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

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


But, it is.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Preview Of The First Democratic Primary Debate (Night Two)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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






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


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


Next Saturday I will discuss the other 10.

Many In The Anti-PC Brigade Are Disingenuous

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


I didn't get a response back from her.


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


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


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


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


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

Stop Blaming Trump For The Way Your Friends And Loved Ones Are! (He's The Conduit; Not The Creator)

Without question Donald Trump is a cult like figure. His supporters certainly act like cultists seemingly following his every lead and defending him vociferously and blindly. It appears they have not only sipped the orange kool-aid but began mainlining it. However...


The truth is that it is not Trump who is leading his supporters around by the nose, but it is they who are leading him...sorta.


People all over this country have spent the better part of the last four years (or more) wringing their hands and wallowing in consternation regarding some of their family and friends' seemingly subjugated support and affection for Trump. These people have been searching for why the people they love and admire have attached themselves to a figure who is obviously bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, smarmy and shady. They are perplexed why people whom they always seen as intelligent and thoughtful give such full throated support to a man who is un-empathetic, rash and vulgar.


Well, the answer is simple but quite unpalatable. I say this because it (the answer) is as clear as the fact Trump is not a fine healthy physical specimen as he claims, but it is also clear people don't want to confront the answer.


The reality is Trump's supporters don't see his bigotry, crassness, lack of empathy and lack of decency as bugs but as the features.


What all of us anti-Trumpers have had to come to grips with is people we like, love and respect aren't as tolerable, open-minded or immune to irrational dislike (if not hatred) as we wanted to believe they were. And, the truth of the matter is most of us on some level knew that.


As an African-American in red state America I feel I can speak on this some. I have always heard people say things that I found to be wrong or insensitive or just blatantly offensive. People have said things to me that are unquestionably racist. But, of course, they said it in a manner that it didn't appear to be directed at me. So, I ashamedly often let it slide.


Also, I fell into the trap of believing that since certain people liked me or treated me well they can't be that racist or bigoted.


Other folks either felt the way I did or fell into another trap. They assumed things about their family members, friends and co-workers because of their attitude or personality. But, those assumptions were based on shallow conversations and perceptions. They had never really had deep conversations about race, gender and sexuality that likely would've revealed some things. And, sure, as I did, they knew people were Conservatives or right-wing but except for Uncle Delmar and the old curmudgeon at work they didn't realize some of them were aligned with Pat Buchanan and others see Buchanan as too leftwing.


So, when reality tv star and real estate "mogul" Donald J. Trump (the "j" stands for jive talking man baby) came along spewing his birtherism bullshit or came sliding down that Trump Tower escalator announcing his presidential candidacy many people in this country saw a mainstream figure saying all the things they felt.


It is easy to believe Trump cast some sort of spell over your mama or your Aunt June or your best friend or your co-worker whom you talked to every day, but the fact is Trump didn't brainwash them. They created him!


Now, let me be clear Fox News has cultivated this environment for over two decades. They were literally the pushers shoving heroin in front of the addicts. But, the addicts are the ones who began frequenting the trap house making it lucrative. Fox News just made sure the trap house was always well stocked in smack and needles. And, still does.


So, while Trump and his presidency have been predictably cruel, inept and buffoonish laying this subjugation at his feet is actually unfair and disingenuous. Donald Trump didn't make your dad or your boss or your cousin Stephanie racist, homophobic or misogynistic or at the very least supporting a person or a political party whom are these things tangentially implying these things aren't deal breakers. They were already this way!


Trump didn't create his base, which is just the Republican base. We should be crystal clear about that. Trump is not the catalyst for their bigotry, xenophobia and myopia. He is merely the conduit.


Some of us always knew these feelings were present within people. Again, if we think about it there were things said, social media posts and likes and responses to certain events that gave us insight. We largely just chose to overlook it.


Other people were genuinely surprised and still haven't reconciled it. I feel for those people. Few things can be more deflating than being an inclusive open-minded person and having the epiphany, "Oh my god! Mom is an effin bigot! Sean, whose been my best friend for 15 years, is really a virulent misogynist and xenophobe!"


But, if they didn't know, they should've known. The signs are always there.


And, for those loved ones who really aren't bigots or racists but continue to support Trump despite his nonsense and demagoguery it really is not that baffling. Likely their stances on social issues and conservative principles outweigh everything else. That just means they are craven. I am not sure that is better.


Look, we all have loved ones we look at as decent and moral; yet, we cannot understand how they support an amoral cretin like Trump. How does someone who claims to be Christian and Jesus loving so enthusiastically support a man who is as promiscuous and as vulgar as Trump? Easy. Just look at the Supreme Court. Peep out these new abortion laws in red states. See the transgender military ban. Trump can slip his little mushroom into a different porn chick every day and twice on Sundays. As long as he's stacking the judiciary with fundamentalist rightwing judges and allowing "Christian law" to infiltrate secular law (who cares about separation of church and state, right) they don't care! Tell me I'm wrong! I dare ya!


Oh, and let's not bullshit here. Some of the "decent" folk...many of them, in fact, are good with the racism and xenophobia too.


I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but the truth is the truth. It would be beyond easy to believe Trump has some hold over his base. It would be more comforting to believe that. However, that is not reality. Trump is literally a reflection of his supporters.


And, honestly, I don't have any words of wisdom about how to deal with it. Personally, I just try to avoid politics with loved ones who are Trump supporters. Of course, I'll forever be side-eying them and keeping in mind what time it always is.


Some people have either stopped talking to me or severely limited contact. Yes, it's hurtful but at the end of the day it's whatevs. It reveals a lot about them. The mask has been ripped off.


Regardless how you decide to deal with these people just acknowledge the reality. Stop blaming Trump and confront who and what these people are. Don't let them nor yourself off the hook by pretending Trump is Jim Jones and has cast a spell over your mama. Accept the fact your mama has serious flaws and figure out how you are going to handle it.


Stop coddling Trumpsters and being quasi-apologists for their bigotry or complicity with bigotry. You are not doing them, yourself or your country any favors.

BBC Exposes Ben Shapiro And The Right's Specious Arguments

Ben Shapiro, the internet dark web darlings and a significant portion of the rightwing fancy themselves as the "real" intellectuals of the political landscape. They purport they are the only ones interested in the exchange of dialogue in the marketplace of ideas. And, they really love to tout how it is they who are truly tolerant of others ideas while it's the leftwing who is intolerant and shun actual adversarial debate.


Now, if you have ever heard Shapiro and his ilk speak or have had the pleasure of discussing anything political with the average rightwinger, you know all of these claims are unadulterated pure utter bullshit!


Recently, Ben Shapiro appeared on the BBC ostensibly to promote his new book "decrying" the uncivil rancorous discourse that pervades our current political landscape. A British journalist named Andrew Neal conducted the interview. It should be duly noted Neal is an arch Conservative borderline far rightwinger. This will be key to the rest of this tale.


Before I go further here is a link to the interview if you would like to watch before reading my analysis. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E


So, Neal began the interview by asking Shapiro about the new abortion law in Georgia that essentially would jail a woman for up to 10 years if she gets an abortion and 30 years if she goes out of state. Neal asked if the law was excessive and appeared to be taking America back to "the dark ages".


Immediately Shapiro became triggered. Instead of answering the question he asked Neal if he was "an objective journalist or an opinion journalist". Neal responded, "I'm a journalist who asks questions." (Brilliant response!) Shapiro then became whiny saying Neal sounded like an opinion journalist.


Benjamin next began berating Neal for being a "leftist" and calling the pro-life movement barbaric. (Neal actually never used the word barbaric and he never referred to pro-life movement by any other similar term. Shapiro did what rightwingers often do. He attempted to strawman Neal and intentionally mischaracterize what was said so he can make himself and his ilk look like victims. However, Neal [again a rightwinger] didn't fall for the bullshit and stayed on course.)


Responding to Shapiro's obvious distortion of his question Neal said if Shapiro was pro-choice he would be asking adversarial questions against the pro-choice movement. Benjamin got even more in his feelings retorting he doubted Neal would, again called him a leftist and demanded he just admit he's a liberal and a leftist activist. Neal replied with the best response of this entire Shapiro whinefest which was, "Mr. Shapiro, if you only knew the ridiculousness of that statement, you surely wouldn't have made it." (Indeed! Again, Neal is a rightwinger. The dude is the Sean Hannity of the United Kingdom except he's not a dumb vapid grifter.)


Well, seeing that line of questioning was going nowhere Neal proceeded to some comments lil Benny had made about President Obama after his 2012 State of the Union address. Shapiro said Obama's speech was "fascist". Neal asked him if that wasn't a bit hyperbolic and inflammatory. Benjamin by this point in the interview was beyond steamed stuttered, "It was wrong and bad." Neal replied, "Well, there are plenty of things that are 'wrong and bad', but it doesn't mean they're fascist. A flustered Benny stammered and then said, "Well, I suppose that's right."


(Lol. He "supposes that's right". This was another example of Shapiro's tactics being exposed. He and a lot of rightwingers love to accuse the left of being hyperbolic and inflammatory, but as often is the case it's they who are hyperbolic and inflammatory and projecting out of their asses. Shapiro, in fact, did say Obama's speech was fascist when it was nowhere near. However, he had never been truly checked on it and when he was he got pissed and wilted.)


Next, Neal mentioned Benjamin's inane statement saying "Jews who voted for Obama are Jews in name only. They're jinos...They should turn in their badges.


Needless to say, Benny had a damn near meltdown. First, he obfuscated and attempted to lie, but Neal read back to him chapter and verse what he said. Then, clearly rattled Shapiro made a pathetic attempt to justify his statement. When that failed he flaunted his piousness demeaning Obama supporting Jews as not taking Judaism seriously like he does and basically implied anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he believes is less Jewish than him.


(Oh, Benjamin. Smh. He really showed his ass here. He said the quiet parts aloud and exposed religious fundamentalism for exactly what it is, which is unabashed hypocrisy and unfettered intolerance. Seriously, he sounded no different than any radical Islamic fundamentalist. Change Judaism to Islam and he sounded like ISIS.


Who the hell is this 30-something year old dude who sounds like he's still in puberty to dictate who can and can't be Jewish. Eff dna or parental lineage Ben Shapiro is the arbiter of whom is and is not Jewish.


And, he's so transparent with his demagoguery. Just like most evangelicals he believes if you don't vote Republican you're inherently anti-God. Unbelievable stupidity.)


Oh, we're not done. Andrew Neal brought Shapiro's book back up and questioned him if his own rhetoric has added to the political animosity that he claims to lament in the book. Of course, Shapiro reacts as if that is an absurd assertion. Neal then brings up some tweets Benny posted about Palestinians. And, this pos snowflake went into a full fledged meltdown.


Shapiro once tweeted, "Arabs only like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." (Nothing racist there. Keep it moving. Right, Benjamin.)


In fairness to Shapiro he did clarify he didn't mean all Arabs, which he was quick to point out to Neal. He said he meant Hamas. Problem is later in the tweet thread he did directly disparage Palestinians and implied their evil and wretched because they voted Hamas into power (but, of course, Republicans aren't racist and amoral for voting in the likes of Trump, Steve King and Louie Gohmert) and they teach their kids in school to hate Israelis.


Shapiro attempted to turn the tables on Neal by saying the "BBC is reticent to denounce Hamas" and implying that they were having him on and attempting to embarrass him to "make a buck". Neal didn't take the bait. He ignored Hamas comment and said, "There aren't many dollars to make on BBC like American television." (Oh, snap!)


Oh, lil Benny became enraged at Neal reading his own words back to him. He attempted damage control by mentioning a column he wrote outlining all the dumb things he has said. Shapiro did do that. However, you will have to squint really hard to see an apology or sincere contrition for what he said. Oh, and he's continued to say the same shit. He just sugarcoats it better now.


After the exchange over the Palestinian tweets Shapiro had enough. He said the interview was over and took a not so subtle jab at Neal implying nobody had ever heard of Neal while suggesting he was immensely popular. "I've never even heard of you until now." Neal retorted, "Well, frankly, Mr. Shapiro I'd never heard of you until prepping for this interview." (That sound you heard was Shapiro's ego getting crushed.)


Shapiro shot back that Neal was disingenuous and dishonest. He took off his mic abruptly ending the interview. Neal said, "Thank you for your time, Mr. Shapiro, and showing the American right doesn't get angry when confronted with adversarial questions. (LMFAO!)


This entire episode was glorious. It really exposed Shapiro for the shamelessly grifting charlatan he is. And, by proxy it exposed the rest of the circle jerk of the IDW and rightwing/Fox News commentary sphere.


Shapiro fancies himself as the logic man. He loves to say "facts don't care about your feelings". Well, he most certainly didn't abide by that principle with Andrew Neal. Truth is, he never does.


Shapiro never answered one question Neal asked. Instead, he repeatedly attempted to turn it around and ask Neal the questions though it was him being interviewed. Also, not only did he obfuscate but Shapiro repeatedly employed strawmans, red herrings and mischaracterizations.


Why? Because as Neal pointed out a couple of times political pundits aren't used to journalists actually doing their jobs and asking objective adversarial questions. It's the journalist's or interviewer's responsibility to play devil's advocate so to speak.


Shapiro is way too accustomed appearing on Fox News and The Rubin Report where he is coddled and stroked. Even when he appears on Tucker Carlson's show under the guise of being adversaries in the same political ideology Carlson doesn't challenge him. Just like Carlson would expect the same in kind.


So, Shapiro isn't used to actually having to defend his positions because he's never challenged. Nor, does he want to be.


See, that's the secret here. People like Shapiro know their positions are often draconian and frankly indefensible, so they have zero desire to be challenged on them. Now, while I believe Shapiro has more of a core than say Dave Rubin he doesn't want to be questioned because he can't provide intelligent principled defenses for his positions beyond cursory talking points. Facts don't care about your feelings unless the facts aren't on your side.


Shapiro got caught with his pants down. (Sorry for that disturbing image.) Admittedly he did no prep for the interview. He likely never does because he doesn't ever expect substantive pushback. Simply, the emperor was exposed as having no clothes.


This is also why people like Shapiro, Rubin, Carlson, Candace Owens, ect almost exclusively do the rounds on each other shows. It is why they sprint from debates and look for safe spaces.


Sam Seder and David Pakman have been asking Rubin forever to debate them. He refuses citing some bullshit about them calling him names and being mean to him. So what?! What are you effin eight years old! No, it's the same reason Rubin claims to only care about ideas but only has rightwingers and pseudo progressives on his show. He doesn't want an adversarial challenge because he'll be exposed as the grifter he is.


Same goes for Candace Owens. She wilted under minimal adversarial questioning from Joe Rogan, arguably a conduit for the IDW and rightwing, regarding her stances on climate change. She has avoided Politicon the last two years because she's "not ready debates". Wtf?!


In fairness to Shapiro he will occasionally participate in debates, as he did with Cenk Uguyr in 2017, but anytime he was pressed he resorted to talking points.


These people present no fresh ideas nor can they intelligently defend their stances. Shapiro is supposed to be an elite conservative intellectual; yet, he was unable to defend his positions or his words when confronted with actual adversarial journalistic questions. And, it's because he is accustomed to a kid gloves approach and he purposely avoids anyone who will even slightly challenge his bullshit or the draconian ideas and policies of his party.


This Shapiro/BBC exchange won't end Shapiro's career. I doubt it will even damage the brand with his entrenched loyalists. However, for those who casual fans and agnostic observers he has been completely exposed. He bragged about having all the game and the biggest "D" on the block but when it was truly game time he was exposed as having weak game and his "


























































l

Back Off Ayesha Curry

People are always showing their ass on social media and can never see it because they lack self-awareness. Oh, and they're petty af!


Earlier this week Ayesha Curry, wife of NBA superstar Stephen Curry, was interviewed by Jada Pinkett Smith on her Facebook show. Ms. Curry spoke on a wide range of issues including her husband, his female fans and her feelings about his female fans.


Ayesha mentioned the number of women who approach Steph (in her presence) with clearly inappropriate intentions. She spoke about how sometimes it infuriates her the brazenness which women will throw themselves at him as if she's not standing there. And, she said while sometimes she wants to punch these women in the face she keeps her composure and respectfully interjects herself so these women remember who the queen is.


Nothing wrong with that. But, it's what she said next that sent Twitter and Facebook in to meltdown mode.


Ayesha said these encounters make her feel a little insecure because she receives little to no attention from men. She said at times she wants to be like, "I'm here." Ms. Curry went on to say that she would like a look or two from men just to be noticed.


Needles to say, social media lost its damn mind over this. People began dragging her for being insecure, jealous of Steph and even suggesting she wanted men to catcall or proposition her.


This is so ridiculous! Ayesha Curry was expressing emotions and vulnerability we have all experienced one time or another.


Curry, who is 30 years old, is an extremely successful woman. She is an author, has a successful show on the Food Network and yes, is married to a hundred millionaire NBA superstar! However, none of these facts means she can't be insecure or doesn't have the right to be.


People on social media were either excoriating her for betraying feminism or the other extreme was portraying her as a "self-absorbed bitch" who is jealous of her husband's success.


Neither of those are true. In fact, they're idiotic.


Ayesha was relaying a normal common human emotion. All of us want to feel desired. Even those among us who don't relish attention like a subtle glance or smile every now and again.


She was clearly not saying or even intimating that she wanted to be catcalled, have random dudes sliding into her dms or guys hitting her up on Instant Message. What she expressed was a very normal human desire to know she still catches some folks' attention.


Now, I can already hear some people saying as long as her husband wants her that is all that should matter. Yes, of course, what Steph thinks is what matters most. But, can we stop bullshittin. If a stranger gives you the once over or that subtle smile that says, "Dayum!", you're going to feel flattered. It doesn't mean you're wanting to creep around.


And, the notion she is jealous of her husband is quite an assumption. Again, she just wants to feel desired.


The thing is this happens with women and men. Look, it's nice to have someone give you a look or respectfully show they find you attractive. It doesn't inherently suggest you're basing your self-worth on other's opinions of you. It just means it's nice to have someone (without qualification) find you attractive. It's an ego boost and who among us doesn't appreciate an ego boost here and there.


And, the other aspect here is people revealing a look into their psyche, their insecurity and their superficiality without realizing it. Some folks cannot comprehend why Ayesha would care if a dude acknowledges her attractiveness because she is successful and more importantly (to them) is married to a uber wealthy famous man. They're like, "Why are you bitchin? You're rich and set for life."


A common notion (especially in this country) adopted by way too many people is that being wealthy makes you a better or superior person. I know because I hear this foolishness almost daily. Basically, the belief is if you are rich you are smarter and happier than everyone else. You should never feel insecure or inadequate because you are rich and/or famous.


Now, this dumbassery is purported by people who are not rich, but whom rather worship and canonize wealth and by proxy the wealthy. Actual rich people will tell you wealth makes certain aspects of life much easier but it is not an elixir for unhappiness or insecurity.


So, yes, Ayesha Curry is wealthy, famous and married to a great dude; however, it doesn't mean she doesn't possess insecurities or common human vanity concerns. It doesn't mean she doesn't want to feel "hot" which also doesn't mean she is saying attention from her husband is not enough. Rather, she's saying she's a bit vain, like all of us can be, and she'd like a dude or two to give her a quick up and down. Simple as that.


All of these folks shading Ayesha Curry are being petty and hypocritical. Some are just revealing how shallow they are.


Ayesha opened up and shared some real vulnerability which should be commended, not excoriated. She expressed a vulnerability which I dare say every single one of us have experienced in some shape form or fashion.


If people want to say she's vain, ok. But, I would say her expression of vanity is one we all share.


She is a 30 year old mother of two who has been married for 10 years to a successful good looking guy and who is experiencing feelings I imagine most women at some point experience.


Men experience this as well. Of course, it would be great if a woman gave me the eye or walked up to me (with no ulterior motive) and said, "You're a very handsome man." That would make my day. Why? Because, although I don't believe I'm a vain man I appreciate a little flattery. Who doesn't?!


This controversy is so contrived and silly. It just reveals folks' pettiness.


And, kudos to Steph Curry for having his wife's back. He issued a statement essentially praising her for her honesty and candor.


I will say what Steph can't though.


BACK OFF AYESHA CURRY!!!

The Dems Fatal Attraction To "Hot" Voters (Instead of Ones Who Are There For Them)

Too much of the Democratic Party reminds me of the dude or chick who perceives themselves as a person of depth yet are always chasing people who are more "fun" than substantive. They are always after the trashy woman or the asshole bad boy who doesn't want them but enjoys the attention so they lead them on. Or, even if they do want them, they aren't aligned with their principles. But, they think if they are given just a little time they'll mold the bad boy/girl into a productive decent minded person in society. And, we've all seen this way more often than not end in utter disaster.


Well, a sizeable portion of the current Democratic/Leftist population has this mentality toward Trump supporters. And, similar to the way some men ignore good women who are loyal and down to earth for chicks whose boobs are poppin in a halter top but are a hot mess, many Dems ignore the voters who tend to be their loyalists for the voters who appear to be more of a challenge and more attractive.


The loyalist voters for Democrats are undoubtedly people of color and the LGBTQ community. Since the Civil Rights Era people of color and LGBTQ have voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. For example, African-Americans are usually 90% plus in the Democrats corner.


However, over time this has eroded the white working class base. Or, as some refer to it the "working class" because I guess we're supposed to pretend people of color aren't in the working class. Anyway...


For the last 50 years Republicans have been steadily chipping away at the Democrats' once stronghold on the white middle class and poor.


In 2016 Donald Trump swooped in and placed a firm clasp on these voters with a fake populist message soaked in xenophobia, racism and misogyny. He sprinkled in some anti-trade talk and found a way to win the election.


Trump's victory messed Dems' minds all up. They couldn't figure out how a childish, buffoonish, anti-intellectual bigot won. Meantime, people of color and LGBTQ folks were shaking their heads at Democrats' bewilderment and saying, "Welcome to America."


Many Democrats have been unable to reconcile what happened in 2016. Because they haven't been able to reconcile it, they have come up with a simple diagnosis to deflect from reality. Economic angst.


Now, economic angst certainly played a role, so I am not downplaying it. However, for the majority of Trump supporters that was not the primary driver of their support for Trump. The truth is many Trump supporters (especially in deep red states) voted against their economic interests, as by the way they have for decades by voting Republican.


Let's cut the bullshit. Culture wars, race and ethnicity drove Trump supporters. Immigration, while not on the top 10 concerns of a majority of Americans, was the number one concern of Trump supporters. It was not the economy but the southern border where illegal crossings were down 90% from the year 2000!


The second biggest concern was also not the economy but Muslims. Terrorism was a tangential issue, frankly, because Trump and his supporters just didn't want Muslims coming into the country and wanted to quarantine the ones who were here. In fact, so much so, they literally said "fuck the Constitution" and wanted a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country".


Yet, a significant swath of Democrats across the political spectrum may I add insists it's "the economy stupid". And, it is; just not for Trump voters.


Democrats are immersed in this fever dream that if they just reach out to Trumpsters they'll save them from the cult. Fine.


Here's the problem. In doing so they're consciously alienating their most loyal constituency, people of color and the LGBTQ community.


The "It's economic angst" Dems say to the historically marginalized we need to see the big picture. Winning in 2020 is what matters.


Now, it's a party wide thing but the largest segment of this lusting for Trumpsters' support is in the Progressive/Leftist wing. Their argument is that if we concentrate on economic and healthcare issues some Trump supporters will abandon him and convert. Especially if Bernie Sanders (who is my preferred candidate) is the nominee or even Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard.


However, there is a "but" which is we table the social and racial issues or speak about them as if their tangential. For example, talking about criminal justice reform is great but let's keep a lid on the whole "black people are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system" thing. Or, it's ok to denounce white nationalist attacks but let's go easy on the "white nationalism/supremacy is evil and terrorism" rhetoric. Or, it's fine to support trans people, but let's chill on the railing against the bigotry levied upon them. Why you might ask? Well, that kind of talk will likely offend Trump supporters and we won't be able to convert them.


Basically, the message to people of color and LGBTQ is just trust we're on your side but we aren't going to advocate for you right now because we have these folks over here who don't particularly care for you that we're trying to reel in. So, it's essentially the equivalency of the woman who says to the dude who is all into her but he's just a regular guy, "Jim, you know I care about you. You're my friend", because she's more interested in bad boy, Dante, with his cool motorcycle and even cooler 16 warrants. And, she believes after she's done having fun with Dante and realizes he's not serious about her that she can slide back over to Jim, whom like a good lap dog, will be waiting.


That is exactly how it feels some of the Democratic Party feels about its base. Ironically, the people within the party who rightfully scold the establishment for taking people of color and LGBTQ for granted are doing the exact same thing. While they court people who, if they are not bigots, are ok with bigotry we are just expected to be ready and waiting when they need us. That shit is played and trite.


The truth is it's a potentially detrimental strategy. Hillary Clinton essentially employed this strategy in 2016. Some like to assert she was too focused on race but that is just fallacy. She ostensibly didn't make enough of an outreach to African-American voters. Look at the number of black folks who stayed home in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Then, keep in mind the 77,000 vote difference in those three states.


What some folks in the Democratic Party need to seriously realize is they are not winning shit without people of color. Sorry. It is what it is! Whomever wins the nomination will need a majority of support from people of color. And, the nominee will need people of color's support in the general election.


It is so perplexing and infuriating that Dems are more interested in pulling in the support of people who very well might not be racists but certainly are sympathizers and at the very least don't see racism/homophobia as a deal breaker at the expense of people who have been loyal to the party and the agenda. Why is it so important to these folks to pull in Trumpsters when they don't need them? Reach out to the fucking voters who've been ignored and taken for granted who don't need convincing that black, brown, gay and trans people are "icky"! Pull in the voters whose values already closely aligns with yours. I don't get it!


And, here's the thing. Trumpsters are never going to vote for anyone over Trump. It's crystal clear by now there is no red line. At least, it should be clear!


Sure, they might really like Sanders and Warren's economic policies. They might resent the uber wealthy and the establishment. They might hate these expensive imperialistic interventionist wars. They might even support Medicare For All. But, the evidence clearly shows none of these things tend to be the primary factor in voting.


It is empirical over the last 50 years a significant swath of the white working class votes against their economic interests in favor of their socially conservative ones. Whether it's fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or just raw bigotry election after election they don't vote for the candidate who is best for them.


As awful as Hillary Clinton was as a candidate, would she had been worse than Trump? Of course not.


I get it. The trashy hot chick always looks like more fun. Hell, she usually is! But, there is normally a lot of baggage and a lot of risk that accompanies her. At the end of the day she isn't what you need. What you need is usually right in front of you in plain sight. And, sure the hot chick can twerk, hold her own at the bar and do things that would make the "actresses" on Pornhub blush, but when you really need someone to be there for you or just wanna have an intelligent conversation she isn't going to be there. She'll either move on to the next or be with the jerk whom she planned on staying with all along.

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.