Snowflakery

The discussion around cancel culture has been in the news a lot lately. It has overshadowed its brother, snowflakery.

These two things are closely adjacent. But, snowflkery is more this form of informal censorship than it is deeming someone "toxic" like cancel culture does.

Snowflake was the buzzword a couple of years ago. It is a term rightwingers and alt-righters use to describe anyone they view as liberal who become easily offended. Mostly they use it for college kids and people on social media who get triggered by certain words or attitudes. Of course, like so many other things, this is projection from the right. While they are mostly correct about the oversensitivity by some on the left they are also easily triggered by certain attitudes and groups of people themselves.

But, in my mind snowflakery has somewhat evolved into this attitude-a culture really- of people who don't feel they should ever be challenged and their opinions are exempt from any scrutiny or analysis. This isn't partisan or even generational. It has just become to some degree a norm.

This is most prevalent on social media, of course. Like many people I spend time (too much time honestly) on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Many people express their opinions about an array of topics. A significant chunk espouse their political thoughts. Some of those thoughts and opinions are provocative and controversial. We live in a very polarized country.

However, here is what I have noticed occurring more and more. People will post an opinion or share a meme that is almost guaranteed to elicit a passionate response or at least stir some emotions within people. Somebody or somebodies will post an opposing comment and the author loses their shit over it. Often times other people who agree with the post will become angry with the opposing viewpoint also.

Now, if it ended there, while the anger at an opposing viewpoint could be problematic, it would be fine. It doesn't though. Way too frequently responses include telling the dissenters they have no right to speak or attacking the dissenters and not their arguments. A common refrain is "This is my page and I can say what I want! I don't want any arguments." Or, my personal favorite, people will just block or unfriend anyone who disagrees with them. So infantile.

Here is the issue. If you post a political or even sports related or cultural opinion or state something as fact (especially without corroboration or a cited reference) on a public platform in a public manner you should reasonably expect somebody may disagree and express that disagreement. 

A bigger issue for me is if you're stating an opinion that presumably you believe to be correct why is someone contradicting that opinion so triggering? Who cares? Listen to what their argument is and debunk it or counter it. 

Instead what I have witnessed several people do is essentially censor the comments. They will either attempt to bully people. Or, they might just delete the disagreeing comment or block the person. It is so childish and petty.

What I have learned is why the reason people who act this way do so. More often than not they won't defend whatever they said because they cannot. 

Their opinion isn't so much an conviction or value belief as it is reactionary. They comment on topics they haven't given more than two minutes thought. And, frankly, in some cases two minutes is way too generous. Their thoughts are purely based upon ideological pablum and groupthink.

Because of this they are unequipped to respond with any semblance of intelligence and analysis. And, when they see the person contradicting them came loaded with facts and forethought they become triggered.

I also believe some people who believe there should be no pushback on anything they say  are simply delusional. Especially the younger they are they've grown up in this era where they have had it drilled into them no matter what they say or think it's special because they are unique. They are told there are no stupid questions and adjacently no stupid statements. But, that is not true. There are plenty of stupid statements and questions. Just because you say something doesn't mean it is  "a truth" or special or above critique. Sorry. That is insane.

Are we really supposed to listen to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) say that maybe his mask gave him the 'Rona and give that any credence? Of course not! That is an objectively stupid statement.

We have become this society where not only the slightest incident or actual innocent slip of the tongue triggers us but we believe that we should say whatever we want and offer any opinion with no pushback or disagreement or fact check. The art of dialogue and debate has been suppressed. This is not good for a healthy democracy.

 Debate and dissent were not only placed into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers but encouraged.

It astounds me how so many people are willing to freely offer up opinions but possess no desire to defend them. They babble on and on about free speech but are so quickly willing to stifle someone else's free speech. Whenever they comment on another individual's post and receive pushback they lament how civility and debate have been exorcised from society but will block a mofo in a hot second if they don't like what they say. Just mind-boggling.

It is pure snowflakery. They literally want to make their free public page on a free public platform a safe space. Almost as if it were a college campus or something.

Finally, the real rub of all this is people like this actually have means available to create the safe space they so obviously desire. This is especially true on Facebook. They can set the guidelines of their page to protect them from any mean people who dare to disagree with them.

First, they can  make their post private. They can set it up where only the people they think will agree with them will see it. If they want further insurance, they can disable comments. To really ensure they get stroked they can make the post unshareable.

Problem solved! They can create their own circle jerk and information bias loop.

But, most people won't do that. Why? Because, they want everyone to see their posts. They just don't want dissent. They want their ego stroked by receiving all positive comments and a plethora of  "likes" and "loves". Simple as that.

It is pathetic and sad. If people want to be liked, do what millions of other folks do and only post pics of their kids, pets and funny memes. But, if they step into these Facebook and Twitter political and sports streets, they better be prepared to start dodging bullets (metaphorically speaking of course) because I assure you they will be coming.

People have to stop being snowflakes about everything. Yes, we are all unique but their ass isn't special to everyone. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but most people don't give a f*** about most other people! These folks' narcissism isn't their friend. Just because they think the sun rises and sets on them doesn't mean everyone else thinks so.

Perhaps most importantly is just because someone disagrees about an idea or a policy doesn't mean it should be taken as a personal affront. Seriously! Grow the hell up! Not everyone is going to agree with you. That is life.

And, I can already hear some assclown right now, "Well, I don't care what other people think." Ok. Does it ever occur to these tools that maybe those other people don't care what they think but it doesn't stop these tools from publicly expressing their opinions? Lawd Jesus! People frustrate me!

Several reasons exist for the breakdown in public discourse currently taking place. One of them (and perhaps the most important) is people don't listen to each other nor do they want to. As the saying goes, "People don't want to hear your opinion. They want to hear their opinion coming out of your mouth." That is an issue.

Truth is the problems here are so layered. But, what it might all come down to is in the current society so many people are anti-intellectual and anti-learning. Some of this due to laziness. Some of it, frankly, is due to people thinking they know everything or enough so they don't want to learn. As a result they cannot see that having discussions and debates with other people provide the opportunity to learn and grow. Also, being challenged allows one to sharpen and strengthen their convictions and thoughts.

Again though, therein lies the rub. So many people aren't convicted. They are reactionary.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW What To SAY?

Over the last few weeks in the aftermath of the genesis of the George Floyd/anti-racist protests I have heard more times than I can count some white people say, "I don't know what to say [to poc]. I don't want to offend." People have said to me regarding my perception certain folks aren't acting the same with me or in some cases my clear ability to see they're either not talking to me or unfriending me on social media, "Well, maybe they just don't know what to say. They are afraid they will say something to offend you."

Initially my response was confusion and consternation. I like to think I  am someone who is easy to approach and have communication. My nature is to be non-confrontational so I am not combative or bellicose. Frankly, it really disturbed me to think people were afraid to talk to me. Me!

But, the more I thought about it the less distressed I became. I began to become annoyed. The side-eye was in overdrive. I began thinking to myself, "What do they mean some people are afraid to say anything because they don't want to offend?!"

As I put actual thought and insight into this I realized that folks saying they didn't know what to say was somewhat of a cop out. If they didn't say things that were offensive, racially insensitive or racist before George Floyd why would they say them now? It was nonsense.

It hit me this was just more pseudo wokeness (for some). For others it was an, I presume, unintentional unveiling of their token allyship with those fighting racism and racial injustice which in reality was in reality was a partial cloaking of what I call "crypto bigotry lite". And, in fairness, for a few  people it was a legit feeling of hesitancy and anxiety stemming from dealing with the more boisterous factions of the movement and individuals who always seem on edge. But, bluntly, the latter are few and far between. It is the first two groups who  are problematic.

Let's deal with the pseudo woke first.

Their entire approach is dripping with cynicism and narcissism. They would be the first (and I mean the first) to shout that they are allies of black people, poc and marginalized groups in general.

These are the folks trolling Twitter and Facebook all day and night looking for every instance of "racism" they can so they can call it out and virtue signal and cancel. They feed off every single microaggression and then gather a mob to go after whomever making sure they're the face of the "calling out racism".

But, when the struggle gets real and it's time to actually put some skin in the game and it's time to be that ally they stop talking to poc. They cite as their reason, "I don't know what to say." WTF! What do they mean? They don't have to say anything other than, "I am here beside you fighting for what is right."

But, the problem is these type of people aren't interested in actually providing material assistance. They are only interested in being seen.

For them there are no real stakes. Their politics aren't one of benevolence or deep seeded social conscience. It is not altruistic. It is narcissistic. That is not to say they don't broadly believe in fighting racism or inequality. But, for them style is more important than substance. Which is why they make statements such as "don't what to say" and then say nothing.

Think about the insanity of that. People are in the streets fighting for justice. Black people are getting hunted down in the streets by racists , getting mowed down in their own homes by the very people are supposed to protect them and still being forced to endure a system built on white supremacy that while it has been tweaked is still implicitly bias and their reaction is to just not talk to them. It is sheer lunacy!

Now, the other group is more infuriating than they are annoying. I call these people crypto-bigots lite. I am sure that term will be triggering but if the shoe fits...

They say the same trite nonsense about not knowing what to say to poc since the protests began. They claim fearing they'll say something offensive.  What a load of abject horseshit!

Here is why I say that. Unlike the pseudo woke they just quickly abandoned even the appearance of being an ally or concerned with racism and racial injustice. But, like the pseudo woke they love to virtue signal.

These folks aren't real interested in scouring social media looking for people to cancel and notches to place on their belt. But, what they are interested in is taking every instance of "reverse racism" they can find so they can say, "See, it happens on both sides" but then immediately point out they support black people. This approach would be okay I suppose if they did the same for white on poc racism but usually they are deafeningly silent.

This has become crystal clear during the last few weeks. When Ahmaud Arbery was murdered they were silent. When Breonna Taylor was murdered they were *crickets *. When the Amy Cooper/Christian Cooper incident in Central Park occurred quiet as a church mouse. When George Floyd was murdered they did say they were "disturbed" but no real outrage or anger. But, when some fools started looting and rioting during the largely peaceful protests they were all over social media expressing their "outrage" and "anger". They decried the  "violence" (which there certainly was some but mostly property damage) and lamented  "what about the property".

Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not condoning or excusing the looting and rioting nor am I denying it. I denounced it in real time and emphatically stated my frustration and opposition to it.

That said my issue with these subset of people is they were seemingly more upset with the loss of property than they were life.

Another problem that arose which in my mind directly points to their crypto-bigotry lite was their sudden position change. As soon as a small fraction of people  (most of whom weren't poc by the way) began looting and rioting their support of black people and fighting racism and racial inequality/injustice went right out the window. Many people expressed verbally and on social media they "could no longer support the fight against racism after the rioting began". That is pure insanity. Or, it was just very revealing how shallow their support for anti-racism was in the first place.

Then these nominal allies trotted out the tired often quickly debunked refrain  "I don't see color". This is perhaps my personal favorite because I love to debunk and watch people stick with it regardless. Look, it is not whether you see color or not. Unless you are physically color blind, of course you see color. And, even metaphorically it's a specious statement that the vast majority of people who actually say it can be exposed as not being so honest about it. It is not about seeing color but not allowing one's color (race, ethnicity, ect) affect the way you view and treat them. Identity is cynically used by lots of people and political parties but that doesn't mean identity isn't important in certain contexts. Instead of attempting to erase identity, which is often done cynically and perniciously, we should embrace our physical differences and celebrate the uniqueness.

Now, I attempted to explain these things to a few people. Their response? Well, some removed me from their social media while others essentially stopped talking to me. Again, that is where I heard generally (not just specifically regarding myself) they perhaps they just don't know what to say because they don't want to offend.

Bullshit! The problem with the nominal allies/crypto-bigots lite is everything that led up to that point gave away the game. Maybe I could accept the notion if they hadn't consciously chose to stay silent about black people being hunted down in the streets like mangy dogs but were beyond angry enough about a Wendy's getting torched to say something out loud. Perhaps, I could buy that if they offered the critique that rioting and looting are horrendous but black people being brutalized by the police (I know not all cops or most. Pretend to understand context and be somewhat of an adult) and being hunted down in the streets by racists is unacceptable but instead their critique was the opposite. I probably would be significantly warmer to the notion if they stopped acting like we should pretend color doesn't matter in a society where it clearly does. Of course, it shouldn't but it does.

Here's the thing. Not talking to poc is not a solution nor is it a coherent responsible response. If you have poc in your life you actually care about or love whether they are friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners or just acquaintances talk to them. I am telling you when you don't talk to them they are left with little choice but to begin assuming things about you I am sure you probably don't want assumed.

I understand there are some folks who are belligerent or surly. Go to the people who aren't. If you don't have any bigotry, ill-will or racism in your heart you shouldn't be worried about saying anything that would offend. If you do say something that you think the response was off just ask. Most people will politely tell you whether it's offensive or not. And, for those who are more abrasive just let them get it out but never be disrespected. From time to time we all say something that is amiss and nobody is above being checked but being disrespected is unacceptable if you genuinely unwittingly said something.

Now, for those folks who are little more disingenuous all I can really say is be better. The "I don't know what to say" line is really one more designed to shift blame and exercise this insatiable weird need some have to be aggrieved. Let's just call it what it is.

Saying you don't know what to say is a copout. It is the way of saying, "I would say something but people are so sensitive." Essentially it is the crude reductionist anti-political correctness argument. Even more it is an admission that you do say offensive things and are simply boycotting certain people because you don't want to be cognizant of what you say.

Communication is always the key. When it comes to interpersonal racism in this country the single biggest problem is we have never had frank raw conversations.

Now is not the time to shut down dialogue. It is the perfect time to open up the dialogue.

Remembering Michael Brooks (1983-2020)

Monday afternoon, July 20 2020, Progressives lost a stalwart voice and the world lost one of its funniest, kindest and most empathetic souls.

Michael Jamal Brooks passed away due to an unknown blood clot in his throat.

Micheal was the host of The Michael Brooks Show and co-host of The Majority Report With Sam Seder. Both shows are in podcast form and on YouTube. He also co-hosted Jacobin Weekend With Micheal Brooks and Ana Kasparian (also on YouTube) as well as hosting the podcast, Woke Bros, along side Wosny Lambte. In addition to his YouTube and podcast shows Micheal recently wrote his first solo book, Against The Web: A Cosmopolitan Look At The New Right, which was published and recently released by Zero Books.

Michael Brooks was arguably a rising star and one of the most sought after voices in independent left media.

He began his career in 2012 as a producer for Majority Report. A couple of years later he became the co-host. In early 2018 he started The Michael Brooks Show with Majority Report producer, Matt Lech. Later on David Griscom joined the show as a producer and contributor.

Michael rather quickly became known as one of the brightest and most knowledgeable hosts in left media. He displayed extensive knowledge of not only domestic policy but foreign policy and international affairs. He was an unashamed admitted internationalist.

In fact, The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS), became a vehicle for Brooks' vast international political and social knowledge. His show often focused on affairs abroad and he would brilliantly tie them into American policy showing why they were important. Nando Villa once said about Brooks, "He knows more about the politics of Ecuador than any CNN contributor knows about American politics." I would add Michael knew more about American politics as well.

I never met Michael. Though I wish I had. I wanted to get to Brooklyn some day and be able to meet him, Sam Seder and the rest of the crew.  I only know him through watching him on TMBS and MR. But, he was a huge inspiration and role model. I started writing a blog in 2018 due to the inspiration from him.

I actually discovered Michael in 2018 right before he began TMBS. I had grown weary of the incoherent nonsense coming from most of MSNBC. CNN was god-awful. I was looking for alternative media that would stimulate my desire for good intelligent political news and analysis from a left perspective. I had watched The Young Turks off and on in previous years, so I decided to get on YouTube and search around.

 I came across a Majority Report video about Alex Jones and decided to click on it. I was familiar with Sam Seder from his Air America and Keith Olbermann days. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. It was then I discovered the funniest most insightful political commentator I had ever seen. I had never laughed that hard in my life while receiving in-depth intelligent analysis . I mean who could resist an Alex Jones video and someone ingeniously mocking his grift and hustle.

Mike and Sam had me at that moment. I became an instant superfan. I spent the next seven hours watching MR and Micheal Brooks videos. I have always been a politics junkie but was never able to find a show or commentator that best aligned with my political beliefs. Until that time Bill Maher was the closest thing.

But, I found a niche between Sam and Micheal. It was Micheal who really captivated me. His takes on race, poverty and how to look at culture aligned with mine almost perfectly. I had never actually watched a political commentator who saw race and racism the way I did...until Michael Brooks.

It was a few weeks later I decided to begin my blog. On a "Michael Thursday" on MR he said the left needs voices. He was encouraging a caller and anyone else who was listening that if you really care about these issues and want a better world do whatever you can to get into the game. He said don't do it if you are only interested in clicks and internet fame but if you want to make change write, talk, produce, organize, canvas, whatever. When I heard that I thought, "I am wasting my talent. I need to get back to writing." Then, he said something to the caller that stuck with me and became a motto of sorts. He said if you change one person, make them think, you have done something significant. That touched me.

Brooks was one of the people who really shaped my politics. Like I said, I was a politics junkie, but what I learned through Micheal knowing things wasn't enough. Your politics must have a purpose and that purpose must center around working class and poor people especially if you consider yourself a Progressive or leftist, which I do.

Through him I learned to sharpen my vocabulary and speak intelligently using adult words but conveying it in an digestible way for everyone. I learned to voice my opinion clearly and respectfully but with authority. If that meant putting an edge on it so be it.

Until Micheal Brooks my mother was the only person I had ever known on the left who emphasized international politics because it all ties into US politics because ultimately we are a global community.

The brilliance of TMBS was that he could cover an array of domestic and foreign subjects with ease. Through TMBS I was introduced to brilliant important left voices like Milton Allimadi, Adolph Reed, Joshua Kahn Russell, Bill Fletcher Jr, Wosny Lambre, Nando Villa, Alyona Minkovski, Abby Martin and Ben Burgis.

It was TMBS that first exposed me to ContraPoints. She is now one of favorites. I am absolutely in love with her channel. Natalie Wynn is doing exceptionally important work. Michael was the first person to my knowledge to give her a broad platform.

And, Michael found it important to give relatively unknown left commentators a voice even as he was struggling to be recognized himself. He did it not only for Contrapoints but for people like Brandon Sutton and Benjamin Dixon.

Michael Brooks genuinely cared about people-normal regular ass people. It is what drove his politics. He was ambitious and had an ego but wasn't chasing money, clout or fame. He wanted a better world. Not in the metaphorical sense but in the actual tangible sense. He wanted the unknown person in the Sudan to have a good quality of life just like he did a dude like me in Shawnee, Oklahoma. He believed you must want good for more than just yourself or your family or friends but for people you don't know all over the world. He truly embodied empathy.

He often spoke of how poor he and his family were. Frequently he would mention the housing and food insecurity he and his sister experienced as a children. However, it didn't drive him to want wealth. He was driven to make sure other people didn't experience that. Let me tell you that is a rare quality in today's society.

You could see Michael Brooks' compassion and love for humanity shine through the screen when he talked. Issues like Medicare For All, a living wage, universal housing, universal jobs programs, poverty reduction,  criminal justice reform weren't just talking points progressives should mention. To him they were absolutes and nonnegotiable because people mattered.

His view on race always amazed me. He got it. Identity politics are garbage but that doesn't mean identity isn't important because for certain swaths of people recognizing it is an undeniable reality. But, class is the key to ending structural racism and imisseration.

I would be remised if I didn't mention his impressions and laugh. His laugh was infectious. His impressions were nothing less than creations of genius. His Bill Clinton, Nation of Islam Obama, Rightwing Nelson Mandela and Chris Matthews are better than anything Frank Caliendo ever did. No knock to Caliendo.

His ability to fluidly do political satire was genius. Matt Binder, former producer/co-host of MR, said in the Majority Report tribute that he has never known or seen anyone who in the spur of the moment can go into a character or do political satire without ever pausing or stuttering. Mike is the funniest person I have ever seen, comedians included.

I am heartbroken over his sudden passing. I have been upset since it happened and foresee I will be for a few more days. I spent my entire Monday night reading tributes on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. I watched the MR tribute show yesterday. I cried with Sam Seder, his lovely sister Lisha, Ana Kasparian and Nomiki Konst. You could just see the pain in Nomi's face. But, it was Kelly Carey  and Joshua Kahn Russell who ripped my heart out.They were so visibly upset and cried throughout the entirety of their tributes.

I have cried off and on for two days now. Again, I didn't know Micheal Brooks personally but he was apart of my life. He was on my tv screen just about every day. Although I am older than him he is a role model and someone I looked up to.

I feel like I have lost a close friend. In so many ways I have. We all have. I know I don't mourn alone. I have seen people I never thought I'd see cry-didn't think ever cried because of the image they exuded. Not only Sam Seder but I heard emotion in the voices of John Idarola, Kyle Kulinski, Mike Figueroa, David Griscom, Brandon Sutton, Matt Lech. I literally cried with each of them.

I don't care how it looks to some. I lost an important person in my life. Just because I didn't know him personally doesn't mean he wasn't important and integral.

The left has lost an irreplaceable voice and influencer. That is unquestionable. But, each of us who loved and admired him and believed in what he believed must honor his legacy by moving forward. In whatever way we can we must carry on his work. The project is far from over and the best way I imagine to respect his life is to see that project through. Elect progressive candidates. Support left media whether it's MR, TYT, Nomi Konst, Kyle Kulinski, Jacobin, Megan Day, Matt Taibbi, Katie Halper, Chappo Trap House, The Intercept,  Benjamin Dixon, The Humanist Report, Brandon Sutton and countless others. Make certain those media outlets illuminate voices like Cornell West, Adolph Reed, Bill Fletcher Jr, Harvey Kaye, Richard Wolffe, Briahna Joy Gray, Malaika Jabali, Nando Vila, Aloyna Minkovsk, Noam Chomski and so the other authorative left voices.

Michael Brooks is loved and will be sorely missed! I love you, Brother!

Rest in power, Friend.

Left is best!

Dr. King Was Right

Dr. Martin Luther King once said: "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [...]"

He said this in a 1963 letter he wrote while sitting in a Birmingham, Alabama jail. He had been arrested for peacefully protesting. After Dr. King's arrest eight white clergymen (supposed allies of the Civil Rights Movement) criticized him for an "untimely and unwise" protest against racial inequality and injustice, which precipitated the letter.

Now, fast forward 57 years to today and King's words are just as pertinent now as they were then.

However, I would tweak a part of what Dr. King said. Instead of "white moderates" I would just say "moderates". Not because of some political correct "woke" nonsense but because it is true. It just isn't white moderates but moderates who are people of color who seem to be standing in the way of substantive progress regarding race (and a litany of other issues).
During the Civil Rights Movement there were multitudes of white allies who were truly down with the struggle. Some of them lost their lives over it. Others had their lives ruined for standing up for the right thing and against racial oppression. Sometimes I believe those of us who are younger and came along post Civil Rights Movement forget that and refuse to acknowledge it. But, I digress.

That said, unfortunately, there were many more white people who claimed to "believe in the cause" but were always uncomfortable with actual protest. They said, "Of course, black people should have equal rights. It's just...". It was just they wanted those black people and their white allies to be quiet and not ruffle feathers. "Can't y'all peacefully protest?" They were peacefully protesting. What became painfully obvious was that no protest the movement enacted was ever going to be peaceful enough.

And, let me be clear. White moderates weren't the only ones. Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement had plenty of black and brown detractors as well. I don't mean the Candace Owens and Ben Carson(s) of the day. I am referring to black people who were afraid Dr. King was going to cause a severe backlash. Some had finagled their way into a comfortable position and didn't want that position nor their status threatened.

So, here we are in 2020 with protests taking place all over the country initiated by the George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor murders. A multiracial coalition is in the streets and on social media bringing attention to the abhorrence of police brutality, which has been happening to poc since the police's inception in this country. Folks are speaking out and against racism, racial inequality and racial justice. As they did in the 1960s people are [rightfully] demanding a system whose foundation was built on white supremacy and oppression of people of color be overhauled and rebuilt into a system that truly works equally for everyone.

However, just as in the 1960s there is another coalition which is multiracial that is telling the anti-racist movement to just slow down, be quieter and ease into progress. This coalition is one of moderates but it is broader than what likely comes to mind when you think of the word "moderate" in today's political climate. It ranges from neoliberals to rightwingers.

These are people who would quickly say, "I am not racist." Their favorite phrase is seemingly, "I don't see color." They are always saying, "Can't we all just get along."
They acknowledge racism exists but just not as much as some of us say. Or, they recognize the pervasiveness but live in this fantasy world where if we just don't mention the problem it will magically go away.

Those who are more right leaning feel as long as they have a "friend" or two of color they're exempt from being racist or bigoted regardless their overall poc perceptions.

The ones in the middle and to the left love to get really upset and offended about microaggressions and memes and innocuous statements. These are the pseudo woke folks.

What is consistent with these moderates is they really do not want the power structure in this country fundamentally altered. They are perfectly ok with minute incremental change or any action that comes with minimal or no material loss. This is why many of them are not happy with the taking down of statues over the last few weeks, but ultimately they'll concede on it because they realize these actions are just symbolic. They change absolutely nothing.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s the same dynamic took place. The moderates of the time were ok with a Negro or two being integrated into the schools. They were ok with working with one or two black folks. "Separate but equal" was a fair-minded policy in their minds.

But, when MLK came along talking  "nonsense" about black people having true equal rights, voting rights, freedom to eat and drink wherever they wanted, being able to live wherever they wanted, date and marry whoever they wanted and attending college wherever they wanted some folks were like, "Whoa!" When Dr. King and so many others began marching in the streets and conducting sit-ins they were like, "Y'all doing too much." When King started truly critiquing the American system and pointing out this country's multiple massive failures and refusal or inability (depending on your view) to live up to the promise and standard it set some folks began to not be so sure if they were for Civil Rights.

I have mentioned this several times before and it needs to be said again. When he was assassinated Dr. King had a 33% approval rating among white Americans and it never rose above 35%. That speaks volumes.

We are in the same place now. Most people aren't racist. But, what they are is bigoted and/or have "hangups" they don't want to let go. If that is triggering, oh well. It is so obviously the truth.

People will scoff at the notions of white privilege and white fragility. But, they are real. No, it's not this corporatist neoliberal woke nonsense you might hear on MSNBC but it is not nonexistent either which you will hear on Fox News. Its existence is apparent when you see moments like the one we have been living in for the last eight weeks.

Again, let me emphasis it just isn't white moderates. It is moderates!
One of the things that have struck me but not surprised me is the relative silence from the Congressional Black Caucus and a lot of other establishment leaders of color. They haven't really supported the protestors.

Because, the protestors aren't just saying, "Racism bad". They are letting it be known platitudes and band-aids aren't acceptable this time. They are challenging the system, which threatens those politicians.
I will not get into the many complexities of systemic racism. That is for another blog. But, there are poc whom also benefit from a system built on white supremacy because that white supremacy is fueled by a class supremacy. If you can't disaggregate that I will have to explain it another time. Although it is not that hard to figure out.

True progress shouldn't be that hard to achieve but we never seem to achieve it. It is not the avowed racists who are holding it up. Of course, they're always fighting it but they are outnumbered. Truth is they have always been outnumbered.
It is the avowed white supremacists' sympathizers, enablers and the people who are beholden to the status quo who hold up progress. It is also the apathetic. It was true during slavery. It was true in the 1960s and it is true now.

Whether admitted or not there is a swath of people who are fully aware of the privilege they have. They might not ever use that privilege nefariously but they like knowing it's there in a glass case for an "emergency". We somewhat saw that with Amy Cooper and what she attempted to do to Christian Cooper in Central Park. (For those who are not familiar Christian Cooper, who is African-American, asked Amy Cooper, who is white, to leash her dog because the dog was frightening the birds. She took exception and decided to call the New York City Police lying that Christian Cooper was threatening her and her dog when the video clearly showed the opposite.)

Another aspect of this goes to the hang-ups I mentioned. Some people want to be  "a little bigoted" so anything or anyone that calls that out is a threat.
As King said, the issue is the moderate is often more concerned with  "order" than justice. They want everyone to pretend we are in this fantasy world instead of living in the real world. Of course, in an aspirational world color and race would play no role. But, we don't live in that world and have to work towards that world. We aren't getting there by pretending we are already there.
I keep hearing, "People should...". People should do a lot of things but don't. If you want to see that society do your part and quit telling those fighting for that type of society to be quiet.

We have tried over and over and over again the incremental approach. We have tried pretending everything is ok. We have tried being  "quieter". It is painfully obvious it doesn't work.

We must protest. We must speak out. We must demand the system is overhauled because it doesn't work for poc and large contingencies of white people either.
That is not going to be achieved by locking arms and singing  "Put A Little Love In Your Heart". Nor is it going to be achieved by poc pretending they are not poc. It is not going to be achieved by ignoring the problem and just not talking about it because it is uncomfortable. It is suppose to be uncomfortable.

Until more moderates begin understanding this I don't believe we are ever really going to arrive where we want. We gotta have uncomfortable conversations and do uncomfortable things to get shit done. That has always been the case. Always.
Order is important but there can be no tangible order without justice. And, for large swaths of people in this country justice is something they never receive. Until they do...No justice, no peace.

Dissent In America Is Almost Always Impugned

Inarguably the Boston Tea Party kicked off the American Revolution. The Colonists dissented against what they perceived as the British government instituting oppressive taxes upon them.

The event is essentially lionized in every public and private secondary educational history book. It is portrayed (I believe accurately) as the people rising up against a system that wass oppressing them.

The dissent was celebrated. Some 240 years later it was purported to be the inspiration and foundation of the Tea Party that was born out of what its founders considered a government suppressing their rights.

Dissent and protests are implicitly and explicitly encouraged in the United States Constitution. They are seen as essential to a healthy democracy and free republic.

However, since the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution most dissent in this country has been bemoaned and often demonized. And, it should be noted most of that dissent has come from left of the political center.

The notable exception is the South's attempted secession. We all know about the Civil War and the perceived fight over "state's rights". While it is true the South had many issues with the North (The United States government) the primary issue eventually became the South's use of slavery and their insistence it was their right to employ slavery as a means of production.

But, since the Civil War any dissent or protest in this country has come from the left. And, regardless how peaceful it has or hasn't been it has always been demonized and labeled in some way "un-American" and "violent". This has been true from women's suffrage to prohibition to Civil Rights to the LGBTQ movement for equality.

Unquestionably instances of violence have occurred with each movement. In the cases of the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights, LGBTQ Movement and Occupy Wall Street the vast majority of protests were peaceful. Yet, they were labeled as violent and aggressive.

The exact same thing is happening now with the protests that arose over the last five weeks or so in the wake of the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis. Yes, there has been rioting and looting. In the last couple of weeks there has been the taking down of several Confederate statues and statues of figures seen as having problematic histories with race. However, most of the protests have been peaceful. The peaceful protestors and most of the allies of the anti-racist movement have repeatedly denounced the looting and rioting.

But, that has made little difference to the detractors of the protests and rightwing media whom has generalized the protestors and lumped all of them into a single group labeling them "thugs", "criminals", "anarchists" and "America hating".

Antifa and Black Lives Matter have become the boogeymen. Anyone displaying support for the fight against racism, racial inequality and police brutality are accused of being apart of Antifa or #BLM whether they are or not.

The common retort anytime anyone pushes back against the broad stroking or demagoguery is, "I don't have an issue with the peaceful protestors. It is the people who are rioting, taking down statues and torching Targets." This retort or anything similar is specious though. Because, the common tactic has been to label all the protests as "rioting and looting" and then strawman it.

This approach isn't new. It is the exact same one that was used against Dr. Martin Luther King and the Freedom Fighters of the Civil Right Movement.

It is chic for people today to praise Dr. Kimg lauding him as the standard bearer for how peaceful protesting is conducted. They claim he is a hero. The problem is their parents, grandparents, ancestors and in some cases themselves stigmatized MLK and the allies of the Civil Rights Movement as "troublemakers" and "ungrateful". They disparaged and lied calling them and their protests "violent" when they weren't. They said the marches and sit-ins were "riots". They lamented why the protestors couldn't just be quieter and do things differently-"more peaceful". Some questioned why were they protesting or if those protesting even knew why and what they were protesting. They bemoaned the chanting and claimed to support the cause but asked, "Why can't they be more peaceful?" When Dr. King and the others refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem they cried, "Why are they disrespecting the country and are so 'un-American'"? You often heard people say, "We love black people. We love everyone. We don't see color. We just need to get along. Can't we all just go back to normal? Don't let these troublemakers make things uncomfortable. They are poisoning your minds and making you believe things are worse than they are. The races have been getting along just fine. Things are good they way they are. Why do we have to upend everything? Sure, there are problems, but most people are decent and treat each other decently." (Mind you there were separate water fountains and public bathrooms. Even in the North restaurants were segregated.) Anyway, all of those things and more were constantly said. Any of it sound familiar?

Now, just like then, the contention wasn't really with the method of protest and dissent. It was with the protest and dissent themselves. A swath of this country has always been against any progress or true equality. Of course, many will clutch their pearls and be "offended" at that being said but we all know it is true. It is empirical that it is true.

The goalposts are always being moved. As far as the swath is concerned peaceful protest and non-violent dissent are unicorns. The protests can never be peaceful enough.

And, the thing is it isn't just the vociferous antagonists. The actual issue is the "moderates" Dr. King talked about. I don't mean white moderates. I mean moderates. In the 1960s like now you had poc bucking against progress and racial equality and justice. Just like now some hedged because of fear. Others because of self-hate or it interferes with their revenue stream. I have mentioned thousands of times before there is a lane for poc who want to grift and fetishize themselves by shitting on other poc and demonizing them. A very narrow but lucrative lane exists for poc to regurgitate far rightwing and white nationalists talking points regarding poc and marginalized communities. So, they have incentive to demonize any protest or dissent against systemic racism.

As for those white moderates, they are often the biggest opponent against any substantive real structural change. Unlike hardcore bigots and avowed racists they want racial harmony but not if it comes with any type of real price tag. They don't think they are superior to poc and want equality but not actual true equality. They are aware the current system provides them certain privileges and advantages even though they pretend they don't see it. It is why they spew pseudo-woke bullshit and get a little bowed up whenever any protest or dissent espouses talk of material change to the system.

Some recoil at the removal of these Confederate statues and figures with problematic history regarding racist. But, most relent and reluctantly give up obvious racist horseshit like Aunt Jemima because they realize giving in on symbolic gestures is way better than giving in on actual structural change. Do not get triggered because you know it's true.

While way too many black folks were foolishly getting hung up about semantics over Bernie Sanders views on reparations the establishment which many moderates of all stripes support were freaking out and having meltdowns about Sanders winning the Democratic nomination because they knew he was serious about deconstructing the white supremacist system we have and instituting one that actually works for everyone.

Dissent and protest in this country will always be fought against and demonized when it comes from the left. Because, more often than not that dissent and protest are looking to shake up the system as opposed to just cementing the implicit biases and status quo of the current system.

*ANNOUNCEMENT *

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


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


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


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


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


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


www.facebook.com/robbase2110

www.twitter.com/robbase2110


www.Instagram.com/robbase2110


Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Dear Anonymous Trump Book Author, Sit Yo Ass Down!

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


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


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


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


Bullshit!


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


No, really, sit yo ass down!

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Candace Owens Is Toxic: Here Is Why

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Here is how Biden responded to the question:


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


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


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


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


Lawd Jesus where do I begin with this hot mess?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


It is called democracy.


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