A Big Strong Black Cup of Coffee with Kathleen Parker

A twist on the old adage: How can you tell Shithead Hall of Fame® Inductee™ Kathleen Parker is lying? She’s writing a column!

I know writers are allowed to take certain “liberties” with their pieces, stretch the truth here, embellish tiny details there. As her readers (if there are any) know, Kathleen Parker is a pundit who prides herself on not having to leave her office to do much of anything. The "occasional" flip/flop in the same program on television (that could literally be another article all it's own!) can’t contain her true idiocy, she can be both “Beltway Insider” and “Same-as-you-and-me Outsider” that defends “The South” whenever she’s given the chance…because she’s southern? But even the great Kathleen Parker stretches incredulity when she opens one of her recent columns with the tale of standing in line at Starbucks at the “8-ish hour”.

Starbucks Chairman and CEO Howard Schultz is concerned about the very clear racial divide in the U.S., and wants us to talk about race. As any supremely rich white man "philanthropist" is wont to do he started a campaign called the “Race Together”. This seemingly benevolent act is being soundly mocked in the pundit class and in general; we get the perpetual joke of a Starbucks “barista” annoyingly trying to engage sleepy coffee monsters in to discussing race relations before they get their fix. It sounds buffoonish because very few of us can actually have a mature conversation about race relations.

I’m the kind of liberal that thinks race is one of the most important things Americans are too afraid to talk about in public. The mere notion of even being perceived as racist is so uncomfortable to most people, they’ll do anything to avoid  broaching the topic. Mr. Schultz is on to something with trying to get people to talk about it. Why do we have to continually perpetuate the idea that Americans only care about things when a catastrophe arises? We only care about gun violence when someone shoots a bunch of people in the face, we only care about “the terror” when they attack, we only seem to care about race relations when a black person gets killed or maimed by a police officer. These are all persistent problems that have the temerity to move to the front burner of society only to be brutally pushed to the back burner when "we" feel like we’ve “SOLVED” the problem for the moment.

Talking about race over a piping hot black cup of coffee is a valiant effort, but a wrongheaded one. I am grateful that at least people are attempting to find a way to have a dialogue about it. But when you have people like Kathleen Parker trying to trivialize it by writing a short fiction essay on her Starbucks trip and not a substantive thought piece, you know that America just doesn’t have the balls to do the right thing.

Ms. Parker (or more likely her poor assistant) is standing in line for coffee at the "8-ish hour", presumably in the morning? She name drops the beverage she’s after, as if to prove she was really there, and proceeds to notice that “Absolutely no one is talking about race.” 

She trivializes the need to at least try to discuss race by bringing up other “problems” that we should discuss instead. How about abortion or world hunger? She asks, anything else but this race bullshit! Why is a purportedly southern white woman trying to steer the discussion away from race again? Did Ms. Parker’s great-grand-diddy own slaves or something? Did a black take the last box of Cheerios when she was grocery shopping recently, and she dare not think racists thoughts! Best we deflect on other things, and by other I don’t mean “the other”.

Ms. Parker, clearly not seeing the color of her pot, then states that Mr. Schultz's kettle is “aggressively out of touch with his target audience”. On top of this she insinuates that the average Starbucks goer is intelligent because they have newspapers and laptops in their possession, they don't need to be lectured to! That means smart right? Because I’d like to think that those who possess newspapers and laptops would be smart, but if you do ever read a newspaper you quickly discover that a some of  people that can read and engage it are anything but informed or intelligent. Also, haven’t we learned that the internet has made us stupider as a society? The internets possesses the ability to be a mirror unto our culture, and lo we are found severely wanting.

Mr. Schultz isn’t “lecturing” anyone, he’s foolishly attempting to start a discussion. Instead of getting all in a flutter over it, perhaps Ms. Parker could seriously evaluate what is being presented. But she’d rather not do that, and instead declare the whole thing a colossal failure based on her fictional trip to Starbucks.

She relates that the only visible sign of the “Race Together” campaign is a “single inscribed cup next to the register”. Seeing as the campaign was rolled out the week she presumably went to this Starbucks, this can be seen as an oversight that will eventually be corrected with the appropriate painfully diversely populated people in posters, placards and banners that soon will adorn the establishment. Ms. Parker, attempting to mask her southern racist shame puts money in the “inscribed cup” as a sort of tithe. She relates that the “two baristas seemed in no mood to talk about race or anything else.” Which I don’t know if she’s mocking their presumed minimum wage earning to lack of care for discussing race relations, or that Mr. Schultz should’ve hired activists to be the baristas he wanted to discuss race relations with consumers. Also, is it more indicative that Ms. Parker didn’t attempt to ENGAGE the baristas to perhaps better gauge whether they were interested in discussing race relations?  To me it’s more indicative that she made up this entire Starbucks sojourn.

She’s not done yet though, seeing as she has a bit more column space to fill out, Ms. Parker takes a seat and logs in to the Starbucks Wi-Fi. There it is discovered that she’s been automatically signed up for “the movement” by being inundated with all matter of links to the USA Today about race and the like. There’s even a test to tell just how racist you are! Does she take it? Of course she does! She scores “perfectly”, up to a point, the test craps out on her. But what does scoring “perfectly” mean to her? Of course, it’s a Kathleen Parker column, she’s not going to explain that! She could’ve enlightened herself to what the “Race Together” program was trying to accomplish by visiting the “other race-related links”. Instead she’ll just roll around in shitty anecdotes and call it a day.

Not being able to properly “meditate” on her test results because “probably because the music was too loud”, she ends her fiction there. Really. I mean, her columns not over, because she tips her hand at the fact that it’s probably okay to talk about race relations in public, because no one’s really talking about it. Whew! Bullet dodged on that one, eh Ms. Parker?

She posits that perhaps race relations based discussions are best left to the opinion page. Where presumably it can die on the vine of the perpetual news cycle and white people like Kathleen Parker won’t have to worry about it again for some time? Leave it to the black opinion writers to mull over, that’s what they were hired for, right? Didn’t we just finish black history month, isn’t the race relations discussion over for the year? Ms. Parker wrote absolutely nothing about race in all of February, I guess she felt shame in her southern heart and needed to atone by writing a fictional tale of getting a cappuccino at 8-ish and lambasting an effort to discuss race in a real way.

Even if it’s a bit misguided, the “Race Together” campaign is at least an attempt to get the ball rolling on discussing something that’s becoming much too great to ignore. And while yes perhaps world hunger and abortion are at the tip top of a lot of peoples lists (just look at the comments section on Ms. Parkers’ column), nothing is more important right now than talking about the growing divide in race relations. This affects us in our daily interactions with the world, well those of us besides Kathleen Parker, who would rather craft short fiction from her home office, kick the proverbial can down the road and not discuss race at all…ever. Do we continue the cycle of attempting to ignore the problem, or do we wait until white America is in the minority and then it will be a real problem that surely must be dealt with post haste. Sadly it’s definitely going to be the latter.

Sometimes casual racism is just racism. 

Maddy Myers: The Last Unicorn

Today we’re going to be talking about Unicorns, by extension the Gamer Girl as expressed in Maddy Myer’s blog post: “The Cool Gamer Girlfriend, a.k.a. UNICORNS AREN’T REAL” which focuses on movies like “Fanboys” an indie movie about the misadventures of Star Wars geeks that objectifies Kristen Bell and nerd women in general? Then Ms. Myers attempts a blistering critique of gamer girls in gaming culture, but instead relates her abusive relationship(s) with “gamer” males…and well, it’s just a hot mess.

Now this is where my ideological back yard and a right-wing stooges ideological front yard touch a bit. I don’t care for this current trend of “social justice” that’s enrapturing millennial and younger generations. I don’t think every single construct needs to be politicized, ESPECIALLY things like video games, intrinsically connected to capitalism, the great equalizer. I’m especially not fond of the gulf of a lack of ideas to be had by those who practice social justice. They just seem to be bullies of extreme political correctness and whose most ardent practitioners appear to be bored, naïve, idealistic white twenty-something’s. They merely lean on the notion “Who doesn’t agree that we need Social Justice everywhere?” If you flinch at this, you’re a sexist, bigot, misogynist…and so on. Never you mind the flaws and hypocrisy, there are feelings involved.

Taking Ms. Myer’s blog post on it’s own is a bit of thin endeavor, so I decided to couple it with another of her writings, this one on a recent visit to Penny Arcade Expo East (PAX East) in Boston. To say she had a bad time is an understatement.

Ms. Myers, like other social justice advocates, is a hammer and as such everything socially relative is a nail to her. She isn’t merely writing about issues that effect gaming, she’s actively looking for problems to hone in on and harp about ad nauseam. A lot of social justice advocates don’t care much for Penny Arcades or any other “politically incorrect” entity. These “anti-p.c.” denizens can’t be swayed by feelings and put upon nonsense and as such social justice tends to deride them at any given opportunity. Ms. Myers even admits in the opening paragraph of her anti-PAX article that she has said pretty much the same thing before: PAX makes me feel unsafe therefore we need a new space for us who refuse to acclimate!

In both cases, the nonexistent gamer girl and the toothless boycotting of what PAX stands for, Ms. Myers provides no real reason for regular people to care. This is much in line with social justice advocacy, where the feelings are the foundation and you MUST make sure that they feel safe so that they can…do what exactly?

Oddly enough it is PAX itself that is doing more for “diversity” in gaming that any social justice advocate. They feature and promote games from EVERYONE, even if the definition of “game” is being stretched mighty thin. To Ms. Myers, however, this is because Penny Arcade itself is in bad need of positive PR. Not that they have a good idea of what the games culture is in need of or anything, or better yet, perhaps educating all those “intolerant dudebros” that make people like Ms. Myers want not to attend PAX in the first place.

Under the guise of “doing it for the readers” did Ms. Myers attend this years PAX East. She relates that she’s attending this event with as “open a mind a possible”. So not at all apparently? Because this open mind line comes in well AFTER lambasting Penny Arcade for all their supposed sins against social justice, and the much needed PR line. She even says she doesn’t respect the company itself, so there is no reasonable amount of open mind available.

The hammer, already looking for nails, has issues with the Boston weather, a bag check that wasn’t there the last time she attended the event (I do love the editor note, it appears Ms. Myers couldn’t be bothered to check and see when this started.), and then…she starts eavesdropping on a couple of guys who are talking about the proceedings. With a sad sense of desperation the hammer starts to swing wildly!

The guys were excited to be there, heaven forbid! They spent their hard earned money on tickets and dared to say aloud that PAX was where they could be kids again?! Did they not know that people like Ms. Myers, were there to be adult about things! She was having an open a mind as possible, and these two “dudebros” DARE to feel!? Ms. Myers then laments that she too used to feel that way about conventions.

With the rise in social media the access to individuals has never been thus. People are now over sharing aspects of their lives that should remain personal. It has now infected writing in general, on to reviews and so on. Ms. Myers is an expert craftswoman at injecting all sorts of benign personal bullshit in to her reviews and writing all with no payoff. What does her feelings about a characters design or motivations have to do with whether the game is worth your time and money? Nothing.

As I approach the right-wing side of my ideological back yard I gag at the next few paragraphs of Ms. Myers PAX hit piece. She prattles on about having social anxiety, which the giant convention hall triggers. She talks to friends on the “autism spectrum” and they too are not having a good time. I have to gag, because I’m dizzy from eye rolling so hard at this ridiculous nonsense. I have to take umbrage with a bunch of people so desperate to be marginalized they HAVE to have a mental disorder. This is their disability! Now, could they take their medication and go to PAX just fine, or could they avoid giant social gatherings that MAY trigger them? Well, it’s much more dramatic if you go and have a meltdown than, I don’t know…take care of yourself?! Ms. Myers then doubles down on this notion by exercising the old partisan chestnut of “overhearing” that someone saw someone “vomit from panic” on the convention floor. Was that someone witness a doctor? Did that fan cry out “I’m in so much panic *BARF*”? Probably not, but Ms. Myers has an agenda to propel, only time to lay on more hyperbolic bullshit.

At the end of her PAX piece Ms. Myers writes: “I’m not sure that PAX is ever going to be the right place to address concerns in the gaming community about safety, sexism, homophobia, racism, ableism and other issues of exclusivity.” Which it shouldn’t. That is your job Ms. Myers, and people like you that seem to think this is of utmost importance in the gaming community. Which it isn’t. PAX is and will continue do it’s best to educate it’s fan base to these sorts of things, but as you can see by the farcical fallacy of a list that Ms. Myers puts up, it’s just never going to happen. With social justice advocates, it’s never enough. PAX may very well do it’s best in the future, and it’s past misdeeds will continue to be thrown in it’s face. What about social justice’s own PAX: GaymerX? It performed so woefully that there wasn’t going to BE another one. A quick little crowd funding spree later, and it’s back on, but the corporate sponsors of previous years are not going to be in full force because this demographic is caustic to the gaming community at large. Social justice advocates don’t buy games like the “dudebros” do, and the games they promote aren’t so much games as over hyped “experiences” that contain little of value for their price or game play. Game companies are only looking for profit, the only question is “Will this make us money?” And for the bulk of these social justice games, there answer is no. It’s not to say these games shouldn’t exist, but perhaps the money and time could be better spent educating the gaming community than brow beating it in to submission, which is not working at all.

The Gamer Girl blog piece is problematic in that it’s only relevant to ten years ago. There’s no such thing as the thing Ms. Myers is bashing the nerd community over. On top of this, there’s the real notion that Ms. Myers is talking of current day nerd culture and is completely ignoring the grand divide in the definition of the term “nerd”.

To those of certain age nerd is a science, technology based construct. Future scientists, doctors and engineers. The modern nerd is a pop culture based entity, and is a poorer product for sure. It’s the mainstream-ification of any minority class. It’s when you can distill an identity down to a punch line. Nerd reached that points decades ago, but now that there’s an abundance of money to be made by slinging the word “nerd” around, all types has sprung up with the claim of marginalization.

For me this goes back to an earlier time, when everyone and their brother is now on the autism spectrum. To the point where people with actual problems can’t get the real help they need because someone’s 13-year old daughter is moody, can’t focus in school and talks back too much. Where being awkward and anti-social is a “disability”. It’s laughable to say the least.

Ms. Myers then doubles down on this idea of a super nerdy girl that aims to please in her Gamer Girlfriend piece by NOT admonishing mainstream culture for mishandling “gamers” and the vaunted “gamer girl” in general. But that it’s an impossibility for girls to obtain on top of being: “racist, sexist, sizeist and ableist construction of beauty“. That’s a lot of “ists”!

Of course it is! Hasn’t Ms. Myers been privy to culture at all in the nearly three decades of her life? Oh wait, never mind that, it’s about to get personal.

Lucky for her this Gamer Girlfriend piece is hosted on her blog, so it can be forgiven for it’s personal tone and general meandering pace. Again, this is how ALL of Ms. Myers’ writing is. There’s a lack of distinction between having a voice and propelling an agenda. She can’t help herself! This then becomes a story of Ms. Myers doing what she has accused many young “gamer” men of doing: gaming hobby as substitution for personality.

Now, is this a bad thing for a young person? Not necessarily. More often than not as one is navigating the choppy waters of self they will tend to grasp tightly to that one hobby and then make that define them. Eventually that falls to the background and becomes the hobby itself and not merely a personality graft. Apparently Ms. Myers failed to fix that herself as she delved further on in to her twenties.

It’s revealing the lengths Ms. Myers goes through in her pursuit of being around “gamer” guys and being desired by them. To the point of abuse of the physical and mental variety. What’s curious is that she doesn’t seem to grow from these experiences, she merely develops a misandrist view of most male “gamers”. Which assists her greatly with her and social justice advocates notion that all men are closeted rapists just waiting for the perfect opportunity to rape women. It’s absurd right?

She then goes on to everyone’s favorite “my friend said this one thing that is super relevant to just this very topic” kismet moment: Guys don’t WANT a “gamer” girlfriend, they just want a girl to watch them play games. The fuck? Yeah, maybe a few dipshit teenage boys, but no one actual male has said that. Or are we under the assumption that “gamer” males don’t want or crave sex? That in between stifling their rape urges, eating, sleeping and the like, they secretly want a girl to watch them play games? Does Ms. Myers even have real friends that are male…I mean aside from the beta dipshits that clog up social justice advocacy.

Ms. Myers message of “hey that gamer girl is a real WOMAN” and “let her play her games and leave her the fuck alone!” is completely muted by her tales of being abused and mistreated by men in general. Her general lack of self worth compounded by her “disability” of mental disorder and an antiquated view of the current gaming culture. Much liker her derision of the two guys at PAX, Ms. Myers only sees “gamer” males as rapist assholes, who make fun of trans people and mock rape victims. When in fact they’re more than likely just dipshit teenaged boys that haven’t learned yet. It’s in her deliberate messaging that women are perpetual victims that undermines her argument of the gamer girl and by extension the fallacy of the Gamer Girlfriend. It’s goes further in this constant desire for people largely free from discrimination and isolation (for example white middle class cis gendered people) trying desperately to be marginalized themselves.

Ultimately social justice advocates like Ms. Myers have no real solutions to their perceived societal ills, only complaints and finger pointing. They offer nothing of real value that would perhaps promote the kind of world they want to live in. But if that was to be the case, then they wouldn’t have anything to be marginalized by, there would be no enemy or ideological movement subverting them. Hence, nothing you say or promote will ever be satisfactory, and that is why they reject ALL ideas that may mainstream their viewpoint in any way.

Writing E-Mail Forwards with Thomas Sowell

I talk about the old white men of the GOP/right-wing pundit class needing to retire quite a bit in these here minutes, and upon reflection, perhaps ALL the men over the age of 45 should retire from the pundit class. It’s not like the right-wing pundit class is hurting for misinformed, malformed prognosticators that will more often than not be wrong. 45 year old men are still respected for their vigor and youth, perhaps having a bit of salt-and-pepper in their hairdo’s, you get the drill. Because this notion that with age comes wisdom is proving to be an utter fallacy for those in the right-wing who bow at the feet of a Krauthammer, Will and in today’s case: Jack Krier’s one Black Friend™ Thomas Sowell.

Maybe the day he farted out his article “Random Thoughts” 84-year old Mr. Sowell was in need of a nap. Perhaps he’s about to go on vacation, because this article reeks of someone getting one of those apocalyptical e-mail forwards from their right-wing buddies, manifested some words around it, and called it a day. It covers all the current day bases…wait a minute did Thomas Sowell just flesh out a GOP/right-wing talking points memo? It’s got all your usual suspects: a new GOP presidential darling, extolling the virtues of a lack of an education, Obama writ dictator, immigration, ceaseless war, academia hating, the IRS, feminism, Democrat/Liberal bungling foreign policy, and then double dipping on another GOP presidential darling! I was merely going to be hyperbolic with the talking points accusation, but it looks to be ABSOLUTELY true!

Fun Fact: Did you know hat Thomas Sowell is an economist? It’s true! He even wrote a book about economics. I watched a college kid try to read it on a plane trip recently. The boy kept shaking his head at what he was trying to read, I sneaked a peek at the pages from time to time, and also shook my head. Utter and complete inane bullshit. So the amazement that he doesn’t write about economics 98.9% of time should be tempered somewhat. But you would like to think that perhaps in these trying economic times that Mr. Sowell’s supposed economy expertise would be quite handy, and that his prodigious banal right-wing also ran baloney writings could be stemmed somewhat.

Let’s break down these random thoughts, that I’m most assured will crop up as a carefully reworded Jack Krier penned editorial in the coming weeks.

He opens with a Obama slam. Yawn. There is also apparently a joke in here that goes over my head. Uh…Har har?

That blasted “mainstream media” is at it again, this time trying to topple Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s rise in the polls! What polls? The GOP/right-wings pants? Exactly! The condemnation: Walker didn’t finish college! The horror! Mr. Sowell then rattles off that LOTS of GREAT people didn’t finish college. Like “[…] Bill Gates or Michael Dell. The Wright brothers didn't finish high school. Neither did Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.” As if this means something. I have also never ceased to be amazed at the bulk of GOP/right-wing pundits with multiple college degrees that then go and admonish a higher education. So academia wasn’t the veiled Satan you say it was while you were in school? Now that you’re out it’s this brainwashing, free thought crushing, useless endeavor? Give me a break. There’s research that shows that the smarter one gets the less inclined they are to be conservative and by extension Republican, maybe that’s why?

Mr. Sowell then notices that there are a ever growing number of things you’re not supposed to say in public anymore. Like what exactly? He doesn’t elaborate. I wonder if like Jack Krier, old man Thomas Sowell said something inappropriate and got mean mugged by some old white lady, or his wife, or daughter. Hell, when you’re that old the amount of stupid bullshit coming out of your old ass mouth is more likely than anything cogent. Which explains the bulk of Mr. Sowell’s output.

Netanyahu’s address to Congress is brought up, only to elucidate the notion that it will finally prove to the American public just how fucked up it is in the Middle East. Really? Americans don’t need to just look back over the past decade of two useless wars, countless lives and money lost, and so on and so forth? That an Israeli provocation in the area and the ensuring retaliation from neighboring countries or vice versa could lead to yet another World War? Nah! With his speech to Congress Netanyahu all but made certain that conflict was not an “if” but “when” for that region and the U.S. better get ready for more war. 

Mr. Sowell then Andy Rooney’s us with a look in to his office space. Calling it a “paper jungle” and…Oh, did you fall asleep? I’m sorry, I don’t know why he needed to put this in here. I hope later in the article he talks about what he looks for when he buys fruit and how he likes to keep it in his house. Perhaps an update on his prostate, and/or how hard or soft his shits were on this particular day.

Ah yes, securing the border, never you mind that according to polls we’ve spent more on the border patrol in recent years than in all other decades combined. That immigration from Mexico to the U.S. is basically a net zero. No, we must pour more treasure in to the useless wedge issue. Then Mr. Sowell asks a rhetorical question about the movements and designs of congress. Really? Aren’t you one of those pundits that applaud the fact that the GOP/right-wing is always jamming up congress with useless grandstanding bullshit?

Now this next one is the very reason I decided to write about this article and nothing else. I wanted to write about Kathleen Parker’s recent navel gazing, hell Tom Purcell had a good one recently too. But no, Thomas Sowell had to write one of the most stupid things ever. In regards to terrorists Mr. Sowell writes:
    “State Department official Marie Harf said, "We cannot win this war by killing them" but instead we need to get to the "root causes" of jihads by providing "job opportunities." We tried getting at the "root causes" of crime back in the 1960s -- and crime rates skyrocketed. But we stopped the Nazis in World War II by killing them, instead of setting up a jobs program in Germany.”
Now, because Mr. Sowell is black, I guess it’s okay to just assume that “we” tried getting to the “root causes” of crime in the 1960’s and not really flesh that first part of the “random thought” out. What does he mean by that? Was there an actual real concerted interest in getting to the “root causes” of black crime in the 1960’s? Or are we just giving Mr. Sowell a pass because he’s merely facilitating his job of saying racist things because his fellow white conservative couldn’t get away with saying baseless bullshit like this in the first place? More importantly, are we talking about black crime skyrocketing in the 1960’s or crime in general. Specifically are we talking crime in the broadest since of the word, or murder, theft, etc?

Then the whole Nazi’s thing is another ball of wax. Oh to live in a time when right and wrong were so patently black and white! But I guess you can cut Mr. Sowell some slack seeing that he’s an economist and not a historian, that he would go ahead and assume that “we” didn’t try and get to the “root causes” of Germany’s problem in the aftermath of the first World War and how their lack of outlook is what let to a little thing like Nazism gaining a foothold in the country. Nah, you see we totally eradicated the hateful rhetoric off the face of the planet by killing Nazi’s right? What’s that? Oh…Neo Nazi’s, the Ku Klux Klan…and so on and so forth? But according to Thomas Sowell, who was ALIVE during WWII, we stopped the bad guys by killing them! The End! Their hateful legacy died with them too, you’d be naïve…or forcibly ignorant if you think that diplomacy works on ANY level. All you need is to crank up the ol’ War Machine® and just drive it in to whatever country or people that are foolish enough to trifle with freedom! The Internets says that Mr. Sowell served in the Korean War, so he more than most of his conservative peers should know the cost of war. Now, The Internets doesn’t specify if Mr. Sowell saw any combat, but at a certain point, and so many more decades of war hawking under his belt, it doesn’t really matter.

Going back to the victimizing Israel well for the next thought. Mr. Sowell’s hyperbole gun is on full blast with this one. Signing a deal with Iran is paramount to throwing Israel to the wolves? Never you mind that the agreement is of the international flavor with U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia all on board. One would like to think those other countries are at least a bit closer to a nuclear Iran than we are. And I have to wonder if Mr. Sowell even knows what the agreement is about. It’s express purpose is to make sure Iran doesn’t get ANY centrifuge capabilities, and that their nuclear ambitions stay in check. What should be more alarming to conservatives is that Iran is able to rebuild a nuclear program that would normally take two years down in to two months.

Then we hit the ol’ academic piñata again! If you’re sensing a lot of de ja vu in these here “random thoughts” don’t worry, it’s actually happening. This is why I’m supposing Mr. Sowell needed a nap or something. Better yet, he just farted this column out over a weekend and that’s why it apparently loops back over on itself, as he forgot that he just lambasted academia earlier. And so I repeat what I wrote earlier with the addition that Mr. Sowell himself has served on several university faculties, graduated from both Harvard and Columbia…and the University of Chicago…and the think tank he works for, The Hoover Institution, is at Stanford University! Hell, it’s on the campus…so where the hell does Mr. Sowell get off on this “academia is a veiled Satan” rhetoric? Now this “random thought” might hold a bit of water as it approaches the notion that “The young are indoctrinated with demographic "diversity" that contrasts with a squelching of diversity of ideas on social issues.” But he doesn’t elaborate. Aside from stating that campuses are filled with more taboos and intellectual intolerance in America. This is because of professor tenure? In coupling that with Chris Rock’s recent comments that he doesn’t like performing at college campuses because of an intolerance to dirty jokes and taboo topics, perhaps Mr. Sowell has a point. But then there are his fellow conservative writers who are also tenured professors who spend a fair amount of column space crowing about the fact that their tenure allows them to be a racist, regressive conservative blowhard and no one can touch them. As with any social/ideological movement there will eventually be some push back. Social justice isn’t for everyone, and it’s current overreach will be met with a stronger push back as with all movements eventually.

I find it funny in the next “random though” that he takes the IRS and other social entities to task for “losing” things. Is it better to lose things that might disprove something, than to just pretend it doesn’t exist…or by extension matter? These “random thoughts” and their lack of context is pretty damning if the idea is to have other people, aside from his ditto-head readers, read this and then decide they’ve had enough of that mainstream media and Obama’s liberal agenda. Is he talking about the data climate scientists lost a few years back that would lead to the disproving of man made global warming? Also, would it be so bad if conservatives just agreed that global warming is real and stop pretending nothing is happening? You don’t have to like it, and in fact you can just out and out say that you’re being paid by the fossil fuel industry and the other earth hating corporations to be in constant disbelief and call it a day. This “random thought” is fucking loaded! He even slides in a dig at “affirmative action” for some reason. I feel like with this “random thought” there’s plenty of data he has failed to recognize that would combat his bullshit, but then the randomness and his conservative bonafides would be in question.

I don’t understand this “radical feminist” “random thought” not being couple or tripled with these previous anti-academia talking points. Hell, I think it would’ve been neat had Mr. Sowell actually taken the time and fleshed out an article on this straw man argument. You see, radical feminists are strangely silent about this whole ISIS thing. You know the most evil current boogeyman to the GOP/right-wing? According to Mr. Sowell, the “radical feminists” have sure been quiet on the whole ISIS front. But that makes me wonder if he’s just out of touch, and not that “radical feminists” aren’t saying anything about ISIS. Would having “radical feminists” on your side actually help the saber-rattling for war that is currently possessing the GOP/right-wing? “Well you know, we weren’t so sure about going in to more ceaseless war’s, but then all these “radical feminists” joined our cause, and now it is most just!”

A “random thought” about John Kerry is next, who made the mistake of saying the world isn’t so dangerous now. But then someone else said it wasn’t! Which is in line with the conservative world view that ever single thing is awful and terrible and the apocalypse is JUST around the corner, OH MY GOD EVERYONE HATES AMERICA AND IS COMING TO ATTACK US…somehow! Give me a fucking break. Is the GOP/right-wing not going to be sated until the U.S. just becomes the imperialistic overlord to the world?

Finally, book ending his “random thoughts” another dig at Obama. “We should never again put a first-term Senator in the White House.” But then goes on to list three other first-term senators for the Republican Presidential Candidate Clown Car Rally™! Oh, because they’re YOUR guys, I get it now! And also he’ll be ready in 2020! Ah, so clever Mr. Sowell. Since Marco Rubio admitted he was so wrong on immigration, he gets the Thomas Sowell seal of approval for the far flung future! You wanted something substantive as a better reason to be a GOP presidential candidate? Did you forget that you’re reading a Thomas Sowell column, come on!

Talking Readability with Jack Krier

It’s too bad Shithead Hall of Fame® Inductee Jack Krier doesn’t post his opinion pieces on the Internets. I mean, his newspaper empire does have it’s own website, but you have to register an account to actually LOOK at anything. You’d think he’d be proud to blast his asininity laden brain farts all over the world, but like a clam with it’s precious pearl, he hides them away from most people.

But that doesn’t stop me from reading his “opinion” in his various newspapers and scurrying back to retell it all shitty Beowulf style to you, dear citizens! I’ve once again been torn from my hiatus to break down a Jack Krier brain fart about the recent State of the Union.

Now, I’ve not been one to shy away from the State of the Union in recent memory. I mostly enjoy watching said address then watching the GOP/right-wing trot out some new current hot thing they got working on. Said hot new thing then most likely embarrasses themselves with a bunch of baloney and staid talking points, and then we move on. Somehow, with the election of Obama, it appears a political Pandora’s box has been opened and all manner of people come up out the woodwork to give their “rebuttal” to the State of the Union address. Sadly, this year I missed the State of the Union. I’m sorry, I forgot it was on!

I’m fairly certain the “state” of the “union” is “strong” (whatever that means). I did hear Obama drop some shade on the congress and then he talked about free community college for all on the backs of the wealthy. Fox News hosts lost their mind, and for some reason 58 year-old Steve Doocey JUST recently paid off his student loan from a state school…weird right? That HAS to be a lie. Par for the course for the right-wing!

Not having watched the address, I can only guess as to the bulk of the contents. I also can’t burden myself to actually WATCH the address and perhaps form my own opinions. Honestly, it doesn’t matter, because the address Mr. Krier saw was THE MOST WORST THING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF EVERY SINGLE THING!

Unfortunately for Obama, this years address was the least watched in a while. Mr. Krier takes that to mean something it doesn’t. For some reason the Nielsen ratings are still taken seriously. Yet, they don’t account for the true viewership of said item.  So yes, while viewership was down, I’m fairly certain it was just as watched as any other State of the Union in the recent past.

To begin Mr. Krier states that “Obama’s speech was filled with so many lies, half-truths and untruths that even the ultra hardcore liberal, Chris Matthews, and Andrea Mitchell, also a staunch liberal, readily criticized it.” What?! Christ Matthews, even though he lives on MSNBC (the supposed “Liberal equivalent to Fox News”) is nothing more than a populist blowhard. He’s the same guy that proclaimed, not that long ago, that George W. Bush should be put on Mt. Rushmore. I’m fairly certain I’ve never heard any self professed liberal say something like that! And Andrea Mitchell? Come on… On top of this Mr. Krier states that both Matthews and Mitchell “readily criticized” the speech, yet offers no examples to his readers, who most assuredly did NOT watch the State of the Union. Talk about so many lies, half-truths and untruths!

Not that much further in Mr. Krier displays his old man-ness but not understanding much of what Obama was talking about. But before that he shows us he doesn’t know how to do math very good either. As of 2013 the U.S. population was 316 million people, Mr. Krier crows that only 31 million people “watched” the State of the Union. Doing the math 285 million people didn’t watch it. I guess he’s rounding up when he says “300 or so million” How hard is this math Jack Krier?!

Moving along past Mr. Krier’s admonishment of Obama’s desire for “free stuff” like broadband internet access, cyber-security, and so on, we find that he thinks that higher taxes on the rich somehow mean people like him. Maybe so, seeing as he does own a sizable publishing arm in the Midwest. But that’s also the problem with a lot of the lower class of the GOP that get fooled by things like Fox News and talk radio in to thinking they’ll suffer because of rising taxes on the wealthy. The disconnect is often stymieing to me. I get the general idea that you don’t want to pay more taxes. But once again, taxes pay for all kinds of things, some of which you just aren’t going to like. For all this talk of American exceptionalism, the right-wing sure doesn’t want to pay to keep it that way. Hell, we’re not even really competing globally anymore in terms of broadband access and higher education.

It’s any wonder why Mr. Krier prattles on and on about the State of the Union when towards the end of his piece he states that “ […] the Democrats suffered a crushing defeat last November.” So why hem and haw about what Obama is offering in his address, if it’s all for naught because Republicans won control of congress on the lowest voter turnout since after World War II? I guess a victory is a victory right? It’s odd what right-wingers will declare as a mandate versus what isn’t a mandate. A thin George W. Bush “re”-election margin was enough to declare a mandate, Obama wins a majority of the popular vote both times, the GOP/right-wing is all “No mandate for you!” It’s odd, right?

Mr. Krier states that since Obama (and his favorite target “the mainstream media”) failed to read the November memo that “ […] the country soundly rejected all of the Obama policies.” that all his speech making is pointless. In the battle of political wills, it is Obama who must relent to the regressive wills of a Republican led congress. Who, for all it’s talk of getting America back on track, immediately started in on anti-abortion legislation. I shit you not! They couldn’t even be bothered about repealing Obamacare. First things first, let’s fight that anti-woman thing we’ve been accused of by doubling down on moral issues that most of America doesn’t care about and certainly didn’t put us back in power to do in the first place. Refutation my ass!

And now, we get to the real meat of my problem with this Jack Krier opinion piece. As if it wasn’t bad enough that he filled his “opinion” piece with a bunch of baloney. He impugns Obama further (if that’s even possible) by stating hat according to the Flesch-Kincaid his speech was written at a ninth grade level. What? Seriously? According to old man Jack this is for “the wealth of low-information voters”, which he means “the others” which he means minorities. Furthering in the stupidity, Mr. Krier states that George W. Bush’s address were the “highest rated speeches of the last five presidents.” Oddly enough he doesn’t provide any proof. Funny that. Which left it to me to dig around and see if this claim was even remotely true.

Sadly, Mr. Krier is wrong. Which shouldn’t be surprising for someone’s whose own Flesch-Kincaid score rests at about a 7. Which means Jack Krier writes for a seventh grade reading level. Does he also write for low-information voters? Just not minorities! Heaven forbid a “the other” get’s any ideas!

Sure W. had some high scoring years, 2006 in particular scored an 11th grade readability level, but he wasn’t the “highest rated speeches of the last five presidents” according to the Jack Krier Institute of Deep Inside the Dark Crevices of His Asshole of Higher Learning. That distinction belongs to the vaunted Saint Reagan! Who’s 11.7 is the much highest!

Regardless, I think the Flesch-Kincaid test is more a revelation to the fact that America is getting stupider the further she stumbles along the decades. Putting up a State of the Union address from George Washington yielded a 20.9 on the readability-o-meter. So this to could mean the readability test isn’t necessarily fool proof by any stretch of the imagination.

But why wouldn’t you want your speech to be understood by the masses? So what of the aim towards “low-information voters”? Does Mr. Krier think himself an intellect? His writing sure doesn’t allude to that whatsoever, and in the many years of reading his columns, the only smart thing he ever really does is plagiarize Thomas Sowell columns and steal blond jokes to re-purpose them as “democrats are dumb”.

For Old Man Jack Obama’s address is all for not, seeing as the president “ […] has the worst record in the past five years of getting things passed in Congress.” Where did Mr. Krier get this information, again…who knows?! He rambles out some more highly dubious information about how many Obama “calls to action” were actually followed through by congress. I’m wondering, if Jack Krier knows how our government works. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t, seeing as a lot of his TEA Party patriot comrades don’t have the vaguest idea ever. No, what’s more important is to keep parroting the “Imperial Obama” line over and over again as if it’s truer now than in any other point in history when it comes to executive orders. It’s amazing that with a “The Internets” chock full of information, and search engines that can get you to that information so quickly, we have such a lack of intelligence in our social discourse.

More pathetic is Mr. Krier’s hope that congress continues to stymie Obama’s “agenda”. Once again, a congress that did more nothing than the infamous “Do Nothing Congress” of the Truman presidency is exactly what this country needs right now. 

BuyPartisan: Sorry, there isn't an app for stupid!

BuyPartisan sounds like a great app: scan the bar code of your favorite food and figure out if that company leans to the left or to the right and how much it contributes to the various parties. It’s inventor told the Washington Post that the app was designed to “empower individuals so that they can make every day like Election Day in how they spend their money.” Oddly enough, the editorial board doesn’t like this one bit. Surprising!

For now, I think this app is a great idea. It boils down the one fast rule of life: money is everything. People as a whole have known for some time that voting with your dollar is the quickest way to make the change you want. It’s no surprise that after corporate sponsors of the regressive think tank ALEC were outed a lot of them went “What? Nope…not us!” and hustled out of the door so fast. It’s how groups of people threaten to boycott certain corporations that are doing things they don’t care for in order to persuade the corporation to maybe just have ONE day where they’re not being the evil, black-hearted, cocks they tend to be. Glenn Beck knows all to well the power that corporations provide through advertising. So much so that when they started leaving his accompanying shows in droves, he left the television airways with them, and now hocks “real made in the USA” denim jeans on his radio show and “internet television network“.

Unlike the Washington Post editorial board, I don’t think one app is going to further splinter the country. I would be amazed if it did, and that would mean that a lot of red state citizens would probably have to buy a Smartphone first. With their tin-foiled hat fear of the government scanning their thoughts for future crime, and dragging them away in the night, I doubt a surge in Smartphoned right-wingers is going to happen.

To attempt to try and validate its point, the editorial pulls out that stupid ass Pew Research poll that proves that America is driving itself further down ideological lines. I say stupid ass because all it’s proving, like a lot of polls showing this divide, is that it’s CONSERVATIVES that are becoming more ideologically rigid, and unwilling to work with other ideas. NOT the other way around. You’d think the right-leaning Washington Post would do better than to include that quote from the Pew poll, but they do.

The editorial continues with the notion that “if” the app “succeeds” it will take ideological sorting to a whole new level. Have they even used a Smartphone before, do they even know what an app is? This editorial is strangely technophobic and profoundly ignorant to just how much of an impact an app can have…on any level.

The app seems to be more about informing consumers about how a corporation does its business, and less about driving an ideological agenda. In fact, the app seems more to fill in the gap that has long been abandoned by the news altogether: public information. The internet also facilitates this notion, and it’s any wonder the news industry is suffering as a whole.

This notion of fearing the impending “ideological silos” is laughable, because it’s mostly a right-wing construct. Why is there still this constant need to have your own views represented in everything? The GOP/right-wing has a white knuckle grip on talk radio, they have their own channel, and a fair amount of newspaper editorial boards. This fear of marginalization was laughable when it was established and is absurd now. No one’s driving the GOP/right-wing ideas away from the mainstream but themselves and their idiotic actions as a party/ideology.

5 Signs You're A Social Justice Asshole!

Since writing about the Samantha Allen vs. Giant Bomb a while back I went on a journey in to the world of social justice. If this Encyclopedia Dramatica reference is to be believed, I’m fucked, and there’s no way out. Well, it was nice knowing you dear readers.

But fear not, my time with this wing of The Internets is drawing to a close. I’ve attempted three different times to write an article about social justice: it’s misinformed warriors and it’s well-intentioned but narrow minded knights. All to no avail. I’m struck by the sheer amount of horrible writing, both in terms of content and it’s literal meaning. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) defend topics that need absolutely NO DEFENDING. In the past month, I’ve read a defense of Kim Kardashian’s shitty celebrity game, that claims people hate Kim K because she’s making money? In that same vein another SJW defended PewDiePie from game “journalists” who are also jealous of his millions, and homophobic? What? This is the world of the SJW.

To close this dark chapter in my time as Mayor of Haterville, I’ve decided to take one of these articles to task. Ironically enough, it’s a Samantha Allen article titled 5 Signs You’re Dating a Reddit Troll. Yup, ol’ Ms. Allen is writing another tired “thought piece” on what appears to be one of the few different venues that draw her, and most SJW’s ire, Reddit. The other is 4chan. Because white cisgendered men are the enemy, and they cannot hide any longer!

I chose the article mostly because it’s the most recent, and is vaguely political, but also because it encapsulates my general problem with SJW’s. These broad stroke, lazy, arm chair quarterback articles are just inert pieces of trash clogging up The Internets, and honestly, not doing anyone a bit of good.

SJW’s by their very stated nature aren’t in to educating people, especially men. They are more than happy to shovel their hot opinions in to your face, but if you even blink at a notion they suddenly feel threatened and go on the offensive. Ms. Allen is great at this. She was interviewed at On the Media (around the time of the Giant Bomb debacle) about games that include "LBGT (sic) identities". On the podcast comment page were FIVE comments. One of the comments posted was a link to Ms. Allens’ misandry screed and stated that perhaps this wasn’t the right person to be interviewing about broader representation in games. Ms. Allen then proceeded to inform her twitter feed that she was being trolled yet again by the white man. Which wasn’t even the case. This mountain out of a molehill mentality is kind of the SJW’s one play with The Internets.

The one thing that truly stymies me is the SJW writer actively engaging in the very trolling behavior they admonish. Which, if the research I’ve been doing these past few weeks is any indication, is kind of what they do. I truly want to believe that Ms. Allen’s article is satirical in nature, but sadly it isn’t and it’s truly sad.

The intro to the list is a bit useless as it’s unnecessary to the list. But Ms. Allen has a SJW quota to fill so she indulges in a bit of early man hate from the beginning. You see, a woman’s husband left a browser open on their shared laptop, she shockingly discovered that he was an internet troll that “spends his spare time harassing teenagers on Tumblr”. (Tumblr is basically SJW Valhalla, so this is doubly damning!) Horror of horrors, the wife is also pregnant! (Somehow the teenagers referenced earlier are coyly changed to “women”, and the husband then becomes a “chronic harasser”.)

Now it’s not up to Ms. Allen to provide context, she’s trying to sell her bullshit misandry anyway she can. But context is definitely key. The husband needs to be a woman hating internet harasser for her article about how every single male on the planet is evil to hang together. It’s with the context of actually going and looking up said reddit thread that things become a lot less black and white, but we’re here to make fun of Ms. Allen’s list, not use one couples deeper marital issues to buoy horseshit ideology-as-help articles.

To perhaps save the woman from the same fate as the reddit woman, who was tricked by an evil man in to marrying him and then producing children with him, which he would then harass and slut-shame, Ms. Allen has crafted a list of things a woman needs to ask a potential man (who you are not going to be fooled by then perhaps marry and procreate with him). But you would probably be better off just NOT asking any MAN anything, because as we all know, men are just wanting sex and cannot even begin to suppress their need to subjugate the woman.

Question 1. “What do you think of Seth MacFarlane?” As a white cisgendered man (A.K.A. THE ENEMY) my first answer would be: “What?” But I’m part of the problem. Because Mr. MacFarlane’s Family Guy (and most of his output if we’re being honest) is about being equal opportunity offender to everyone, this greatly bothers SJW’s. The SJW’s see their plight as the most pure and the most right, and equal opportunity thinkers (EOT’s) are the SJW kryptonite in this regard. EOT’s think that SJW’s are just polishing the brass on the Titanic, and are just being overwrought, hyperbolic bullies. MacFarlane being a white male is also the worst thing ever, regardless of his equal opportunity “nonsense”.

Also, according to Ms. Allen he squandered his one-shot at Oscar hosting, which is odd, as he just hosted the Oscars, do you mean perhaps another shot? A second shot if it were? I don’t think Seth MacFarlane is going to lose sleep over not hosting the Oscar’s again. So, if you hate Seth MacFarlane’s “politics” then you’ve passed woman level one! If not, then the woman should be worried, because you may have been mean to a woman on The Internets! Run woman Run!!!! At the very least she didn’t make the question about “the South Park guys” and their equal opportunity shenanigans.

Question 2. “Have you ever heard of Anita Sarkeesian?” You’re answer will probably be “Nope!” As NO ONE outside SJW’s and video game nerds have heard of her. More than likely, you’re answer should still be “Nope!” because she’s a non entity to most society/culture and really should not have any profound impact on a relationship in any capacity.

Ms. Allen still has an axe to grind with the Giant Bomb “community” and this is how she squeezes it in to her article. First off, the term “video gamer” is antiquated and insulting, and so is the idea that if you’re a male and play video games you’re a seemingly undesirable to the female. Calling Anita Sarkeesian a feminist is fine, but calling her a media critic is pretty laughable. She isn’t interested in critiquing media and video games, she’s only interested in propelling herself. Her videos “liberally borrow” content from other internet videos, we used to call this plagiarism, but when you’re the queen of SJW’s you can do no wrong, therefore it’s not stealing. She also “liberally borrowed” other content on The Internets for her video series and failed to give proper credit, causing more problems for herself.

As with most SJW movements, Anita Sarkeesian isn’t interested in addressing problems and fixing them. So, do as Ms. Allen says in the last sentence and pretend to recognize the name and say something that “[…]sounds feminist or, at the least, empathetic […]. Then you’ll be okay to have babies with! Hooray?

Question 3.  “Which amendment in the Bill of Rights do you think is the most important?” I could write an entire column just about this ONE question. This is where the article leaves the atmosphere of anything remotely satirical and crashes gloriously in to the SJW quagmire of buffoonishness. It’s clear that Ms. Allen doesn’t know shit politically and this question should’ve been avoided as it also has NOTHING to do with a relationship.

Ms. Allen does a quick sexy run down on the Bill of Rights. In fact, it seems as though she just ran down the Bill of Rights wikipedia page and nothing else. Speaking of sexy this question can be a “ […] fun question that every couple should ask each other just to build intimacy […]” Sure, if you’re a couple of TEA Party Patriots who met on okStupid or Ohatedate.com!

Unsurprisingly, the fourth amendment gets shoved unsexy like with the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments.  It seems as though Ms. Allen started losing the thread in her column as none of the choices seem particularly inspired, funny, or insightful...or remotely satirical. Thinking that one particular amendment is more important than another doesn’t say much about a person. Nor is thinking the 2nd amendment being the most important makes you unlovable and that the woman should “RUN!” from you. Most people will ALWAYS pick the 1st amendment, it’s the fucking 1st amendment for crying out loud! Instead of half-assing a top-ten list of the Bill of Rights, perhaps Ms. Allen should’ve just said “If the man says anything about the 1st and 2nd amendment then he is unworthy of your love, because crazies love the 2nd amendment and internet trolls ALWAYS use the first amendment to harass women!” It’s also humorous that she adds about 1st amendment lovers  “[…] If he thinks it means that “it’s a free country” and “people can say whatever they want,” tell him to go back to the playground he learned his politics from […]” Kind of where Ms. Allen learned her critical thought and analysis ability?

Question 4. “Can I borrow your laptop really quick?” The next two questions are quick because Ms. Allen got her misandry out of the way and you can only sub textual write “white cisgendered males are the Satan” so many times. What better way to find out if your loved one is the one by straight up invading his privacy. According to Ms. Allen you have about 30 seconds to hand over your laptop before your doltishness unleashes itself and your rendered wifeless and alone! No one, I mean NO ONE should have their privacy invaded in order to prove worthiness. This nugget pretty much settles everything in this humorous bit:

“Men don’t just cheat on you and watch too much porn anymore. They also obsessively track down and harass people who are different from them in order to feel the fleeting sense of control and superiority that defines their particular version of masculinity.”

Are we still pretending this is satirical? 

Question 5. “Do you harass people on the Internet?” This is the only question you ever need to ask. The entire article previous is useless, unless you’re in to misandry and broad stroked idiocy-as-academic-critical-thought. But more importantly, being an asshole on The Internets doesn’t make you an unworthy partner. Should you also think twice when you’re riding in the car with your mate and they yell at bad driving on the road? Unless they have constant anger issues, you have nothing to worry about. There is more concrete evidence and signs for a bad partner than their internet habits.

It recently came to light, from Ms. Allen herself, that the article in question is just a “lighthearted thing”. I sincerely hopes that this is the case, but it still doesn’t excuse the rampant idiocy that rages through this column. Sure, as an academic Ms. Allen isn't shackled to churning out constant “academic thought pieces”, but that would mean that she would have to have written something academic in the same vein as this column. The bulk of her writing online is about video games, and trolling pop culture, so it becomes a bit stymieing that she paints with such a willfully ignorant brush. None of this article reads as satire, unless tongue-in-cheek has become ruthlessly bullying and mean. This article is just straight up trolling.

Debate: Are Republicans cold-hearted? Well, They Are Stupid.

Ugh. I almost wrote about Jonah Goldberg’s column about conservative values finding a home in the evil Uber-Liberal world of the moving pictures. His rhetorical laziness and blatant force of ignorance will always trump any sort of real cogent point he could make about the excellence of “conservative values“.

Instead, something else fell in to my lap, which is much more worthy of my rankles.

I don’t think people understand what debate is anymore. Reading this hot garbage Newsday fueled “debate” on whether Republicans are cold-hearted or not makes the case that the two authors don’t either. Then I read the comments. Yeah, people don’t have a goddamned clue what debate means anymore.

It’s easy to understand how this came to be. Real debate is hard for normal people. For the pundit class, who get paid to think by their ideological monied interests, it’s all too easy. For the pundit class, debate is just yelling over someone who thinks differently from you, not answering the original question asked, and going of on some tangent that’s somehow remotely related to the debate topic…and inexplicably not answering the question. That’s debate in the 24 hours news cycle, so can you really blame normal, everyday people, if they think that what the see these days is “debate”?

I tend to avoid reading these kind of “pro” and “con” articles when they appear in the newspaper. They lack any real substance and simply boil down to a “chocolate” or “peanut butter” solution from their respective camps on the myriad of topics foisted at it. It’s also just blatant status quo upkeep in the grand false equivalency.

So the topic goes: “Recent poll results from the Pew Research Center raise the question anew: They show that 86 percent of self-described "steadfast conservatives" believe that in America, "the poor have it easy." Just 6 percent of "solid liberals" believe the same thing. Who is right? Are liberals too soft-hearted, or are conservatives big ol' meanies?”

Joe Mathis (I guess representing the left-wing?) and Ben Boychuk (Umm…the right-wing…but not because he is a LIBERTARIAN!) “debate” this question.

Coming in at a (generously counted) blazing sixty-hundred and sixty-ish words you kind of get the notion that there’s not going to be much, if any debate. And wouldn’t you know it? There isn’t! Mr. Mathis does attempt to answer the question. Of course, the answer is yes: because they are!

Mr. Mathis makes some good points. He discusses the last election, and Romney’s “47 percent” comment, behind closed doors. It’s in their veiled racism towards “others”, like Reagan’s “welfare queens” of yore. Further, it’s in the GOP/right-wing’s exaltation of “policy wonk” Paul Ryan’s annual attempt to gut welfare budget’s and garner huge tax cuts for the wealthy through his “budgets”. It’s going on now with the current immigration problem, as the pundit class looks at those children living a life in limbo and squalor and just keep screaming “Eww! Eww! Send them away! Obama do something! Ick! Ick! Ick!” It’s in GOP/right-wing in congress being the arbiter’s of the general “Do-Nothing Congress 2.0” nature. If they are not cold-hearted, then what are they? They certainly aren’t pragmatic or sensible currently.

Mr. Mathis undercuts most of this by continuing to hedge his answer towards the false equivalency. It’s kind of hard not to. Regular people aren’t as black and white as the pundit class is paid to be. They can be of two minds on a topic. Believing that some poor people aren’t trying hard enough, AND that government is doing too much harm than good or in their case, probably not spending the money on the things they think the government should be spending their tax money on.

Ben Boychuk, in perfect right-wing fashion, doesn’t even bother answering the question. He’s basically “Answer?…pssh! That poll is stupid!”. The End. He does site a shortened version of the poll you the viewer can participate in and of course he came up “solidly conservative“. Then goes on to I guess site the actual poll where people could answer “I don’t know” to some of the questions, and has one of his buddies at the LIBERTARIAN Cato Institute double down on Mr. Boychuk’s assertion that the poll’s questions are dumb, therefore the poll itself is dumb. He then rattles off some debunked right-wing talking points, and calls it a day.

The Pew Poll website quiz that Mr. Boychuk sites is indeed a bit dumb. There are only two answers to a question, and it’s PRETTY OBVIOUS which answers are which. But the debate question isn't “Is this poll dumb and why?” and I’m pretty sure if we count this as a debate, then the answer is “Yes, Republicans are cold-hearted…and stupid…and don’t take direction well when asked to debate a question.” But hey at least Mr. Boychuk was found to be "solidly-conservative". Whew!