip he ostensibly has on his shoulder has gotten him to this point in his career. However, it's hindered him as well.


His "thing" with the media is tiresome. It's really tiresome when the Thunder's season is over before May.


His "next question" and blank stare act isn't entertaining. He's neither Bill Belichick nor Gregg Poppovich.


He comes across as an ass just like he did when he was the tolerated sidekick.


Westbrook's edgy play is entertaining and excitement inducing. It is also wearisome when he's shooting the team out of games or playing hero ball as he did in game 5 versus Portland. He takes a shot less than ten seconds into the shot clock of what was likely the team's last possession of the game never appearing to give a moment's consideration to giving the ball to the team's best player and shooter, Paul George.


So, it's not really difficult to see why Cupcake left.


Here's the tough reality. I don't see there being much light at the end of the tunnel anytime soon. Westbrook doesn't seem likely to change his ways. He is 31 years old. When similar hardheads, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, realized they can't do it alone they were much younger. And, oh, they had Phil Jackson whispering in the ear. Phil Jackson is not walking through the Chesapeake Arena doors.


Billy Donovan might be fired but what coach is going to be able to reach Russ and earn his respect?


What the roster needs is shooters. Today's NBA is about perimeter play and three pointers. First, will those type of players come to OKC knowing that one of the two stars is a ball hog who doesn't seem interested in creating space for his teammates? And, even if they are, OKC's cap situation is awful! Steven Adams and Andre Roberson's contracts are albatrosses and damn near unmovable.


Some angry Thunder fans want Westbrook traded. That is not going to happen. For starters Russ is an icon here and the rebuilding effort will not be quick enough to ensure fan retention. More importantly Presti wouldn't get many takers and those who would bite simply cannot offer anything close to equal value.


Reality is the Thunder will be in the one position no professional franchise wants to be in, mediocrity. They're not good enough to legitimately contend but they're not bad enough to be a lottery team.


Adams and Roberson's contracts will expire in two seasons. The Thunder can hope the salary cap will be expanded enough they can add a couple of solid midlevel players to go along with Westbrook and George before the prime of their careers start to descend.


Until then it will likely be 46 to 50 win seasons which will earn a four to six seed and first round playoff losses to young borderline title contending teams much like we've seen the last two years with Utah and Portland.


Russ is a stud. He's apart of the solution. But, what Thunder brass and fans must accept is he's also apart of the problem.

Pump The Brakes On Impeachment Talk

Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the wisest thing.


It might sound strange to say that, but it is true. For example, snitching on a buddy who's creepin around on his woman is the right moral thing to do. However, how wise is it to insert yourself into someone else's relationship? That usually doesn't end up well.


Now, what I am really talking about is a comparing apples to oranges situation but the over arching principle exists.


Since the Mueller Report's public release some Democrats have been clamoring for impeachment proceedings of Donald Trump.


Despite the delusional disingenuous rantings of Trump and his base the Mueller Report painted a pretty ratchet portrait of the President. While the report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in legal terms it certainly presented facts detailing the numerous ways Russia offered help to the Trump campaign. It also laid out how the Trump campaign while not coordinating with Russia for election help also didn't turn it down either.


The most damning aspect of the Mueller Report was the multiply ways Trump either obstructed justice or tried. Before I go further let me say the argument Trump didn't obstruct justice because there was no underlying crime is an idiotic assertion! Moronic, in fact!


But, that is a topic for another blog piece. I am not interested in debating the details of Mueller's findings at this time.


The point here is the impeachment discussion.


Robert Mueller didn't render an opinion whether Trump committed obstruction. Instead, he made it clear it's Congress' duty to determine guilt or innocence on the matter.


Some Democrats in Congress and in the base have decided that impeachment proceedings must occur. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) have been among the most vocal but far from alone in stating Trump's actions are impeachment worthy.


However, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have essentially said pump the brakes. Their caution seems ostensibly a mere political calculation.


But, I think they're right.


Has Trump done things worthy of impeachment? Of course! Forget obstruction of justice. Trump's emoluments violations, his campaign finance violations and his apparent bank and insurance fraud provide more than enough substance for impeachment.


The man is literally the embodiment of corruption and criminality.


Butttttttttttt, none of that means impeachment is a good idea.


Here's what some of the impeachment stans aren't seemingly grasping.


Impeaching the mutha...errrr...I mean Individual One isn't in and of itself going to remove him from office. It's the equivalent of an indictment.


Look at the House of Representatives, whom would be the ones to vote to impeach, as a grand jury. The House impeaching Trump would only move the case to trial before a jury. The Senate would be the jury.


For Trump to actually be removed from office he would have to be found guilty by a majority of the Senate. But, there's a catch. Conviction only occurs if two-thirds of the Senate agrees.


Currently Republicans hold a 53 to 47 advantage over Democrats. Given all 47 Democrats (including the two Independents)voted to convict, which isn't any type of certainty with Joe Manchin around, 20 Republicans would have to vote for conviction.


Now, seriously, who in their right mind believes there are 20 Republicans who would vote to remove Cheeto Jesus? Hell, you'd be hard pressed to convince me there would be one. Republicans have given no indication over the course of this shitshow presidency they're willing to stand up for what is right.


It's an exercise in futility. What would be the point?


Pelosi and the Democratic leadership seem to believe the best course of action is to hold oversight hearings and lay the evidence out for the American people to decide at the polls in 2020.


I agree.


Again, Trump is so beyond deserving of impeachment. He is corrupt. He is a crook. He is a menace. But, impeaching him with no realistic shot at removing him from office will only accomplish riling up his base and possibly making him sympathetic.


I understand this might seem I'm making a distinction without a difference. I admit it's threading a really fine needle. But, there is a difference between presenting a case for impeachment and actually doing it.


The reality is his base will not care. We have been over this before. These people have no red line! However, making a case to Independents and disenfranchised Left is a different story.


What congressional Democrats should do is oversight. Subpoena records and call people to testify. If there's pushback, place people in contempt and force compliance. They need to hold hearings and present the evidence to the American people. Make this one long episode of Law and Order.


Actually impeaching Trump has too many negative ramifications. Something about the tangible act of impeachment doesn't generally sit well with the American public.


Now, if public sentiment begins favoring impeachment, that is different. If polls stat showing a 70/30 or 80/20 split in favor of impeachment, that changes the dynamics. Such public sentiments would possibly cause Republicans to grow a spine.


But, as things stand right now, impeachment is an empty vanity act because the Senate would never remove him from office. Republicans are scared of the Trump base. Unless that base begins to fracture congressional Republicans will tow the line.


Besides, the ballot box is what will speak the loudest. Many Democrats are blinded by their wet dreams of getting rid of the Orange Menace refusing to understand Trump is a symptom; not the cause.


Having a resounding victory November 3rd, 2020 is what will damage Trumpism. Sending a message about what the majority of this country stands for will be infinitely more fruitful than simply forcing out the orange buffoon, which would very likely cause an even more caustic and spiteful blacklash.


Of course, Trump is deserving of impeachment, but in the grand scheme of things it's not a wise move to pursue.

The Mainstream News Media Is Awful...And We're All Culpable

"The media sucks!"


"The media lies!"


"Real journalism is dead!"


"You can't trust the media!"


We all hear these cries of frustration, anger and disappointment daily. Many of us say these things ourselves.


While some of this is hyperbole, there is some truth to these claims.


And, you know what? It is our fault!


As with everything we romanticize the past. We view the past with ahistorical and rose colored lens. Our perception of the media is no exception. Except in the case of the media the view of the past is more accurate than it is ahistorical.


We look back fondly upon figures like Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite or even more recent figures such as Helen Thomas and Sam Donaldson.


The media is supposed to be a check on the government and the powerful (in both the public and private sectors). The media's role is to be the link between the powerful and the people. Their primary function was/is designed to be society's tool to inform and educate the public.


And, that is why freedom of the press is expressly mentioned in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Founding Fathers having lived under tyrannical rule where freedom of the press wasn't adhered understood a free press that adequately informs the public is vital to the health and prosperity of a free nation.


The press' role in government and society is not to entertain the masses or acquiesce to the powerful and influential but to be adversarial and to hold us all accountable.


But, along the way the media has lost their stated purpose. They have lost their perspective.


The reason for this is simple. Today's media has been corporatized. They have become consumed with sensationalism. Informing the public and being a check on power has succumbed to profit margins.


And, we have let them.


Once large corporations began owning media outlets the news became more interested in kowtowing to corporate interests instead of informing the public and reporting the news whether we liked the news or not. That goes for broadcast, cable and local news. As with seemingly everything in today's world, the news has become partisan and serves as echo chambers rather than beacons of truth and information. The news is subjective and editorialized instead of being objective and factual.


Nowhere is this more evident than cable news. The arena of cable news in today's world is profit and ratings driven, but it was not always like that.


For the longest time only one cable news network existed, which was CNN. The network exploded onto the scene in the early to mid 1980s. During that time the partisan divide was not anywhere near as toxic and polarized as it is today.


While the difference between Republicans and Democrats was certainly distinct, the discourse was rather civil. The narrative set forth by CNN and the major network media outlets (NBC, ABC, and CBS) was not one of a corporatist or establishment mindset but one that generally focused on presenting facts and news gathering.


CNN, as the only cable news network, provided the public with 24 hour news. Because, unlike the other networks, their primary objective was to inform the public they were able to perform deeper dives into the news of the day. In contrast to the major broadcast networks they weren't restricted to a 30 minute evening broadcast or an one hour Sunday program.


CNN was not only able to provide updates on the current main news cycle but was able to provide journalistic information on worldwide events and news relaying how those things affected the United States and the United States involvement.


Because CNN was the sole cable news network they weren't in competition with anyone else, which gave them room to focus on the news and the facts.


However, as the mid-1990s approached other networks began springing up. CNBC, a subsidiary of NBC, was formed. Then in 1996 well-known political operative, Roger Ailes, with the financial backing of uber wealthy conservative businessman  Rupert Murdoch formed Fox News.


Fox News was born as a counter to the Bill Clinton presidency. Ailes and Murdoch billed the network as an alternative to what they perceived as the liberal tilted mainstream media. Its purpose was to provide a conservative voice.


What Fox News really represented was the burgeoning political divide that appeared to be engulfing the political landscape.

Leading up to Fox News' formation Republicans for years had been propagating the media had a liberal bias. Now, that wasn't really the case, but Ailes had introduced the idea of a media outlet that propagandized the conservative viewpoint back in the 1970s when he was a member of the Richard Nixon administration.


Ailes vision was to create a news organization that literally controlled the narrative and in his mind would strengthen the Republican Party.


By the time the mid-90s came along the culture wars that symbolized the 1960s had essentially became mainstream.


In fairness to Ailes' beliefs the country had moved center-left. Minorities were viewed in a more positive light. African-Americans, although still significantly systematically marginalized, had became a part of the mainstream society's fabric. The LGBTQ community (still lacking some basic civil rights) was seeing their lifestyles becoming more tolerated, if not accepted.


And, for his many...many flaws Bill Clinton was a hugely popular president, which caused many on the right to fear they were losing power and their grasp on the American ideological identity.


However, a significant swath of the American public wasn't comfortable with any of this which gave Fox News a readymade audience. To their credit Fox News took advantage of this divide and provided a voice to those who feared and loathed this shift in the American mindset.


Reacting to the rise of Fox News NBC and Microsoft joined forces to create a new cable news network, MSNBC. Initially MSNBC was a center right channel. Its purpose was to cater more to the establishment, center-left Democrats and those Conservatives uncomfortable with the overt far right tilt of Fox.


Figures like Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson rose to prominence with nightly shows on the network. And, MSNBC gave a platform to former Nixon aide and presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan.


However, MSNBC also gave a platform to noted Progressives, Keith Olberman and Phil Donahue.


As the second decade of the 2000s approached MSNBC decided to go into a decided Democratic tilt. They gave shows to noted Progressive, Rachel Maddow, and liberal, Lawrence O'Donnell. They began featuring more center-left pundits and analysts. Eventually, they began tacitly presenting themselves as the network of the left, which of course was a contrast to Fox News who was becoming increasingly far rightwing and CNN who was the ultimate centrist network.


So, now, here we are today. We are in an extremely polarized political climate. A climate were either you're team blue or team red. Everything is politicized and partisan. And, news outlets whether it's cable news, newspapers or online outlets reflect that.


We are also in a climate where, as much information that is at our fingertips, many people are uninformed. Some are uninformed because their news sources simply don't report all the news. Others are uninformed because they are agnostic or apathetic about politics and choose to be uninformed.


Most mainstream news outlets aren't really reporting the news. They are simply acting as propaganda tools for their interests or are more concerned with entertaining than informing.


Certain news stories such as Russiagate or Hillary Clinton's emails are covered ad nauseam. Online outlets, mainstream newspapers and cable news obsess over stories that certainly have news value but are overhyped and not presented through objective lens.


The Russiagate story is a prime example. MSNBC used this story as a cudgel to tar the Trump presidency. Because they were well aware the majority of their audience loathed Trump and his administration MSNBC built their entire programming around the Mueller investigation. Rachel Maddow made Russiagate the centerpiece of her show every night. Now, in fairness she did cover other stories (which usually were tangentially connected to Trump and/or Russia), but the imbalance was prominent. In fact, although I love Maddow, I stopped watching her show routinely because Russia was all she talked about. It was to the point she would rehash stories she'd previously covered providing little, if any, new details.


In contrast Fox News didn't obsess over the Mueller investigation. Instead they pretended like it largely didn't exist as far as any potential wrongdoing Trump did. Instead they chose to propagate unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Democrats and the FBI.


Also, they distracted from the investigation by annoyingly bringing up Hillary Clinton's email scandal.


The problem with all of this besides the obvious disinformation and innuendo that both sides were propagating is that other important and salient stories were being ignored. For example, the war and genocide in Yemen received almost no coverage. The President's apparent emoluments violations was barely spoken about and Fox never covered it. The full length New York Times article back in the fall on the Trump families extensive history of tax fraud and the revelation about how Donald Trump actually obtained his wealth received one day of coverage (barely). Not to mention not one deep dive has been performed on an economy that has great numbers but no tangible evidence peoples lives are better.


The media is failing us as citizens. But, it's our fault.


In the current corporate media profit margins is all that matters. Money is made through advertising. Advertisers are only going to buy ad time if there are ratings.


Fact is ratings are good for cable news, subscriptions are up for the New York Times and Washington Post and website hits are soaring for online news outlets. In other words people are watching and reading the current iterations of the news.


Due to her over the top Russiagate coverage Rachel Maddow soared to the top of the nightly cable news ratings. Folks like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson of Fox are right behind her despite their vacuous subjective news absent programming. In fact, Fox News which can barely be called a serious news outlet is a permanent fixture atop the ratings.


The viewing public is culpable for this. Why should any of these outlets feel pressure to present serious national and world news when the more sensational stories and drastically partisan editorials are what obviously attracts people?


Most of us fancy ourselves serious people who want real journalism, but that isn't true. We love to lambaste the media for their superficiality and lack of objectivity. However, the reality is the corporate media is about making money and if stories on the genocide in Yemen attracted viewers that is what they would be airing. If Fox viewers wanted objective coverage of the President and his administration (even if they love him) Shep Smith and Brett Baier would be getting far superior ratings over the hacks Fox has in primetime. That is not the case though.


Even YouTube shows like The Young Turks and Secular Talk, who cover the gauntlet of national and world news, admit the videos that obtain the most views are the ones about Stormy Daniels and Trump's second rate lounge comic act foolishness. And, those shows' audiences are objectively more informed and nuanced about the news.


We live in a society where people are certainly busy and hustling to make ends meet. But, it's beyond me folks won't take 30 minutes to watch or read some informative news so they can be apprised of what is going on in their community, their nation and their world. I know they can't say they don't have time because they'll scan the interwebs for the latest tea on Khloe Kardashian or Wendy Williams.


And, I get it. Our lives are so stressful and over wrought. We need a break and don't want to think. It is why I watch what some call "trash tv". I just need to watch some unadulterated fuckery and ostensibly non-serious programming that doesn't require me to think nor comprehend. But, I watch and read plenty of news because I not only want to be informed I feel it's my responsibility.


Yes, the media sucks. However, I don't believe the vast majority of journalists are "fake news" or aren't serious. I do believe journalism is still a noble and necessary profession. It has just lost its way.


But, I also believe as it's the media's job to be a check on the powerful and influential it's our job to be a check on the press. We can't do that by justifying their lackluster coverage and cursory reporting on important issues by only paying attention to sensationalism and crap. We must demand more. If we stop watching, reading and listening to the tabloidization then they'll stop doing it. Why? Because advertisers won't buy ads on programming nobody is watching.


You want the media to do better? Then demand it by being serious people who want serious objective journalism.

Candace Owens Is Ratchet!

Honestly, I could not write one sentence but just merely allowing the title to lie there and it would sum up Stacey Dash's "trifilin third cousin" in one statement.


But, y'all know I can't do that.


If you read my blogs regularly (If you don't, you should. A brotha needs some followers and subscribers. 😉 ) I make no bones about how I feel about Candace Owens. She is a vacuous vapid train riding human being. Of course, that is likely an insult to vacuous vapid human beings.


Just when I think there is no way she can sink lower in her ostensible grift to be the Alt-Right's token pinup girl she proves there are no depths to her ratchness!


Earlier this week Candi appeared before a House of Representatives committee hearing on white nationalism, white supremacy and racism. The hearing was spurred by the apparent rise of white nationalism within the country.


Uncle Ruckus' long lost niece was an invited guest of House Republicans to testify on the subject. Only the Lord above knows why. Because, I sure can't imagine why they would've invited her ass.


Anyway, after family members of hate crime victims testified relaying some of the most gut wrenching testimony you'll ever hear about their murdered loved ones she spoke.


This trifilin woman with un-tethered audacity said some of the most ahistorical, fallacious bullshit I've ever heard.


First, she said that white nationalism "isn't a thing". She said it's just a "campaign strategy" that Democrats trot out every four years to scare and intimidate black people.


Then, she had the temerity to say racism isn't real except for the racism perpetrated by Democrats. She "bolstered" her assertion by claiming she has received more racism from liberals in the last two years since her "self-liberation from the Democratic Party and their plantation" than she had in the rest of her life. Candi then went full aggrieved victim by alleging she has been called such names as: "Uncle Tom", "bed wench" and "house nigger".


Now, I'd be lying if I said I doubted her claims. I have seen those very perjoratives used in describing her. While those terms are unquestionably unflattering I must keep it real. If it walks like a duck and talks a duck...


But, Ms. Owens wasn't done. In an obvious effort to dispel those labels she then disgustingly diminished the recent arsons of three prominent black churches in Louisiana by saying mockingly, "The liberal media and Democrats have posted images of church burnings in an attempt to scare us." It should be noted not only were those church fires real, which were reminiscent of church fire bombings from the 1960s, a suspect (the son of a Louisiana sheriff) was arrested yesterday.


She capped off her outrageous statements by saying the Democratic Party has lied by frequently mentioning the "Southern strategy" and "Southern switch" which she said "aren't real".


However, those things are quite real and DOCUMENTED!


The "Southern strategy" is a well known political strategy that was first employed by the Nixon campaign in 1968 presidential election. As a means to combat the insurgent campaign of George Wallace, the infamous Alabama governor who was a staunch racist and segregationist, Nixon used "coded" language such as "law and order" to appeal to southern voters. Rather than speak about racial issues in blunt raw language like Wallace did Nixon used dog whistle rhetoric which was more palatable for many voters.


The strategy was perfected by Lee Atwater, who was a campaign advisor and manager for Ronald Regan and George H.W. Bush. It was Atwater who advised Reagan to launch his 1980 candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi which was the site of one of the most horrific racist murders during the Civil Rights era.


In fact, there was a famous recording of Atwater talking about the "Southern strategy". He said that times had changed and making statements like "nigger, nigger" were no longer palatable. He opined that more "abstract" terms had to be employed which is when terms such as "welfare queen" were created.


As for the "Southern switch", it is well documented that many southern Democrats in retaliation to the passage of the Civil Rights bill and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 switched their party affiliation to the Republican Party. And, the Republican Party embraced those voters fearing they would lose power because many African-Americans registered as Democrats.


So, at best Candace Owens is simply ignorant regarding history. At worst (the more likely scenario) she was being intentionally ahistorical.


To further illustrate her demented ideology Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) played a recording of Candi from a few months ago where at a Turning Points USA gathering in London she gave an unbelievable unconscious quasi-defense of nationalism by referencing Adolph Hitler, "Hitler wanted to make Germany great again which there was nothing wrong with that." She went on to say that it was when Hitler took his act internationally that he erred. Owens seemed to imply his actions within his own borders (murdering Jews, authoritarianism) was fine; it was just when he went outside his borders that was the problem.


Of course, she said the comments were taken out of context. I would implore you to find the clip on YouTube. It was pretty clear what she said. She was most certainly not taken out of context.


I shouldn't be surprised or shocked by what Candace Owens said at the Congressional hearing. She makes ridiculous and inflammatory statements all the time. But, this hit me the wrong way. I'm incensed!


All day I have wondered why this Aunt Tomasina foolishness has me livid. Partly, I'm pissed because of the audacity and depravity she had to say that in front of people who were still suffering over their lost loved ones at the hands of racists.


The other thing that grates me is the craven manner which she continues this hustle. Maybe...maybe she actually believes the asinine bullshit she spews. But, I don't think so.


Similar to her buddy Dave Rubin Stacey Dash's "trifilin third cousin" is willing to debase herself for a check. As I have mentioned several times before, Candace Owens willingly fetishizes herself for a certain swath of Alt-Right and extreme rightwingers who get off seeing people of color (especially women) demean and disparage other people of color and deny the existence of racism. For huge paydays she is more than happy to abandon any principles and dignity she has to demean and embarrass herself.


While any decent human being was mortified and disgusted watching Candace Owens testify there was most definitely a segment of people who were likely orgasmic at watching her depraved puerile Uncle Ruckus routine.


She should be embarrassed but I know she is not. She is filling a very lucrative lane. I am sure her boss, Charlie Kirk, and all the other amoral ghouls of the internet dark web were very proud of their token tap dancing pinup girl.


What pisses me off the most is although I know most black people think she's a joke of a person if only one person is swayed by her con that is one too many.


And, I am not going to qualify what I have said by saying I know not all black Conservatives are like her. The problem is not enough black Conservatives are vociferously calling her and her shameless repugnant grift out.


Candace Owens is a putrid person. And, no, I don't have any regret saying that. She will say whatever and spew any propaganda regardless how dishonest and repulsive it is as long as the check clears and the bank transfers go through.


She is a grifter and a huckster and everyone knows it. The fact she willingly says the things she says knowing it's bullshit and she doesn't believe it cements just how corrupt and devoid of any guiding principles she is.































h 


 

Biden's Behavior Is Creepy AF! (Stop Pretending It Isn't)

Right off the bat let me say I am an affectionate person. I like to give hugs and receive hugs. I generally don't have an issue with physical affection (if it's someone I know).


However, former Vice President Joe Biden seems to have an issue-a huge one- with not knowing when affection goes too far.


A couple of weeks ago former Nevada Lieutenant Governor candidate, Lucy Flores, said Biden inappropriately touched her back in 2014. Flores said the incident occurred at one of her campaign rallies which Biden attended campaigning for midterm election candidates.


She said Biden, whom she had only briefly met a couple of times, walked up behind her placing his hands on her shoulders. Biden then proceeded to sniff her hair and kissed her on the back of her head.


Flores said she attempted to move away from him because she felt the display of affection was inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable.


This revelation sparked other women to come forward with similar stories. As of present date as many as nine women have relayed incidents of Biden inappropriately touching then and/or invading their personal space.


Along with the revelations a flood of old videos and photos have popped up featuring Biden being quite handsy with women and adolescent girls. The videos and photos include Biden stroking women/girls hair, grabbing their hands and kissing their foreheads and hugging them.


Needless to say these incidents have initiated cries of #MeToo, criticisms of Biden and "faux outrage" from some on the right. And, it has also brought forth stringent defenses of Biden from those on the left and the right.


One such defense came from Stephanie Carter, the wife of former Obama administration Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. A video of Ash Carter's swearing-in ceremony resurfaced highlighting one of Biden's perceived inappropriate touching episodes. The video showed Biden placing his hands on Mrs. Carter's shoulders as he leaned down and whispered into her ear.


From the outside the image appears to be quite intimate. However, Stephanie Carter insisted Biden's affection was  innocent and merely a friend consoling her during a very nervous moment. The Carters and Bidens are long time friends.


Another image making the rounds is of Biden displaying affection toward the teenage daughter of Senator Chris Coons. Biden is seen placing his hands on her shoulders, whispering in her ear and periodically stroking her hair.




It must be noted that all of the women who have come forward, including Flores, are insisting they didn't feel Biden's behavior was sexual. They are just saying it was inappropriate and unwanted.


In his defense Biden has iterated his actions were innocent and simply the manner he deals with people. He said he is affectionate toward men and women, which is true, and he is a person who likes to encourage and provide solace.


Now, if Biden's behavior was limited to placing his hands on peoples shoulders and offering words of comfort and encouragement I would say this is not a big deal. He should be decidedly more cognizant of folks' feelings and respectful of their personal space, but still not a huge issue.


Here's the problem. The kissing, stroking of the hair and intimate hugs are creepy. It's creepy, y'all! Who kisses women they barely know on their head without permission? That is just...odd. And, what grown ass-old ass-man strokes the hair of teenage girls he doesn't know or does know for that matter? It's beyond the pale. For the love of God!


As I said, I'm an affectionate guy. I love to give hugs and receive hugs. The vast majority of people who know me know this. It's who I am and I don't apologize for it.


I believe platonic intimacy and affection are healthy. But, not everyone feels that way and their feelings must be respected. It is their personal space.


However, let me be clear. I have never nor would I ever walk behind someone I know, let alone someone I don't know, and kiss them on the back of the head. I often hug many of the women I work with but I would never walk up to them and sniff their hair like a dog sniffing a pork chop. Who the fuck does that?! Seriously!


A person's personal space is theirs to decide who can and can't be in it. For example, I use discernment in whom I do and don't hug. If someone gives the signal they don't want to be touched (or at least not by me) I don't touch them. This is not difficult.


And, as affectionate as I am, I don't want to be hugged or caressed (platonically) by just anybody. If I don't know you like that, keep your distance.


Quick anecdote. Many years ago I worked at a grocery store. I worked in the office/customer service desk. If you know me, you know I often wear cologne because I have a phobia about stinking. I have many shortcomings regarding my physical appearance but my body odor game is going on point. I don't like folks who smell like a combo of rotten milk and rotten ass so I am not going to smell like that either.


Anyway, there was this woman, who worked in another department. One day she came up to the desk to get something. She remarked how good I smelled. The next day she had come around behind the desk (unbeknownst to me) walking up behind me. Next thing I know her nose is literally resting on my neck sniffing me! She said, "Damn you smell delicious!" I recoiled from her and politely thanked her while thinking, "This chick is crazy!"


Well, she then began doing it every day. She did it in front of customers. I asked her to stop because it was weird. Not to mention it was unprofessional.


She didn't stop. She literally would come up to me whether from behind or in front of me inhaling my cologne like Lindsay Lohan snorting a line of the booger sugar.


Finally, I went to one of my assistant managers asking them to instruct her to stop. It was not only uncomfortable and hella weird but I felt like my personal space had been violated.


My point is that type of behavior is beyond inappropriate and just effin strange.


Biden seemed to have understood this. He released a video on Thursday saying he was listening and he would strive to be better. He didn't apologize for his behavior, but he did seem contrite.


But, then came Friday afternoon. Biden attended an event where he proceeded to make light of the incidents. After hugging the guy who introduced him he joked the hug was ok because he "was given permission". It became evident he doesn't understand what the issue is.


Part of the reason for this is the support he's received from many Democrats and some Republicans most of whom are older. People such as Mika Brzezinski and Meghan McCain have come to his defense. Not a huge surprise they are missing the point.


They have stated they appreciate Biden's affectionate behavior. That is great but because they are ok with being touched in that manner doesn't mean others do.


And, again, the larger point to me is not the hands on the shoulder or the hugs. It is the kissing and hair stroking. It's effin creepy. Especially when he does it to people he either does not know or has a cursory acquaintance.


Also, it's not lost on me folks like Mika and "My father" Meghan are likely coming from a place of partisanship and Trump hatred. They believe Biden is the best shot at defeating Trump in 2020. So, they believe these allegations are hurting those chances and Mika literally said as much.


The reality is this. Biden doesn't respect boundaries. He doesn't appreciate folks' personal space.


I don't necessarily believe his actions are predatory. The women who have levied the accusations said they didn't believe they were sexual in nature, so why should I. But, it is undoubtedly odd and peculiar.


It's definitely a behavioral pattern for him. And, people who say this is a generational issue need to stop. Sure, this nonsense was tolerated 30 or 40 years ago but it has never been right nor acceptable.


This is not a matter of Joe Biden getting with the times. It's a matter of him realizing it is super inappropriate for him to touch anyone in a manner which is unwanted or makes them uncomfortable. It's about understanding and respecting personal space.


And, one last time, sniffing women's hair and kissing them uninvited is creepy af. There is no context which that is condonable.


Oh, for those saying this disqualifies Biden from running for president it does not. Are we seriously going to have that discussion considering who is currently in the White House ?


But, I do say Biden's behavior and his apparent lack of understanding how inappropriate it is should be a cause for concern if you are considering him for the Democratic nominee.