Monthly Archives: July 2019

Marianne Williamson is my guilty pleasure (OK, so I don’t feel guilty)

Internet memes like this one aren’t accurate or fair, but in the age of Pussygrabber are to be expected, I suppose...

Marianne Williamson is not crazy.

Few books can I finish from cover to cover, but in the 1990s I ate up three of her books: A Woman’s Worth, A Return to Love and The Healing of America.

Williamson’s unabashed language only feels somewhat stilted and unicorn-and-rainbow-ish in an age in which we pee-ons have become as savage and loveless as are our overlords.

The word “love” need not be a hokey, gauzy concept that we ridicule. “Love” can be defined easily in quite straightforward, even logical and rational terms. To love is to consider everyone and everything as oneness, as a whole, to abandon the widespread (even “common-sense”) concept of rampant separation that puts us as individuals (and as groups of individuals) at perpetual war with everyone and with everything else.

To realize that we’re all connected — not greeting-card-sentiment connected, but even scientifically (biologically, ecologically, sociologically, etc.) connected — means that we stop to consider how our words and actions (and how our dereliction of our duty) affects other people, other life forms and the planet itself.

The opposite of all of this, the opposite of love, would be the likes of “President” Pussygrabber. Pussygrabber is all about himself. He is the exact opposite of love.*

Those millions of Americans who also have not a loving atom in their bodies thus resonate with Pussygrabber and think that he’s the greatest “president” ever. After all, does his hateful, loveless existence not somehow validate theirs?

Even if I’ve swayed you to some degree that love is not insane, but ultimately is sanity itself, you probably don’t think that Crazy Hippie Lady Marianne Williamson (really, has Pussygrabber not called her that yet in one of his tweets?**) could function at all as president.

I wholly disagree.

To me, an effective leader starts with an effective, sane — and yes, loving — worldview and vision. Lacking that, true leadership is impossible. (See: “President” Pussygrabber.)

The president sets the tone and provides the broad strokes of how the nation should proceed. It’s up to the rest of us who have voted for this tone and these broad strokes (except, of course, in cases where the loser of the popular vote actually becomes “president”), to help bring this vision to fruition.

If the president is wise, he or she will surround him- or herself with bright, eminently qualified advisers (entirely unlike “Pussygrabber’s” ever-changing Cabinet of grifters), and the nation’s business not only will get done, but the nation will improve and move forward, and the world will be better for it.

After the likes of George W. Bush and Pussygrabber (both who lost the popular vote and thus who never should have sat behind the big desk in the Oval Office), it’s easy to think that we never could have an enlightened president again, but yes, we can. It’s up to us.

One thing not to do is to fall into the we-can’t-do-that camp. As Elizabeth Warren quite correctly said of the center-right sellouts badgering her and her fellow progressive Bernie Sanders in last night’s Democratic presidential debate, “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”

So you are running for president but have announced that you have put up the white flag before the fight has even begun — and I’m supposed to fucking trust you to fight for me? Um, yeah, fuck you.

Those who tell us that we can’t do anything at least are revealing themselves to us, which I suppose is nice. They’re telling us, loudly and clearly, that they only want the colossal ego trip of being president, but that they have no desire to truly fight for the people. (Hi, Barack! Hi, Hillary! Hi, Joe!)

My No. 1 choice for president remains Bernie Sanders. The fact that his progressive message doesn’t change, unlike that of the likes of Billary Clinton and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (and yes, also Pete Buttigieg), who change their positions as they deem politically necessary, indicates to me that as president Bernie would fight to realize his vision, which is based upon rock, not upon shifting sands.

And that Bernie has been in D.C. since the early 1990s is a boon, I think. If you want the top job in D.C., it helps to actually know D.C. (Hi, Pussygrabber!)

My No. 2 choice for president remains Elizabeth Warren. I perpetually cringed at the idea of Repugnican Lite Billary Clinton being our first female president, but a President Warren would make us proud.

And my No. 3 choice is, yes, Marianne Williamson. She is a rare case of a D.C. outsider actually being good for D.C. (Hi again, Pussygrabber!)

Williamson starts with strong leadership qualities and with a sane — and yes, loving — vision. The rest can be built on top of that.

I’m not naive about Williamson’s chances of being even No. 2 on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential ticket, but her voice in the presidential debates and in the national discussion is an important one, and therefore I hope that her presidential campaign continues.

You can help that happen by giving her even a small donation here.

P.S. I am aware of things that Williamson has stated over the past many years that range from unscientific to fairly legitimately kooky-sounding. That said, it seems to me that she often speaks metaphorically, not always literally, and if she stated something many years ago, might she not have changed her mind on that since?

And while science is incredibly important, if Western scientific advancements were the be-all and end-all, then why are so many Westerners still so fucking miserable? Is something in the Western worldview and mindset not lacking?

Also, when Williamson is discussed, sexism, misogyny and patriarchy so often rear their ugly heads. We’re not allowed to talk about love, feelings, interconnectedness, relationships, etc. — especially if we are running for president! I mean, those are girly things!

I’d argue that feminism, the yin of things, not only is at least half of the picture — yet so often we are to ignore it altogether — but I’d argue that ultimately it is indeed, as they say, the better half.

*As comedian Ramy Youssef hilariously notes in his HBO stand-up special “Feelings,” some people have posited that we can’t have a female president because of what she might yet do when she is on her period, yet with Pussygrabber, “we elected a period.”

Well, Pussygrabber wasn’t elected, of course, but, indeed, he is a period, a never-ending period.

**If Pussygrabber hasn’t savaged Williamson via Twitter yet (I don’t know, since I don’t follow anyone on Twitter, and certainly wouldn’t follow him if I did), it would be only because he hasn’t gotten to it yet and/or because he doesn’t perceive her to pose any sort of threat to his “re”-“election.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Rampant identity politics ensures that we don’t solve our worst problems

Associated Press photo

“President” Pussygrabber — who recently tweeted that the four members of “the squad” “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” when only one of them was born abroad (is Pussygrabber calling the United States’ government “a complete and total catastrophe?”) — is succeeding in distracting us plebs with his awful fiddling while he burns the empire down.

“With a tweeted attack on four minority congresswomen this week, President Trump made clear that his reelection campaign will feature the same explosive mix of white grievance and anti-immigrant nativism that helped elect him,” wrote The Washington Post’s Michael Scherer in an analysis/commentary.

He continued: “Trump’s combustible formula of white identity politics already has reshaped the Republican Party, sidelining, silencing or converting nearly anyone who dares to challenge the racial insensitivity of his utterances. It also has pushed Democratic presidential candidates sharply to the left on issues such as immigration and civil rights, as they respond to the liberal backlash against him. …”

I won’t get into a discussion of which came first, the chicken or the egg — or, perhaps more accurately, of who started it — and I won’t assert that Democrats and others who don’t identify as Repugnicans (or even self-identified Repugnicans) simply should ignore the racism, xenophobia, misogyny and patriarchy, homophobia, etc., etc., of the right.

But I will point out that while we commoners are bogged down fighting over “President” Pussygrabber’s latest incendiary, divisive tweet, our largest problems — such as runaway climate change and insane, unsustainable income inequality — are only getting even larger.

I abhor the “both sides are equally guilty” “argument.” Both sides are not equally guilty, but, again, we are mired in playground-level fights while our world (sometimes literally) burns around us.

One thing that both sides (both party establishments, anyway) could be accused of is stoking conflict in areas that allow our corporate overlords to continue to rob us blind while we’re distracted.

Our corporate overlords for the most part don’t mind if we, the people-peons, are bickering over such matters as abortion, guns, gays, religion and race, since those fights at least keep us distracted from what the corporations are doing to us: despoiling our planet; robbing us of the wealth that rightfully is ours, not theirs; and even literally killing us, such as through making medical care and other necessities (food, shelter, etc.) too expensive and thus unobtainable for us and by poisoning our environment in their insatiable quest for ever-increasing profits, causing such maladies as cancer and chronic respiratory diseases.

If you want to know whether or not a Democrat is a true progressive, look to see whether or not he or she directly attacks corporations. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do — routinely. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden don’t. Like our Repugnican friends, the likes of Biden and Harris (and yes, even button-nosed Boy Scout Pete Buttigieg) would rather have us focus on things that our corporate overlords don’t find threatening to their continued death grip on us.

(Issues that threaten rampant corporate profiteering, of course, include doing something substantive about climate change, ensuring that all who need medical care can get it — and that they won’t go bankrupt if they can’t afford it — ensuring quality, affordable housing, and ensuring that good students can get a low-cost to even free higher education without being wage slaves to student loan sharks their entire adult lives.)

It’s a simple litmus test: Does this “Democrat” fight for the people or for the corporations? Does this “Democrat” encourage us to fight for better lives — or only lecture on us what we “can’t” do, lecturing us to be “realistic,” since that’s what their corporate sugar daddies much prefer?

Look at who gives this candidate money and how much money. How does this candidate campaign? Does he or she wish to attract small, individual donors — or big corporate donors? How much does this candidate talk about corporate abuses? How much does this candidate instead talk about identity politics, which probably is the No. 1 distraction from our largest, most threatening problems?

It’s easy to see whom a candidate serves and if elected would serve. Just open your eyes and look at his or her record and at what he or she is doing and saying right now.

Pete Buttigieg is a great example. Apparently I’m just supposed to cream my jeans because he’s a gay white man like I am. This apparently is supposed to be enough for me as a voter.

But I’m quite put off by Buttigieg’s centrist, pro-corporate stances; he fails my most critical litmus tests. For instance, CNN reported recently:

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg weighed in on his opponents’ plans to implement “Medicare for All” and free college tuition, calling them “questionable on their merits” and “pretty far out from where Americans are.”

“I do think that we should be realistic about what’s going to work. And just flipping a switch and saying we’re instantly going to have everybody on Medicare just like that — isn’t realistic,” the South Bend, Indiana, mayor said in an interview with CNN’s David Axelrod. …

You’ve lost me, Pete — probably for good.

No one ever fucking said anything about “just flipping a switch” and magically making something stupendous happen. (Gee, is that what a Rhodes scholar does? “Beats” you in a debate by asserting that you asserted something that you never fucking asserted?)

But if you, as a leader, don’t even bother to set an ambitious goal, you’ll never fucking get us anywhere near there; you’ll have all of us remain mired in the daily slog that benefits only our corporate overlords whom Buttigieg and his ilk aim to plea$e.

We actual progressives who (pretty much by definition…) aren’t from Hickville, Indiana, don’t need punk-ass brainiac Mayor Pete lecturing us on being “realistic.” Also, despite Petey’s claim that he knows what Americans want and don’t want, a clear majority of polls show that a clear majority of Americans support universal health care, with polls about free college and/or university tuition being more mixed.

(I’d argue that universal health care is much more popular because it’s much more life-and-death than is higher education, and also, those who never intend to attend college because they’ve already done so or because they’re not big on higher education [or for whatever reason or reasons] probably don’t support low-cost or free college or university tuition because they don’t see that they’d ever benefit from it. You never know, however, when you might be in dire need of medical care.)

One of the many problems that I’ve had with the Clintons is that their political incubator was Arkansas, for fuck’s sake, and so they — the Clintons and the Clintonian “Democrats” — have sought to force-feed us only what can succeed for Democratic politicos in such places as Arkansas.

Indiana is no more than a notch better than Arkansas. These red-state “Democrats” sorely need to stop telling us actual Democrats, us true progressives, that we need to be ineffectual cowards and corporate whores like they are.

Just as I won’t vote for Pete Buttigieg because he’s not a progressive and because a Buttigieg presidency very apparently only would continue the status quo — and because smashing the status quo is far more important than is our shared race and our shared sexual orientation — voting for Kamala Harris primarily or even solely because she’s black (and/or because she is a woman) would be a mistake.

Black Americans would be able to point to the nation’s second black and first black female president, but with President Harris that would be all that they would get, just as their lot barely budged, if it budged at all, under the centrist, pro-status-quo, pro-corporate Obama. And with Harris those of us who aren’t black would get our first female president, but ditto: that would be all that we would get.

All of that said, “President” Pussygrabber is a racist. There is nothing to argue about. I might say that his recent comments about “the squad”proclaiming via the juvenile’s platform of Twitter that these four women elected to Congress in November 2018, “who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” (um, three of them were born in the United States) should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” — technically are more xenophobic and nationalist than they technically are racist, but no one with two brain cells to rub together denies that Pussygrabber is a white supremacist.*

I mean, first and foremost, Pussygrabber, who acts like he’s a bad-ass but who has the fragile ego of a spoiled little girl, expects us to bow down to him like the unelected, illegitimate little orange Caligula that he is, and while he clearly would prefer blindly obedient followers of the Northern European persuasion than of any other kind, he’d give you some degree of acceptance if you just kissed his ring like a “good” American “subject” “should.”

Why are the Repugnicans so silent about Pussygrabber being such a jaw-droppingly appallingly shitty “president”? Aside from fearing that the vengeful little cunt might come after them next, those who are Repugnican because they’re filthy rich love the fact that under Pussygrabber they’re getting even richer while the rest of us are getting only poorer. They have a great gig and they don’t intend to blow it.

And, of course, non-rich Repugnicans respond well to Pussygrabber’s fascist words and deeds — including his racism, white supremacism and nationalism and xenophobia — because they’re fucking fascists, too.

There aren’t enough of the rich and super-rich to keep a political party afloat, so the Repugnican Party has to feed enough red meat to these modern-day Nazi Germans who are so fucktarded that they don’t even know how to fucking vote in their own fucking best interests. History repeats itself.

But, again, if we get caught in the weeds, dissecting and talking incessantly about “President” Pussygrabber’s latest offensive tweet — I find it mind-blowing that after all that he has said and done and neglected to say and do as “president,” the “Democrats” in the U.S. House of Representatives thus far have talked seriously only about passing a resolution denouncing Pussygrabber’s latest “racist” tweet (yet another example of how the Democratic Party establishment wants us commoners to be in the grip of identity politics, just like the Repugnican Party establishment does, so that we don’t rise up and overthrow our corporate overlords) — the outcome will be predictable: a continued worsening of the United States of America, which is fast becoming the shithole to which Pussygrabber says others should return.

P.S. Full disclosure: I support the members of “the squad,” whom I see as an injection of fresh blood into our calcified political system, which sorely needs the youth, vision, fresher perspective and diversity that “the squad” gives it. It’s not a democracy if it’s not representative of all of the people, and the members of “the squad” are more representative of the people than are the plethora of white men whom we see in D.C.

I have given Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib donations, and just gave Ayanna Pressley a donation. (I hadn’t given her one before because news coverage of her had been much less than for the other three; of the four, I’d say that Ocasio-Cortez and Omar have been the most visible [and thus the most excoriated by the neo-Nazis].)

The intent in attacking “the squad,” of course, is to try to push them out of office via harassment and intimidation — and to dissuade like-minded others from even thinking about running for office. How dare someone go to D.C. with the idea of disempowering the powers that be and empowering the powerless?

Clearly “the squad” is doing something right, or the neo-Nazis wouldn’t be reacting to them like vampires after you’ve just opened the drapes during the daytime.

*It is telling, of course, that if you are not white (of Northern European descent) and are not on his team, Pussygrabber would claim that you came here from another country even though you were fucking born on U.S. soil.

This demonstrates not only Pussygrabber’s total disregard for facts and truth, his declination to even bother to research someone’s biography before he, as “president,” viciously attacks him or her on his little instant-social-media national platform like the little mean girl that he is, but it demonstrates Pussygrabber’s mindset, which reminds me of that of a drunken, brain-damaged monkey: clearly, Pussygrabber’s own personal definition of an “American” is, first and foremost, white, and second, someone who is in total agreement with his unacceptable bullshit.

My definition of an “American” is anyone who has U.S. citizenship, regardless of how he or she (OK, or “they”) obtained it, via birth or via naturalization. My definition of “American” does not make race or national origin — or even one’s political orientation — a factor at all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The 2020 Democratic race for president is tightening but still open

Image result for kamala harris bernie sanders joe biden elizabeth warren

These are the only 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates who routinely poll nationwide in the double digits, and methinks that one of them most likely is to be the nominee.

“When people ask me who I think is going to win the [2020] Democratic [presidential] nomination, I shrug my shoulders and say, ‘I have no freaking idea,'” prognosticator-god Nate Silver posted yesterday. He continued:

“It’s worth keeping in mind that in a field of 20-something candidates with no runaway front-runner, all of the candidates are fairly heavy underdogs. Joe Biden is probably going to lose. Kamala Harris is probably going to lose. Elizabeth Warren is probably going to lose. Bernie Sanders is probably going to lose. And so forth.”

Indeed, the race is much more open than many (most of them corporate whores, of course) would have us believe. RealClear Politics’ aggregation of recent nationwide polls puts Biden at No. 1, with 26.8 percent, puts both Bernie and Warren at 15.2 percent, and puts Kamala Harris at 15 percent, so we have a fairly clear front-runner (if not a “runaway” front-runner), and three other candidates pretty much tied for second place.

The aggregation of polls by 270 to Win shows similar results: Biden at 25.8 percent, Bernie at 15.8 percent, Warren at 15.6 percent and Harris at 15.2 percent.

Again, that’s Biden at No. 1 and Bernie, Warren and Harris all within a percentage point of being No. 2.

That’s not very sexy, so what we’re seeing is the results of even just one poll being reported as “evidence” of a new, permanent change in the race (usually a change that threatens to topple Bernie, of course).

It takes several polls over some time to show a real change in a race, not just one poll.

Yes, Kamala Harris got her wholly planned and orchestrated polling bounce by white-shaming Joe Biden in last month’s debate — and when you peel back the thin layers, that’s what it was: simple, craven identity politics — “I’m black and you’re not; I’m good because I’m a victim and being a victim is good, and you’re not a victim, so you’re not good” — but will Harris’ bounce last? We’ll see.

(Seriously, though, Harris is largely substance-free, and apparently expects to fairly coast on being a female Obama. I’m not sure which is more depressing: that this is her campaign tactic in the first place or that it actually might work because voter-shamingbased upon how one was born — apparently is a thing now in a Democratic Party that is enthralled by craven identity politicians.)

There is talk of “lanes” within the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, and it seems to me that there are two broad lanes: The vote-for-me-because-I’m-not-a-white-man or the vote-for-me-because-I-have-been-associated-closely-with-Obama lane, most notably occupied, of course, by Harris and by Biden.

If Biden and Harris split the black vote between the two of them, that’s fine by me. (I was hoping that Cory Booker would help split it even more, but he can’t average even a full 2 percent in the nationwide polls.)

The other lane is the progressive (or actually Democratic) lane, most notably occupied of course, by Bernie Sanders and by Elizabeth Warren. They rely on progressive ideas rather than on lazy identity politics, whereas Biden and Harris rely on lazy identity politics and on the perpetuation of the milquetoast, status-quo-continuing (and thus, pro-corporate and pro-powers-that-be) Repugnican-Lite bullshit that has been crammed down our throats as “Democratic Party” politics at least since the Bill Clinton era.

I think it’s safe to say that one of the current top four — Biden, Bernie, Warren or Harris — is going to be the nominee, although I think that Harris, being substance-free and being so unknown and inexperienced (she hasn’t been in the U.S. Senate for even three years now), is the least likely of the four to win the nomination (although she might be the one most likely to get the veep spot, if she’ll deign to accept it).

Warren could be the nominee if she satisfies enough camps: mainly, the progressive camp, the camp that really wants our first female president, and the party-hack camp (which sees Warren’s decision not to run against Billary in 2016 as a good thing, not as cowardly and politically craven, as I always have seen it).

If Biden and Harris damage each other enough and the people truly find that they are sick of Bernie (his having been so consistent in word and deed for decades is so boring, you see) and want to give another woman another chance at the White House, then yes, Warren could win the nomination.

I’d say that if Warren weren’t in it, Bernie probably would be at No. 1 right now, but Warren is in it and has the right to be in it.

But if Nate Silver doesn’t know who the nominee will be and I don’t know, how could you?

Yet this doesn’t stop hatefully wishful thinking, such as demonstrably false reports that Bernie is dead in the water, even though he’s still in second place (even if he’s fairly tied for second place). Of course Bernie still has a chance at the nomination, and those gleefully reporting his political death don’t make it true merely by falsely proclaiming it. (Indeed, when these are “news stories” or “analyses,” these are instances of the biased writer trying to make what he or she wants to be true to become true.)

At this point, those Democratic presidential candidates who probably should pack it in are those who can’t sustain even 5 percentage points in the nationwide polls. Right now Pete Buttigieg is coming in at fifth place, around 5 percent or 6 percent, and I’d be shocked if he were to win the nomination, given that he’s about 10 percentage points behind Biden, Bernie, Warren and Harris.

Buttigieg only has been a mayor and isn’t all that well-known, and while his Obama-like attempt to be all things to all people impresses some, I think it spooks others, such as myself, who want a candidate who clearly and strongly states progressive principles — none of this gauzy “hope” and “change” bullshit. We have been there and done that.

Not all of us voters are stupid; Obama used “hope” and “change” to cover up his centrism and noncommitalism, and at the time he was a bright and shiny new toy, but from having been punk’d royally by Obama, we, the people, have some immunity now to The Obama Effect.

(I’d say that at least four presidential candidates have tried to use The Obama Effect to some degree this cycle: Harris, Biden, Cory Booker and Buttigieg. I’d say that it’s not that effective for them.)

Aside from “lanes,” there is talk of “tiers,” and Nate Silver, in the same aforementioned piece, put Bernie Sanders in “tier 2a.” He put Biden and Harris in “tier 1a,” Warren in “tier 1b,” Sanders in “tier 2a” and Buttigieg in “tier 2b.”

Wow. With Bernie still polling as well as Harris and Warren, why demote him to “tier 2a” already? Methinks that even Nate Silver is not immune to groupthink and to the “wisdom” of the dogpile.

I’d say that if you consistently are polling nationwide in the double digits — only four candidate are — then you belong in the first tier.

If you are polling between 5 percentage points and 9 percentage points, I’d say you’re in the second tier. Below 5 percentage points, I’d put you in the third tier. (And frankly, if you are in the third tier as I define it, again, I wish that you’d drop out already, but, again, I recognize that it’s up to the quixotic candidate, not to me, as to when to finally call it quits.)

So we’ll see how things unravel over the coming weeks. Will Harris ultimately be able to pull anything other than the race card from her bag of tricks? Will Harris and Biden continue to take shots at each other, as I hope? Will Warren be able to maintain her double-digit status, which took her a while to achieve? (Note that Buttigieg reached double-digit status but then fell back down again.)

Are the voters really through with Bernie? And even if many of them are, might he at long last be the last one still standing?

Time will tell.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized