Today In "Both Sides Do It": Mushroom Cloud Guy Bitches About America's Declining Rhetorical Standards

You may know Mr. Michael Gerson as George W. Bush's chief speechwriter and senior Republican policy adviser who put the lie of "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" into Dubya's mouth.  Or you may know Mr. Gerson as yet another Bush Regime Dead Ender who was bequeathed a wingnut welfare media sinecure for life after the Bush Administration collapsed around his ears.  Or you may know Mr. Gerson as America's emergency backup David Brooks -- a  reliable Beltway Republican stalactite who has spilled countless barrels of ink insisting that there exists some other, perfectly rational and humane Republican Party out there somewhere which he can clearly see, and which you can see too if you just stare directly into the sun long enough.

But however you have come to know Mr. Gerson, you know him to be a fop and a fraud who, at long last, has but one rusty tin drum remaining in his orchestra of bullshit.

That always-reliable Both Sides Do It drum.

And my oh my doesn't he pound it as if his life depended on it.

From the Washington Post (with emphasis added to amuse me):

The rhetoric of our era has reached its vile peak

In Washington — at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner — comedian Michelle Wolf...

In Washington, Mich., President Trump gave an 80-minute speech in a stream-of-semiconsciousness style that mixed narcissism, nativism, ignorance, mendacity and malice...

In both Washingtons, political discourse was dominated by the values and practices of reality television and social media...

Mr. Gerson suggests the source of this scourge, and its cure as follows:

[Trump's] degraded language results from a degraded politics. And the repair of our public life will eventually require a restoration of rhetoric.

Wow.  Sounds like a big job.  But as an unpaid, Liberal pariah blogger and master of all thing rhetorical, let me do my small part to get the ball rolling.

Fuck you, Michael Gerson.

Fuck you sideways.

With a steam hammer.

In the form of a mushroom cloud.

Behold, a Tip Jar!

Driftglass and Lockswriter at Tanagra

In the comment section of a previous post, Alert Commenter "lockswriter" explained the impossibility of even basic communication with Trump voters in a way that made me laugh,

And laughter is in very short supply these days, so...

I've about given up trying to communicate with the Children of Trump. Practically every word out of their mouth is an allusion to some myth or legend that only they understand.

"OBUMMER! His face black, his birth Kenyan! Pizzagate's children, their faces wet! Killary, her army at Benghazi… ARRRGH! Seth Rich when the walls fell!"

Yep.

The Liar of Gothos

A reckless, tantrum-throwing child with way, way too much power at his disposal.

Sound familiar?

"I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose."

- Spock to Trelane

Happy birthday, Star Trek.

And For One, Golden Moment...

...calm logic overtook hysterical irrationality on the Internet.

Because Both Sides, Part #197,833

From Salon:

Our outrageous media created the Tea Party

How "melodrama, misrepresentative exaggeration and mockery" became the dominant tone on cable and talk radio

JEFFREY M. BERRY AND SARAH SOBIERAJ 

...

Given the magnitude of the response to Limbaugh’s remarks, an unfamiliar outsider might assume his behavior to be highly out of the ordinary. In fact, what is perplexing is that the attacks on Fluke struck so many as shocking. This is, after all, the same Rush Limbaugh who coined the term “feminazi,” called Hillary Clinton a bitch, Chelsea Clinton a dog, and Nancy Pelosi a “ditz”—he who had also suggested that Anita Hill had probably had “plenty of spankings.” This is the same Limbaugh who regularly refers to the National Organization for Women as “NAGS,” and more recently responded to the multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain by suggesting: “You women, why don’t you just make it official, put on some burqas, and I’ll guaran-damn-tee you, nobody’ll touch you. You put on a burqa, and everybody’ll leave you alone.”

Rush Limbaugh’s remarks were outrageous, but such behavior is de rigueur in a political media genre where being offensive (and reliably indignant when offended) is the foundation of most content. Popular conservative radio host Michael Savage has no qualms yelling “take your religion and shove it up your behind” at Muslims on his national broadcast. And liberal radio host Mike Malloy seemed to take great enjoyment in making a mock phone call to Satan to check on conservative blogger and commentator Andrew Breibart, shortly after he passed away. In one of his many ludicrous statements, conservative Glenn Beck told viewers on Fox’s morning show that FEMA could very well be building concentration camps for those opposed to the policies of the Obama administration.

...

Although outrage has some commonality with its conceptual sibling, “incivility,” the terms are not interchangeable. Diana Mutz and Byron Reeves use incivility to denote “gratuitous asides that [suggest] a lack of respect and/or frustration with the opposition.” In a sense, outrage is incivility writ large. It is by definition uncivil but not all incivility is outrage. Rude behavior such as eye-rolling, sighing, and the like are not outrageous because they do not incorporate the elements of malfeasant inaccuracy and intent to diminish that characterize outrage.

In addition to its unique discursive style, the genre also has other recognizable attributes. First, it is generally personality centered, with a given program, column, or blog defined by a dominant charismatic voice. We can think of liberal columnist Maureen Dowd, conservative television host Bill O’Reilly, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, or liberal radio and television host Ed Schultz as examples of these distinctive personalities. While many of these programs and blogs include other voices such as those of guests, callers, and commenters, these voices take a backseat to the host, whose charm, emotional sensibilities, and worldview define the content. Unlike a conventional news program, in which the news itself is central and anchors are often replaced, there would be no Rachel Maddow Show without Rachel Maddow.

...

For those seeking to understand the genre, recognizing the various writers and speakers as part of a densely connected web is vital, as outrage is marked by internal intertextuality, with personalities from outrage venues constantly referring to one another. This is true for those on the same side of the ideological rift, but it is also difficult to imagine progressive and conservative outrage media being separated, as each plays an instrumental role in creating fodder for the other. Think back to Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, and consider the ways in which Limbaugh himself became the subject of liberal blogs such as Daily Kos and liberal television programs such as the Ed Schultz Show. The feedback loop continued to cycle as Limbaugh, in turn, criticized progressive outlets for exaggerating the controversy and using it for political ends.

...

I love the smell of internal intertextuality in the morning.  It smells like...grad students jerking off and calling it scholarship.

Honestly, they don't even try anymore.

They don't even think about it anymore.

Now, it's just part of the Modern American Jounalism style book, right up there with when to abbreviate the names of units of government and when to spell them out.

And it is absolutely destroying our capacity for self-governance.

A Listener Writes About My Potty Mouth

One of the listeners to "The Professional Left" has written us with some feedback.

Since he gave us permission to use his email complete and unexpurgated, here it is:

Subject: Feedback from a real liberal.

Hello - I looked up and listened completely to the two most recent episodes you have posted. I agreed completely with your politics however I will NOT be listening to you any more because the male podcaster cannot and will not stop cussing and using F-bombs. You may do that all you like but let me therefore tell you not just something but several things as a podcaster myself and a former reporter on television.

1. HOW DARE you call yourself a professional. You aren't. Professional podcasters don't do this. Ever. Period.

2. The reason they don't do this is it shows ACTIVE DISRESPECT for ANYONE listening. Didn't your MOTHER teach you not to swear in public? Whether she or your dad did or not, I'm sure teachers did along the way and this just shows what a loser you are out of the gate. Also did it not occur to you that liberals might have kids nearby? So you want to teach their kids cuss words? You are putting out a PUBLIC product...kids listen.

3. It distracts from your message and does it a disservice. You might think your GUTTER MOUTH gives you a common touch, but no, not really. It just makes people wish they were there to punch you.

4. It also makes me infuriated that you are putting yourself out there as an example of how liberals are or should be. I would correctly be humiliated if listening to your show with a conservative objecting to you as a low grade degenerate and I'd have to agree.

5. If you aren't going to change the name of your show to the guttermouth left, at least be PROFESSIONAL podcasters and bleep him or edit his f bombs out and AGAIN, RESPECT your listeners. I am certain you have lost MANY other listeners because of this and will continue to and you should be ashamed of putting this otherwise good message in an unfit filthy package on the internet.

6. There is NO WAY IN HELL you deserve any money for this obscene, low grade production, so STOP ASKING.

And yes by all means read my FULL UNEDITED email in context on your show you foul mouth piece of crap I'd love to hear you defend that behavior and discredit yourself EVEN MORE than you already have. 

Quite Sincerely,

...

First, for those not familiar with how The Internet works, here is link to an explanation of the "Not Safe For Work" warning with which we begin every episode of "The Professional Left":

Typically, the NSFW tag is used in e-mail, videos, and on interactive discussion areas (such as Internet forums, blogs, or community websites) to mark URLs or hyperlinks which contain material such as pornography or profanity, which the viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as at work.

Second, when choosing to enjoy recorded or transmitted words or music which they also may not wish to share with those around them, many humans use "headphones". Here is a link to a search engine called "Google" which may help you to find some reasonably priced "headphones" which can either be purchased in your local area or which can be ordered through the mail.

Third, here is a link to Blue Gal's excellent post from 2008 explaining the uses and abuses of that "F-bomb":    "What we talk about what we talk about Fuck'."

Fourth, here is a snip from my own efforts back in 2007:

Cussin’: Turns out it’s like Water for Mutha@&$!#ing Chocolate! 

...

This is about ownership and responsibility.

Because you, personally, own the entire English language. 

Every motherfucking word of it.

And so do I. So do we all. And every day we raze it, build it, break it and birth it, because it is a living thing.

It is our inalienable birthright, and will be our most versatile legacy to little fuckers not yet born, but as with driving the Big Rigs, or operating a band saw with your toes, the tool itself demands a certain level of responsibility and respect.

When used correctly, language not only feels like a mouthful of velvet rubies and chocolate mousse, it can reformat the world, heal a scalded heart, and get her to shed those pesky pants!

Used incompetently it is an embarrassment. A rusting dumpster in a reeking alley behind which the ignorant, the bigoted and the irrational believe they can pass out, occluded from scrutiny in shit-stained imbecile safety, but which turns out, by dawn's early light, to be a mini-bus full of liberals with digital cameras.

....

In the end, the second most dishonorable and demeaning thing you can do to this fine, fierce, sinewy, blunt, flensing bazooka you have been granted is to cower in the corner, making a mighty, scowling fortress out of your “Impactfuls”, “Synergies”, “Paradigms” and the other 181 officially approved units of lifeless bizzpeak buzztwaddle.

The most insulting thing is demanding that others do likewise.

Last, here is Malcolm Tucker, putting me to shame.

It's not safe for work.

A Permanent Republican Vulgarity

The GOP is on the brink of nominating the Grand Nagus of the Ferengrich Alliance as its standard-bearer and spiritual leader.

He is the fulfillment of every one of Modern Conservatism's loudly averred fantasies and aspirations.

Or, as Mr. Wolcott tries to gently croon into the tiny, furry ears of a herd of Gadarene Swine who stopped listening decades ago:

...
Newt’s shoestring Lazarus resurrection in the polls is a testament to perseverance and ingenuity--to the Power of Gall--but it’s also an indictment of the wet-cardboard strength of the rest of the Republican field. Here they have a clean shot to take the White House in 2012 and they troop out this Gong Show* cast of contestants, most of whom couldn’t find their ass on a map and speak entirely in re-masticated phrases and sentiments tossed into their mouths by Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, and Frank Luntz for years. The Republican field reflects the weak-minded, strong-willed prejudices of its base, hooked up to Fox News as if it were an IV drip. So when rightwing bloggers complain about the candidates, they need someone to skywrite for them, “If they suck, it’s because YOU suck. You’re the guys who believed once upon a fairy tale that Fred Thompson was a political steamroller and that Herman Cain was a fresh breeze.”
...

At Play in the Fields of the Sturgeons

I am sincerely delighted any time I find evidence of a new generation discovering the power of posing science-fictiony questions.

When a new crop of cultural speculators are glimpses walking beneath the vast dome of a great, literary cathedral, brushing lightly against the spindizzies, ansibels, mass drivers, sandworms, bussards, galactic emperors and allotropic iron torpedoes left behind by the Elders of a Dying Genre, never realizing that the curve of that firmament and all of its furnishings were not naturally occurring phenomena phenomenon phrenologist :-), but has been carved out of the unforgiving marketplace more than a generation ago at a half-a-penny-a-word by battalions of hungry pulp scriveners whose names are now mostly forgotten (unless, of course, they had the foresight to cook up, say, some insanely profitable cult)...

Is Time Us, Space Them?
By Robin Hanson ·
(This post co-authored by Robin Hanson and Katja Grace.)

In the Battlestar Galactica TV series, religious rituals often repeated the phrase, “All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.” It was apparently comforting to imagine being part of a grand cycle of time. It seems less comforting to say “Similar conflicts happen out there now in distant galaxies.” Why?

Consider two possible civilizations, stretched either across time or space:

Time: A mere hundred thousand people live sustainably for a billion generations before finally going extinct.
Space: A trillion people spread across a thousand planets live for only a hundred generations, then go extinct.
Even though both civilizations support the same total number of lives, most observers probably find the time-stretched civilization more admirable and morally worthy. It is “sustainable,” and in “harmony” with its environment. The space-stretched civilization, in contrast, seems “aggressively” expanding and risks being an obese “repugnant conclusion” scenario. Why?

Finally, consider that people who think they are smart are often jealous to hear a contemporary described as “very smart,” but are much happier to praise the genius of a Newton, Einstein, etc. We are far less jealous of richer descendants than of richer contemporaries. And there is far more sibling rivalry than rivalry with grandparents
or grandkids. Why?
...

... apparently never realizing that 10,000 amazing, maddening, glorious possible answers to their questions can be found moldering silently away between the lurid covers of 10,000 ancient books and magazines scattered here and there in the dusty corners of the dying American Empire.

Some aging Boy or Girl Scout please gently slip a copy of "Time Enough for Love", "The Martian Chronicles", "Universe", the "Foundation" trilogy, "Dune", "The Demolished Man", "Venus Plus X", "The End of Eternity", "Bring the Jubilee", "When the Sleeper Wakes", the "Uplift" series, "Scanners Live in Vain", "Childhood's End", "The Left Hand of Darkness", "City", "The Mote in God's Eye", "The Marching Morons", "With Folded Hands", "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" or one of a dozen dozen other masterpieces into their pockets or onto their Kindles.

Years and years from now, they'll thank you for it.

A Post for Fundraiser Eve

The Grand Nagus of the Ferengrich Alliance loves, loves, loves Jebus.

And America too.

Just not so must Teh Science.

From The American Prospect:

"I think you can certainly refer to both creationism and evolution as something that people ought to be aware of -- together," Gingrich told me at a press conference in Manchester, N.H. "If you look at chaos theory and the degree to which the certainty of the 19th century is beginning to be replaced, I don't think there's any problem with teaching both."

The precise, numerical answer to the question "How stupid do you have to be to belong to a Party where Newt is 'The Brain Guy'?" remains unknown.

Fund the research here...

Still Leaning

(h/t litbrit)

One of the more hilariously odd things

to show up in my email in the last nine days.

I mean I knew someone was following me...

Senator Vows

To continue not resigning.