— Matthew Elliot (@matttbastard) April 9, 2012
Seriously, dub tee eff?
Update: Yes, kids you too can be Warren Kinsella’s Next Idiot (after Dawg, that is).
What you should be reading this holiday weekend, in lieu of spending quality time with your family/loved ones (like yrs truly will be a little later):
– Open ass, insert head: Dave, Cathie, Dawg, pale_, jj, Peggy, and Orwell’s Bastard, on the latest iteration of ‘Progressive Bloggers [sic] journey to the centre of their colons’ (solidarity w/ DAMMIT JANET!)
– Re: John Derbyshire’s modest proposal that –wait for it–Libruls R teh Real Rayyyycists (let me show you how by being extremely racist — just like teh libruls!), what TNC said:
I’m sure Derb will say his piece was “satire” soon enough. But you don’t get to do satire when you actually believe black people are dumber.
— Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisi) April 7, 2012
Also see Dawg, Elspeth Reeve, Josh Barro, John Holbo, Maureen O’Connor, Rob Farley, Scott Lemieux, Charles Johnson, and the readers of National Review who, contra Starburst Lowry, boldly declared en masse: ‘We are all Derbyshire‘ (doh!) Despite the strong show of solidarity from NRO’s lumpen commetariat, alas, Derb was a bit too airhorn to remain employed by an outlet where dogwhistles are industry standard. So long, and thanks for all the proud racism, rank misogyny, and generally icky douchetasticness, Derb.
– Speaking of apologists for racism (ok, so Derb is more of a cheerleader sans panties — yeesh, talk about naked enthusiasm), law prof Darren Hutchinson takes on Shelby Steele and other black conservative intellectuals who, over the years, have firmly established a cottage industry on the right flogging long-dead hobbyhorses re: civil rights and the not-so-subtle affirmation of white supremacy. No surprise said usual suspects are now concern-trolling Trayvon supporters. Also, this:
— Matthew Elliot (@matttbastard) April 6, 2012
– And finally, the less said about this, the better:
Happy holidays from bastard.logic.
— Saskboy K. (@saskboy) April 6, 2012
Some things (and some douche-sombreros) never change. Y’know what else is “so 2006”?
But enough about buggy-whips and the fauxgressives who stubbornly wield them (along with equally-antiquated notions re: teh wimminz). Hope you all like the new look. The delightfully profane invective remains the same.
*Even more 2006: blogging. Ahem. Shaddap.
Was going to pick up on what BooMan, Jed Lewison & Jeff Fecke had to say re: Jane Hamsher’s unholy alliance with Grover fucking Norquist and the more-progressive-than-thou campaign to unseat that notorious corporate shill, Bernie Sanders (and there was great rejoicing among the assembled Trots in the spartan Vermont offices of the Socialist Equality Party).
But fuck it — it’s Christmas Eve. We can declare a temporary armistice and put down the hunks of pie until at least, er, Saturday. Y’know, peace on earth, goodwill towards bitter personality cultists, all that rot — right, kids?
Here, have some Ramones. I mean, if Joey and Johnny could put aside their utter loathing for each other for all those years in the spirit of rock ‘n’ roll and, um, filthy lucre…?
Wishing you and yours a very happy holidays on this Historic Occasion™.
This combines SEVERAL things I hate into one paragraph. “Ugly Red State mugs” well gee, you know what? Those are real fucking people too. I’m so tired of the red state/blue state snobbery I could spit. You know what? I lived in red states. I busted my ass on multiple political campaigns in red states and saw one of them turn blue (Colorado). I’ve talked to pissed-off overworked people who are just looking for someone, ANYONE to give them a narrative of how they got so fucked–and we haven’t been doing it.
Also, since when does anyone who calls themselves a lefty get to snarl and sneer at populist street protest? Sure, I laugh at “look at this fucking teabagger” too, but you know what else I do? I wonder why the fuck we’re not out there, because at least those people are putting some effort into it. And to some degree they ARE protesting the right people, even if the narrative they have (ZOMG SOCIALIST!) is just factually wrong.
So while I disagree with partnering with Grover Norquist, who is no kind of populist and every kind of rich plutocratic asshole, I absolutely don’t have a problem with acknowledging that the teabaggers A. have some legitimate grievances and B. are using tactics that get attention. I also don’t have a problem with someone staking out a hard and fast progressive position and vowing not to swerve from it.
First of all, considering I spent my formative years going to cattle auctions, milking goats, and generally living like, as Levi Johnston infamously put it, “a fucking redneck,” I think I’ve earned the right to indulge in the occasional good natured rhetorical aplomb with regards to rural culture. Perhaps I should indeed have used ‘Real Americans’, since that terminology is apparently less provocative (if ironic in this instance, considering how the accusation re: my supposed dehumanization of red-staters was phrased).
No matter. Next time I’ll make sure to include photos of me contentedly playing on a pile of dry manure (yes, they do exist) before I offer any pithy asides that may (or may not) implicitly question the humanity of those who think the POTUS is the anti-Christ and people of colour are jackbooted thugs coming to steal guns and impose Marxism on the American populace.
Now, I don’t want to waste too much time addressing nits when there are more substantive concerns to address. So I’ll only briefly deal with the contention that, because I am a Canadian, I have little right to comment–even in passing–on the health care debate in the US. Amusing, since, in today’s dynamic, neoliberal North American economy, my options to live/work/go to school south of the border are severely restricted by prohibitive costs and outrageous restrictions on so-called preexisting conditions, thus giving me and other Canadians who might one day wish to grab hold of the American dream a stake in whether the current system is indeed reformed (though certainly not as immediate as those who currently reside in the US).
Additionally, Canada’s universal health care system has been unceremoniously yanked into the debate by both pro-and-anti reform factions during the course of the debate, which threatens to reopen health care as a wedge issue here in the Great White North (and, trust me, if the current neocon government in Ottawa gets a majority — which seems all-too-likely — it will almost certainly utilize the tactics employed by the US insurance lobby, very much eager to further tap into Canada’s lucrative health care market, to bully through ideologically-motivated reforms of a decidedly regressive, pro-market nature).
Regardless, am certain the next time a transformative national event like, oh, say, Iran’s Green Revolution sweeps over Twitter like a digital tsunami, Sarah will refrain from offering opinionated commentary (or actively agitating) because she already has constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression, assembly and association and, thus, far less of a vested interest in any outcomes. Also, by this metric, I suppose we can all stop paying attention to the 85% of USians who already have health insurance — which would probably mute most of those advocating for both killing and passing the Senate health reform bill.
Hey, at least we’d get a much-needed respite from the migraine-inducing bloviating of Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews.
Anyway, enough with the gristle — on to the meat.
Sarah seems to have (mis)interpreted my objections to Hamsher’s position (and my contempt for teabaggers) as evidence that I’m against street protest (unless one considers the heavily manufactured fauxtrage of the tea party movement to be populist and not fauxpulist — Hamsher certainly had her doubts about its legitimacy last spring). Which is funny, because a lot of my snark is predicated on the notion that Hamsher ISN’T hitting the streets, but rather using her digital platform as a half-assed means of protest without sacrifice, something that the largely upper-middle-class netroots (and, unfortunately, yours truly) has been guilty of perpetuating. Maybe I missed the portion of Hamsher’s post where she advocated actually getting progressive boots on the ground, instead of continuing to solely rely on FDL petitions and electronic advocacy campaigns to pressure Washington.
If so, my bad.
The biggest point of contention I have with Hamsher’s post (and perhaps I didn’t originally articulate this clearly enough) was her declaration that the only thing separating progressive populist anger from screeching teabagger rage was ‘the message’. But, in fact, it’s not simply the message that differentiates the populist left from the populist right. It’s the motivation behind the message.
Many progressives are angry and motivated to act on said anger because they want to build something that will better the lives of real people, not simply line the pockets of corporations (hence the principled objections to the health care legislation, which many, including Hamsher, view as a ginormous corporate giveaway).
In stark contrast, it seems all too apparent to me that the organized teabagger movement desperately wants Obama’s agenda to fail miserably because they are threatened and offended by the success of an uppity fucking nigger who needs to be put in his place (up to and including 6 feet under) — point fucking blank. Killing what is admittedly a horribly, horribly flawed health insurance bill is part and parcel of this mindset.
(YMMV, of course, but, speaking as a person of colour, the dogwhistles contained within pretty much all missives eminating from the angry USian right silently screams ‘lynching party’).
So, on the one hand we have a broad, socially dynamic movement trying to create something that will benefit a broad range of people; on the other, a racially and culturally homogeneous reactionary backlash attempting to destroy the Other and anything the Other supports, out of fear and hatred.
Teabaggers definitely aren’t afraid to threaten and potentially utilize violence to achieve their destructive, regressive goals. Anyone who has read David Neiwert over the years (especially what he’s written following the 2008 presidential election) knows that playing footsie with pseudo-fascists is a dangerous game when so-called ‘mainstream’ movement conservatives do so. The same also holds true for progressives (and many libertarians, who, ever since Obama ascended to the White House, appear to have rekindled their mid-’90s love affair with black helicopter paranoia).
One can — and must — analyze the ongoing deficiencies of the progressive movement re: tapping legitimate populist anger (as I’ve attempted to do so in the past) without giving any quarter to the far-right. But by stating that the only thing separating tree-of-liberty-watering wingnuts from progs is ‘the message’, it appears Hamsher has done one of two things: Either she has has imbued legitimacy to a racist, conspiratorial backlash; or she has de-legitimized progressive activism by associating it with myopic, potentially deadly obstructionism.
Look, I’m sure one could argue that the KKK represented some legitimate grievances white Southerners held during Reconstruction; its tactics have certainly garnered lots of attention over the years. Shit, the Klan even opposed the Iraq war — but it did so because it believed the US was acting as a proxy for the ‘Zionist Occupied Government’ (ZOMG!) I would have been horrified to see members of the anti-war movement citing them as parallel to the peace lobby, separated only by ‘message.’
Envious progressives eager to (belatedly) tap popular dissatisfaction with the status quo shouldn’t be trying to emulate the right with tea party-lite appropriation simply because the Tea Party brand is now familiar to the public at large. People will always opt for the real thing when presented with a watered down option (just ask the Democratic Party during the DLC years, when the Dems responded to GOP ascendency by diluting its own liberal message with conservative messaging — not that things have changed all that much). Of course openly carrying firearms and threatening violent revolution gets attention — if it bleeds, it leads — but are we really willing to go to similar lengths to get the powers-that-be at Fox News to grant an extra programming block or two to the left. (What was that about “staking out a hard and fast progressive position and vowing not to swerve from it”? Hmm.)
I believe progressives need to continue carving our own niche and not allow the right to continually draw the parametres of public discourse. Hit the streets, smash the corporate state, raise fucking hell and don’t let anyone push us from that path. But for God’s sake don’t fucking give batshit racist misogynists with guns who are acting in direct opposition to our goals the rub in the process.
Fox books liberals for two reasons: to be punching bags or to help reinforce messages Murdoch wants to deliver. I watched your clip and you weren’t treated like a punching bag — so that leaves only one choice: you were there to play “Even the liberal…” — that is, you were there to deliver the message “This bill is so awful even some liberals loathe it.”
No one on the right is “uniting” with you on principles. The Fox audience doesn’t want to join you to help make a good bill. The Fox audience wants to kill this bill, brutally and mercilessly, and then get every single Democrat out of office. (And if Big Medicine really didn’t like the idea of seeing this bill killed, it would tell Fox and the GOP to call off their dogs, and they’d dutifully comply. Big Medicine loves this bill compared to what it could have been, but no bill at all is still the fat cats’ preference. Watch this report in its 2 1/2-minute entirety if you doubt that.)
I agree that the bill is rather awful, and I’ve been vacillating on the question of whether it’s worth voting for, so I respect your intentions. But if you think left and right are meeting right now, your vision field is almost as warped as that of the we-love-Hillary-and-Sarah PUMAs.
Again, it’s not the message, which, in this instance, is in direct concert (kill the bill!), it’s the motivation — and, based on their apparent willingness to make peace with the far-right fringe to achieve their aims, one can’t help but question that of Jane Hamsher and others suddenly pining for a ‘tea party on the left’ (to say nothing of their judgment).
You want to know why the (dis)organized left has been a relatively ineffectual force in USian politics over most of the last 40 years? Check out so-called kill-biller netroots activist [sic] Jane Hamsher, who, in the course of her vain crusade to crush the Senate’s (admittedly flawed but better than, y’know, nothing, ie, the status quo) health insurance reform legislation, has decided that if you can’t beat the Teabaggers
you might as well break out your own nutsack and…
But in the very next breath, they will then promote statistics that say the tea parties are more popular than either the Democratic or the Republican party, and wonder if it’s an opportune time for a third party candidate. (From the “right,” of course, because who would take the “left” seriously.) At no time do the synapses firing in their brains make the connection that both the “lazy progressive bloggers” and the tea party activists are saying almost the exact same thing about the Senate bill.
There is an enormous, rising tide of populism that crosses party lines in objection to the Senate bill. We opposed the bank bailouts, the AIG bonuses, the lack of transparency about the Federal Reserve, “bailout” Ben Bernanke, and the way the Democrats have used their power to sell the country’s resources to secure their own personal advantage, just as the libertarians have. In fact, we’ve worked together with them to oppose these things. What we agree on: both parties are working against the interests of the public, the only difference is in the messaging.
Ok, so: We have an astroturfed right-wing social movement of sorts (almost singlehandedly keeping the polyester lobby and Lee Greenwood from starving) that, following a TOTALLY SPONTANEOUS RANT on CNBC from Rick Santelli, decided to utilize the angry-shouty bits of Saul Alinsky to get their ugly red state mugs on Hardball every fucking night for several months straight. And this is the (bipartisan) model that Hamsher apparently wants to emulate (nearly 8 weeks after the mission accomplished moment that was NY-23) because “the only difference [between wingnuts and progressives] is the messaging”?
John Cole caustically questions the logic at work here:
Really? Progressive bloggers are saying the same thing as the tea party activists? I really fucking missed out on all of the posts at Eschaton that Obama is a socialist. I haven’t seen Markos in his tree of liberty t-shirt yet. There is no telling what David Sirota might do or say, so I’ll give you that one.
Hey, at least this way Hamsher doesn’t have to actually read Rules for Radicals and fully invest in the long, hard goddamn work that is required to achieve meaningful, popular change in the current capitalist system; she can just watch old YouTubes of this past summer’s townhall chaos and crib the important (ie, angry-shouty) parts. Yes, this is how Hamsher defines ‘populism’: Hold your breath and stamp your feets until Tweety gives you facetime on MSNBC.
Look, I’m on record as stating that the nose-holder/kill-biller battle is, in the long run, a good thing for the left. No matter which side of the divide one falls on, the debate is being driven by progressives; the right’s obstruction-uber-alles strategy has so marginalized it over the past 12 months that the corporate gatekeepers of the 24 hr news cycle seem to have finally lost all interest (yeah, yeah, so the GOP is against [insert Democratic initiative] — tell us something we don’t already know). And, yes, the fact that we see so many progressives on talking head programs articulating the particulars behind the biggest progressive legislative initiative in 40 years (and, in the process, grabbing control of the Beltway narrative) is something to celebrate — even if the dialogue is at times heated.
But seriously. If Hamsher thinks the answer to filling the social movement vacuum on the left (and staking a firm leadership position in the process) is to set your capslock on STUN and start hammering out “YOU WORK FOR US!!1” until your keyboard breaks, well, she’ll find that there’s lots of room out in the wilderness with the rest of the reflexive, wild-eyed Obama bashers who have fizzled out with more heat than light. Let’s just hope she brought a sturdy pup tent and lots of pemmican for the duration — they don’t do wealth redistribution in Outer Wingnuttia, natch.
Civility is a public discourse between [white] men, allowable because they have the time and personal resources to engage in it.
– Q Grrl
Obviously it’s not my place to critique the comment policies put in place by other self-identified progressive bloggers with more delicate sensibilities (and–inexplicably–larger conservative fanbases) than yours truly.
Your house, your rules.
But come on, dude–if you take away the right to say ‘fuck’ then you take away the right to say ‘fuck straight white male privilege!’
Rest assured, dear readers, this progressive venue will continue to be both troll-free and heavily pro-profanity, all part of our nefarious plot to both further deteriorate blogospheric discourse and, in light of these troubled economic times, help spur sales of pearls and fainting couches (who says all Marxist redistributionists have contempt for the marketplace?) This is not a ‘family blog’ (whatever the fuck that means); this is a zone where we try to limit the privileged fetishization of ‘civility’ (aka classist/sexist/ableist/racist/heteronormative silencing practices) and fully intend to keep it that way. So, if you too are *ahem* uncivilized and lack common sense, please feel free to pull up a chair, crack open a cold beverage, and let the unseemly invective fly.
You goddamn fucking right.
(A quick caveat: my tongue-in-cheek observations are not meant to denigrate nor cast aspersions upon the good character and progressive bona fides of Dawg, someone whom I genuinely respect–even if I think he really needs to lighten up about the naughty language.)
When a woman says fuck you, she is asserting a sense of power that we have socially tried to deny. She is stepping out of the submissive role and assuming an active body which patriarchy finds threatening. The mehnz immediately go into panic mode and try to remind us our place. No No little one, aggression is reserved for those with testicles.