AOC Is A Clapback Boss While Chuck Schumer...Well, Is Not

The Democratic Party, both as a collective and individually, has many shortcomings. This is not a secret. But, no shortcoming is as apparent and frustrating as their inability or lack of desire to fight back against verbal attacks and political malevolence. As a progressive, it is one of the most infuriating and deflating characteristics.


Now, I will not front here. In the past (even the somewhat recent past) I have been as guilty of this as anyone. We liberal and progressive types tend to err on the side of pacifism and misguided civility. Democrats seem to possess an innate logic that the best way to respond to insults or verbal assaults or character assassination is by either ignoring the perpetrators or "killing them with kindness".


In theory the above responses seem appropriate. In a perfect world meanness and callousness could be adequately combated with kind words.


But, with some folks that simply will not work. Sometimes that shade has gotta be thrown. With some mofos they will only be put in their place if that clapback is put on their ass. Ya know what I mean.


Unfortunately, way too many Democrats and Lefties don't understand this or don't wanna accept it. Time after time Republicans, Conservatives and Alt-Right trolls will lie, spew half-truths and inject false and/or misleading narratives about Democrats and/or their policies. They do it because they know they'll receive little, if any, pushback. They know they can control the public discourse because Democrats and Progressives tend to cower or fear if they pushback substantially at all they will be labeled "uncivil" which, of course, is a bullshit label. As I have said before the "uncivil" charge is a jedi mind trick Conservatives play on Liberals to make them look weak. And, it usually works.


Democrats always take the bait, which allows them to be beat up and bloodied. So, they can take the spurious high road they allow themselves to be brow beaten and denigrated. Sadly, this causes some Dems to be feeble and feckless.


Speaking of feeble and feckless let me introduce one Charles E. Schumer, the U.S. Senate Minority Leader. The term "leader" is used in the loosest sense of the word.


Schumer is the prototype for what not to do when political enemies and antagonists attack.


Look, I acknowledge Schumer is definitional low hanging fruit. Political leaders are always easy fodder.


But, let's make no bones about this. As Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer FUCKING SUCKS!


The man has almost zero political skills or instincts. He has no backbone whatsoever. He will sell the Democrats or their political agenda down the river at the drop of a hat.


Remember, a year ago? DACA was on the table. The Democratic Party base made it clear the million or so DACA recipients had to receive citizenship before any federal budget was accepted. President Trump publicly berated Schumer over DACA and an impending government shutdown. The shutdown happened for a day or something. Schumer caved and no DACA deal was made.


Just this past Tuesday Schumer along with soon to be House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, met with Trump to discuss Trump's idiotic border wall and the federal budget. Trump decided to hold the trio's "discussion" about it in public. I am sure he thought he could embarrass Schumer and Pelosi publicly by doing his pseudo alpha male bullshit.


Well, it backfired with Pelosi and somewhat backfired with Schumer but not as much as the press played it up.


While Pelosi stood up to Trump, Schumer looked like a younger brother getting scolded by his older brother. Trump was spewing his usual bluster and lies about immigration and his "I need to make my penis look big" wall. To Trump's credit he was right in Schumer's space making his case. He challenged Schumer and was frankly confrontational without being threatening or menacing.


Now, this is Trump we're talking about so much of what he said was utter nonsense. But, he actually looked commanding with his pseudo alpha male facade.


So, did Schumer buck up back to him? Did he forcefully call him out on his bs? Nope. Chuckie was hunched over almost melting into the couch. He would barely make eye contact with Trump. He looked like a whipped dog, frankly. Well, like he always does. No bite. No fight.


Now, contrasting Schumer is the 29 year old congresswoman-elect from New York's 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


AOC, as her admirers and supporters call her which I am one, has been the target of ridicule, lies, smears and soft-core quasi misogyny and sexism ever since she upset long termed incumbent, Joe Crowley in the primaries. She has received criticism and heat from Democrats and Republicans.


AOC, who is a Democratic Socialist and will be the youngest member of Congress when she is sworn into office in January, has been the frequent target of Conservatives and Fox News especially. They really seemed obsessed with her. Conservative intellectual, Ben Shapiro, challenged her to a debate even though he wasn't her opponent in the general election. AOC refused saying she wouldn't be "catcalled", which sent Benjamin into a tizzy because a good Jewish Conservative like him would never be so crass as to solicit a woman.


Some tool from NewsMax, whose name escapes me and it doesn't really matter anyway, decided to play detective on Twitter and "expose" AOC as a fraud because she was not a simple struggling girl from the Bronx but was an Ivy League grad who grew up in Westchester, New York which is largely (but not totally) an affluent area. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted back informing this assclown she graduated from Boston University, which is not an Ivy League school, and she spent her "formative years" in Westchester when her mother decided the Bronx schools were inadequate. Her mother worked multiple jobs sacrificing so they could afford to live in Westchester. Their home, which I encourage you to see a picture of, was beyond modest and placed in one of the more middle class areas of Westchester.


This idea that Ocasio-Cortez is a fake populist is one Fox News and Conservatives have repeatedly attempted to push often falling flat on their faces. Of course, the hilarious irony these are the same people who support a self-proclaimed born into wealth billionaire who has never did a blue collar thing in his life, yet claims to be a blue collar populist , is not lost on me but it certainly is on them apparently.


AOC has received multiple attacks on her intelligence and youth.


A few weeks back she posted a tweet decrying Trump's treatment of migrants at the border citing the various times in history people have fled to America in an attempt to escape persecution and violence. Naturally, she used the Jews escaping the Holocaust as an example. This triggered South Carolina senator and newly volunteered Trump balls cleaner, Lindsey Graham, to tweet at AOC she should visit the Holocaust Museum and perhaps she is a little young and naive.


Again, the lack of awareness and the overwhelming irony is hilarious. The President literally coddles white supremacy and is an apologists for Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists.


Ocasio-Cortez responded by first tweeting, "I heard your "joke" about ethnic DNA preferences last month. Perhaps, you would enjoy a visit (or revisit) to the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture." She was referring to Graham's racist comment on Fox and Friends where he said, "It would be like terrible if a DNA test revealed he has Iranian ancestry." No response was given.


It was an excellent retort. She called out his racism while not personally attacking him. She used his own words against him. And, she used the same condescending tone to him he used towards her. Thus, why there was no response. Shade had been thrown and Graham knew it was a battle he'd lost.


Just a couple of weeks ago Washington Examiner "reporter", Eddie Scarry, tweeted out a pic of the back of AOC as she was walking down a hall. Scarry used the pic to point out her jacket saying something to the effect she doesn't look like she's a struggling girl from the Bronx.


On its face the pic was somewhat creepy and the implication was just stupid. But, if you dig into Scarry's pension to take secret pics of women it is really creepy. Not to mention his implication that AOC is a fraud was just idiotic because you could not tell how expensive the jacket was or wasn't from the pic. It was a plain back suit jacket with no visible label or markings.


Once again, Ocasio-Cortez displayed the correct way to fight back. She didn't stay silent nor did she start trippin with accusations of lewdness, which she would have been well in her right to do.


First, she tweeted that she was grateful Scarry thought her jacket was designer clothing. She said it made her feel good her thrift store shopping skills were on point. (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)


Then, she became a bit more serious by pointing out how revealing it was the Right focuses so much attention not only on her but her clothing apparel. Also, she said it was not lost on her how obsessed some on the Right seem to be with her backside, and it was a bit odd for people to be lurking in the halls of Congress taking pics of her.


Scarry deleted the tweet afterwards and provided some absolutely asinine defense that he was simply "complementing" her. No, he was not. He was backtracking because the queen of political shade was exhibiting her skills yet again.


Another example of AOC fighting back the right way is last week when Mike Huckabee attacked her. Ocasio-Cortez had said that what she, Rashida Tlaib, Ayonna Pressley and the other Congressional Progressive women of color had achieved by winning their elections was historical. She listed a plethora of events that people said could not happen but did. She included the moon landing. Of course, she was not comparing her election to the moon landing but was simply illustrating what people say is impossible is possible.


Any intelligent human being could easily see this.


Well, here came Mike Huckabee. His Twitter finger got itchy. He decided to fire off a tweet basically calling her stupid. He totally took what she said out of context. Then, he decided to be a comedian saying AOC comparing her election win to the lunar landing was "looney".


Oh, Michael, you funny summabitch, you. You are as good a comedian as you were a governor or a preacher. Bruh, stick to your day job of being a crypto white nationalist and hiding your head in shame you produced Sarah Huckabee Sanders.


Speaking of 'ol Smokey Eye, Ocasio-Cortez mentioned her as she retorted beautifully to Mike Huckabee. AOC tweeted at him to stop lying on her and leave the lying up to Sarah Huckabee Sanders "because she is better at it". Next, she asked Huckabee, "Why do call yourself 'governor'? You haven't been a governor for 10 years."


Oh, snap! Someone needs to check on Mikey to see if he got back up from that clapback!


Again! AOC went for the jugular without being overly mean or nasty. She simply used facts and intellect which we know to right-wingers like Huckabee are like sunlight to vampires or the truth to Donald Trump.


Needless to say, no response was forthcoming from Huckabee.


Democrats and Lefties must emulate AOC and stop acting like Schumer. It is just a fact Republicans fight dirty. They will say whatever they have feel they must to control the narrative. Facts and truth are but mere inconveniences. And, this is why they seem to always have a public perception of being strong while Dems are seen as docile and feckless.


Now, don't take what I am saying out of context like I am quite sure some will. I am not saying Democrats and Progressives should start lying, telling half-truths, making false equivalencies and conducting repugnant smear jobs. Leave that to the experts.


What I am saying is when attacked defend yourself and/or your position by going on offense. Do not just take shit and cower in the corner in the name of civility or because you are just being weak. Come out swinging. Take it to the bullies but not with rancor, venom, demonizing and certainly not violence. Go at them with facts, empirical evidence, wit, sarcasm and humor. You don't need to be cruel but be fierce and unyielding.


The Left must do what the Right does, which is stand up for their principles, convictions and policies. The Queen of Political Shade, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, has provided us a template. When she's attacked and maligned she fights back with intellect, facts and humor which quality "sit yo ass down" shade consists.


Doing the Chuck Schumer/Hillary Clinton thing of taking the high road hasn't worked and isn't going to work in this current political climate. I adore Michelle Obama but she's wrong when she says if they go low, we go high unless she means slap 'em in their teeth. Of course, I'm speaking figuratively.


Honestly, what makes Republicans appear strong is they fight. They are not interested in fighting fair. They just fight. Frankly, it's admirable.


Democrats better begin doing the same shit. People like AOC understand this.


President Obama made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. None, perhaps, so egregious as his overarching affinity to capitulate to the Conservatives in the name of bipartisanship despite Conservatives spitting in his face every time. But, one thing he did that made them hate him was his innate ability to throw shade at them in a manner they were intellectually ill-equipped to respond.


I have never seen anyone else be able to do that until AOC. She gets under their skin the same way Obama does.


Yes, like with Obama, the obvious reasons exist for why that is.  But, also like Obama, it's because they fear her.


We need to give them cause to fear us too.

Sweet Baby Jesus! Paulie Walnuts Is Our President

Anyone who is a fan of The Sopranos, whether they be a casual one or a superfan, knows all of the characters are on the surface stereotypical mob figures. Excuse me, I mean waste management. Everyone knows there is no such thing as the mob. Anyway, fans also know that every character has more complexity than the initial cursory impression.


Naturally, the show characters are flawed. Of course, they would have to be because balanced people don't walk around killing people and sawing bodies up so they can be easily exposed. Well adjusted people tend to not live life on the edge of either imprisonment or death when there are no logical reasons to do so. Normal people don't see everything and everyone (including family) as transactional.


Perhaps, the most must see character on The Sopranos (besides maybe Tony Soprano) was Paulie Walnuts. Paulie was one of Tony's most trusted lieutenants, but was also his most frustrating one.


The other night I was watching The Michael Brooks  Show podcast. Michael and comedian, Mike Reccine, were discussing The Sopranos and Paulie Walnuts came up. They were saying how Paulie was the most captivating character on the show because he was a scumbag, amoral and an idiot. But, on one level he was too stupid to realize the depths of his stupidity while on another level he was aware he was intellectually lacking which made him transparently insecure.


As I sat there listening to them reminisce about all of Paulie's treacherous and idiotic moments it hit me. I had an epiphany. The President of the United States is Paulie Walnuts.


Yes, Donald Trump (the wannabe gangster) is the real life equivalent of Paulie.


Hear me out on this.


Paulie was a cruel dude who lacked much of a moral compass. He was essentially a sociopath. Walnuts often lacked empathy unless it was toward Tony or someone/something he saw him in.






Trump can be cruel. Look at his migrant child separation policy. Trump gave military personnel at the southern border the orders shoot to kill any migrants who threw rocks.


Trump has an inability to exhibit empathy. All you have to do is think about the numerous times he was supposed to comfort hurricane victims; yet, he couldn't help but make it about him. Remember, the phone call to the widow of the fallen soldier in Niger. Trump all but said to her, "Shit happens."


Paulie Walnuts was always cracking jokes. He would always seek an opportunity to belittle someone. Especially if it were somebody he was jealous of or felt inferior to.


Trump is the personification of this. He really thinks he is a comedian. Some of his reasons for believing that is because his cult followers laugh at the things he says. The truth is he is sorta funny in a twisted way. If you look through the lens of he is a parody of a bad lounge comic then he is amusing. However, when you realize he is not a bad lounge performer but the President of the United States with the responsibility of millions of lives he is not funny at all.


Paulie would belittle people or mock them because he was insecure. Paulie always seemed envious of Sil. Sil was Tony's boy. That's because Sil was competent and loyal.


Now, take Trump's mocking of people. His endless attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not strictly because of his opposition to their ideology as his supporters would like to believe or convince themselves is the case. He attacks them because he is jealous of them and their intellect. Much in the same way it always ate at Paulie how beloved Sil was it eats at Trump the affinity people have towards Obama.


In fact, it is no secret Trump becomes jealous of anyone who gets more attention than he does. It was well reported how pissed he became at the attention John McCain received in the aftermath of his death. It was also reported Trump became the same way recently after President George H.W. Bush's death. Just petty, petty, petty.


Another commonality between the two is the pension for self-aggrandizement, tackiness and ostentatiousness. If you are familiar with Paulie Walnuts, you are familiar with the hair. Walnuts trademark was his black dye job on top with the gray on the sides hairdo. He looked like a tacky skunk.


Paulie was also known for his flashy Cadillacs and overtly "gangsta" suits. Everything about him was "look at me". He loved to brag on himself and his possessions. Paulie believed these things spoke to his greatness although most people saw him as an obnoxious douchebag. He was an obnoxious douchebag.


Well, Trump's trademark is that ridiculous hair. You know the 'do with it's odd chameleon like ability to alternate between orangutan orange and bad dye job blonde. Trump doesn't drive Caddies but he does love a golf cart. But, his ostentatiousness is displayed in gold plated shitters and six foot tall portraits of himself. Instead of "look at me" suits Trump litters the walls of his golf resorts and homes with framed fake Time magazine covers. He is famous for calling media publications pretending to be publicist, John Baron, spinning tales of how women were falling over themselves to be with him and that he is the most virile of men with "huge" sexual potency. (Gawd! This dude is pathetic.) Too bad Stormy Daniels "mushroomed" that narrative and nobody came to Trump's defense. Sad.


Perhaps, where Paulie and Donnie have the most synergy is their Dunning-Krueger. Paulie definitely thought he put the "wise" in wise guy. Paulie thought he was extremely intelligent despite his constant screwups. Walnuts had zero awareness.


Now, if that doesn't sound like our favorite tweeting word misspelling President I don't know what does.


Trump is famous for proudly not being well read. He is famous for acting like he is the smartest person in the room when he isn't even the smartest person in the room when he is the only person in the room.


Trump has a reputation for being a business genius, which is really one of the world's great mysteries. The man filed bankruptcy six times. He ran a casino into the ground. I mean who does that? That is the equivalent of going broke selling ice water in hell.


He possesses little knowledge about science, math, grammar or history. He once justified placing tariffs on Canada to Canadian President Justin Trudea by claiming he was extracting revenge for the War of 1812 except Canada wasn't even a thing until the 1860s. Up until February of 2017 he thought Frederick Douglass was still alive. Hell, I'm still not sure he knows he's dead. The man believes a plane can actually be invisible.


It is astounding and depressing that Paulie Walnuts is essentially the leader of the free world.


Trump thinks he is a mobster. He runs Trump Organization like it's a crime family. He is doing his best to run the country the same way.


He values one way loyalty over competency and intelligence. He believes he, like a mob boss, should have unilateral decision making. Anyone who is not loyal to the boss deserves to be "whacked". For now, this is in the figurative sense. Although his looking the other way on the Saudis murder of Jamal Khashoggi screamed Sopranos.


Paulie Walnuts was a captivating figure. He was even a likeable figure until you realized he was a piece of shit. Paulie was amoral, which led to him being heartless. He was cursory and vapid, which led to him being myopic and shortsighted. Paulie, while having some street smarts, was intellectually lacking and possessed little if any critical thinking, which often led to him making incompetent decisions. Paulie was more concerned with style than substance, which frequently led him to looking foolish and ridiculous and being humiliated.


Of course, Paulie didn't realize nor understand any of this because he lacked self-awareness. He, instead, wallowed in paranoia, self-pity and a belief everyone including the universe was out to get him.


Sounds like Don The Con doesn't it.

"Y'all think everything is racist." (The New Bigot Strawman)

"Ya know not everything is racist", says the bigot or bigot sympathizer.


"You think everything is racist. Not everything has to be racist. Some things are just innocent humor or slips of the tongue", says crypto-racists.




These are real quotes. They are repetitive quotes. They are the quotes hard-core racists, soft-core racists, crypto-racists and racists sympathizers employ every day to excuse or minimize theirs and/or others racist statements and actions.


The truth is, no, I nor most racial diversity embracing people think everything is racist. We believe racist words and actions are racist.


The "You think everything is racist" response is a strawman. Usually, it is a non-denial denial. It is a weak attempt at deflection and getting those who are calling out racism to chase a red herring. I say it's weak, but actually it works too often, unfortunately.


A recent example is the Florida gubernatorial race. The day after the primaries Republican nominee (and eventual governor-elect), Ron DeSantis said during an interview on Fox News Floridians should not vote for Democratic nominee, Andrew Gillium (who is African-America), because they couldn't risk "monkeying up" the so-called "progress" that had been made under current governor and now senate-elect, Rick Scott.


The comment immediately sparked a public relations firestorm. Almost immediately Fox News issued a statement condemning the comment. Other Republicans, including Scott, distanced themselves from the controversy spewing the usual cursory bullshit about how they don't condone racially insensitive language and yada yada. Although, of course, they do. But, I digress.


DeSantis, however, didn't apologize nor back down. He and his campaign said the comment was innocent and not racist whatsoever. They pushed back against the narrative it was racist by saying the Democrats and mainstream media make everything about race. They contended the phrase was a common idiom.


But, "monkeying up" is not a common idiom. In fact, it's not even a phrase. "Monkeying around" is but even if he meant that the phrase had no place within the context of the sentence. Not to mention considering the dynamics he should have known better than to use such a phrase.


Of course, that is if you were to provide him a liberal benefit of the doubt, which I do not. DeSantis knew exactly what he was saying and so did his supporters.


However, employing the strawman "not everything is racist" was meant to put those correctly calling out racism on the defensive. Get inside their heads, so to speak. And, it offers a perfunctory plausible deniability.


We actually see this strategy instituted often. Donald Trump consistently says things that are at the very least racist in nature, if not flatly racist. Yet, after almost every time he says something racist his supporters and sycophants inherently respond by clutching their pearls. Then, they slip into full snowflake mode with "You Libs think everything is racist."


Again, no, just racist ish is racist.


Sadly, this strawman does work sometimes. First, as with most strawman and generalizing statements there is a grain (albeit usually a minutely small) of truth to counteraccusation. We all know those people who see racism, sexism, ect in everything. The amount of those people is usually quite small but for the purposes of a deflector they're enough.


Second, people become self-conscious and off-balanced when having this nonsense thrown at them. I have certainly been guilty of this. "Maybe I did read too much into her comment about a tendency of the urban demographic to possess a less instinctive ability to be well read. Perhaps, by urban" she meant 'people who attended more metropolitan schools'. Of course, when I took offense she didn't clarify herself by saying that. She said, 'You know it's true. You have to stop thinking everything is littered with racist connotations.'"


Some people, such as the example above which was an actual conversation I once had, are very astute at this game. They always give themselves or those they are defending wiggle room for plausible deniability and just enough cause to make you seem overly sensitive or too social justice warrior like. It can actually be an admirable albeit distasteful skill.


The way to combat this is to turn the tables back around. If someone says something racist and this is pointed out to them, their response (given they truly intended no malice) should be to ask why what they said was racist or do some retrospection on what they said. If the innate response is to put you on the defensive or make themselves the victim, then you probably should have a good idea the intent behind the comment or action or what they believe was the intent if they are defending someone else.


Remember, a non-denial is not a denial.


It is an innate human response to become defensive when accused of something you don't feel you did or feel your intent has been misunderstood or maligned.


It is also a innate human response to become defensive and deflective and accusatory when you have been correctly accused of something you said or did.


A common ploy of racist and their sympathizers is to always flip it over on you so they don't have to actually confront what they are accurately being accused of because they don't have a defense. It is extremely similar to the person who has been confronted by their significant other accusing them of cheating.


A truly innocent person denies it and then demands proof and seeks to know why their love thinks they are cheating. The person who's been creepin responds, "No! Why do you think everyone cheats? Not everyone cheats. Maybe it's you who is the cheater. People who always think everyone is cheating is the actual cheater."


See, the non-denial. See, the flipping it around. See, the strawman and grain of truth about people who always think everyone is cheating is the cheater.


But, they aren't talking about everyone cheating. They are specifically talking about them. And, nowhere in that rambling was a denial or request for proof. Why? They know the other person knows what time it is.


The same applies to the "not everything is racist" crowd.


www.facebook.com/robbase2110


www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.instagram.com/robbase2110


www.patreon.com/robeasley

America's Repugnant Contemptible Ignominy: Domestic Violence Response

Look, I am about to get o my soapbox. I will not apologize nor feel shame for it. I will likely come across as high-minded and judgmental. I probably will piss some people off (especially the alpha male types). I do not really care.


The way too many people in this country react to domestic violence and its victims is abhorrent.


It is said slavery is America's original sin and racism her greatest shame. Both are irrefutably true. But, it should also be said sexism misogyny are among America's most enduring ignominies.


Last week the Kansas City Chiefs released second year running back, Kareem Hunt. TMZ obtained and subsequently released a video detailing Hunt pushing a woman to the ground and then kicking her while she lay on the ground.


The incident occurred outside Hunt's hotel room in Cleveland. According to Hunt and a witness the woman, who is 19, had been outside the hotel room causing a scene for approximately 30 minutes. The witness said she was told to leave the room after she called him a "nigger".


Now, the woman says she was a guest of Hunt's but unbeknownst to her was invited to his room to "entertain" him and his friends. After she refused to be what she implied was a sex toy she left.


That is when the incident of Hunt assaulting her took place.


The video clearly shows Hunt pushing the woman away from him and then pushing her down. Once she fell he proceeded to kick her in the side.


Now, I can't say if the woman called Hunt or his friend a "nigger". The video had no audio. I am not certain what happened in the hotel room prior to what was captured on video. I can take some guesses. Hunt has a history of violent reactions and altercations which occurred before and after this particular incident in Cleveland. But, it really doesn't matter, does it?!


He should not have placed his  hands on her let alone kicked her! Period!


However, some of the reaction to this has said otherwise.


Before I go off about the usual domestic abuse/rape culture/misogyny apologists that always appear to lament the "mistreatment" of men and the "treacherous tramps always out to bring a brotha down" allow me to address the NFL, Cleveland Police Department and the Kansas City Chiefs.


Supposedly, the Cleveland P.D. looked into the matter. It was sparsely reported in the media.


According to the Cleveland P.D. a report was given to the NFL and the Chiefs. However, the Chiefs nor the league did anything. Hunt received no reprimand nor punishment.


Now, the Chiefs nor the NFL said they were aware of a tape. The Cleveland P.D. is also claiming they were unaware of a video tape. Forgive me if I have some doubt about that.


But, once TMZ obtained the video, both the NFL and Chiefs acted swiftly. The NFL placed Hunt on the non-injured inactive list. The Chiefs just released him. What neither mentioned was they were fully aware of all the details of the incident.


So, the question is why did this matter go un-adjudicated? Why did it take a public release of a video showing Hunt's heinous actions for him to be properly punished? Did the Chiefs or the NFL have knowledge about the video? If so, why did TMZ obtain a copy but they didn't? Or did they?


Let us not forget the NFL has a checkered past when it comes to this sort of thing. Remember, Ray Rice? Greg Hardy? Hell, Reuben Foster had just been signed by the Washington Redskins the day before the Hunt video was released. He was cut by the San Francisco 49ers four days before because of a domestic abuse accusation, which was his second such accusation this calendar year.


It appears Hunt's domestic abuse was swept under the rug. It also appears, once again, the NFL isn't necessarily too concerned with having domestic abusers on their rosters. Now, a socially conscious guy protesting racial injustice? Not so much. Dudes who slap and kick women? If they are talented and still productive, sure!


As repulsive as the NFL's attitude toward domestic abuse seems, many in the general public is worse and leads to the condoning nonchalant attitude the National Football League has.


I expected to see near universal condemnation of Hunt and his actions. (I, honestly, don't know why. Misguided optimism, I guess) But, what I heard and read instead was an apology tour for Hunt, trashing of the victim and questions about whether Hunt would play again without any qualifiers about him apologizing and seeking the help he so obviously needs.


Sure, the usual social justice warriors and defenders of decency were speaking out. However, a lot of what I saw was blame being placed on the Kansas City Chiefs. And, yes, they deserve a huge share of blame but it was Hunt who perpetrated the crime.


I then saw the victim being blamed. Boy, we love to victim blame in this country don't we. Anyway, the conspiracy theories were flying fast and furious. "Hunt was set up by her to bring a rich black athlete down."


"That white girl was a tool of white supremacy to entrap him." 😐


Seriously, this is the utter bullshit I read online. I mean we'll just effin ignore all his other incidents. We'll just ignore how this happened damn near a year ago appeared to be actively swept under the rug. Oh, and we'll just ignore the fact he couldn't have been taped kicking a woman if....oh, I don't know...he hadn't FUCKING KICKED HER!


Of course, the allegation she called Hunt and/or his buddy a "nigger" was repeatedly cited.


I am certainly not defending her about that if she said it. But, I have some doubt regarding that accusation. It allegedly happened in the hotel room, which led to her expulsion from the room, right? Apparently, she was outside the room for a minute causing a disturbance. If being called a nigger is what incited Hunt, why the delayed reaction? Why not call the police? It doesn't add up.


Regardless, Hunt shouldn't have touched her.


It is really simple, fellas. Do not put your hands on a woman! Do not slap her, punch her or kick her! Ever! Don't do it!


No man should place his hands on a woman!


But, the innate response of many people when a domestic violence incident is reported isn't to say the above. It is to make excuses and blame the victim.


It is astonishing how congenitally people will just blame the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. "What did she do to make him do that? Did she say something? Why would he do that unless provoked?"


Even worse is the intrinsic response to "protect" the abuser and frame them as the victim. "Why would she accuse him of that? She's going to ruin his career-his life. She shouldn't have even been there. She attacked him. She knew why she was in that hotel room. She teased him and his boys, then bolted because she got cold feet. Now, because she's a dick tease and doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut she's ruined this guy's promising career. Poor guy will probably never play ball again."


This insidious insolent bullshit is spewed every single time an act of violence against women is perpetrated or accused. Especially, if the alleged abuser is famous or politically relevant.


It is sick! Perverted.


Anyone who doesn't believe misogyny is pervasive and persistent in the United States either is pathetically naive, apart of the patriarchy or benefits from the patriarchy.


And, don't roll your fucking eyes, because you know it's empirically true!


We always here the condemnations of the violence against women. Some of them are sincere while some are cursory and feigned. They are cloaked in the appropriate language but are really just apology tour statements, vapid justifications for misogyny and sexism.


And, some folks just put it out there. They don't really hide their disdain and contempt for women. Just because they wouldn't want such horrible incidents to befall their mothers or sisters doesn't mean they give a shit about every other woman, which often includes their own wife or girlfriend.


Also, I would be woefully remised if I didn't mention their are women who participate in this misogyny too. Just because someone belongs to the victim group or the disenfranchised it doesn't mean they actively participate in the oppressive actions and words.


I saw some women low-key defending Kareem Hunt also.


Some day, I hope, we get to the point in this country where a clear case of domestic violence can be widely repudiate and condemned without qualifications. I hope that saying we respect women isn't just some empty platitude but actual tangible evidentiary reality.


Women are and always have been the backbone of our society. Would it not be wonderful if they were no longer subjected to malignant misogyny? Would it not be terrific, if unfortunately they are raped or abused, that the innate response is not to blame, trash and minimize theme essentially traumatizing them a second time but to embrace, empathize and demand and seek justice for them?


Would it not be great if we actually begin holding every single man accountable who abuses or assaults any woman?


I think it would be fucking splendid! I also think it's a disgrace I even have to ask these questions in 2018!  

The War On Christmas (A Pretentious Holiday Tradition Like None Other)

That special time of the year has arrived. The time of the year filled with the smell of cookies and warm cider. The time of the year featuring sleigh rides and caroling. The time of the year we embrace the ideal "it is better to give than receive". Oh, and the time of the year people instigate fraudulent culture wars insisting there is a war on Christmas.


No such war actually exists.


In an admitted hypersensitive and at times overly politically correct culture the Christmas season falls prey to the affinity not to offend others.


But, some people take this bullshit hyper-political correctness and strawman it into a full blown war on Christmas.


They cite as their main piece of evidence the saying, "Happy Holidays!". To me and millions of others we find "happy holidays" to be a quite innocuous joyful greeting or well wishing statement. However, some hear a slap in the face to Christmas when they hear that.


Actually, saying "happy holidays" is usually a way for people to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year without having to say both of those things individually. Now, in fairness, this is a greeting used by some people who (for whatever reason) don't celebrate Christmas.


Those people defending Christmas say not only is saying "happy holidays" a sign Christmas is being disrespected but that a concerted effort is being made by the government and liberals to take Christmas out of the public space. They claim faith is being assaulted. They say it's becoming frowned upon to say, "Merry Christmas".


Now, I must be honest. I am not sure what these people are talking about. I am fairly confident that in most places in America you can freely say "Merry Christmas".


Sure, it might not necessarily be well received in a synagogue or a mosque or at The Grinch's humble abode to say "Merry Christmas". But, then why would you be at those particular places wishing the inhabitants of those places a "Merry Christmas" knowing they don't celebrate Christmas? I am pretty certain if on the street you wished a Jew, a Muslim or anyone else who doesn't observe Christmas a "Merry Christmas" they would likely not care and courteously wish you back a "happy holidays". In the vast majority of cases I doubt a hostile response would be given.


As for it being an assault on faith, uhhhhhh, well let's talk about that.


I think it is fair to say Christianity is under some assault in this country. Religion as a whole is. People are tending to distance themselves from religion. I would say Christians and other religious believers actually hold a fair amount of culpability in that, but that is a discussion for another day. It should be noted well over 70% of Americans (one poll has it at 76%) consider themselves to be a Christian.


When it comes to the nuance of Christmas I find the entire claim of Christmas being assaulted to be rather disingenuous, honestly. Many people will bring up the "real meaning of Christmas" and how it's often ignored and minimized. I could not agree more.


Christmas is really supposed to be about the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The "real meaning" of Christmas is supposed to be about the heartwarming story of two wayward immigrants, Joseph and Mary, and their travel to Bethlehem so Mary could give birth to the son of God immaculately conceived. The story of Christmas is about the joys of giving and acceptance and sacrifice.


Yet, that is not what Christmas has become. Many...many of the soldiers defending Christmas have been at the forefront bastardizing the meaning of Christmas. And, y'all know it.


Christmas has been commercialized. The holiday isn't about Jesus. It is about trees, ornaments, tinsel and how much can be sold of each. It is about wreaths, sexy elves costumes and tacky (I mean tacky) Christmas sweaters.


Christmas has become about glutton. How many Christmas cookies and candy can we shove down our throat without having to be on the toilet shitting ourselves until New Year's.


People aren't concerned with the actual story of the Nativity. They are concerned with how elaborate a Nativity scene they display in front of their house and how badly "It will kick that prick next door, Bob's ass!"


The birth of Jesus or embracing the meaning and symbolism behind it isn't nearly as important as putting up the most ostentatious, gaudy, god-awful house lights and decorations display. The amount of money poured into this by folks every year is immoral.


I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am. But, I am fairly confident that the proper way to celebrate the Messiah's birth is not by attending work or private holiday parties getting shit faced on eggnog or Crown Royal. And, I almost certain wearing a "naughty" Ms. Claus outfit to aforementioned holiday...errr....Christmas party and after becoming shit faced begin playing "Let me show you my jingle bells and special mistletoe" with all the fellas is not quite the Christmas spirit that is supposed to be shown. Nor do I think sneaking sips of the Yuletide Jack and Coke is the way the Lawd wants his son's birthday celebrated but I could be wrong.


And, for those feet dug in dedicated Christians pushing the myth of Santa Claus upon your children and grandchildren giving that fat clown almost equal, if not totally equal, weight as Jesus is pretty unfathomable isn't it? I mean isn't it?


Santa is a pagan mythical figure. He is not what Christmas is about. I won't even go into bs of how kids are sold a bill of goods that jackass squeezes his fat ass down a chimney when it's by the grace of God he slides his way in and out of the door to his workshop. The poor elves whose job it is to grease those doorways. But, I digress.


Millions of Christian parents, many of whom lament how liberals and pagans are executing a vicious and secular war on Christmas, cheerfully and without a hint of irony and self-awareness push the myth of Santa Claus and his elves. They tell the stories of how the elves make the toys for kids (without receiving a wage might I add) so Santa can load his sleigh (pulled through the night sky by reindeer) and deliver toys to all the good boys and girls. And, we know that is a crock of shit. How many Christmases did Donald Trump and Bill Clinton receive Christmas gifts from Santa when he knew damn well they had been grabbing pussy without asking throughout the year? I guess Santa figured it was ok because when you are a star they just let you do it.


Look, the reality is this "war on Christmas" is much like the antipathy to NFL anthem protests. It is fake outrage wrapped disingenuous bullshit. It is nothing more than an engineered culture war.


You can still freely say, "Merry Christmas" in America. You are not going to be jailed or reprimanded. I say "Merry Christmas" hundreds of times every Christmas season without incident.


I mean, I guess Starbucks switching to a "holiday" cup is the beginning of the Apocalypse. Or, maybe not.


I suppose people saying, "Happy Holidays" is literally a gateway to atheism and agnosticism. Or, maybe not.


Decorating our front yards with tacky and pretentious Nativity and light displays is fueling the war on Christmas. Or, maybe not. That is cool. Everybody loves seeing it.


I imagine emphasizing Santa instead of or equally to Christ is a sign secularism is stripping the true meaning of Christmas. Oh, wait. That is ok.


Saying "happy holidays" or Starbucks selling a "holiday blend" instead of a "Christmaspuccino" is not and the ultimate sign society is in decay. Right?

Guys Should Probably Not Be Male Feminists

I have always felt that I am really supportive of women, their plight and feminism. I have felt I have done a good job of speaking up for women when they have been degraded, belittled or marginalized.


However, lately I have been doing some thinking. I have wondered if I have been the supporter of women I like to think I am.


The #MeToo movement has certainly spurred some introspection about how I really view and have treated women. I took a fine tooth comb to not only my behavior and thoughts but my reaction to others whether they be friends or family members.


I have always considered myself a male feminist. Although, I have never really given any substantive thought to what that actually means. While I don't introduce myself, "Rob Easley, male feminist" I believe my affinity for women and feminism speaks for itself.


But, in the last year or so since the emergence of the #MeToo movement I have really re-evaluated myself and where I stand within the "struggle". Honestly, I have been in this place since the infamous Access Hollywood tape featuring a certain tangerine skin toned cretin. His name escapes me at the moment.


So, what I decided to do was listen. I began listening to what feminists said about #MeToo. I listened to what feminists said about men who are allies of feminists. I listened to what feminists said about opponents of feminism. I also listened to what feminists said about men who say they're allies of women but what they practice is not what they preach. I paid attention when they said actually what they say is usually a precursor of what they'll do. A little scratching beneath the surface will reveal many male feminists aren't the "woke enlightened fellas" they purport.


I listened when these women warned, "Beware of male feminists!"


Now, I would be lying if I my initial reaction wasn't, "Hold the hell up! I consider myself a male feminist and I am not being fake!"


But, instead of becoming defensive or resentful I thought it better to listen some more and read.


What I discovered is a schism among feminists about the role and existence of male feminists. However, I also noticed a commonality among these women, which is they don't trust male feminists.


The existing schism is between the feminists who believe men are essential to furthering their cause and embracing them is better than potentially alienating them and those who feel feminism is a strictly female cause so men should just stay away.


However,, even the latter side have disagreements. One section believe men should stay out of the way but be on the sidelines providing some type of support. The other side, perhaps the more radical feminists, believe men should literally stay out of the movement.


But, why do most feminists mistrust and are leery of male feminists? Is it because they have a general mistrust of men? Do they believe men are inherently evil?


As I read numerous articles on this, I begin seeing a different pattern. A disturbing pattern. It is actually one I noticed firsthand.


Many self-professed male feminists possess, cradle and exhibit the same atrocious oppressive characteristics that have led to marginalization and objectification of women throughout history. They claim to understand the detriment of patriarchy but, in fact, perpetuate it in within their personal nuanced interactions with women. (See: Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Louie C.K.)


I have seen this myself. I know dudes who are "woke", "progressive" "pro-women's lib"; yet, display a resentment for #MeToo that would make that fella with the tangerine skin tone (whose name still escapes me) say, "Damn! That's sorta fucked up." These same dudes proclaim to be defenders of women but almost always finds themselves either defending or being low-key apologists for sexual assaulters and sexual harassers. These "woke" guys say the believe in equality and respect for women; yet, openly practice misogyny, chauvinism and belittlement.


Something else I noticed that was consistently mentioned is that male feminists tend to hijack feminism and make it about them whether it's exclusively or inclusively.


A common statement that is said is, "Patriarchy adversely affects men too." While this empirically true, men using this to victimize themselves (even if it's implicitly) is just wrong. Of course, patriarchy has a negative effect on men and how they view and treatment women. However, the consequences of the negative effects are infinitely and definitively more detrimental to women. This is inarguable.


It is similar to saying white supremacy adversely affects white people. It is apparent that is true. However, it is more apparent the affects on black people has and is much worse.


Another disturbing trend among male feminists goes back to the misogyny. They tend to objectify women.


Now, on a macro level these dudes say and likely even believe that women shouldn't be objectified or degraded. However, when it comes to their personal individual interactions with women they offer degrade and objectify women.


They will denounce the practice of slut shaming or catcalling on social media or in front of an audience, but will have little hesitation in slut shaming their significant other for how many men she's slept with. When they are with their boys they'll participate in catcalling and/or ogling women. Ya know so the fellas won't think they've gone soft or have abandoned their alpha male nonsensical toxic masculinity.


All this propelled me to begin some introspection. I certainly don't feel I have ever attempted to hijack feminism for my own or for men. I don't think I have ever sought to repress or oppress women. I do not have violent or controlling tendencies.


But, have I objectified women? Have I unfairly categorized women? Have I degraded women in some way even if it was subtle? If I am being honest, the answers are "yes".


I struggle with objectifying versus admiring women. If I notice a woman I find attractive or her body parts attractive, am I a pig for looking? I don't stare or ogle but I glance long enough to take it all in. Is that objectifying? I feel that it is regardless if I do it "respectfully" or "not creepily".


Often I want to say to a woman, "You look nice today." Or, "You are really beautiful." But, I always hesitate and most usually pass on saying anything because how does saying that not sound creepy? Especially coming from a Gary Coleman look-a-like. I don't want it to sound like, "Oh, you look pretty today as compared to other days you don't" and I don't want to sound like I'm hitting on her, so I usually say nothing.


But, even on a macro less personal level I wonder how enlightened I am. When it comes to commenting on actresses, singers or media personalities I catch myself making a comment about their personal appearance that I intend to be complementary but when I repeat it to myself or see it in a published post it sounds crass and boorish.  And, I used to tell myself, "They're celebrities; it's different." But, truth is it's different whatsoever!


I certainly am guilty of using demeaning demeaning slut shaming language. It in my past social media posts. I've used the word "skank" to describe porn stars or sex workers. That was wrong. It was used as an all encompassing term without proper context.


I am not saying all this seeking forgiveness or absolution. I am bearing my soul here a little to reach a better place. I want to understand what is the correct path and action.


What I have most definitely realized is being a male feminist isn't something I necessarily should want. Women don't want sympathy nor do they appreciate appropriation. They want empathy. They want support. They want encouragement.


The feminist's expectation from men about feminism is very similar to what African-Americans want from whites about civil rights and social equality and justice. I don't speak for all black folks but most, I believe, don't expect white people to fully understand the struggle and where we're coming from. They can't. I hate to throw this out here but if you are not black and have not experienced racism (systemic and individualized) and endured the trappings of the system and been susceptible to oppression, you cannot possibly fully grasp what our struggle and conflict is.


Black people want white people to empathize.


Civil Rights wouldn't have been possible without white people. That is just simply a fact. For blacks to make their voices heard they not only needed to protest but to have white allies infiltrate and influence the power structure-a power structure blacks had minimal access to at the time. Not only did those whites understand that they also understood the struggle wasn't theirs. They didn't appropriate it nor attempt to control it. They supported it and realized the best way they could show blacks they cared was by being a friend and calling out the wrong that their own was perpetrating.


A similar dynamic should exist with men who are pro-feminism. It is imperative men understand being a male feminist in the strict meaning of the term may be counterproductive. Men cannot further the feminist cause by appropriating the movement. Nor, can they help by always attempting to take over. We sure as hell aren't conducive to the movement by spewing platitudes while literally participating in the very patriarchal and misogynistic practices we claim to abhor.


Most feminist women want us there. They want our help. They just want us to walk the walk. Speaking of the walk, men need to grasp we aren't entitled to walk side by side and certainly not in front of women. We can't fully understand their plight. And, before any brothas or their allies come at me I, of course, no the extent of our struggle. That doesn't mean we can fully understand women's struggle just like they can't understand ours.


Anyway, women don't need or want our guidance. They want our empathy. We should happily walk behind them in their march providing support.


And, we all could stand to do some introspection regarding our attitude and treatment of women. I know I can and will continue seeking to be better. Not just be a better man or a better feminist ally but a better citizen and human.


www.facebook.com/robbase2110


www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.instagram.com/robbase2110


www.patreon.com/robeasley


www.tumblr.com/robbase2110


www.pintrest.com/robbase2110


robbase2110@gmail.com

Thursday Thoughts: November 29, 2018

•Michael Cohen pleads guilty while Manafort is caught lying and funneling info to Trump.


Apparently, former Trump lawyer/fixer and overall oleaginous dude, Michael Cohen told Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, that he lied to Congress about the Trump Tower deal in Moscow. Noooooooo wayyyyyyyy! I am shocked! Completely stunned. Much in the same way I was stunned when I found out Cardi B's jingle bells were not gifts from God but gifts of silicone.


Anyways...Cohen said efforts to construct a deal did not end in January of 2016, as he told Congressional committees, but actually lasted well into June of 2016. Hmmmm. What else took place in June of 2016? Also, Cohen admitted he had spoke with #CheetoJesus more than the three times he told Congress but, in fact, kept Cheets apprised of the deal until efforts were abandoned. And, Cohen kept Trump family members updated about the deal, although the specific family members were not listed.


Cohen (and presumably Trump) dispatched known gangster, convicted felon and trusted Trump associate Felix Sater to help broker the deal. In fact, Cohen was set to meet associates of Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and perhaps Putin himself around June 19-22. But, Cohen said "on or around June 14" he cancelled his plans to fly to Moscow, thus, essentially ending the deal.


Oh, snap! Dayum! Now I remember what happened in June of 2016. The Washington Post broke the story about Russia hacking the Democratic National Committee. Strange coincidence that story and Cohen/Trump decided to kill the Moscow Trump Tower deal. (As the great Leroy Jethro Gibbs of NCIS says, "No such things as coincidences.")


Cohen has some tea on Trump and Trump knows it. Not only is Cohen spilling said tea on the Moscow deal but he has the 411 on the July Trump Tower meeting. And, I am betting those family members he updated are named Douchebaggery...errr...I mean Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner. That is one reason why Trump has been extra insane and in his feelings lately about the investigation.


•The other reason is the ostrich jacket king himself, Paul Manafort. A couple of months ago Manafort, who had just been convicted on eight federal charges, decided to cut a plea deal and cooperate with Mueller and federal prosecutors. Manafort who is 69 years old was facing spending the rest of his life in prison. That must of been a depressing thought for a man of his age and quasi-Good Fellas' taste.


Well, it was revealed earlier in the week that Ostrich Boy (who is a lifelong liar and scum bucket) had lied to Mueller and his team. They filed a motion to withdraw the plea deal and promised to offer substantial and concrete evidence substantiating their decision. Needless to say, Manafort denies Mueller's assertions.


The timing of the plea withdrawal is interesting because it literally came one week after Cheets submitted written answers to some questions Mueller had posed.


Also, the prosecution's willingness to unilaterally withdraw the plea agreement indicates they don't necessarily need Manafort's cooperation. It further seems that perhaps Mueller played Ostrich Boy and the "Stable Genius".


Apparently, Manafort was feeding info about the investigation to Trump through one of his lawyers. This explains Trump's rage tweeting within the last two weeks about Mueller and his "angry Democrats" (that should be a band name) "yelling" at people and "ruining lives". Trump's tweets indicated he had some inside knowledge of the investigation. Now, the assumption was interim Attorney General Matthew Whittaker was feeding Cheets some info or he was participating in his usual batshit crazy old man screaming at pigeons incoherent ranting. But, it's apparent whatever he was hearing from Manafort was setting him off.


I know Trumpsters do not nor will not see this, but it is sooooo obvious Trump is scared about this investigation and where it is and presumably where it's going. He is shitting his pants and the fear is making him more erratic and insane. I don't know why Trump is so afraid. It could be collusion or he's fearful Mueller has the goods to expose him as lifelong crook and fraudulent shitty businessman those of us who have followed the Orange Con for years or simply possess any sanity and perspective already know. Or, hell, it could be much worse. Ya know like him peeing on Russian hookers like some Kentucky Fried Chicken infused, greasy, sweaty, Diet Coke swilling tangerine complexioned R. Kelly. I don't know. But, whatever it is it has him angry, worried and frightened.


•READ THIS CAREFULLY!


If you don't want to believe in climate change, whatevs. The evidence is empirical but what the hell ever! But, please understand if you begin your doubting antagonist counter argument by saying, "I'm no scientist, but...", then your argument is trash! Sorry it is. Virtually 99% of the world's top scientists say climate change and at least a significant portion of it is man-made.


Now, if you are a climate change denier, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Being an open minded brotha I am more than willing to entertain your counterargument. If you can provide me some facts and well reasoned opinions, cool.


But, if you use the phrase "I'm no scientist, but..." I will stop listening to you. You wanna know why? Saying that indicates you know this is a scientific issue and that scientists are a greater authority on the issue than you or me. If I may be frank, the fact you are not a scientist is a good indicator why you would perhaps be better off shutting up. Hey, I'm not a scientist either, which is why I defer to them on the subject.


I am not an airplane mechanic. So, if one says something that I don't like or does not sound right to me, I am not going to just create some uninformed ignorant opinion in my head because I don't know jackshit about airplanes. I will consult another airplane mechanic or someone versed in the subject to comment on what was said.


However, climate deniers don't do that because they are hard pressed to find knowledgeable folks who will buoy their argument. What they do, instead, is spew specious talking points and observations which produce spurious and endangering conclusions.


•Lastly, I plan on writing a blog about male feminism. It is a subject I have been thinking about lately. I have so many conflictions in my head. For instance, how "woke" on women's issues and feminism and proper treatment of women if I find myself glancing at and admiring women's forms? I don't mean staring or ogling. Does it assuage what I feel is piggishness enough to be more impressed with a woman's mind but still admire her physically?


These are the things that go through my mind. Some feedback would be greatly appreciated!


Thank you for reading! Please checkout my social media:


www.facebook.com/robbase2110


www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.instagram.com/robbase2110


www.patreon.com/robeasley


www.tumblr.com/robbase2110


Email: robbase2110@gmail.com

Some Thoughts And Insights: November 27, 2018

First, before I begin allow to apologize. I have not been very adept at publishing blog posts more frequently. Straight up, I have been tired as hell when I get home from work lately. The last thing I have felt like doing is thinking. Just being honest. The ideas pour into my brain throughout the day; however, by the time I get home I just don't possess the necessary energy.


Truthfully, it's the same reason I haven't furthered my efforts to begin a YouTube channel. It is something I want to do and intend to do. I received some very appreciated encouragement. Thank you to those who told me to go for it! I will! Soon!


So, let me quickly get to what is on my mind.


•The migrant caravan. On my social media I have been very clear that I think these migrants, who are mostly from Central America, should be allowed to apply for asylum. I have also been clear in saying my hunch is many of their applications will be rejected because they will not meet the legal requirements for asylum. I have also been clear the fear mongering about the caravan was horseshit. And, it was/is!


Look, I am not for open borders. Nor am I for just allowing these migrants to "storm" the border. As a sovereign nation we must protect and secure our borders. But, we also must adhere to the principles we claim to possess and believe in. We cannot brag we're a "nation of immigrants" and we're "a melting pot" but then literally cherry pick the immigrants we want based on where they come from and rail against immigration.


I am really sick and tired of this proto-white nationalism cloaked in patriotism President Trump pushes. I think I am even more sick and tired of this crypto-racism many of his supporters hide behind to justify their anti-immigration stance. In fact, their stance is disingenuous because it is not "illegal immigration" they have a problem with but "brown immigration" whether it's legal or illegal. They can deny it and spin it all they want but the empirical evidence is front and center. Sorry, you can't refer to human beings as "animals", and "an infestation" and then clutch your pearls at accusations of racism and xenophobia. The shit doesn't work like that.


Squawking about crime does not play either because illegal immigrants commit the fewest crimes per capita of any group. The next group in line who commit the fewest crimes are legal immigrants. Besides, I can't take you seriously about being concerned with crime when hate crimes (the vast majority of whom are perpetrated by white males) is vastly up from two years ago, 74% of domestic terrorism events since 9/11 were committed by far right extremists (almost exclusively white men) and the majority of mass shootings are committed by white men and y'all are *crickets*.


Now before some jackasses begin accusing me of racism, which they know is strawmanning and bullshit, let me be clear. I am not saying most white men are terrorists or mass shooters. I should not even have to clarify that since I clearly didn't say nor imply that. But, I know some folks like to be disingenuous or can't read contextually or simply possess a woefully lacking capacity for intellect. Besides, I don't believe listing irrefutable facts is comparable to saying an entire group of human beings "rapists and murders" some of whom you "assume are good people".


•GM is cutting 15,000 jobs mostly in Ohio and Michigan. This directly due to Trump's idiotic tariffs which are the result of his inept knowledge of economics and his pathetic mental need to overcompensate for his numerous shortcomings. Gawd! Why do we have to pay for his insecurities and narcissism.


Of course, Trump reacted to GM with maturity and measured restraint. LMFAO! No, he reacted like a 15 year old pissed some other kid called him out in front of the entire school. He went to Twitter levying empty threats and taking zero responsibility.


It utterly amazes me how allegedly intelligent people cannot see this economy is in a bubble. History has shown us time and time again that lining the rich folks' pocket at the expense of the middle class and poor is a recipe for disaster. Couple that with an imbecilic arrogant buffoon who is waging an ill-advised trade war and calamity is literally at the door step. We have already seen the signs with an unsure stock market.


This economy is set to crash. Not to mention 40% of this country actually believes it is a wise idea to place the economy into the hands of a dude who filed for bankruptcy SIX FUCKING TIMES and was on the verge of bankruptcy at least that many times more. They think a man who ran a casino into the ground is a financial genius. *Sigh*


•If you are on any of my social media platforms you know I have been singing the praises of ContraPoints on YouTube! Natalie Wynn produces excellent videos which are awesome on production and even more awesome on content. She produces extensively informative videos on social and cultural topics and transgender issues.


I shouldn't even broach this topic in a "quick hitter" blog like this because the subject is way more deserving. But, I have always felt transgender people are deserving of equal treatment under the law and in society. I feel that way because regardless of what I may or may not feel about particular lifestyles I believe all people are deserving of not just equal but dignified treatment.


Now, I will not lie. I just have never understood the transgender "thing" for lack...way lacking of a better term. But, after watching ContraPoint's videos I understand considerably more. I certainly don't understand fully and as a "cis male" (look up the term) I never will.


However, I have realized I was way too judgmental which is something I strive extremely hard at not doing. If you know me, you know I don't think much of a myopic thinking and close-mindedness.


I saw Natalie on The Michael Brooks Show on YouTube (*must watch*) and became intrigued by her. I decided to begin watching her videos and became hooked. I then choose to be educated instead of ignorant and uninformed.


Look, as I said earlier, I still don't fully understand but I think it is better to learn than to judge from a place of ignorance and assumption.


All I will say is check her out and keep an open mind. View her videos on race, feminism, politics and gender through the prism of their content. View her videos on transgender issues with a mind of wanting to learn and be informed. Then, you can render a judgment and at least it will be a judgment from a place of actual knowledge instead of assumptions and preconceived notions.


I will write my next blog on Thursday. I wanna give a shout out to those who are faithful readers and whom always encourage me. I sincerely appreciate it. I know you don't always agree and I'm perfectly ok with that. I'm not looking for sycophants. I am looking for people who are open to dialogue and appreciate good content, which I hope is what I offer. I mean really what the hell do I know? I am just some wannabe writer who hopes every now and then happens to write a decent blog.


Again, thank you for reading! I mean it!


www.facebook.com/robbase2110


www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.instagram.com/robbase2110


www.patreon.com/robbase2110


www.tumblr.com/robbase2110

LAWD! Pseudo Alpha Males And Their Infantile Ideology Annoy The Shit Out Of Me

*FULL DISCLOSURE* I have never seen myself as a macho kind of guy. I am quite certain I have never been seen by others as a macho kind of guy. I am perfectly fine with that because I have never desired to be a macho dude. Personally, I have never been overly impressed with machismo nor have I seen anything substantive that has been achieved from it. I suppose the perception being a tough and cool guy is a benefit, but it is only a benefit if you are indeed tough and cool. Now, I certainly don't believe I am effeminate or "light in the loafers" as the neanderthals of my youth would say. I just am who I am and never bought into the whole gender role stereotypes.


I say all this because I suppose I feel I should qualify in some way the way I am about to go all in on machismo and its innately chauvinistic and cursory nonsense. I want to make clear this isn't some beta male (Gawd! That term is so asinine!) who is just venting about the "cool" dudes. Nor, am I going on some middle age rant reliving high school. I assure you I am not. Also, most of the "cool" dudes aren't as cool as they appear, which is part of my problem.


Look, pseudo alpha males and their infantile puerile toxic ideology annoy the fuuuuuuck out of me!


I get it. Every man wants to be seen as strong and virile. But, wouldn't it be better to actually possess those attributes than just appear to possess them? I am just asking because I neither appear or actually possess those things.


One of the many problems with alpha males is they aren't interested in being about it nearly as much as they presenting a front that they are about it.


May I be honest? If you constantly walk around telling people how tough you are, how smart you are and much of a man you are I am assuming you're really none of those things.


If you walk around all the time mean mugging folks and appearing to be intimidating, I am figuring you are wanting to convince me and everyone else you are intimidating when likely (very likely) you are not.


If you tend to save your most potent "toughness" for women, I just going to mark you down as a punk bitch. (I will have more on the intimidation of women here in a minute.)


Here is the thing: The alpha male persona is largely fraudulent! It is based on style and appearance; not substance. Being "manly" is more important than being human and genuine, which are some of the real hallmarks of actual masculinity.


Please do not get me wrong. Real alpha males exist. They just don't feel the need to consistently tell you and show you they are alpha males. I say this from an anecdotal perspective that I also believe is empirical.


I know several guys (some are younger, some are older and some are my age) who I look up to. Maybe even idolize a little. They are men who get up every morning and handle their business. They work, provide for their families, set good examples for their families and others and they treat their wives with respect and reverence. They also display respect and empathy for others. And, they do all of this without broadcasting it or looking for accolades. They don't repeatedly have to say or show "they are a real man".


And, most importantly, they actually do all of these things instead of presenting an image they do these things.


In contrast, the pseudo alpha male is more often than not absolutely none of these things. They exhibit few, if any, of these qualities.


Unfortunately, I have known and currently know way to many of these pseudo alpha males. Some of them are #LikesToFightGuy. Some of them are #KnowItAllGuy. Some of them are #ITakeCaresOfMineGuy. Some of them are a combination of all three as well as other obnoxious versions of #ThatGuy. Ironically, these dudes only like to fight against the weak, they know a 1/10 of what they think they know and they take care of themselves (barely) but they don't adequately take care of theirs.


But, none of that really matters if they look like they are all these things they claim and brag to be.


One of alpha males favorite hobbies is to hurl insults and demean other men especially the dastardly beta men. Whether it is online or in person they love to chastise others for not being a man. I swear if I hear one more of these dudes say, "Be a man!", to someone who is not even close to not being a man I may have to "be a man" and throat punch them.


Seriously! I hear this bullshit said about the most innocuous and common occurring events. For example, let's say a dude is having roof issues at his house and he's somewhat fretting about it because he doesn't know how to fix it. An alpha male assclown will say, "Stop being a bitch. Be a man and fix it. You need your man card taken away." Now, on its face it seems assholish to me, but I can see where a manly man would feel that way. However, the rub is this alpha male doesn't know how to fix it either and would be in a panic expecting the wife, the parents or whomever to figure it out for him. But, he look like the "real man" because he said what he said in front of people and likely those people don't know he's full of shit.


Allow me to get to what annoys me, no infuriates me about these clowns and their toxic masculinity the most, their treatment of women. We all know sexism and misogyny are cornerstones of toxic masculinity, the fuel from which these pseudo alpha males thrive.


At the risk of over generalizing the vast majority of these machismo infused alpha males possess a disdain, if not a hatred, for women. Sure, they love their mothers, sisters and wives. They likely even respect them. But, if you scratch beneath the surface just a little you'll see that respect has vast limitations. Then, when you compare it to how they view and treat women generally you'll find the aforementioned respect in a less impressive light.


Look, I will not bullshit you here. Most men whether they are "alphas" or "betas" or whatever can improve on how they view and treat women. Male feminists are greatly appreciated by most women but they don't always seem to grasp certain issues and still struggle with preconceived notions of women or objectifying them at certain times although most women know they're well intentioned.


Anyway, let's get back to the pseudo alphas. Alphas generally view women as a means to an end whether that is as home caretaker, a baby maker, a fuck toy or just a piece of ass whenever they did their scooper into the ice cream. And, before any screaming begins, sure there are exceptions which is why I qualified my statement with "generally" instead of saying for instance "categorically" which is what I was inclined to say.


Many alphas and their allies will push back on my previous characterization. Whatevs. I have found empirical evidence that says I am closer to being right than wrong.


Many alphas will display a respect for some women such as their boss, a woman in another position of authority or their significant other; however, that respect is specious. Because, the moment that woman says or does something to contradict or chastise them their innate response is, "Who is that bitch to talk to me that way! She needs some dick!"


Ah, "she needs some dick" I am fairly certain is in the alpha male handbook of what to say in response anytime a woman does her job or simply pushes back.


I have also found most pseudo alphas don't appreciate being stood up to by women. Alphas do often save their most poisonous and idiotic venom for women. They attack women online with misogyny, sexism and sometimes threats of violence. Some of them do the same to women in person. They belittle their intelligence, slut shame them and fat shame them.


The most fringe of these cretins are the Incels. These cra cra summabitches are a series of blogs unto themselves. I highly suggest you do some reading on these douchebags. Because they're more in members than people think and there a lot of men (especially young men) who are susceptible to their virulent rhetoric. The foundation of their existence is patriarchy and hatred of women. But, I digress.


Back to the run of the mill jackass alpha males. These dudes functionally get off on degrading, insulting and intimidating women. Even if it subtle, which it frequently is. They usually leave the hard stuff to mental giants such as the Proud Boys and the Incels.




However, what I have often noticed is yet another example of the fraudulency. Whenever a woman stands up to or confronts them they become enraged but they also back down. It is not because they respect women enough to not get into a confrontation with them. Fool, please! It is because strong women, self-assured women (and men for that matter) intimidate them. Yes, it's the classic bully syndrome. Act like a badass to the perceived weak until the weak fights back and tells you to go fuck yourself.


Being confronted by women causes these "manly virile" men to retreat. They recede into a cocoon of self-loathing and despair, if you will. The very people who claim to only admire strength suddenly don't venerate it as much.


Usually filled with anger and vitriol will retort, "Who does that bitch think she is. I will not be treated that way by a female! Females don't act like that!" (I always wanna ask, "Like what? Someone standing up for themselves? *Gasp* The fucking gall!")


May I digress again just for a moment. I have no statistical or scientific evidence to back up what I am about to say. But, I really implore you to be wary of any dude who exclusively or predominantly refers to women as "females". Yes, I know "female" is a commonly used term for women. However, it has been my observation and experience that guys who almost, if not, always refer to women as "females" generally do not like nor respect women. I am just saying, a'right. Almost to a dude the men I have known or do know who do this have a fundamental disdain and distrust for women. They not only objectify women they have a dismissive view of them. And, they think every woman wants them or should want them.


Shit!!! Does that attitude grate my damn nerves. Hey, I would like to think every woman finds me attractive and wants me. But, I'm self-aware, humble and realistic enough to know if I took all the women world wide who want me they could fit into a broom closet and have room to fit the Dallas Cowboys offensive line. I get that. Sure, it's sad and tragic but it's reality.


Anyway, the same truth holds for these dumbass pseudo alphas. Perhaps, instead of a broom closet a WalMart bathroom is a more appropriate analogy. Regardless, it is not every woman who wants them. But, their vapid toxic dumbasery infused ideology leads them to believe every woman wants to give up their ice cream to them and birth their babies. So, when they get rejected or a woman makes clear she is not impressed with them they lose their snowflake minds and react in some of the manners previously mentioned.


In fact, their jejune ideology is exactly why they react so angrily whenever they are confronted or contradicted by a woman. Any woman who stands up to them or doesn't want them must be (let's say it all together, kids), "A lesbian, a femi-nazi or a female who wants a cuck beta male." That must be the answer because any "real" woman wants a "real" man and would clearly SEE they're an ALPHA MALE. Right?!....Right?


Damnit, this pseudo alpha male ideology is pure garbage. It's also all unadulterated projection. These fake ass dudes love to rip on beta males. Granted it's not as much as they love shitting on feminism and belittling women.


Here is what is amusing as hell though. Everything they say about beta males such as they are snowflakes, cucks, weak, have flaccid penises, pretentious, thin-skinned and are whiny little punk bitches is actually true about them. Wanna "trigger" an alpha male? Call his manhood both figuratively and literally into question. They are quite sensitive about the potency (or lack thereof) of their dicks.


They scream about people being snowflakes and thin-skinned. But, as I stated earlier they turn into petulant six years olds at the very existence of pushback or adversity.


Now, I have to keep it real here. Much like rape culture survives because of the complicity of women the same goes for this toxic masculinity horseshit. A significant problem is these pseudo alphas are buoyed by women who buy into this nonsense and encourage it.


Women like to be feel safe. It is natural and understandable they want to be with a man they feel will protect them. Now, unfortunately, some women are less concerned with the actual substance of this and more concerned with the style. What I mean is some women are attracted to ostentatiousness of machismo without necessarily being concerned if the actual substance of real masculinity is there.


Look, some people perceive false bravado and vapid self-aggrandizement as actual confidence and strength. This leads these assclowns to feel their cursory chauvinistic mindset is justified. The perception of masculinity is equitable to actual masculinity. *Sigh*


Look, y'all, what do I know? I am just a short beta male who likely has a height complex, right? I am merely a weak beta who is jealous of virile alpha males. At least that is what I would imagine Alt-Right, social media tough guy and pseudo alpha male trolls will say from their parents basement or as soon as the girlfriends they're mooching off of will turn their cell phones back on.


This entire ideology is so vapid, vain, arcane and stupid. It really is just stupid. And, the misogyny, disrespect for women and hatred for women is toxic and dangerous. In fact, we've already seen its dangerous effects in Toronto and Tallahassee over the last few weeks.


Being "a man" takes way more than saying you're a man. It entails so much more than walking around like a stick is up your ass with your arms all puffed out and sporting a mean mug resembling a pouting petulant five year old. It is not intimidating. It makes you look ridiculous.


It's way more than about style. Genuine alpha males don't have to front or lie to the unknowing and uninformed about fake accomplishments. Especially when they're accomplishments other men do without expectation of accolades or pats on the back.


Real men do not have to manufacture presence or demand to be seen. They command attention without having to say a word or commit one action.


A true alpha male doesn't have to put others down (especially women) to build themselves up. They view such trite nonsense as being beneath them.


True masculinity is being comfortable with who you are but being self-aware. It is about being empathetic; not ostentatious.


Again, maybe I don't know what the hell I am talking about. I am sure someone will let me know.


Regardless, pseudo alpha males and their infantile ideology annoy the shit out of me!


www.facebook.com/robbase2110


www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.instagram.com/robbase2110


www.patreon.com/robeasley

Saying #NotAll______ Is Weak (And You Know It!)

As soon as someone says or does something racist a group of people (usually white) spout off, "#NotAllWhitePeople!" A guy inappropriately touches or sexually assaults a woman and the innate response is, "NotAllMen!".


I get it. It is a defensive reaction. People tend to think they're being included in whatever transgression has taken place. But, the reality is the reaction drips with insincerity and a failure (whether intentional or not) to actually acknowledge the issue.


A few weeks ago I read a terrific Twitter thread that touched on this very topic. I will not go tweet by tweet but I will hit on the gist of the topic.


The author of the tweet said let's imagine there are a group of kids in a school. There are 10 white students and three students of color. Six of the white students are bullies. The other four white students do not particularly care for or even hate these six students because they are bullies and obnoxious.


Well, the six bullies decide to start stealing the three minority kids' lunches. The group of four white students are aware of this and even offer sympathy toward the students of color revealing their disdain for the bullies but they never intervene.


After a couple of weeks the students of color become tired of the bullying and being hungry everyday. They go to their teacher to voice their concerns. The teacher says she will speak with school administration.


Well, the administration does nothing, so the bullying continues. A week passes and the students of color confront the group of four. "You guys see these jerks stealing our lunches every day; yet, you do nothing. Why? We try to fight back but they outnumber us two to one", the students of color say.


"Look, we hate those assholes as much as you do but we don't wanna get involved. We know what they are doing to you is wrong", says the group of four.


The students of color decide to go to their teacher again. Except this time when they complain about the bullies they are not specific and simply say, "those white students". The group of four immediately respond, "It's not us. It's them (pointing to the bullies). Don't put this on us. Not all white kids are like that."


One of students of color retorts, "We didn't say all of you are doing it. But you know what is going on and just standby. You act you are upset by the bullying but you do nothing to intervene. You never say anything to those bullies. So, what are we to think other than you do not really have an issue with it."


And, that last paragraph is why I am writing this blog.


When an incident of racism or misogyny takes your first response should not be " not all white people", "not all men". Unless someone makes a blanket statement why would that be the initial response.


If I say, "I'm tired of racist white people", why would you believe I am talking about you?


The response to that is usually, "I don't but not all white people are racist. I abhor racism." I am aware that all white people are not racist but I am talking about the ones who are.


What frustrates me most is that the type of person who has that initial response seems to miss the entire point.  They say they abhor racism but appear fearful of calling it out. They are consumed with making sure know they are not racist, which actually makes me wonder because of their adamant protests.


Most people fully know no one group of people are a monolith. I realize not all white people are racists. Most are not. However, when you hear or see racism your innate response should not be to become defense council for the non-racist white contingency. It should be to condemn and repudiate the racism.


Same attitude applies to sexism and misogyny. If a woman is venting, "I am disgusted with the way some men continue to perpetuate rape culture and feel women only exist for their carnal pleasures", and your immediate response is, "not all men" there is an issue.


The vast majority of people are aware not all men are chauvinist pigs. However, some (too many) men are. Becoming defensive to say you or your man is not a dog while ignoring the fact there are men who are or the subject being discussed is frustrating. Truthfully, it's infuriating.


I understand not all men sexist rape culture enabling jackholes but may we address the ones who are? Why is it so hard to not feel the need to defend yourself from an accusations nobody made against you and condemn sexism, misogyny and/or rape culture?


Saying "not all ______" is weak. It is a copout. It just is. And, it plants doubt as to how much you really aren't what you're saying you are not.


Look, I'm going to keep it real. If you are white and not a racist or a bigot, terrific! But, your actions and words will reveal that. If you feel the need to tell me you're not especially in response to a racist comment or action, I'm going to frown up. If you do that without ever explicitly denouncing the racist comment or action I'm going side-eye you. Instead of unnecessarily (or should be unnecessarily if you are genuine) imploring me to believe you are not a racist, how about you repudiate the racism. I mean that would be great.


It would also be great if instead of employing questionable defenses of your virtues you would display some empathy and backbone.


I know you are not calling me a "nigger" or slut shaming a sexual assault victim. What do you want? A pat on the back? A "good job, keep up the good work"? So, instead of telling me you are not doing those things it would be hella sweet if you could denounce those who are and refrain from offering spurious excuses for their defense such as: "Well, that is how they grew up."


I hate to sound like a broken record but again I know it's not all men or not all white people or not all Republicans. I know a plethora of all these people and many are great people. I am talking about those belonging to those groups who are not such great people or who don't say such nice things.


See, you don't need to convince me you're not a hateful myopic asshole. You need to convince me you're not ok or willing to look the other way on hateful myopic assholes. Because, that will truly tell me whether you are or aren't a hateful myopic asshole.


www.facebook.com/robbase2110


www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.instagram.com/robbase2110


www.patreon.com/robeasley