Tag Archives: victimhood

Jonathan Chait got it mostly right on the toxic identity politics of today

Jonathan Chait's epic race fail: How a story about racism and Obama goes horribly wrong

Left-of-center writer Jonathan Chait has committed the sin of telling the truth about our self-appointed political-correctness police, those who use their membership within an historically victimized and oppressed group to victimize and oppress others (men, mostly, and mostly white men, but sometimes white women as well). It indeed in so many quarters is open season on all white males, who are deemed automatically to be oppressors and victimizers because of their immutable characteristics of being male and being white. (As a gay white male, my non-heterosexuality gives me only so much cover for being a member of a class of victims, as homophobes widely consider homosexuality to be mutable. [Of course, it doesn’t fucking matter whether it’s mutable or not; we all should have the freedom to express ourselves sexually as we please, as long as we do so consensually.])

New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait started a shitstorm when he wrote about toxic PC (political correctness) police. Had he been completely wrong, he probably would have been ignored, but since he spoke so much unflattering truth, I’m one of only a handful of Internet commentators who have yet to comment on his comments.

First off, it’s necessary to describe the environment in which all of us Americans operate: to such a large degree stupid white men (emphasis there on “stupid”) still rule, as evidenced by the popularity of “American Sniper.” Not only is the Clint Eastwood film still No. 1, despite Eastwood’s penchant for talking to a vacant chair (actually, for “American Sniper’s” target audience, I’m sure that was in Eastwood’s favor), but the book American Sniper is No. 1 on amazon.com, and in amazon.com’s top-100-selling book titles there are no fewer than four different versions of the same fucking book (as I type this sentence) — plus an apparent knock-off book about yet another American sniper called The Reaper.

So mindless, blind worship of stupid, murderous (or at least violent or at least aggressive) white men widely misconstrued as “heroes” continues. (This could be its own blog piece, and indeed, was going to be, but I’ll get it over with here: “American sniper” Chris Kyle, who died by the sword as he lived by the sword, was no “hero.” He was part of an illegal and immoral occupying force in Iraq. As part of that illegal and immoral occupying force, he slaughtered a bunch of people who were, at least in their own eyes, defending their nation from a foreign occupying force [duh]. As Iraq had posed zero threat to the United States, as Iraq had not killed any Americans and had had no capability of killing Americans en masse [yeah, those Iraqi “WMDs” claimed by the war criminals who comprised the illegitimate Bush regime have yet to be found], there is no valid argument that Kyle was “protecting our freedoms” or some other jingoistic, Nazi-like bullshit. Kyle very apparently just really, really liked to slaughter people, and if he were Muslim instead of “Christian” and weren’t taking the big dirt nap, he probably would be a member of ISIS right now, slaughtering people left and right with gleeful abandon.)

So that is the nasty backdrop (part of it, anyway) against which those of us who aren’t stupid white men (again, emphasis on “stupid,” not on “white” or on “men”) or one of their worshipers must live in the United States of America.

That is the kind of background and context that Jonathan Chait’s piece is largely if not wholly missing, and I fault him for that fairly glaring omission, as well as for apparently not having allowed his piece to gestate long enough before birthing it upon the nation. (I often if not usually let something gestate for at least a few days before I finally give birth to it, such as this piece.) Further, the gravity of the topic — political correctness (which falls under the umbrella of identity politics) — could merit its own book, so no magazine article or blog piece (not even this one) could do it more than partial justice.

But Chait describes fairly well the phenomenon in which so many members of historically oppressed groups identify so much with being oppressed (whether these members as individuals actually have been very oppressed as individuals themselves or not) that they are hyper-vigilant about any signs of oppression.

Seriously — it used to be that people were just oppressed. And oppression was a bad thing. You didn’t want to be oppressed.

Now, being a member of an historically oppressed group is très chic. And apparently maintaining your membership in your très-chic group of oppressed people means constantly finding fresh meat, fresh new examples of how you have been oppressed, so if there aren’t any actual examples of how you have been oppressed, you’ll wildly exaggerate or even fabricate such “examples.”

Since you haven’t been (very) oppressed yourself lately, you’ll gladly piggy-back on to others’ (real or exaggerated or fabricated) oppression. That’s always fun.

If you didn’t jump on the Michael Brown bandwagon, for instance, to many that means that you are a white supremacist who supports the gunning down of black men, especially young black men, by white fascist cops who enjoy killing black men.

Never mind that it still remains quite unsettled as to whether or not Michael Brown actually went for the cop’s gun before the cop shot him dead. The cop claims that Brown did, and not only was the cop not indicted by a grand jury (which, indeed, might have been a bogus process), but the U.S. Department of Justice also declined to bring charges against the cop for civil-rights violations (granted, proving a civil-rights violation can be a high bar to clear, I know from personal experience).

It’s disturbing that so many people jumped to conclusions and have held fast to them. If your identity politics is that of the oppressed black American, then of course Michael Brown was innocent, a “gentle giant,” and was gunned down by whitey primarily if not solely for his race, and if your identity politics is that of the right-wing white person whose worldview at least verges on white supremacy if it isn’t already fully there, then of course Brown was a thug (and the phrase “black thug” would be redundant) and of course the white police officer only did what he had to do.

Either Brown went after the cop’s gun or he did not. (If I went after a cop’s gun, I’d expect to get shot.) The cop, under our existing (deeply flawed) legal structure, used deadly force against Brown legally or he did not. But whatever actually happened on that August day in Ferguson, Missouri, has little to nothing to do with identity politics, yet for many if not most Americans, their identity politics dictates the “facts.” That’s scary.

(The Eric Garner case, as I have written, at the bare minimum was a clear-cut case of manslaughter by the thuggish white cop, and, entirely unlike the Brown case, we have video of Garner incident, so “I can’t breathe” is an apt slogan of protest, whereas I never was on board with the “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” meme because there is no evidence that Brown ever put his hands up in surrender — there are only biased claims that he did.)

The case of Woody Allen, too, also wasn’t about the actual knowledge of actual facts but was about identity politics.

Women whom Rush Limbaugh might call “femi-Nazis” have asserted that of course Mia Farrow, being a woman, told the truth that Allen had molested their adopted daughter, even though the allegation came during a nasty custody battle — and that of course Allen, being a man, was guilty as charged. Never mind that none of us was there and has any actual knowledge of what did or what did not happen; we have only the claims and counter-claims of the members of a deeply broken family whose dirty laundry has been scattered all over the public square.

This is some highly toxic shit.

The case of Bill Cosby, though, and that of Arnold “Baby Daddy” Schwarzenegger when he was running for California governor in a bullshit recall election in 2003 that had amounted to a do-over election since the bumbling Repugnican candidate had lost the election in 2002: When several women have come forward publicly to state that a man has sexually harassed or sexually assaulted them, to call all of them liars (as so many did to the at-least six women who came forward about the past deeds of the future Gov. Groper) very most often is a misogynist, patriarchal thing to do.

I have little to no doubt in my mind that Bill Cosby (and Baby Daddy Schwarzenegger) serially sexually harassed and sexually assaulted women.

But actual victimization is diminished when victimization is falsely claimed or is claimed whether or not there is any evidence to support the claim of victimization — usually out of identity politics. Perversely, many if not even most members of an historically oppressed group very apparently want the latest example of possible victimization (such as the shooting death of Michael Brown) to be true victimization because, in their eyes, it strengthens their political power as claimants of oppression.

It’s perverse that oppression has morphed from something that no one wanted into something that so many cherish to the point that they’ll happily fabricate it if they deem that to do so will advance themselves somehow.

(In his piece, Chait correctly notes that “It [identity politics and its concomitant claims of perpetual and ubiquitous victimhood] also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity.” Indeed, both Slate.com and Salon.com, two of my favorite websites, have resident identity-politics writers, taking the feminist and the black angles, mostly, and I routinely read these writers’ pieces, and often if not usually I agree with them [Slate.com’s Jamelle Bouie rocks], but sometimes, yeah, it’s apparent that they’re really milking it. [Sorry, Salon.com’s Brittney Cooper, but in his article Chait calls you out on your frequent hysteria and hyperbole fairly fairly.])

This professional “victimhood,” is, I suspect, what has eaten at Chait, but that he perhaps did not articulate well enough in his now-infamous article.

And of his article, this paragraph, I think, is the money shot:

If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of “ally,” however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed “safe.” The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.

The emphasis there is mine. In the most rabid “p.c. culture,” indeed, “There is no allowance … for the possibility that the accusation [of an act of oppression or victimization] may be erroneous.” Within this toxic, tightly closed-off atmosphere, facts and evidence have no place at all; the politics of group identity rules supreme. Woody Allen molested his adopted daughter. Period. If you disagree with this, then you hate women and/or you are a pedophile yourself. Michael Brown was a “gentle giant” (never mind the very inconvenient video footage of him roughing up a convenience store clerk while he stole cigarillos from him on the day of his death) who was gunned down in cold blood by a white supremacist police officer. Period. If you disagree with this, then you are a white supremacist.

And indeed, as Chait writes, “A white person or a man can achieve the status of ‘ally,’ however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue.” Yup. That means going along with all manner of blatantly bullshit groupthink in order to get along, lest you be called a misogynist or racist/white supremacist or worse.

The goal of “p.c. culture” as it stands today indeed so often seems to be to push all white men into a corner, indeed, to destroy all white men or, minimally, to make all white men feel perpetually guilty (and thus perpetually disempowered) because, of course, merely by their having been born white and male, they inherently are the evil victimizers and oppressors of others (of women and of black people, mostly, but of other groups, too, of course). It’s not their individual deeds that make white males automatically-guilty victimizers and oppressors, but their mere membership within the group of white males, you see.

This is the sorry state of affairs even though the origin of “p.c. culture” was the fact that white men were pushing too many others into a corner due to those others’ immutable differences from white men, and pushing others into a corner based upon their immutable differences from oneself is a bad thing to do.

To such a large degree, the victims (well, in so many cases, the “victims”) have become the victimizers, and today the victims don’t even have to be actual victims to call themselves victims, and their actual victimization of others isn’t victimization because they are victims, and a victim cannot also be a victimizer, you see.

Get it? These are the new rules.

These new rules have got to go.

Jonathan Chait got it (mostly) right, which is why we’ve seen the reaction to him that we’ve seen.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is Ferguson a symptom of black American panic?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

More on the Nouveau Victimes*

Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin waves as she arrives at a ...

Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, attends a press conference ...

Associated Press and AFP photos

Meet the new “victims”: Stupid-white-male supporters Sarah Palin-Quayle and Carrie Prejean, who this past week was fired as Miss California, are now “victims,” as are all stupid white men in the United States of Amnesia. Sexy brainiac blogger Glenn Greenwald recently penetratingly wrote of these Nouveau Victimes, “the only victims they ever see are themselves, the only unfairness they recognize is to their own group, the only perspective they are capable of understanding is the tribalistic ones drummed into their heads from birth.”

My broad definition of the word “politics” is “the use of power.”

When power is abused, as it so often is in politics (as in life in general), I get pretty fucking pissed off. (Yes, eight long years of the unrelenting abuse of power by the Bush regime, which began with the stolen presidential election of 2000, had me fairly perpetually pissed off for years on end. See, I’d actually bought all of the bullshit that I had been taught as a budding Gen-Xer, such as that we actually have democracy and fairness and the rule of law here in the United States of America.)

Perhaps nothing pisses me off like the claims of groups that historically have wielded a disproportionate amount of power that they now somehow are “victims.”

Jews and Zionists (and again, Zionists are Jews but not all Jews are Zionists, I recognize) are perhaps the best at this — screaming “victim” when, in fact, they are ridiculously politically powerful.

I have written about this at some length recently (here and here), so I won’t repeat myself, but I will quote sexy gay brainiac blogger Glenn Greenwald (who, from his surname, I gather, is Jewish), who recently took up the topic of faux victimization in a post he titled “Tribalistic Self-Absorption” (the links are Greenwald’s):

The most predominant mentality in right-wing discourse finds expression in this form: “I am part of/was born into Group X, and Group X — my group — is better than all others yet treated so very unfairly.” This claim persists — indeed, is often intensified —  even when Group X is clearly the strongest, most privileged and most favored group.

So intense is their need for self-victimization — so inebriating is their self-absorption and so lacking are they in any capacity for empathy — that, for all the noise and rhetoric, the arguments they make virtually always have this tribalistic self-absorption at its core.

Last week, Charles Krauthammer accused President Obama of treating every country in the world so well — except for one, the one for which Krauthammer bears great love and affection and with which he was taught from childhood to identify:

President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more “dictating” to other countries…. An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone — Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity.

The U.S. transfers tens of billions of dollars to Israel — more than any other country in the world. We demand that no country in the Middle East have nuclear weapons — except Israel. We fuel Israel’s wars with weapons transfers, ensure it is the most militarily powerful country in its region, and loyally protect it from U.N. sanctions using our veto power.

It’s virtually impossible to imagine one country that is more favorably treated by another than the various forms of largesse Israel receives from the U.S. But no matter. In Krauthammer’s eyes, the opposite is true: the U.S. treats every country fairly except Israel. That’s the country that, to him, is singled out for unfavorable treatment by the U.S….

I don’t know how much these “victims” truly believe that they are victims and how much they knowingly are misrepresenting themselves as victims, with the aim of at least maintaining the disproportionate amount of political power that they’ve already had, if not gaining even more.

Perhaps more ridiculous than the Zionists’ claims of victimhood are the claims of the stupid white men that they are “victims.”

Stupid white men (presumably heterosexual, “Christian” and overwhelmingly Repugnican) have controlled this nation thoroughly up until very recently. As do the “victimized” Zionists and Jews, stupid white men still have far more power than is proportionate to their actual numbers.

And Barack Obama, although he is the first half-white and half-black president, hardly is going to usher in the anti-whitey revolution that so many of the NRA-card-carrying talk-radio listeners seem to have believed is coming.

Indeed, if Obama didn’t act even whiter than the typical white guy, he never would have made it to the White House. The White House. He is an acceptable black guy, you see; he is “articulate” and “clean,” as Vice President Joe Biden infamously called him before Biden became vice president.

The “victimization” of stupid white men most recently has come in the form of Sonia Sotomayor, candidate for U.S. Supreme Court justice.

During her judicial career Sotomayor has made comments like this one: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better [judicial] conclusion [than would a white male judge, presumably].”

The likes of baby-boomer blowhard Rush Limbaugh, whom the largest number of people in a recent national Gallup poll identified as the apparent leader of the Repugnican Party, immediately jumped upon Sotomayor as a “racist” for such comments of hers as the one above.

Now, for more than two centuries in the United States of Amnesia, stupid white men never had to talk about their race or their possession of penises, because it was just a fucking given that if you were going to hold high political office in the nation, such as U.S. senator or U.S. Supreme Court justice, you had to be a white man. It was well understood and therefore there was no need to talk about it, that’s how entrenched white-male power was (and still is, although to a lessening extent, thank Goddess).

For Sotomayor, who presumably does not possess a penis and who is not white, life in the United States of America no doubt has been different than it has for the stupid white man. It does not make Sotomayor “racist” for talking about her minority experience as an American.

An I agree with Sotomayor 200 percent that the United States of America, which is teetering on the brink of collapse after the stupid white men have run it into the fucking ground, sure could use the wisdom and the perspective of other groups, such as women, non-whites and non-heterosexuals, to recover from the mess in which the stupid white men have mired it.

Stupid white men and their supporters, drunk and blind with power, aren’t fit to be behind the wheel, being drunk and blind. The sober vision of others is what the nation sorely needs now.

But the Zionists and the stupid white men aren’t the only “victims.”

Heterosexuals also are victims, too.

Carrie Prejean, who has a promising career in porn ahead of her, this past week was dumped as Miss California because, according to the Miss California USA organization, she was violating her contractual agreements by making unauthorized appearances (such as to deliver her anti-gay sentiments) and by refusing to make requested appearances.

But no, Prejean has blamed her overdue ousting on gays, whom her Taliban-style “Christianity” has taught her to hate.

Reminds me of how the Nazis blamed all of Germany’s problems on the Jews. (And the Nazis persecuted and murdered gays, too.)

That was one of the actual “arguments” that I saw as the wingnuts were arguing for the anti-gay Proposition 8 here in California: that allowing legalized same-sex marriage actually violates their rights.

The “argument” is that if I believe that an historically oppressed minority group should be kept down — if that is my “Christian” belief — then it is a violation of my religious freedom if the oppressed groups that I believe should continue to be oppressed no longer are oppressed.

Yes, before the November vote I saw pro-Prop 8 signs that actually asserted that to allow same-sex marriage violates the First-Amendment rights (including freedom of speech and freedom of religion) of those who oppose it. There is no more fundamental American right than the right to hate and to feel superior to another group, right?

No, it’s quite simple: If your religious beliefs preclude same-sex marriage, then do not marry someone of your own sex. But keep your fucking backasswards, Taliban-like religious beliefs to yourfuckingself. Keep your toxic spiritual sludge off of the rest of us, who have the right to be free from your toxic waste.

I suppose that those white-supremacist “Christians” who believe that mixed-race marriage is wrong, according to the Old Testament, are having their First-Amendment rights violated because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that no state can outlaw mixed-race marriage. So let’s outlaw mixed-race marriage again in order to placate the members of the American Taliban!

Yes, let’s turn the United States of America into a Taliban-like theocracy, shall we? That’s exactly what the wingnut “Christians” want.

Speaking of whom, there also is Repugnican presidential wannabe Sarah Palin-Quayle out there constantly claiming victimhood, because apparently the way to show strength is to claim perpetually that you are a victim.

Palin-Quayle’s latest “victimization” is at the hand of late-night television talk-show host David Letterman, who, Palin-Quayle asserts, should apologize to all women because Letterman made some joke about one of her daughters.

No, the one who should apologize to all of the women of the United States of America — and of the world — is Palin-Quayle, who has set the women’s movement back by at least decades by supporting the stupid white male system that oppresses women. 

Palin-Quayle’s backasswards “Christo”fascist ideology threatens the typical American woman far more than does a joke by a late-night TV talk-show host. Further, Palin-Quayle and her ilk are a threat to freedom and democracy — to real freedom and democracy, not “freedom” and “democracy” as they define it, such as by stolen presidential elections, illegally spying on American citizens, illegally detaining — and torturing and even killing — individuals, and launching bogus wars for war profiteers (such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton) and for the Israel-first lobby.

You know, if these historical oppressors truly want to be the victims now, how about those of us who have been historically oppressed by them — we women, non-whites, non-heterosexuals, non-Christians, et. al. — not make them into fucking liars and start really victimizing them?

*With apologies to those who actually speak French. I think that I have that correct, but I am not sure…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

GREAT: MORE Jewish ‘victimization’!

Updated below

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC ...

AFP photo

Oy vey: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., photographed above in 2003, was shot up today by some crazy old hater.

Saturday evening I remarked over a friend’s birthday dinner that they make too damned many movies about Nazis these days. Because they do: “Valkyrie.” “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.” “Defiance.” “The Reader.” Etc. Etc.

I didn’t say that they make too many Holocaust movies. I said too many Nazi movies. I hate Nazis and there are too damned many movies featuring them; and because of their extremeness, it’s just too easy to make Nazis your film’s villains. And is there no other topic to make movies about? And do they not make Nazi movies primarily with Oscars in mind?

But the fact that I said “Nazi movies” didn’t stop the Jewish baby boomer across the table from me from going apoplectic over my remark, as though (1) I were attacking Jews and/or minimizing (or perhaps even — gasp! — denying!) the Holocaust and (2) as though he had experienced the Holocaust himself.

I’m so fucking sick and tired of the Jewish mentality of victimhood. Too many Jews like to hit others over the head with what I call the “‘H’ club” (“H” for “Holocaust”).

You (the non-Jew) are supposed to feel immediately horrible about yourself in the presence of someone who is the descendant of someone else who suffered horribly some 65 to 75 years ago.

And hell, you don’t even have to have had an ancestor who suffered in the Holocaust to be able to claim victimhood by proxy. You just have to be Jewish.

And hell, I don’t think that you even have to have been born Jewish; I think that you even can be just a convert to Judaism and still be able to walk around hitting unwitting others over the head with your “H” club for fun and profit.

So anyway, this is my sentiment, and then today’s news is that some old white supremacist and anti-Semite opened fire at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. today, shooting and wounding a guard.

Hell. Open a museum dedicated to victimhood, and yes, you’re likely to attract a crazy hater now and then, and one crazy hater shooting up a place that enshrines hatred is not indicative of systemic victimhood.

You know, as a gay man whose equal human and civil rights were shot down by a slim majority of voters in November, I’m no stranger to oppression.

Gay men were persecuted by the Nazis in the Holocaust, too, but I don’t go around clubbing people with my “H” club.

And it’s hard to buy that the Jews still are such victims when the Israel-first lobby runs U.S. foreign policy, for fuck’s sake, and when the Israelis still are decimating the Palestinians, whom they treat as the Nazis used to treat the Jews: like animals it’s OK to slaughter.

All of that said, if I could do it over again, I might not have made the remark about the fact that they are making too damned many movies about Nazis these days in front of the Jewish baby boomer who wears a tacky holographic Star of David pendant around his neck for the whole world to see what a poor fucking “victim” he is. (I guess that I need to go out and get my tacky holographic pink triangle and wear it around my neck in order to be able to emotionally and socially manipulate others, too.)

But the Jewish victimhood thing needs to stop. Firstly, possessing a perpetual victimhood mentality doesn’t help any historically oppressed minority group; it only keeps that group down. Secondly, using the Holocaust for personal, political or social gain today spits in the faces of those who actually did suffer in the Holocaust, and it degrades and cheapens their involuntary sacrifices at the hands of the Nazis (about whom they really need to stop making any more movies). And thirdly, as I stated, it’s hard for me to look at how much power the Jews, as a relatively tiny group of people, disproportionately wield in the world, and still be able to call them victims, like I’m supposed to do like a good little goy or risk being labeled a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite.

You know, it seems to me that if you hate the Jews and really want to bring them down, you should treat them as nicely as humanly possible — thus eroding their bullshit claims of perpetual victimhood, which they use, rather effectively, to get what they want.

Ironically, the old coot who shot up the Holocaust Memorial Museum today only helped to bolster the image of the Jews as the perpetual victims, and in so doing he only shot his “cause” in the foot…

Update: The media are reporting now that, unfortunately, the security guard who apparently was shot by the 88-year-old white supremacist and anti-Semite James Von Brunn has died. The security guard is being identified as Stephen T. Johns, whose age I haven’t seen given yet.

Von Brunn was shot but survives, which is too bad; the wrong guy died in the shootout.

Update (June 11, 2009): So otherwise fairly intelligent people are asserting, or at least implying (such as here and here), that the Department of Homeland Security’s fairly recent report on the threat of homegrown right-wing terrorists has been validated by yesterday’s shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C.

Wow.

You wouldn’t call just one illness or even a handful of illnesses a “pandemic” and probably not even an “epidemic.”

Yet one shooting by one old crackpot hater who apparently acted alone validates the Department of Homeland Security’s report on the threat of homegrown right-wing terrorists?

The security guard who was killed yesterday by the white supremacist and anti-Semitic geezer at the Holocaust Memorial Museum was black, the media are reporting. I’m guessing that the guard wasn’t Jewish, but the shooting, because of its location, is further bolstering the Israel-first lobby’s victimhood status nonetheless. 

Aren’t there hate crimes, including murders, against gay men, lesbians and other non-heterosexuals every fucking day in the United States? Why isn’t that talked about as a widespread problem, but the shooting death of one person is?

Because the right wing is anti-non-heterosexual, don’t hate crimes against non-heterosexuals count as homegrown right-wing terrorism?

Not that historically oppressed minority groups need to engage in battles as to which group is more oppressed — I’ll never forget that many blacks, such as Jesse Jackson, have asserted that rights for non-heterosexuals are not civil rights, for instance — but please.

When you look at historically oppressed minority groups in the United States, Jews overall are doing pretty well, I think, and thus I see no need for their continued assertions of systemic victimhood (except, of course, that such bullshit assertions continue to get them even more).

All of that said, I want to make it clear that I oppose anti-Semitism if we define anti-Semitism as the hatred of an individual solely because he or she is Jewish.

I judge individuals based upon their words, deeds and political ideology (in which I include their moral beliefs and values), not their religious affiliation, even though I am not crazy about Christianity, Islam or Judaism or pretty much any organized religion.

Both of my state’s U.S. senators, for instance, are Jewish.

(So 100 percent of my state’s U.S. senators are Jewish, while only about 3 percent of my fellow Californians are Jewish.  A total of 14 U.S. senators, or 14 percent of the U.S. Senate, are Jewish; there will be 15 Jewish U.S. senators once Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race is finally decided, as both Democrat Al Franken and Repugnican Norm Coleman are Jewish. Jews comprise no more than 2 percent to 2.5 percent of the American population, yet they are wildly overrepresented in high political office. Two of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, almost a quarter of them, are Jewish. But nooo, American Jews are such powerless victims!)

Anyway, as I was saying, I love Sen. Barbara Boxer. While I haven’t agreed with her 100 percent of the time, I think that because of her consistently progressive views and votes, she truly can be called a Democrat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, however, whom I unfondly think of as Mrs. Joseph Benedict Arnold Lieberman, I cannot stand; she is a DINO (Democrat in name only). Her husband, Richard Blum, profited from the Vietraq War that Feinstein voted for, for starters. (Boxer, on the other hand, wisely voted against the unelected Bush regime’s Vietraq War in October 2002.)

Boxer also was the only U.S. senator with the cajones to speak out against the fixed presidential election in the pivotal state of Ohio in 2004.

I’d much rather have Boxer as president than the waffling, slick, trying-to-please-all-people, I-regret-that-I-voted-for-him Barack Obama, hands down.

And the list of Jews I find hot (JILFs, I call them) includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jon Stewart and “Saturday Night Live’s” Andy Samberg. And, as I just alluded to, I love Jewish liberals; some of the finest liberal minds are Jewish.

It’s the right-wing Jews I can’t stand, those Jews who scream “Jewish victimization!” but who have no problem with the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed in the Middle East by Israel and who supported the plunging of the United States into the illegal, immoral, unprovoked, unjust and wholly unnecessary Vietraq War, which resulted not only in the unnecessary deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, civilians and soldiers, but also depleted the U.S. treasury and stretched the U.S. military thinly, as well as making the United States and Americans even more hated around the world than they were before Sept. 11, 2001. 

The members of the Israel-first lobby in the United States are, by definition, traitors, for they put outside interests above the interests of their own nation.

P.S. To be fair, many also are pointing to the recent assassination of abortionist George Tiller in Kansas as further proof that Homeland Security’s report about the threat of homegrown right-wing terrorism was right on target.

I’m just not so convinced that these incidents of homegrown right-wing terrorism, as wrong as they are, are more than the number of them that we could expect anyway, statistically speaking. Again, a few events don’t make for an epidemic or pandemic, in my book.

And I still have a problem with the fact that hate crimes against non-heterosexuals don’t garner nearly as much outrage as do hate crimes against other historically oppressed minority groups.

I mean, from what I can tell, not a single Jew was killed yesterday at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, but the Jews are getting tea and sympathy over the tragedy nonetheless.

P.P.S. How could I have forgotten the iconic Harvey Milk in my list of Jews I love? I love the man, and, as I have written, I want to see a Harvey Milk Day in California.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The harpies are still harping

Alaska Governor and former Republican vice-presidential candidate ...

AFP photo

Someone please inform these two peas in a pod that the Democrats now control Washington because the American voters have rejected the Repugnican Party.

Talk about timing.

Repugnican Sarah Palin-Quayle — um, didn’t she just lose an election? Doesn’t that mean that she goes the fuck away now? — is whining again that she’s a victim of the media. Reports The Associated Press today:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is going on the offensive against news organizations and bloggers she says are perpetuating malicious gossip about her and her children. But political observers say the former Republican vice presidential candidate can’t have it both ways: trotting out the children to showcase her family values, then trying to shield them from scrutiny.

Palin’s criticism also raises questions about her motivations because she has said she is open to a presidential run in 2012.

“I think she’s positioning herself. She’s attacking the media as a way to generate support among a base she hopes will support her,” said Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of communications at American University in Washington and an expert on the presidency.

Palin shied away from interviews during the campaign, although her children often accompanied her on her travels, including her oldest daughter, Bristol, who was pregnant at the time.

But in recent weeks, she has personally reached out to media outlets such as People magazine and The Associated Press to complain about information she claimed is wrong.

She slammed reports that 18-year-old Bristol Palin and the teen’s fiance are high school dropouts. The governor insists the two are not dropouts because they enrolled in correspondence courses.

The couple last month had a son — the governor’s first grandchild.

The governor said she is speaking out to set the record straight, not because of any political aspirations.

“It’s all about the family,” she said. “I’m wired in a way that I can take the criticism. I can take the shots. But any mother would want to protect their children from lies and scandalous reporting.” …

[Palin’s] decision to strike back at news organizations seems to contradict the governor’s earlier statements on how politicians should respond to media coverage.

Months before she was named John McCain‘s running mate, Palin attended a leadership forum in Los Angeles and was asked her opinion on then-Sen. Hillary Clinton‘s allegations that she was being unfairly treated by the media during the primaries.

Palin said Clinton did herself a disservice to even mention it. The governor said it bothered her to hear Clinton “bring that attention to herself on that level.” …

Gee, what a fucking shock that Palin-Quayle essentially called Billary Clinton a whiner but then whines about supposed mistreatment by the media herself.

I personally could give a fuck about Palin-Quayle’s family, and I haven’t heard all of these alleged rumors about her family members because I don’t think that the vast majority of my fellow Americans really give a fuck about Palin-Quayle’s family any more than I do(n’t).

My problem with Palin-Quayle is that she is a dumbfuck wingnut and that should John Fossil Fool McCainosaurus have keeled over while president, she would have been president.

It’s pretty clear that Palin-Quayle is trying to position herself for another run for high political office.

She’s trying to divert the attention from her own staggering incompetence to supposed attacks on her family.

And she’s trying to get support by first getting dumbfucks, most of them in the red states, to identify with her, to make them believe that she’s one of them, and then, by extension, make her dumbfuck supporters believe that supposed attacks upon her and/or her family members are actually attacks upon them.

Actual attacks are great, but, a la 1984, attacks will be fabricated in order to try to stir up the base if there have been no actual attacks. 

Palin-Quayle is, in two words, playing victim.

So now we also have wingnut Ann Cunter out with a new book (its cover is shown above) whose central thesis, apparently, is the claim that liberals always claim to be the victims.

This is the wingnuts’ surreal new tactic (although I guess it really isn’t new for them): to claim that they are the true victims while claiming that their opponents falsely claim to be victims.*

And claiming victimhood is bad, you see — except when the wingnuts do it.

Of course, when you think about it, it’s rather heartening to see that the Repugnican Party has been reduced to having Ann Cunter and Sarah Palin-Quayle as its spokescunts.

*The proponents of the Proposition 8, which stripped same-sex California couples of their equal civil and human rights that the California Supreme Court had ruled belong to same-sex couples, have claimed victimhood because we gay men and lesbians have fought back. We were supposed to just take it, you see, like “good” little faggots and dykes “should.”

The pro-Prop 8 fascists struck first at us gay men and lesbians, who only want to enjoy the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that are the unalienable rights of all Americans, yet, they maintain, they aren’t the victimizers; we gay men and lesbians are the “victimizers” simply because we are fighting back to protect our equal human and civil rights.

Orwellian. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sarah Palin, professional victim

A raging fire that police believe might have been set by an ...

AFP photo

Repugnican Sarah Palin-Quayle (pictured above in October) pisses and moans that Caroline Kennedy, potential appointee to the U.S. Senate for the state of New York, is being treated better by the media than Palin-Quayle was in her quest for the vice presidency.

Reports Politico today:

Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) believes Caroline Kennedy is getting softer press treatment in her pursuit of the New York Senate seat than Palin did as the GOP vice presidential nominee because of Kennedy’s social class.

“I’ve been interested to see how Caroline Kennedy will be handled and if she will be handled with kid gloves or if she will be under such a microscope,” Palin told conservative filmmaker John Ziegler during an interview Monday for his upcoming documentary film, “How Obama Got Elected.” Excerpts from the interview were posted on YouTube [last night].

“It’s going to be interesting to see how that plays out, and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be.”

Palin said she remains subject to unfair press coverage of her and her family.

“Is it political? Is it sexism?” she asked. “What is it that drives someone to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst in terms of gossip and lies?”

She observed that Katie Couric and Tina Fey have been “capitalizing on” and “exploiting” her.

“I did see that Tina Fey was named entertainer of the year and Katie Couric’s ratings have risen,” she said. “And I know that a lot of people are capitalizing on, oh I don’t know, perhaps some exploiting that was done via me, my family, my administration. That’s a little bit perplexing, but it also says a great deal about our society.” …

I agree that it shouldn’t be a cakewalk for Caroline Kennedy because of her surname, but ultimately it is up to the people of the state of New York as to whether Kennedy’s appointment to Billary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacant seat in the U.S. Senate is appropriate.

I mean, I thought that it was bullshit when Billary Clinton ran for a U.S. Senate seat for New York only because she had just been first lady, but that decision also was for the people of the state of New York to make.

And New York’s governor isn’t under investigation for having tried to sell Billary’s Senate seat, so I’m more or less OK with Kennedy’s appointment if that’s what New York’s governor decides. I am assuming that he is answerable to the people of his state and that he will decide accordingly.

But for Sarah Palin-Quayle to compare her treatment to Kennedy’s is ludicrous.

Palin-Quayle would have become president, for fuck’s sake, had anything happened to John McCainosaurus.

Politico reported back in September that according to the actuarial tables that the insurance industry uses, there is about a one-in-three chance that the 72-year-old McCainosaurus won’t make it to age 80, which is how old he would have been had he made it through the end of a second term in the White House.

Does Palin-Quayle truly not understand why she would have come under more intense media scrutiny as a vice-presidential candidate than a candidate for the U.S. Senate would? I mean, there are 100 U.S. senators, but just one president and one vice president.

Or is Palin-Quayle a liar, a professional victim?

In either case, her complaint that Caroline Kennedy is being treated better by the media than she was demonstrates that Palin-Quayle is too incompetent to hold any public office — with the possible exception of the mayorship of Wasilla, Alaska, although Wasilla residents have plenty of negative things to say about her capability to handle even Podunk mayoral duties.

Ironically, as a vice-presidential candidate Palin-Quayle very apparently expected the free ride from the media that she claims Caroline Kennedy is enjoying now.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized