Monday, April 18, 2016

"I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."

Maureen Dowd doesn't want you to vote for Hillary Clinton. What more evidence do you need? Vote for Hillary Clinton. Fans of The Daily Howler (a site which mysteriously disappeared from my blogroll -- sorry!) will recall how Dowd continually spread lies about Al Gore in 2000. Same shit; different election.

We've heard so many lies about both Clintons that I'm surprised to learn that Hillary maintains a slim lead over Sanders in a national poll. The sad truth is that smears work. The first time we were subjected to an anti-Clinton smear-barrage was 1994, and the results were disastrous for the Democrats -- for democracy.

The Howler offers a remarkably good piece which destroys the mythology surrounding the 1994 crime bill -- you know, the bill that all of those goddamned smug know-it-all BernieBots keep lying about:
The legislation was broadly embraced by nonwhite voters, more enthusiastically even than by white voters. About 58 percent of nonwhites supported it in 1994, according to a Gallup poll, compared with 49 percent of white voters.
Precisely. I recall those days, as the smirky young Bots do not. At the time, black leaders often complained (rightly) that the cops were ignoring black neighborhoods, thereby allowing the criminal element to take control.

In the 1980s, many white people complained about crime but did not want to spend the money required to combat it. The Republican establishment had no incentive to take action, since high crime rates translated into increased votes for conservative candidates.

Once again, let's recite some points which the BernieBots force us to repeat ad infinitum: Increased African American incarceration is almost entirely the result of changes in state laws, not the 1994 bill. Bernie Sanders voted for the same bill that Bill Clinton signed. The bill passed only because it was pushed through by the Congressional Black Caucus. And the bill arguably did much more more good than bad -- for example, it gave us the Violence Against Women Act and provided funds for community policing. (If we had more of the latter, the cops here in Baltimore would be hated a lot less.)

The BernieBots lied through their fucking teeth when they claimed that Bill Clinton signed that bill in order to depress the African American vote. Ludicrous! Why on earth would the Clintons seek to reduce a solidly Democratic voting bloc -- one which has been the bedrock of Hillary's support in this cycle?

Again I ask: Has Barack Obama done anything to reform the criminal justice system? If not, then why don't the BernieBots assail our current president?

A must-read. Dakinikat is one of my all-time favorite bloggers, and her latest is superb. Of Sanders:
How can some one running for President be so total unaware of basics? How many more My Pet Goat moments do we get from this guy before his cult buys a clue?
This seems to be a typical Bernie thing. Anything that’s not within his old school class war frame isn’t worth investigating. He’ll just toss out a vote eventually and then we’ll hear how his judgement is far superior because Iraq War vote. At what point do folks hold him responsible for everything else?
The one thing I hear continually on all forms of social media is that there is somehow some huge movement out there led by the Bernmeister that will spontaneously change everything including the need for sliced bread. Where the hell is it if all you can do is win outback, highly white caucus states and a couple wide open primaries? Is there evidence of any progressive insurgency? Where is there evidence that this gadfly Senator from Vermont is leading it?
Just so. The bots are convinced that young voters are the only voters, and that the young will bring about the mythical capital-R Revolution. They have fastened onto the delusion that Bernie stands a chance in the general, even though polls tell us that the word "socialist" is an absolute no-go for the majority of Americans, and even though the media has yet to go negative on Bernie (which it surely will) -- and even though we still inhabit a country in which conservatives substantially outnumber liberals. (Note: I said liberals; socialists are a small minority within that minority.)

Not only do these dimwits think that Bernie has a chance in November, they also think that everyone in the country has suddenly made a hard left turn. Yep, it would appear that folks in Texas and Arkansas have suddenly decided to read the Grundrisse and sing the Internationale, and now they're fixing to send an ultra-progressive wave of Congressfolk to DC in order to enact The Beatific Vision of The Bern. It's a new day!

As Uncle Al once said: "I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."
I am less sure than you are that Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination. And even if he does, would it really be red fascists against brown fascists, hammer and sickle against swastika?

But the plan may well be for Trump to win the presidency.

Trump's spiel and brand fit hand in glove with the overall movement in society towards shitting on other people. That's either as a moron whose attention span is miniscule or as an "entrepreneurial" turd who views other people as punters and eyeballs at best. In both cases, carrying a "smartphone" and enjoying snuff videos, because "losers" are "losers". The 4chan and Faecesbook generation. This is fascism, with those who stand outside of it almost universally viewed as "anti-social", anti-volk.

A Trump versus Clinton contest could fit neatly with this theme, and a Trump victory could take it forward.

I am reminded of Germaine Greer's warning not to underestimate the force of the men's movement.

Trump says things like

"It really doesn`t matter what [the media] write, as long as you`ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass"


"If Ivanka weren't my daughter, I'd be dating her"

and he gets mass support.

Our criticisms of feminism, and of favoured ideologies in university literary departments, are of little relevance when we're talking about a rampantly dynamic male power trip that whips up mass support among arsehole men and doubtless among many of the most moronic women too. California voted for Schwarzenegger and now things are getting worse.

What I'm hearing from people in the US is that many have decided to vote for Trump because he's more "real". That's the kind of pigshit-stupid attitude that it's almost impossible to argue against. It's as if they're saying "we're stupid and we're proud". This billionaire businessman-politician is representing (I won't say "articulating") what they "feel", now that they've given up thinking. That's assuming they ever knew how to think anyway, between one tweet and the next. How many of them even remember what things were like before Faecebook? They feel "liberated" when they listen to Trump.

This could be a fight between the Male Arsehole Power Trip Candidate and the Female Candidate Who Displays at Least Some Humanity and Caring for Other People.

I wouldn't underestimate the mass fervour of Trump's supporters. They are going to love this election.

Credit to Germaine Greer where it's due.
Great post and great links to places I used to read regularly! In Sky Dancing's comment section I wonder if you caught this link:

It's long but with amazing points and details about Bernie's...record. I mean, who knew he wrote about women fantasizing about being raped by three men. In his 30's? She did not give links, tho...sounds like a must read.

Can't wait for today's election results.

ps- Salon has a hilarious post up about the Sanders latest meme of Hilary's hot sauce pandering. Apparently, it's a conspiracy which took root decades ago. Hillary took up carrying hot sauce with her in '92 just so she could pander to black voters (?even tho she's already got their vote?) in 2016.
In a tv program a guest was asked about his opinion in how bad is it for her having an expensive dinner while Sanders is in meeting with the pope discussing income inequality. Shouldn't be a law against this kind of misinformation.
"And even if he does, would it really be red fascists against brown fascists, hammer and sickle against swastika?"

Nah. Sanders ain't no "red fascist." He's an ineffectual progressive without a plan, of a type quite familiar to me. I used to have the occasional meal with guys like that, back in my UCLA days. They're nice enough, as long as they remain on that level. None of them ever had any idea how to run anything, not even a lemonade stand. And they are always too "pure" to compromise, on anything.

Remember that emergency scene in "Life of Brian"? "This calls for IMMEDIATE discussion." That's all these guys ever do: Discuss. They don't know anything else.

Sanders is being pushed now because the Republicans want to run against him. Once he wins the nomination -- and he probably will, even if Hillary wins big in NY -- he'll be swatted like a fly.

Its' quite obvious that the Republicans don't want to run Trump, because Trump is a loon.

In my graphic at the top of the page, the commie-and-Nazi imagery is meant to illustrate a larger point: Movements that inspire deep passion have a strong historical tendency to go very, very wrong. I don't like most movements. The words "movement" and "mob" begin with the same two letters, and I suspect an etymological link, although of course I haven't bothered to research that possibility. But revolution is a young man's game, and I'm feeling my age.

I see Daniel Hopsicker has disappeared.

I hope it hasn't anything to do with his recent posts about Trump ties to the mafia.
Except for the purism, Bernie Sanders sounds similar to Jeremy Corbyn.

In 1984 Corbyn and I were both in the audience at a meeting in North London. The purpose was to discuss how people in the area, which was a long way from the nearest coalmine, could support the miners' strike. Anybody could see that that was the crucial question of the time. If you wanted to stop the rapacious attacks by the Tory government (which continued under Blair and from which life in Britain has never recovered), you had to support and link up with the miners - not in theory, but right there and then, in practice. The strike had to win, or we'd all be fucked. We had to seize the moment.

The politico background was that there'd been a general election the previous year which the Tories had won with a huge majority. Contrary to what some pundits still say, the Tory victory hadn't resulted from a rush to vote Tory after the 1982 Falklands war. In actual fact, the Tory vote was LOWER than it had been in 1979. The huge majority was a huge majority of SEATS. Why they'd won the election was because of a "reds under the beds" psyop run against the left wing of the Labour party, focusing on nuclear "defence". That was used to split the party and set up a new party, called Social Democratic, led by individuals with strong US links. The SDP then teamed up with the Liberals, their alliance got almost as many votes as Labour, and as a result the Tories stayed in office. But I digress...

...Anyway, the Tories had been re-elected THE PREVIOUS YEAR, and the miners had given everyone with a heart some hope that there might, just possibly, be an upswell of struggle that could stop the bosses and the government in their tracks.

Believe me, the Tories really wanted to smash the miners. The British bourgeoisie hated the miners' guts. "Why do they need baths in their houses? They'd only put coal in them." It had been the miners who brought down the Tory government under Edward Heath in 1974. Heath called a general election on the issue of "Tell us who you want to govern Britain" and the British people gave him the right answer. "Not you, you Tory cunt. Victory to the miners." People elected a Labour government which immediately made enormous concessions to the miners BECAUSE IT HAD NO CHOICE. Remember this was only six years after 1968. Could the same happen in 1984? Well it didn't, but it had to.

What did Corbyn say at that meeting? He told us all we had to do everything we could to help the Labour Party WIN THE NEXT ELECTION. That's what. An election that everyone knew was 3-4 YEARS AWAY. He himself was already a Labour MP.

Don't get me wrong. Bringing down the Tory government and replacing it with a Labour government under Michael Foot, in circumstances where he would have had to make concessions once again to the miners, would have been great. But you don't do that by joining or "supporting" the Labour party. You do that by spreading the strike.

Corbyn's acolytes even handed out forms for people to "register" their intention to join his shitty party. (For any young people reading this: don't trust anyone who comes to a meeting or demonstration to collect names, OK?) Corbyn spoke from the audience: "let's all push together and in three years' time we'll win" etc. Arsehole. Party politics wasn't the issue.

I don't see why a loon couldn't win. Reagan was a semi-loon. Bush the Younger was a mental retard. The 2016 election will be one to remember. If Trump gets the Repuglican nomination, which I reckon he will, it's going to be his show, and the theme will be masculine obnoxiousness all the way.

PS "Mob" is short for the Latin "mobile" in "mobile vulgus", excitable crowd. "Mobilis, mobile" are forms of the verb "movere", to move, so yes, "movement" and "mob" are cognate :)

Joseph, I'm no disagreeing with you, but based on a few articles I've read that were written in 1994, the Congressional Black Caucus was at all enthusiastic about the bill and had to be talked into supporting it by Clinton. Here is one example:

""I think there is a frustration that, given our level of loyalty, we are asked to bend more than most," said Rep. Albert R. Wynn, a Prince George's Democrat and Black Caucus member who supported the president in last week's vote."

"Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who had criticized the bill as too punitive, split over final passage. They provided almost one-half the 34 Democratic votes against it, although most members voted for it."

Again, I don't disagree with your analysis beyond that, and there is obviously no question that Sanders voted for it. It obviously had good and bad aspects and of course most people today don't bother digging into the whole context of things that happened so long ago. Which is part of why we are in the mess we are currently in.
Fred.......Hopsicker is fine. He's changing web hosts and his site will be up later in the week (according to him, anyway). He was hacked, but he doesn't suspect any foul play, just poor security practices on the part of his former web host.
I can't comment on the other issues. I can only comment on finance cos that was my business. But Sanders position on finance is absolutely correct. He made no missteps in the NY daily news piece. Dakinikat wanted a fact check. Well I'll give you one. Bernie got his points right. Furthermore there is a reason HRC won't release those transcripts from the GS talk. If you talk to people in that room (and that is one big auditorium) her talk was fauning - she gushed over them. That's why it's too embarrassing to release.

Yes Bernie knows bugger all about foreign policy. And I am reading more Clinton supporters say that they are getting vast amounts of abuse from Bernie supporters. It must infuriate. You guys should vote your conscience. I support Sanders but he s not going to win.

But ask yourself why Liz Warren had not endorsed Hilary?


Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?