Monday, October 27, 2014

Birthday Fundraiser Day Four: How To Lose Friends And Alienate People


Alert reader casimir points out why certain precincts of the Democratic Party need a swift and brutal purge,  Because when Bivalve Democrats (no head, no spine, bottom feeder) like Representative Collin Peterson are pushed to stand up for their party and its principles, they will unhesitatingly fling people like me straight under the bus while sucking the Great Satan's Both Sider Cock right down to the root.  

From the Minneapolis Post:
In the debate, this ignited a discussion about the intensity of the candidates’ partisanship. Westrom blamed Democrats for a host of problems: Obamacare was “passed by Democratic leadership,” and the Keystone pipeline is “still not built, because of President Obama’s administration.” Peterson highlighted studies that show him among the most moderate House lawmakers, but Westrom said if that was the case, he wouldn't have backed Pelosi, whose “agenda does not match the District 7 agenda. When you have leaders like that so far to the side, to the left, it’s hard to get things done.”

But Peterson said it’s a matter of working with the members send to Congress with you, and that Democrats aren’t alone in sending partisans to Washington.

“You can find people on your side of the aisle in Washington who are just as out of the mainstream as people on my side,” he said. “You’ve got the Tea Party folks on one side, and the liberal Democrats on the other, and that’s part of why we have the gridlock in Washington.”
As long as our public discourse remains hostage to the lie that the daunting problems facing this country can only be solved by ritually denouncing people like me so as to better curry the favor of nonexistent "Independents" and the denizens of the posher exurbs of Sisterfuck, Arkansas, we are quite thoroughly fucked.

BTW, minutes ago, the undisputed king of this brand of corrosive bullshit -- the New York Time's inexplicably unfireable Mr. David Brooks -- pinched off another steaming loaf of untreated Both Siderism.  Which, lets face it, it pretty much the only column David Brooks writes anymore.

It seems that something called political "partyism" is a teddible, teddible blight upon the land.

The problem is that hyper-moralization destroys politics. Most of the time, politics is a battle between competing interests or an attempt to balance partial truths. But in this fervent state, it turns into a Manichaean struggle of light and darkness. To compromise is to betray your very identity. When schools, community groups and workplaces get defined by political membership, when speakers get disinvited from campus because they are beyond the pale, then every community gets dumber because they can’t reap the benefits of diverging viewpoints and competing thought. 
This mentality also ruins human interaction. There is a tremendous variety of human beings within each political party. To judge human beings on political labels is to deny and ignore what is most important about them. It is to profoundly devalue them. That is the core sin of prejudice, whether it is racism or partyism.
Predictably the Conservative Mr. Brooks goes for the entire length of this column denouncing "partyism" without actually identifying any specific political party or any specific overarching, ratfucking strategy that one of our two major political parties may have been up to for, say, the last 30 years  which may have caused things to get so teddibly, teddibly bad.  This is because Mr. Brooks is an arrant coward.

A very well-paid arrant coward.

Normally I would spend a lot of time and viscera carefully taking Mr. Brooks' words apart molecule by molecule, but I'm short on minutes and sleep and viscera right now, so I will just note the following:
  1. Mr. Brooks sure as shit never gave one tiny damn about "partyism" back when the Bush Administration was in high cotton and Butcher's Bill Kristol was paying Mr. Brooks' mortgage.  In fact, framing every fucking issue as a "Manichean struggle" between noble Republicans and "stupid", "crazy" Liberals and Democrats who are so "brainless [and] self-destructive" perhaps because they "suckled on the 'Marx-Engels Reader'" was Mr. Brooks' entire stock-in-trade.  See, there was gold in pistol-pistol whipping hippies back in the Good Old Days of George Bush and Operation Endless Clusterfuck.  Solid, six-figure salary and amazing perks gold.  And so -- surprise! -- not very long ago, David Brooks was one of the most ardent and relentless hippie pistol-whippers in all the land.  Then all the policies David Brooks advocated so avidly back then turned to shit, at which time the Elite Media Money quickly and awkwardly shifted being a Bush Boosterism machine to being a "Well, uh, y'know, really, um, everybody is pretty much equally to blame" And so -- surprise! -- David Brooks quickly and awkwardly became the most ardent and relentless Both Siderist in all the land!

  2. By this time tomorrow Mr, Brooks's column will have been read by more people than my blog will reach in three years.  Also on Twitter there will there will be upwards of 100 tweets and who-knows-how-manyretweets and "favorites" lauding the Mr. Brooks sensibility and sagacity on this "important" subject,
Quite thoroughly fucked.


dinthebeast said...

"...they can’t reap the benefits of diverging viewpoints and competing thought."

I was under the impression that in order to have competing thought, you had to have thought to compete against. I'm not saying that no thought went into the production of the modern conservative viewpoint, just that the actual product bears less resemblance to thought than to the "logic bomb" that was unsuccessfully deployed near the end of Snowcrash...

-Doug in Oakland

Robt said...

Birthday ???????

Has anyone seen the Birth certificate?

The Long form certificate?

Not the birth certificate that was planted years and years ago that that day in the future you could " Birthday fund-raise" on y.our blog. On the internet that NO one at the time of this so called birth could have ever foreseen. Except , Harlan Jay Ellison, perhaps?.

Neo Tuxedo said...

By this time tomorrow [...] on Twitter there will there will be upwards of 100 tweets and who-knows-how-many[ ]retweets and "favorites" lauding [Our] Mr. Brooks['] sensibility and sagacity on this "important" subject

There were already 42(!) tweets available at the link when I started writing this blog comment. There have been two since. Two of the extant tweets were in some way critical of Our Mr. Brooks' column-like extrusion. Neither of the new ones is.

So far beyond fucked that the light from "fucked" will take two million years to reach us.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking that DFB likely laughs himself to sleep at night.

DeistPaladin said...

Tangential topic:
Why does oral sex on men have such a bad rap, always being used in metaphors for politically obsequious behavior?

I'm serious. Oral sex, administered to either men or women, is a good and healthy thing to do for a lover. It is the ultimate kiss. It is not "demeaning" or "dirty". Everyone should do it for the one they love.

Can we please find a better and more appropriate metaphor for sycophantic behavior?

Pinkamena said...

DP, I'm pretty sure it's because of the ingrained homophobia of our culture - you know, "those kind of guys" doing that, eww.

Either that or the implicit "degrading" nature of it in general, as you stated. (Which if you ask me is horseshit but nobody ever asks.)

Green Eagle said...

DP, I think that this is because oral sex is, in many people's minds, something provided by prostitutes, and therefore it is a metaphor for prostitution.