The View From The Side-Eye

Big Brother Is Reality

2020-09-13T13:15:00.001-05:00

Reality television critics are quick to say that reality tv isn't real. They claim that many of the events we see are producer manipulated. When it comes to the more game like reality shows the charge is production often steps in to manipulate situations and outcomes that are more favorable to good ratings or what fans want. We often hear the people on these shows aren't "real people" and aren't reflective of normal society.

This has especially been said about my favorite reality show, Big Brother. Fans have speculated for years production intervenes into the game happenings. Some past guests have confirmed it is true.

In recent years many (myself included) have vehemently complained about the houseguests selections. The complaints have ranged from CBS (the show's home) picking people who know nothing about the game to them seemingly finding at least a handful of toxic people to place in the house.

But, with the events occurring this season and contemplating the toxicity of the past few seasons it has hit me Big Brother is as real as it gets. Big Brother is a microcosm of society writ large.

The number one issue that BB has endured is racist houseguests. I am sure from its inception in 2000 Big Brother has had racist people in the house. You get 16 people from different walks of life percentages say at least one of them has some problematic racial views. But, there had been few if any overt incidents or circumstances with obvious undercurrents or overtones.

However, in the last few years starting with BB15 that has drastically changed. Fans of the show are quite familiar with the utter toxic racist trainwreck that season was. Aaryn, who in my opinion was the best player that season, was overtly racist to her fellow houseguests: Helen (whom is Asian), Candace (whom is black) and Howard (who is black). She told Helen to "shut up" and go "cook her some rice". She referred to Candace as "ghetto" and "homegirl" and anyone who watched the show knows Candace was far from ghetto. She also employed several known racist tropes about Howard.

Aaryn was not alone. She had extensive help from her best friend in the house, Gina Marie. In fact, they essentially went full on "mean girls" constantly bullying and harassing Candace. The most disappointing thing is nobody else in the house with the exception of Elissa Riley really stood up for the poc. Everyone else either enabled the racist activity or looked the other way.

Now, since that season there hasn't been as much overt racism with the exception of Mitchie and Jack last season. The racism has been more subtle or implicit. But, it has definitely been prevalent and present.

The racism has not been exclusive to the show itself. The Facebook forums and various groups are riddled with people who I will generously say have problematic racial views. They seem to have an issue with every single poc who has been on the show from Jacinda (BB16) to Da'Vonne (BB17, 18, 22) to James (BB18) to Alex and Josh (BB19) to Bayleigh (BB20, 22). This is a partial list of the poc.

I have read vicious and hateful comments about these people. Anyone who exhibits support or defense for them are often attacked and derided. More than a few people are just openly racist. They often never offer substantive critiques about any of them. They just hate their existence on the show.

It does appear the most spiteful venom is reserved for women of color. Da'Vonne, Bayleigh, Alex and Candace receive by and large the most hate. And, I am not saying these people are above criticism. Some of them are hard to like. I don't care for Bayleigh or Candace. But, it's pretty obvious what time it is when they're called "ghetto" and "hood" and criticized for reacting to being attacked when the white women in the house who do the same are heralded as "passionate" and "fiery".

This current season has definitely reflected what is really going on in society. The under current of race has been present within the house from the onset. Da'Vonne and Bayleigh made it crystal clear from the beginning that they felt they had a responsibility to show up and go far in the game.

But, a trend that has always existed in the game has really reared its ugly head this season. It always seems the poc are targeted and evicted early. This is not necessarily true across the board but more often than the poc in the house are gone before jury, which is made of the sixth through fourteenth people evicted.

This season so far there have six nominations for evictions (two each). Of the twelve original nominees eight of them have been poc. People of color make up 1/3 of the cast yet have been 2/3 of the nominees. People can say that is coincidence but it fits a pattern.

If you are a Big Brother fan you are well aware of the drama that took place in the house over the last week. Christmas, who is the Head of Household, put Da'Vonne and Bayleigh on the block for eviction. It was the fifth straight week a poc was on the "block" and second in a row that both original nominees for eviction were poc.

Now, let me be clear I don't think Christmas (nor did Da or Bay) put them up because they're black. I don't think there was subconscious bigotry either. However, the implicit biases and bigotry people possess came out because of this nomination and initiated an explosive and revealing confrontation.

I am not going into the entire backstory about led up to the confrontation. Suffice to say part of the reason Christmas put Bay up was because of something Bayleigh told her in confidence. Thus, Bayleigh felt hurt and betrayed.

Christmas goes to Da'Vonne inquiring as to why Bay is upset with her. Da'Vonne without offering a judgement tells Christmas Bay is hurt and feels betrayed. Immediately Christmas becomes defensive and begins becoming a bit aggressive with Da. Da tries to impress upon her that she is not telling her how she feels but how Bay feels. However, Christmas is ostensibly upset by now and takes it out on Da'Vonne. She inexplicably brings up Da's daughter, gets in her face and starts berating her. Da'Vonne feeling herself about to explode says, "Christmas, I am walking away. We aren't doing this." Christmas talks shit to Da as she walks away.

About this time Bayleigh had walked into the house from the backyard and approached the bathroom where Da and Christmas were. Bay asks what is going on and Christmas, who is still heated, begins going at Bayleigh which causes them to get into an argument. Christmas begins putting her finger in Bay's face and then starts clapping in her face.

While that is going on Da'Vonne goes outside where Cody and Tyler are playing pool. Da is crying and angry expressing her frustration over feeling like she can't do anything because if she responds everyone will be like, "Ah! There it is! That is Da'Vonne we know and have been waiting for."

A minute later Bayleigh walks outside expressing the same frustration as Da'Vonne. Bay says, "She (Christmas) is in there talking to me crazy as hell but I have to let her because if I respond I'm the ghetto ass black girl."

Cody doesn't say anything while Tyler does his best to assure them that isn't true and Christmas is totally in the wrong.

Bayleigh and Da walk back into the house where Christmas is sitting at the table with Dani. As Bay and Da walks by Christmas does what I call the "intentional passive aggressive Tourette's". She began making indiscriminate comments that were actually directed at Bayleigh and Da'Vonne. Bayleigh kept walking but Da was losing the battle with her temper and began walking back toward Christmas. Thankfully, Bay was able to corral Da'Vonne and walk her into one of the bedrooms.

Also, I would be remised if I neglected to mention after Christmas nominated Da and Bay she made comments about hoping she did get "shot" or "stabbed".

This entire situation exemplifies something poc especially black people experience often. We get into a confrontation with a white person(s) especially when they are the instigator and are afraid to respond because of how we'll be perceived. I am sure there are people reading this who are rolling their eyes but it is true.

If we become angry or loud we are labeled "aggressive" and the person who initiated the ordeal becomes the victim. To the house's credit everyone laid the blame of the confrontation at Christmas' feet where it belonged. But, she definitely attempted to play the victim and the perception she was attacked by those aggressive girls.

And, if you were to read the forums there was a lot of that being said. Nobody could have objectively saw that confrontation and concluded Christmas was a victim in any way. However, I read comment after comment calling Da'Vonne and Bayleigh "ghetto" and "over emotional".

This happens in real life every single day. It is especially true for black women. If they get into any altercation with a white woman where the white woman is the aggressor there is a good chance that white woman will make herself the victim and weaponize her tears. Don't get triggered. It is the truth. And, the black woman will be labeled "loud", "aggressive", "violent", "angry".

In Da'Vonne's case she knew of which she spoke. In her two previous seasons she was labeled those things for defending herself from attacks from other houseguests.

I love Big Brother! I still hold out hope one day I'll get to be on there. But, they have a problem. The problem seems to be systemic.

The casting department has either been really shitty at their job or their desired cast is really shitty.

Controversial and/or mean people have always been on Big Brother. But, the not so subtle racism and bigotry is a real substantive issue. It happens to frequently for it to be a coincidence.

Now, understand I am not saying I think Christmas is a racist. I actually love her. That said she has said some very problematic things that come from somewhere inside her. She is not alone. For example, Memphis has been a bit shaky himself with his attitude toward David.

And, the issue is even in this current environment the poc in that house feel they have to just take the bigotry, implicit bias and possible racism. Because, if they respond in any meaningful way they'll be negatively labeled and will all but seal their already tenuous fates.

Bayleigh shouldn't have to hesitate to respond when someone claps in her face. Let's not bullshit! We all know what clapping like that means. But, she has to exhibit Jesus like restraint because if she doesn't she's the "ghetto bitch" while the white woman who clapped in her face is the "victim of an angry black woman".

And, while I know Big Brother can't do anything about the racist and misogynistic toxicity in Facebook groups and forums, I feel if they quit feeding the racist part of their fanbase with putting racist assholes in the house these troglodytes will eventually be weeded out.

Big Brother has proven reality tv is very real. What is happening in that house right now takes place in workplaces, churches and social gatherings across this country.

I have always said I am confident I could win Big Brother because I have spent my life practicing for it.

A Novice's Guide To Debating The Rightwing Online

2020-08-31T18:52:00.001-05:00

Social media platforms have literally become the town square. A place where people go to tell the news, share personal stories and discuss current events. It is no secret platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become arenas where people can debate sports, entertainment and politics. Of course, politics being the most popular topic.

Even if you are the most casual observer you know political arguments often become passionate, if not contentious. If you are someone whom considers yourself left liberal or progressive or leftist you are likely well aware Facebook and Twitter can be quite adversarial places if you express an opinion in any fashion. This is because Conservatives, Republicans and rightwingers tend to utilize Facebook and Twitter as well as other social media platforms to express themselves and often do so rather stridently.

Needless to say this strident behavior of some on the right and this need to be heard by those on the left leads to numerous arguments. Many of the rightwingers that will engage in these discussions are reactionaries and ideologues whom also tend to be quiet dogmatic in their opinions. And, what I have noticed with some on the left is they really don't always respond to these people effectively. This includes myself.

So, how does one respond? How should you engage in debate?

Well, through some trial and error and some observations I have come up with some methods and approaches. I have actually been thinking about writing this particular blog for a year but just now getting around to it. I figured what better time with the election season heating up and rightwingers ratcheting up their rhetoric and their attacks.

I am no expert. Ben Burgis or Sam Seder I certainly am not. This is definitely layman's advice. But, I often find myself debating rightwing reactionaries and conservative ideologues online. I hold my progressive values dearly and have intrinsic convictions.

So, I feel an obligation to get the progressive message out there and accrue allies. Even perhaps more than that Progressives and people on the left broadly speaking tend to be passive when it comes to standing up for the policies and values we claim to believe in and I have concluded we cannot do that any longer. We must fight! But, we must be smart and principled when engaging the right.

With that said here is my advice on debating rightwingers especially online.

Actually before I get into the crux of all this I will address the question some always have. Is it even worth engaging these rightwing ideologues and reactionaries? The short answer is yes! As with most things, however, there is gray area.

While I say it is worth engaging these folks I believe there are some variables that come into play. What is your purpose in getting into this discussion? What is your endgame?

If you are arguing or debating rightwingers for the sole purpose of trolling them I honestly don't see much value. If you think you can win the argument, you have likely lost before you began because when it comes to debating these reactionaries winning is subjective and usually not their goal in arguing with you. But, I will get into that a little later. If you think in real time you are going to sway them to your side or induce them into admitting you are right you are on a fool's errand. The chances of that are highly unlikely.

The value in engaging these people doesn't necessarily come from convincing them but from other observers of the conversation. One of the interesting aspects of social media is that you never really know who is following your or someone else's post's thread. So many people will follow a post or comment thread but never comment nor hit the like/dislike button.

These people often are apolitical or lean slightly in one direction or the other. They are presumably more reasonable and open-minded. They aren't firmly tethered to an ideology so it makes them more vulnerable to being convinced.

So, the way you approach the conversation is important. How factual and logical you are can be vital. These are the people you should want to reach.

Also, if you are truly tethered to your own principles, the way you approach these engagements can bring comfort and assuredness to those who are allies.

Now, how to proceed in these online conversations.

You are likely to see from the start what kind of person you are dealing with. People who are reasonable and intelligent are normally easy to detect because they will come at you respectfully. When it comes to these people have civil conversations, debate and get your viewpoints across.

This blog is about the people whom frankly tend to be ignorant, aggressive, confrontational. I am talking about the fools!

We have all dealt with them. Likely, we have been attacked by them. They are the people who are not necessarily concerned with facts but primarily interested in "owning the libs", triggering you and being able to crow to their buddies "I bagged a snowflake". Winning the argument is not important to them; getting you angry and frustrated is.

My number one rule is always remained focus. Stay on topic.

Rightwingers and reactionaries love to corner you. They do this by utilizing a strawman. For an example, I will use socialism. If the topic is the Progressive agenda and you mention Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism, like a drunk parrot they just repeat "Venezuela" over and over.

The purpose of this is simple. Everyone knows Venezuela is a disaster. It is an ostensibly socialist country. Venezuela embodies every socialist stereotype. War torn, abject poverty, despair. So, what they are doing when they bring up Venezuela is to force you to decry it and it admit it's a disaster. The second you do that they will say, "See! You are admitting socialism is a fiasco and will ruin the country so why are you promoting it? Because you hate America!" Or, they may just use your "admission" to "expose" your naivety.

The way to combat that is to stay on topic. Admit that, yes, Venezuela is a fiasco but it is under authoritarian regime. The socialism Sanders is promoting is Democratic Socialism which is a system that features a mixed economy (socialism and capitalism). It is the Scandinavian style of government. Then explain that America is somewhat a mixed economy now because we already have socialist elements (social security, Medicare, police and fire departments).

The key is never allow them to box you in which is exactly a strawman's intention.

Another popular tactic is the non-sequitur. Recently, many rightwingers have equated people protesting racism and racial inequality with wanting a race war. The assertion is laughable on its face and some rather blatant projecting on their part.

The purpose of this is quite apparent. The non-sequitur is meant to undercut the protests' intent. When they employ this silliness they are attempting to make the protests nefarious. It is an intentional mislead.

The same tactic was used against Colin Kaepernick's kneeling for the national anthem. Rightwingers said it was disrespectful to not only the flag but the troops. Kaepernick made it clear from the start why he was kneeling and why he chose kneeling as his form of protest. (Former teammate and Iraq War veteran, Nate Boyer, told him kneeling was respectful as opposed to him sitting during the anthem which is what he did previously.) Rightwingers and reactionaries knew this but because their real problem was with what Kaepernick was protesting more than the form of protest they made him kneeling the issue. It worked because before long the intended message was buried.

You can't allow these folks to do that. Again, stay focused. Stay on topic.

I found myself in these arguments frequently. I even had someone tell me (online) that Kap was disrespecting God by not standing for the anthem. After I briefly ridiculed the stunning stupidity of that statement I went right back to why Kap was protesting. Eventually, this person said "Whatever" and stopped arguing.

The most frequently used tactic I have encountered is the red herring. Rightwingers absolutely love employing them. The most notable use I have encountered is discussing Black Lives Matter-the group and the message.

As you know, the issues of police brutality against people of color (in particular black males) and the killing of unarmed black males has been a central topic in the mainstream for the better part of the last decade. However, rightwingers argue black people and our anti-racist movement white allies don't really care about black lives because of black on black crime and abortion.
So, every time any discussion turns toward police officers killing unarmed black people the drunk parrot reemerges decrying, "What about black on black crime?" Now, what you should mention and they conveniently gloss over is that black people kill each other at about the same percentage as white people kill each other. The same goes for every racial subgroup. Of course, they don't want to hear that because they are attempting to minimize cops murdering unarmed black people.

Abortion is used in the same manner. It is true abortions are higher among African-Americans than other groups. But, what rightwingers never want to acknowledge is the role poverty and lack of adequate access to birth control play and that they are generally against any policy that would approve both.

Like with the strawmen and non-sequiturs the key is to stay focused and know the facts.

What generally happens if you stay on topic is these rightwingers and reactionaries resort to ad hominem attacks. And, as I am sure many of you know, these attacks can be anywhere from infantile to vicious and threatening.

What people must understand is that many of these folks online are mainly interested in triggering and owning. They don't care about "winning" the argument. To them winning is either triggering you or inciting you to attack back so they can then turn it around on you saying, "See! These liberals are the vicious and uncivil ones."

Their purpose is to get you to cry whether it is figuratively or literally. They want you to be so inside your own head that you essentially stay silent. With them it is all about intimidation.

They will just employ non-sequitur after non-sequitur and ad hominem after ad hominem in an effort to berate you. It is how they can intimidate online. It is similar to how they will attempt to intimidate in person by getting loud and invading your personal space.

My best advice is to hold your ground and have a line. Admittedly my line is pretty deep. In fact, I get told all the time I give folks way too much rope. Do not be like me but don't be quick to end conversations and block people either.

I believe in letting these clowns expose themselves. Once again, I'll say you never know who's watching and who is susceptible to being swayed. Be armed with facts, logic, intellect and maturity.

Never let them deflect because they will. If you make a point and they spew red herrings and nonsense. Respectfully but aggressively call them out on it. Either make them address whatever point you made or expose themselves as vapid frauds by continuously deflecting and refusing to materially acknowledge what you said.

As frustrating as it can be and as much as they reactionaries can make you want to inhale an entire kilo of the cola I firmly believe there is intrinsic value in debating these folks. Because, the best way to combat speech is with speech.

Also, for us on the left it is important to get our message and our actual values out in the discourse. We can't allow the right to set the narrative about us or them. The best way to set the narrative and move the project forward is being in the discussion.

And, it is vastly important to debunk rightwing and reactionary ideology. The best way to do that is directly engaging them online and allowing observers to see the conversation.

Now, please understand I am not saying to go pick fights with these fools. Because, frankly, getting into figurative brawls with them never ends well for our ilk. Also, I understand not everyone is equipped for debate. I am saying when the opportunity presents itself take the fight to them. Don't back down. Don't fall into "civility" arguments. Being aggressive and convicted isn't being uncivil. That is just trite bullshit the right uses to silence us. Unfortunately, too many on the broader left always fall for it.

Let's keep it real here. We are at war so to speak. A definite authoritarian streak exists on the right. The guy they seem to worship is a wannabe clown fascist. The reactionaries most certainly want to suppress poc and other marginalized groups.

The more people who support this we can expose the better.

As with anything when on Facebook, Twitter, the Gram, whatever the platform be prepared and stand your ground.

The Diary Room Side-Eye; Week Three

2020-08-24T23:09:00.000-05:00

Week three in the Big Brother house saw Memphis winning HOH and putting Nicole Anthony and David on the block. He was looking to gun for Ian but Christmas derailed that plan when she won Safety Suite and decided to make Ian her "plus one" keeping him safe for the week.

His alliance (Christmas, Cody, Dani, Nicole Franzel and Tyler) were wanting either Kaysar or Janelle to go up on the block. However, Memphis said it was too early for big moves.

I believe he chose Nicole A because he really doesn't feel she deserves to be there. It should be noted she made it to the Final Four last season. He made it clear he doesn't think David deserves to be there. In fact, he has been rather rude to David from the beginning. Let me state here I don't think David is an all-star and the boy seems a bit clueless. However, there was no reason for Memphis to be the ass he has been to him.

David and Nicole A still had the Veto comp as a lifeline. But, Nicole A was out of the comp almost from the start. David, on the other hand, came to play. He lasted until the final three along with Tyler and Memphis before dropping out.

Although Tyler is in an alliance with Memphis he kept battling for the veto. Tyler likes David and wanted to take him off the block which would've possibly forced Memphis to replace him with Janelle or Kaysar. Something that Memphis seemed very reluctant to do. But, in the end it didn't matter because Memphis won veto keeping noms the same.

I imagine being on the block is hella stressful. I know I would be anxious as hell. But, it is interesting to see what it does to some people.

Nicole A really began panicking and getting in her own head. Thanks largely to Kevin she began believing Janelle and Kaysar (especially Janelle) were lying to her and actually working against her. Kevin was filling her head with all sorts of nonsense. That dude thinks he knows what is going on but doesn't know anything.

Nicole A was going to other people in the house to verify if her suspicions and what she was being told were true. Her two biggest confidants were Dani and Nicole F, whom of course were more than willing to trash Janelle. Dani sees Janelle as a threat which she should. "The Rat", Nicole F, has this irrational envy and jealousy of Janelle. Well, maybe it's not that irrational. Janelle is The Queen and is prettier, smarter, more well liked and just a better human being than Nicole. I am sure Nicole stans are triggered and will come after me but we have plenty experience seeing how Nicole F is about other females who garner more attention than she does. See Big Brother 16 with her attitude toward Brittany and Amber and Big Brother 18 with every woman in that house.

Anyway, Nicole A was convinced Janelle was backstabbing her and wanted to call a house meeting to call out The Queen. We all know whether it's Big Brother or The Real World house meetings never go well for the person who calls them. But, she was considering it and Tyler was encouraging her because he wanted to see a show. I can't say if it were me I wouldn't have been encouraging it also, but I would like to think my humanity would have stepped in and not allowed that girl to go into the lion's den. Janelle would stripped every bit of dignity and self-worth she had.

Thankfully for her sake she decided not to call the meeting. It would have been dumb anyway since Janelle and Kaysar were busting their asses to save her placing their own games in jeopardy.

While NicA was making an ass of herself David was busy doing his best to prove Memphis was right about him. I like the boy. I do. But, he seems a little.........touched. It doesn't appear he is the brightest bulb.

The alliance wanted David to stay. But, that is only five votes since Memphis would only vote in case of a tiebreaker. So, David needed to secure one more vote and probably two since Memphis really doesn't seem to like him. Enter Da'Vonne and Bayleigh.

Da'Vonne made it clear she didn't want to vote against David because he's African-American and she wants to see an African-American make history and win. (Spoiler: David isn't the one. The boy ain't bright!) Bayleigh more or less agreed with this sentiment. Now, as a black person who is still salty af about Danielle Reyes (BB3) I totally understand where Da is coming from. I get it. Because, black people do seem to get shit on in this game. That said I think this stance is a bit shortsighted and misguided. As NicA pointed out to Da why can't Da be that person to make history. In the short term keeping NicA is better for Da's game because she is a number for her and Bayleigh.

Well, Da'Vonne approached David and explained this to him. She opened up saying she was conflicted because she loves Nicole but didn't want to be responsible for evicting an African-American so early in the game. She wanted assurance from him that going with her moral center over her heart was the right move.

So, she asked him if he was in an alliance because NicA was aware Tyler and Christmas in particular wanted to keep him. This fool looks at her and says, "I don't want to answer that right now." Um, bruh, you just did answer it. Exasperated Da retorted, "What does that mean?" He proceeds to tell her he has everything under control and to "bring it down". Visibly pissed Da'Vonne says, "Ok." Note: As Bay said in the diary room, Bro, never tell a woman to "dial it down" and especially don't do it when that woman is Da'Vonne Rogers!

She expresses her frustration to Bay telling her she is really rethinking her vote.

Alas, Eviction night arrives. In her speech NicA lowkey calls out the alliance. She calls out Memphis by name.

By a vote of 10-2 NicA is evicted from the Big Brother house. Enzo and Kevin were the two votes to keep her.

When she sat to talk with Julie she realized what kind of a dumbass she had been. Julie told her about the alliance and basically laid it out there what Nicole F said about Janelle was bullshit. Julie point blank told her Janelle and Kaysar spent the entire week attempting to save her.

I like NicA alot, but she was way too neurotic. Her bullshit detector isn't great. Listening to Kevin, Nicole F, Christmas and Dani likely got her evicted.

Next, it was time to crown a new HOH. It was the beer stein comp which I like. Enzo jumped out to the early lead. But, midway through Tyler took first place and never relinquished it making Tyler the new Head of Household.

It was pretty clear who Tyler was targeting, Janelle and Kaysar. First, they are two of, if not the best players in the house. Second, they had four of the alliance figured out (Tyler, Cody, Dani and Nicole F). Third, with the exception of maybe Memphis the alliance wanted them out week one.

But, before noms was the final Safety Suite. Dani, Memphis, Nicole and Enzo competed. Janelle asked Memphis if he won it would he save her. Memphis said he would but it was obvious he wasn't interested. In fact, in the diary room Memphis said he would throw it.

Memphis did indeed throw it. Nicole was awful. Dani did really well but Enzo beat her out by 20 seconds. As his "plus one" Enzo chose Christmas.

So, that led up to nominations. In the most predictable noms ever Tyler chose Kaysar and Janelle.

It is pretty clear they have to win Veto. One of them will be going home.

Before I wrap this week's blog up I have to mention Nicole and her bullshit. She nominated Janelle as a "have not". When she did she made a snide comment about Janelle talking about her. In true Nicole fashion she then acted apologetic for allowing her "inner voice" to slip and insisted she didn't mean to say it. Of course, she did though. She made a weak ass attempt to apologize but Janelle called her out on her bs.

It is true Janelle threw her name out for nominations last week. Janelle is not a fake person and knows Nicole is fraudulent af and has earned her rat moniker. It was clear on opening night that Janelle wasn't interested in Nicole's fake ass "innocent farm girl" routine.

Nicole is obviously jealous of Janelle as I mentioned earlier in the blog. Let's keep it 100 here. Nicole is jealous of every woman.

The fact is I know the Janelle haters and Nicole stans will come at me but whatevs. Nicole is pathetically insecure and fake.

She has spent the last few days crying because Janelle has been "mean" to her. By The Queen's standards she has actually taken it easy on The Rat. The Janelle from seasons 6 and 7 would've gone all in and made that ridiculous child self-evict.

Say what you want about The Queen but she's real. One of the reasons Janelle is, always has been and always will be my favorite is because she doesn't stand for bullshit, frontin and weakness. Janelle has always been a down ass chick and love or hate her you know what you're getting.

Nicole, on the other hand, slithers around stabbing people in the back and then plays the victim when she's called out. Da'Vonne knows that better than anyone.

Janelle is likely going home Thursday which will suck. I just hope the old Janelle comes back for a couple of days and blows Nicole's game up.

I will cover it in next week's blog but Nicole has already set her sights on her next target playing the victim while being a whiny manipulator. The problem this time she is in a house full of real legends and queens. Although they are in her alliance Christmas and Dani are already seeing right through The Rat's ratchetness. If God is smiling down on me that chick will not be long for this game.

I don't want to see Kaysar go but I hope my Big Brother crush for the last 16 years can pull off some magic and stay. Regardless which of Kaysar or Janelle stay the rest of the house may be in for a turbulent summer.

The Diary Room Side-Eye: Week Two

2020-08-16T23:19:00.000-05:00

This past week in the Big Brother house started off rather uneventfully.

Cody, the HOH, had nominated Kevin and Keesha for nominations. It was a typical first week nomination. Cody stated he didn't have a connection with either Kev or Keesh. And, if you remember, his original targets (Kaysar and Janelle) were safe thanks to Kaysar's win in the Safety Suite.

Both nominees decided to save themselves by floating around the house. They also knew Veto was still to be played which winning was the only way to ensure safety.

Keesha turned to her social game. Kevin, on the other hand, decided to grovel and whine. He went to Enzo, Ian, David and the HOH Cody to help him stay. It was a bit pathetic if you ask me.

Anyway, the Veto comp was played. Enzo won the comp, which consisted of stacking as much plastic fruit as possible without the stack falling. Kevin literally had the comp won with 19 pieces but instead of hitting the buzzer he decided to continue stacking. His stack fell which allowed Enzo to win with 18 pieces.

Predictably Enzo did not use the Power of Veto. As he stated, it was too early in the game to be making big moves. Besides, Cody didn't want the Veto used because understandably he didn't want anymore blood on his hands.

After Veto it became pretty apparent Keesha was the target for eviction. Her allies, Kaysar and Janelle, tried to sway some votes but were unsuccessful.

So, Thursday night came, which is eviction night. Am I the only one who gets excited for eviction night even when I know what is going to happen? Maybe it's just my weird ass.

Well, I did know what was going to happen. The gorgeous Keesha, who just happened to be one of my picks for Final Three and one of the true queens of Big Brother, was evicted. What somewhat surprised me that is was 13-0. I figured Kaysar or Janelle would throw her a sympathy vote. Hell, I thought Memphis maybe would. He didn't.

I hate Keesha left so early. Personally, I would've much rather seen Kevin go. And, no, not just because of my prediction but because I think Keesha would've added so much more than Kevin will. By the way I will get into Kevin's dunbfuckery in next week's blog.

It came time for the HOH comp. Janelle and Kaysar believed they had to win it to keep from going on the block.

The comp was close. Janelle was on her game, but it wasn't enough. Memphis became the new HOH.

With Memphis as the HOH it was unclear to me whom he would put on the block. My initial thought was Kaysar and The Queen.

Considering it's only the second week he could go with safer choices. For example, no reason Kevin couldn't go up again.

It was pretty clear who wasn't going up. Cody, Christmas, The Rat Nicole F, Dani and Tyler are all in an alliance with Memphis. But, Memphis was wanting everyone to play Safety Suite which Nicole F, Dani and Tyler rightfully balked. They didn't want their pass wasted. They all saw right through the bs and knew Memphis was trying to keep his ass safe for next week.

However, Christmas and Cody decided to play. In fact, most of the house played.

Christmas came out the winner. She chose Ian as her "plus one". She wanted to protect someone who isn't in her alliance so that she doesn't give away any clues whom she is an alliance with. It also gives her another ally in Ian whom will owe her because Memphis is gunning for him. That said Memphis was okay with Ian being safe because he feels he will have the opportunity to get Ian.

Well, with Ian not an option Memphis decided to put up David and Nicole A. Memphis' speech to David was a bit harsh and unnecessary. He obviously doesn't think David deserves to be there. He had named David a "have not" citing he thinks David "will break".

When this all actually took place Friday night Facebook and Twitter were abuzz about what Memphis had said. Actually watching it what Memphis said wasn't exactly in the realm of what it was being portrayed. Of course, it was also edited to put Memphis in a better light. However, I thought he was out of line. Of course, David isn't an all-star, but he hasn't done anything while in the house that deserved Memphis being such a dick to him.

It is somewhat unclear who the target for eviction is. I think Memphis would rather see Nicole A go because he views her as more of a threat and she didn't obey him about playing in the Safety Suite. Whereas with David he acts like he is some frat brother teaching a pledge he doesn't particularly care for a lesson.

It will be interesting to see how Veto plays out. I hope David can pull it off. I like the dude. He seems goodhearted and laid back.

Let me just say Memphis rubs me the wrong way. I can't quite put my finger on it but something about that guy doesn't sit well. He seems arrogant and entitled for no real reason. I mean, Bruh, you lost to Dan Gheesling 7-0 in season 10! He took you to the Final Two. While you're shitting on David some would say you're not an all-star but I digress.

Before I go let me say something the live feeders and daily blog followers are well aware of. I like Nicole A. She seems like a sweet chick and very down to earth. But, homegirl needs to check herself wanting to go after Janelle. I know some folks are about to be triggered but triggered you'll have to be. Janelle just isn't a queen. She is THE QUEEN! The Queen is the master of the side-eye, throwing shade, dragging a mf'er and snatchin wigs. This silly girl better tread lightly. She will go somewhere she will not come back from. I hope somebody in that house snatches her silly ass up and talks some sense into her. Gurlllllll, you don't want that smoke! Trust and believe that!

Systemic Racism Should Be The Movement's Focus

2020-08-15T13:46:00.001-05:00

Along with the Covid pandemic the anti-racist movement has been at the forefront of the news cycle this summer.

It was late May when the murder of George Floyd ignited a powder keg of frustrations and was the culmination of a series of racially motivated murders and incidents that sparked what has become daily protests demanding an end to racial injustice and police brutality. The protests began in Minneapolis, the site of the George Floyd murder, but quickly spread to cities and towns all across America. Because of the protests more attention was brought to the Ahmaud Arbery murder at the hands of racist "vigilantes in Georgia, the Louisville police murder of first responder Breonna Taylor while she slept her home and an incident in Central Park featuring a white jogger, Amy Cooper, calling the police on a black bird watcher, Christian Cooper, falsely telling the police he was "threatening" her and her dog all because she was offended he politely asked her to leash her dog because the dog was scaring away the birds.

These protests brought forth a national reckoning on police brutality, police interaction and attitude toward people of color, racial injustice, racial inequality and racism as a whole. For the first time in a long time Americans were forced to look at the way poc (particularly black people) were treated in this country and acknowledge racism is a bit more prevalent than they wanna admit.

As people took their grievances and demands to the streets (the vast majority peacefully protesting) and to social media it became clear that this wasn't going away anytime soon. People were demanding change take place now. However, the direction the demand for change should go wasn't so clear.

The woke types seemed to be more focused on interpersonal racism and racist symbols. Confederate statues were being forcibly taken down. The Confederate flag became a pointed debate topic. In fact, NASCAR decided to enforce a rule that had actually been decided in 2015 banning the Confederate flag from all races. Racist stereotypes and images such as Aunt Jemima came under scrutiny eventually being removed. Several white animated voice over actors who were voicing black characters stepped down from their roles. The Dixie Chicks and Lady Antebellum changed their names to The Chicks and Lady A respectively. And, of course, there was the cringey annoying white liberal folks (especially Hollywood peeps and the brie cheese eating/Starbucks chai tea sippin types) who decided they needed to yet again reevaluate checking their privilege further bastardizing and watering down the term.

Now, there has also been the more earnest sincere anti-racist allies who feel they must work on individuals in their orbit to be more aware, self-reflective and less bigoted. People who feel ending interpersonal racism and bigotry is the key ending inequality and injustice.

While fighting interpersonal racism and holding each other accountable is something we should all definitely do it is not where our focus should be.

For us to competently fight racism we have to end systemic racism and discrimination.

The fact is we are never going to rid ourselves of the scourge that is interpersonal racism. Sadly, there will always be bigots, racists and supremacists. Human beings are what they are. Again, that doesn't mean we don't stop trying to change people because we do. Just understand if your end game is to totally eradicate people hating or judging others based upon their race or ethnicity your efforts are in vain. Besides, changing individuals doesn't solve the material problems.

Ending racial inequality and injustice has to be done at their roots, the system.

Now, many people on the right and the center and frankly, the neoliberal left of center will tell you systemic racism isn't actually a thing. All of these different groups have slightly nuanced versions of why systemic racism is not the problem. But, they share the same core reason for making these assertions, which are so obviously asinine, which is they are protecting their power.

People on the right will tell you the stroke of the pen signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act (which the Supreme Court gutted in 2012) and the 1968 Fair Housing Act eradicated systemic racism. They insist because those laws forbade anyone from discriminating against poc systemic racism was ended forever. You know, because people never break the law and there are never loopholes or entities that simply don't enforce the law. So, the system is fine and only infrequently needs a tweak or two.

Centrists and Neoliberals take a slightly different tact. They are very willing to concede there are racists and there is even some systemic racism. However, they insist the solution isn't to look at the system but to focus on the individuals within the system.

Here is where pseudo-woke culture and corporate wokism were born. Their approach is to have workshops and training that focus on telling white folks that they are inherently racist while instructing poc to check white folks' privilege and obsess over micro-aggressions. This culture also encourages white folks to constantly reevaluate their attitudes and behavior toward poc which isn't necessarily a bad thing except that the premise is these white folks can never really achieve true wokeness. Because, if they did, these corporate trainers would see their revenue streams dry up and corporations could not constantly push the narrative of how "down" and woke they are.

Does it sound like I am being too cynical? Good! You should be too! All of this bullshit is used to distract and divert away from the fact that these companies don't pay their employees (of any color) anywhere near well enough or that poc and members of marginalized groups are sprinkled throughout management but their representation isn't usually close to adequate or the fact many of these bigger companies and corporations are purveyors of gentrification which disproportionately negatively affects poc and hiring practices are often racist and multiple studies have proven it so.

The system is the problem. I know this triggers people but some of y'all really have to stop being effin snowflakes! Generational wealth is such a major factor. Black people literally are 225 years behind.

I bring this up because banking is another systemic issue. African-Americans with the same exact financial credentials as their white counterparts are approved for loans at substantially lower rates.

There are fewer banks located in predominantly black areas and those banks are given less capital from the federal government.

Because fewer banks are located in areas predominantly of color and it's fundamentally more difficult for poc to establish bank accounts many poc are forced to utilize payday lenders. These payday lenders are predatory and woefully under regulated.

Housing is another issue where systemic racism is prevalent. Despite the 1968 Fair Housing Act African-Americans are purchasing houses at the same rate they did in 1951! And, while the 1968 Fair Housing Act was supposed to eliminate redlining, a systematic tool used by loan and mortgage companies to deny black people bank loans and the ability to purchase homes as well as devaluing property value in predominantly neighborhoods of color, as recently as 2015 companies were cited by the federal government for using redlining and their is no indication it has stopped. In fact, the Trump Administration has eased regulations and rules designed to prevent any redlining from taking place.

Earlier I mentioned hiring practices. Numerous studies within the last couple of years have shown that employers are almost 1/3 less likely to give online job applicants with "urban" or ethnic sounding names a first interview and applicants of color are over 1/3 less likely to receive a second interview than their white counterparts. Those same studies have shown felons of color and with "non traditional sounding names" are 2/3 less likely to receive an interview.

Systemic racism and classism exist in education. I would argue besides the justice system there is no more explicit example of the prevalence of systemic racism than what exists in this country's educational system.

It seems with every passing day education is becoming more and more devalued in our society. Frankly, the right doesn't appear to care about education at all. And, Democrats don't care enough. Whenever it's time to slash state and federal budgets one of the first items placed on the chopping block is education spending. Everyone says education "is essential" but apparently not essential enough to fund.

These constant budget reductions affect innercity and urban areas, which are usually largely of color, the most. These school systems are already fighting from behind because of the asinine means test of how schools are funded. Funding is based upon property taxes.

Needless to say, lower income areas are going to have less tax revenue which means less money for schools. By the way rural area schools are also negatively affected by this nonsense.

Because of the shortage in funding both innercity and rural schools don't have enough books for classes. It causes a shortage in teachers which subsequently leads to larger classrooms. Of course, the more students per class means less time teachers have to give students individually. The resources schools have not only for teachers but "extracurricular activities" that have proven to be instrumental in children's development are scarce and in some cases nonexistent. The school buildings and the equipment inside is usually out of date or inferior which, of course, becomes a hindrance in providing a quality education and positive environment.

As I stated this affects rural schools but often has a devastating affect on many students of color. Receiving a basic education preparing one for college or vocational school or going straight into the workplace is right along with housing, food and medical care as things that are not only rights but inarguably vital to one's survival.

Finally, there is the justice system. Look, I have really tired of arguing with disingenuous rightwingers who pretend there is no bias in the judicial system. Their arguments are frankly stupid and wrong and they know it. They simply don't want to admit it.

I could sit here listing numerous...copious examples of racial bias within the judicial system. But, like I said I have no more space for bullshit.

The fact is despite the tropes and not so thinly veiled racist narratives some love to spin the majority of black people aren't committing crimes nor are the majority of crimes committed by black people. For example,black and white people use/sell drugs at the same rate. However, black people (especially black men) are arrested and convicted more than their white counterparts. In addition with the same parameters being involved black people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses are routinely given harsher sentences than their white counterparts.

These sentence patterns exist for other crimes as well. The darker the skin the harsher the sentence is likely to be. This is partially why mass incarceration is such an issue.
Now, the right will have you believe this is all the fault of Joe Biden and the Clintons. Without question Biden wrote the crime bill; Hillary Clinton provided massive input and Bill Clinton, as president, signed the 1994 crime bill. What rightwingers fail to mention is they, too, supported the bill and in fact, didn't think it went far enough. They along with corporatist Democrats have continuously propped up the private prison industry which of course targets poc.

Oh, and lest I mention explicitly the "War on Drugs" that has specifically targeted poc and the poor. The war on drugs has been a bi-partisan effort. Do not allow anyone to tell you differently.

So, there is a laundry list of examples highlighting systemic racism in this country. For us to see true material equality come to poc the system must be held to account and restructured.

Tweaking and reforming aren't enough. The people in power want us to believe it is and they're the ones to do it. No! Because, they will do what they have always done and simply make aesthetic changes with a few (very few) substantive changes. Changes you can be assured will not in any meaningful way affect their power and status and most certainly will not positively affect our lives.

Time for some folks to be triggered. You were warned. Our system was built upon white supremacy, racism and classism. Full stop. If you can't acknowledge that or wanna get in your feelings here's some lemons to go along with your salty tears.

While things have improved from where they once were this system hasn't fundamentally changed. It does everything it can to predetermine winners and losers. Truth is your family name and the zip code you are born in has as much in determining your destiny as anything.

Sure, there are some poc who are immensely successful. That has always been the case. We just have more now than, say, 50 years ago. But, judging poc's status by pointing to Oprah, Jo-Lo and LeBron James is idiotic! Because, how many poc who are "doing well" that aren't singers or media moguls or elite athletes? How many poc are in management positions? How many poc are in corporations with realistic chances of advancement?

And, make no mistake there are poc who are heavily invested in maintaining the current system. They have made it so to hell with everyone else.

Look no further than the Congressional Black Caucus to see this illustrated. I am not saying there aren't good people in that caucus who haven't done some good things. But, let's keep it real. Almost all of those Congress people are corporatists and Neoliberals. They worry more about their donors and financial interests than the people they serve. If this weren't true they would be wielding their power and influence to reshape this system and put a real end to racial inequality and injustice.

I no longer have time to fuck around here. None of us who are actually committed to the anti-racist and anti-classism movement can afford to be passive or misguided.

I mentioned the symbolic gestures earlier. There is a reason these people applaud these things. Again to pick on the CBC but surely you noticed their relative silence during the first couple of weeks of protests but their "approval" of those dusty ass Confederate statues being taken down. Why do you think that is? Taking down those shitty ass statues doesn't change anything. It is all aesthetic. But, the actual protests were focused (mostly) on changing this system and calling to the carpet any and everyone upholding it. Changing the system is effin with their power and money!

We have to be focused and remained focus on the system. The way to do that is pay attention. Partake in electoral politics. Support groups and factions that are truly interested in seeing folks' lives materially changed for the better.

Local politics are vital. Support the most progressive candidates for the PTA, school board, city councils, district attorney, local judges and mayor. Get people who have your best interest into positions of power. When it comes to state politics do the same thing. If there are no progressive candidates support the ones who will have the most harm reduction and work on getting them to the right position. If they don't do it, find more progressive people for the next election.

Look, this exactly how Republicans took over state and local governments. They focused on getting their people in and working from the grassroots. We must do the same.

Elections have consequences. Pay attention. Vote!

This system is going to change itself. If we want change, this broad multiracial multiethnic multi-faith coalition has to work together. Systemic racism, racial inequality and police brutality will end when we get people into power whom actually give a shit about ending these scourges.

Our issues are systemic! As Public Enemy said, "Fight the powers that be!"

Diary Room Side-Eye: Week One

2020-08-09T17:56:00.001-05:00

Big Brother 22 All-Stars kicked off this past Wednesday, August 5th. It was so good to have our summer pastime back!

Before I get to deep into night one's happenings let's talk about the cast. Overall I like the cast. A few I could do without. And, frankly, the term "all-star" might have been stretched with a few of them but they did assemble an eclectic group.

Let's begin with whom off the bat I don't like. As far as I am concerned public enemy #1 is Nicole F. I didn't like her in #BB17 and I despised her in #BB18. Her "just down home girl on the farm" routine was bs the first time I saw it and is just trite bs now! She is as sneaky and fake as anyone who played the game. She was whining about how nobody felt she earned her BB18 win. Uh, Boo, that is because you didn't!
Others on my not so favorite list are Ian, Enzo, Memphis, Bayleigh, Kevin and Ian.

I give Ian mad props because he is one of the best to play the game. Along with Nicole he is the only actual winner on the cast. The fact he is on "the spectrum" and navigated that house with such precision is not only admirable but highly impressive. He is just someone I could never get into. I don't hate him. I just don't necessarily care for the guy.

I have to be honest in saying I wasn't completely keyed in on Enzo's season (BB12) nor Kevin's (BB11). I had two sons playing baseball every night. But, Enzo acts like one would think a guy named Enzo would act. I am not huge into the whole self-aggrandizing thing unless you are THE QUEEN who I will get to momentarily.

As for Kevin, I get a serious Frankie vibe off of him and that is a huge turnoff for me. It is all a bit too much pretentiousness for my taste.

I could be wrong about these two and they could grow on me. I remember Jason and James from BB17 and I couldn't stand them initially. But, I really learned to like James and Jason is one of my all-time favorites.

That leaves Memphis and Bayleigh. Honestly, I don't dislike Memphis really. I just don't vibe with the dude. He seems to have this preppy jock quality about him. And, despite the fact he hates hearing it, he got to the Final 2 on Season 10 because of Dan.

I want to like Bayleigh. She was the victim of some disgusting behavior last year. However, she is a bit too fake for me. Her modern day Whitley Gilbert act doesn't do it for me.

Next, are the people I am somewhat ambivalent about. Tyler, David, Nicole Anthony and Dani. Tyler is an excellent player. Nicole A is also very good. David is not an all-star, but I understand why he is there. He didn't receive an actual opportunity last season and was evicted without a vote.

Then, there is Dani. Dani is a star. She is one of the best players to play the game. She is smart and cunning. She just has never been someone whom evokes strong feelings (good or bad).

Next, are people I like (but not necessarily love). Christmas and Keesha are BB princesses but for different reasons.

I like Christmas and did from day one of BB19. However, she had no business in the Final Three. The narrative about her finishing third bothers her but the fact is her breaking her leg was a blessing in disguise. She was no longer seen as a target when before the injury she was a legitimate threat. Paul dragged her with him because he knew he would beat her in Final Two.

Keesha is awesome too. She has a great social game which is key in that house. Yes, she is stunningly gorgeous but she was able to disarm people because she is just likeable.

Finally, my favorites. Kaysar is the best player to never win the game. I said what I said. Kaysar is as intelligent and crafty as anyone whom has ever played. The numbers always get him.

I don't care what anyone says Cody is a beast too. Yes, Derrick was the mastermind in Season 16. But, he doesn't get to end without Cody. Cody has a terrific social game and is a comp beast. It will be interesting to see how he plays without Derrick but I have a feeling he will be just fine.

A lot of people hate Da'Vonne and I am not completely sure why. Da is real. Maybe that's the issue. That realness and what I believe is some really jacked up insecurity from certain folks caused her to have early exits in her two appearances (BB17, BB18). But, she seems different this time. She is calmer. I believe she realizes she has to stay under the radar.

Last but Lawd knows certainly isn't least is THE QUEEN, Janelle. I already know the hate is coming. Don't care. Janelle is the Big Brother Queen and Goddess. Nobody has been able to play the game with the brains, beauty and cunningness Janelle has all while throwing mad shade and not giving one f***! What I have always appreciated about Janelle is she is as real as they come. She is drop dead gorgeous and doesn't mind telling you so. She is a diva without question. But, that realness gives her an edge that makes her a boss! Unfortunately, I think that edge will do what it has always done which is get her far but not far enough. From what I saw on night one she is not going to change which is why I love her! She was giving all sorts of side-eyes to Nicole F because Janelle sees right through her fake crap.

For the rest of night one the houseguests were introduced in groups of four. Immediately upon entering the house they played a comp. The comp determined who played in the season's first Head of Household (HOH) comp.

Cody, Memphis, Christmas, Nicole A, Kevin and Ian advanced.

The comp was each player had to go across these pods without falling until they reached the other side hitting their buzzer. The fastest time wins HOH.

Memphis went first with a time just over a minute. Next, was Cody who finished the comp in 22 seconds. Nicole A, Kev and Ian didn't come close. Christmas gave it a good effort but she fell short as well making Cody the first HOH.

Cody immediately looked at Janelle and Kaysar as potential nominations. While I don't want to see either of those two go especially not this early it was a very wise decision on Cody's part. Along with Dani, Kaysar and Janelle are old school players. They think long term. And, they are the smartest people in the house.

However, a wrench was thrown into Cody's plans because the first twist of the season, the Safety Suite. Kaysar was the beneficiary and he was able to take a "plus one". He chose Janelle so Cody had to come up with a new plan.

He began focusing on Keesha. Which by the way is problematic for a prediction of mine that I will get to here in a moment.

An assumption going around the house was that Cody would put up Keesha and Memphis with Keesha as the pawn. However, that was not the case. Cody put up Keesha and Kevin with Kevin as the pawn.

So, now we'll have to see what happens with the Veto comp, which actually took place Saturday, August 8th. The Veto Ceremony will take place sometime Monday afternoon, August 10th. Both events will air on CBS Wednesday, August 12th. Out of respect for those who don't have the live feeds or read spoilers I will do my level best to not give anything away. I want to adhere to the television scheduled airings.

I hate to see Keesha on the block. One, I like her but more importantly it could throw a huge wrench into my predictions. I was going to predict Keesha, Cody and Da'Vonne will be the Final Three. Of course, now, this prediction could blow up in my face. But, I will be principled and stick with it. The Veto could give Keesha life or she might be able to talk her way out of eviction. She has turned on her social game.

I would love to see Kaysar and Janelle who have already teamed up get to the end but I really think that is a long shot. I would hope they just make it to jury. My hope is they'll team up with Da and either Memphis or Christmas because that would be a helluva an alliance.

I am so ecstatic Big Brother is on! The year 2020 has been crazy and awful for a myriad of reasons, but having BB in my life for the next three months will hopefully bring some normalcy and much needed drama that isn't my own. I may write a short blog after Veto Wednesday night but if not I will definitely be back next Sunday.

Continuing Michael Brooks' Project

2020-08-07T20:50:00.001-05:00

Since Michael Brooks' untimely death much discussion has taken place regarding his legacy and his project. Most of Michael's supporters and fans have bantered about how best to keep his memory alive and move the project forward.

The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS) producers, Matt Lech and David Griscom, along with his sister, Lisha Brooks have vowed to continue the show and do so in its original format. They have stated a few times within the last 10 days or so that TMBS will be back to airing on Patreon and YouTube within the next couple of weeks.

Without question Matt, David and Lisha will pick up torch and be our leaders. It should go without saying their efforts will be buttressed by Progressive and Leftist voices like Ana Kasparian, Nando Vila, Nomiki Konst, Wosny Lambre (Big Wos), Ben Burgis, Alyona Minkovski, Brandon Sutton, Milton Allimadi Joshua Kahn Russell and so many more. But, where does that leave the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Michael's patrons, subscribers, listeners and viewers? What is our role?

Well, as TMBS community member, Jay Whitcher put it "We are Michael's project."

Michael's project is multifaceted but at its core is the people. Perhaps more specifically it is those of us on the Left who believe in what Mike believed in.

Of course, he believed in the staple Progressive/Democratic Socialist policies such as Medicare For All, universal housing, a living wage, criminal justice reform, food security, a broad social safety net, and an economic system that works for each and every person instead of a select few. But, he believed these things must not only come to fruition for Americans but everyone across the globe. Michael was a true left internationalist.

The Michael Brooks project goal is to see solidarity among the American Left and for that solidarity to extend universally across the world from Brazil to the UK to India to South Africa to Australia. He believed for the Left to be truly strong their must be solidarity among the many movements across the globe and for those movements to unite into a cohesive coalition. Now, that doesn't mean we become a monolith because he understood there will be disagreements and each country's politics has nuances. However, we should all have common goals and an end game of seeing a Democratic Socialist economic and foreign policy structure put in motion that sees a multiracial multiethnic multi-faith multinational working class that is placed as the priority. Mike believed in a system that featured equality of opportunity whose foundation was bolstered by a broad social safety net that eliminated poverty and a working poor.

Brooks understood for this project to succeed it must center around regular working class people and not systems built to coddle and protect the top 1%, white supremacy and an elite class who is always looking to imisserate and disenfranchise.

So, where do we fit in? The answer is where we have always fit in. Doing our part to better this world. Looking out for each other. As Michael said, "Be ruthless with systems. But, be kind to people."

We have to be involved. Be informed. Be cognizant of our world. We have to support left independent media. That doesn't mean all left media because, frankly, some of it is woefully lacking and some of it is just reactionary rudderless hot garbage. I said what I said.

Support those we know have our back and our guiding us in good faith. Obviously, continue supporting TMBS giving Matt, Griscom and Lisha all the support we can and then some. Support people like Ana, Nomi, Wos, Krystal Ball, The Majority Report with Sam Seder, Kyle Kulinski, The Humanist Report, The Young Turks, The Damage Report, The Antifada, Useful Idiots with Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper, Milton Allimadi and the numerous other of good informative insightful left commentators. Please continue to obtain the wisdom of folks like Cornell West, Harvey Kaye, Daniel Bessner, Ben Burgis, Abby Martin, Richard Wolfe, and Dave Rubin. Joking about Rubin, of course.

Something I heard Michael, as well as Sam Seder, say often is politics is local. So, pay attention to not only the presidency, the Senate and the House but your city and state politics. This is something I definitely need to infinitely get better at myself. If you are someone who feels the calling to run for office, do it. Canvas, phone bank and knock on doors for any Progressive or DSA or Justice Democrat in your area. For those people abroad do the same for any leftist candidates in your local and regional area elected offices.

One of the reasons the rightwing has seemingly so much control is they focused on city councils, mayors offices, local judgeships and state houses. They obtained power locally and it filtered up. They have a project and for all their reactionary ways they are strategic and implement that strategy.

Mike often talked about the Left obtaining power and being strategic. Every week on TMBS and "Michael Thursdays" on The Majority Report he would emphatically stress the Left's need for gaining power and the importance of having a strategy and a broad view of the bigger picture. He would celebrate the victories but always kept in perspective that we have ahead of us substantially so much more hard work.

We must acquire and keep up that same laser focus and energy. Yes, naturally, celebrate victories like Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Jamal Bowman and Mondaire Jones but understand we must press forward to ensure Ilhan Omar and Kara Eastman win. We have to increase our numbers. And, then continue to push Progressive candidates to continue to seek progressive policies that will materially affect positively the lives of working class and poor people and policies that will better our foreign policy.

Also, support our brothers and sisters to the north and the south and those abroad so their lives are bettered and lifted out of poverty. We all must become internationalists.

Because, the reality is we are all in this struggle together. We will only achieve victory and see the project through when we become selfless and pull for the person next to us and behind us. As Bernie Sanders said, "Not me. Us."

The Michael Brooks project is multiracial, multiethnic, multinational and spiritual. That includes those who aren't spiritual or who are atheist. Regardless of our faith or lack thereof or are identity we are in a global class struggle and our very existence is at stake. We don't have time or capacity for petty differences or disingenuous people. It is time we pull together and see the entire forest.

If we want to honor Mike's memory and legacy, we need...we MUST come together in solidarity. Further his project. Support each other. I recently heard the Queen, Ana Kasparian, say,"On the left it is like a family. Sometimes you feel so alone. It seems we are so isolated. It is why we have to pull together and become stronger." As often is the case, she is right. We are family.

The Left is a place of diverse opinion and nuance thought. Contrary to the vacuous narrative Conservatives and the rightwing frequently propagate the Left can be quite eclectic. Because of this we tend to have some nonsensical petty as fuck in-fighting.

But, we can no longer afford that. Michael said this often. We are fighting not only the onset of global clown fascism but wide ranging neoliberalism and corporatism. We are battling shitty corporate media narratives and an ever increasing cynicism and apathy among the citizenry that creates vacuums where shameless fake populist grifters like Trump, Bolsonaro and Johnson slide into power bringing austerity, crypto-racism and low rent authoritarianism with them. These menaces must be defeated.

This can be done with a broad internationalist sincere left agenda being pushed.

Let's get the fuckin shit done! For Michael! For Matt, David, and Lisha! For our other left and Democratic Socialist leaders and influencers. For each other!

LEFT IS BEST HERE AS IT IS EVERYWHERE!

SOLIDARITY! ✊

The Diary Room Side-Eye: Introduction

2020-08-05T19:08:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the Diary Room Side-Eye!

This is the introductory post. Every Sunday evening (hopefully) I will post a new blog detailing the week's events, providing analysis and giving some predictions for Big Brother 22 All-Stars. I will cover the Veto comp and subsequent Veto ceremony which airs on Wednesday nights along with Thursday night's broadcast which features the weekly eviction. I also will go over the Head of Household comp and the possible implications from the results.

I am a Big Brother superfan and I love to write. So I decided what better way to combine two of my loves than to start a weekly blog.

I have been waiting years for an all-stars show. Finally it is here. I could do without some of the houseguests who will be there and would like to see others. I will provide my more specific critiques of the cast on Sunday. Allow me to say, however, I am elated Da'Vonne, Janelle, Cody and Kaysar will be in the house.

Big Brother is one of my favorite shows and is my undisputed #1 favorite reality show! I have been kicking around the idea of a weekly blog or YouTube channel for a few years. Now, I have finally decided to do it.

I hope to bring some sound critiques, insightful analysis and some humorous quasi diary room type takes. I love the game and find it along with the social experiment fascinating.

I hope you enjoy and keep coming back every week as a reader. I welcome comments and criticism. I want to do right by our summertime guilty pleasure and favorite show.

I will be back Sunday evening after the CBS broadcast.

Snowflakery

2020-07-30T17:56:00.002-05:00

The discussion around cancel culture has been in the news a lot lately. It has overshadowed its brother, snowflakery.

These two things are closely adjacent. But, snowflkery is more this form of informal censorship than it is deeming someone "toxic" like cancel culture does.

Snowflake was the buzzword a couple of years ago. It is a term rightwingers and alt-righters use to describe anyone they view as liberal who become easily offended. Mostly they use it for college kids and people on social media who get triggered by certain words or attitudes. Of course, like so many other things, this is projection from the right. While they are mostly correct about the oversensitivity by some on the left they are also easily triggered by certain attitudes and groups of people themselves.

But, in my mind snowflakery has somewhat evolved into this attitude-a culture really- of people who don't feel they should ever be challenged and their opinions are exempt from any scrutiny or analysis. This isn't partisan or even generational. It has just become to some degree a norm.

This is most prevalent on social media, of course. Like many people I spend time (too much time honestly) on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Many people express their opinions about an array of topics. A significant chunk espouse their political thoughts. Some of those thoughts and opinions are provocative and controversial. We live in a very polarized country.

However, here is what I have noticed occurring more and more. People will post an opinion or share a meme that is almost guaranteed to elicit a passionate response or at least stir some emotions within people. Somebody or somebodies will post an opposing comment and the author loses their shit over it. Often times other people who agree with the post will become angry with the opposing viewpoint also.

Now, if it ended there, while the anger at an opposing viewpoint could be problematic, it would be fine. It doesn't though. Way too frequently responses include telling the dissenters they have no right to speak or attacking the dissenters and not their arguments. A common refrain is "This is my page and I can say what I want! I don't want any arguments." Or, my personal favorite, people will just block or unfriend anyone who disagrees with them. So infantile.

Here is the issue. If you post a political or even sports related or cultural opinion or state something as fact (especially without corroboration or a cited reference) on a public platform in a public manner you should reasonably expect somebody may disagree and express that disagreement.

A bigger issue for me is if you're stating an opinion that presumably you believe to be correct why is someone contradicting that opinion so triggering? Who cares? Listen to what their argument is and debunk it or counter it.

Instead what I have witnessed several people do is essentially censor the comments. They will either attempt to bully people. Or, they might just delete the disagreeing comment or block the person. It is so childish and petty.

What I have learned is why the reason people who act this way do so. More often than not they won't defend whatever they said because they cannot.

Their opinion isn't so much an conviction or value belief as it is reactionary. They comment on topics they haven't given more than two minutes thought. And, frankly, in some cases two minutes is way too generous. Their thoughts are purely based upon ideological pablum and groupthink.

Because of this they are unequipped to respond with any semblance of intelligence and analysis. And, when they see the person contradicting them came loaded with facts and forethought they become triggered.

I also believe some people who believe there should be no pushback on anything they say are simply delusional. Especially the younger they are they've grown up in this era where they have had it drilled into them no matter what they say or think it's special because they are unique. They are told there are no stupid questions and adjacently no stupid statements. But, that is not true. There are plenty of stupid statements and questions. Just because you say something doesn't mean it is "a truth" or special or above critique. Sorry. That is insane.

Are we really supposed to listen to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) say that maybe his mask gave him the 'Rona and give that any credence? Of course not! That is an objectively stupid statement.

We have become this society where not only the slightest incident or actual innocent slip of the tongue triggers us but we believe that we should say whatever we want and offer any opinion with no pushback or disagreement or fact check. The art of dialogue and debate has been suppressed. This is not good for a healthy democracy.

Debate and dissent were not only placed into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers but encouraged.

It astounds me how so many people are willing to freely offer up opinions but possess no desire to defend them. They babble on and on about free speech but are so quickly willing to stifle someone else's free speech. Whenever they comment on another individual's post and receive pushback they lament how civility and debate have been exorcised from society but will block a mofo in a hot second if they don't like what they say. Just mind-boggling.

It is pure snowflakery. They literally want to make their free public page on a free public platform a safe space. Almost as if it were a college campus or something.

Finally, the real rub of all this is people like this actually have means available to create the safe space they so obviously desire. This is especially true on Facebook. They can set the guidelines of their page to protect them from any mean people who dare to disagree with them.

First, they can make their post private. They can set it up where only the people they think will agree with them will see it. If they want further insurance, they can disable comments. To really ensure they get stroked they can make the post unshareable.

Problem solved! They can create their own circle jerk and information bias loop.

But, most people won't do that. Why? Because, they want everyone to see their posts. They just don't want dissent. They want their ego stroked by receiving all positive comments and a plethora of "likes" and "loves". Simple as that.

It is pathetic and sad. If people want to be liked, do what millions of other folks do and only post pics of their kids, pets and funny memes. But, if they step into these Facebook and Twitter political and sports streets, they better be prepared to start dodging bullets (metaphorically speaking of course) because I assure you they will be coming.

People have to stop being snowflakes about everything. Yes, we are all unique but their ass isn't special to everyone. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but most people don't give a f*** about most other people! These folks' narcissism isn't their friend. Just because they think the sun rises and sets on them doesn't mean everyone else thinks so.

Perhaps most importantly is just because someone disagrees about an idea or a policy doesn't mean it should be taken as a personal affront. Seriously! Grow the hell up! Not everyone is going to agree with you. That is life.

And, I can already hear some assclown right now, "Well, I don't care what other people think." Ok. Does it ever occur to these tools that maybe those other people don't care what they think but it doesn't stop these tools from publicly expressing their opinions? Lawd Jesus! People frustrate me!

Several reasons exist for the breakdown in public discourse currently taking place. One of them (and perhaps the most important) is people don't listen to each other nor do they want to. As the saying goes, "People don't want to hear your opinion. They want to hear their opinion coming out of your mouth." That is an issue.

Truth is the problems here are so layered. But, what it might all come down to is in the current society so many people are anti-intellectual and anti-learning. Some of this due to laziness. Some of it, frankly, is due to people thinking they know everything or enough so they don't want to learn. As a result they cannot see that having discussions and debates with other people provide the opportunity to learn and grow. Also, being challenged allows one to sharpen and strengthen their convictions and thoughts.

Again though, therein lies the rub. So many people aren't convicted. They are reactionary.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW What To SAY?

2020-07-25T14:12:00.001-05:00

Over the last few weeks in the aftermath of the genesis of the George Floyd/anti-racist protests I have heard more times than I can count some white people say, "I don't know what to say [to poc]. I don't want to offend." People have said to me regarding my perception certain folks aren't acting the same with me or in some cases my clear ability to see they're either not talking to me or unfriending me on social media, "Well, maybe they just don't know what to say. They are afraid they will say something to offend you."

Initially my response was confusion and consternation. I like to think I am someone who is easy to approach and have communication. My nature is to be non-confrontational so I am not combative or bellicose. Frankly, it really disturbed me to think people were afraid to talk to me. Me!

But, the more I thought about it the less distressed I became. I began to become annoyed. The side-eye was in overdrive. I began thinking to myself, "What do they mean some people are afraid to say anything because they don't want to offend?!"

As I put actual thought and insight into this I realized that folks saying they didn't know what to say was somewhat of a cop out. If they didn't say things that were offensive, racially insensitive or racist before George Floyd why would they say them now? It was nonsense.

It hit me this was just more pseudo wokeness (for some). For others it was an, I presume, unintentional unveiling of their token allyship with those fighting racism and racial injustice which in reality was in reality was a partial cloaking of what I call "crypto bigotry lite". And, in fairness, for a few people it was a legit feeling of hesitancy and anxiety stemming from dealing with the more boisterous factions of the movement and individuals who always seem on edge. But, bluntly, the latter are few and far between. It is the first two groups who are problematic.

Let's deal with the pseudo woke first.

Their entire approach is dripping with cynicism and narcissism. They would be the first (and I mean the first) to shout that they are allies of black people, poc and marginalized groups in general.

These are the folks trolling Twitter and Facebook all day and night looking for every instance of "racism" they can so they can call it out and virtue signal and cancel. They feed off every single microaggression and then gather a mob to go after whomever making sure they're the face of the "calling out racism".

But, when the struggle gets real and it's time to actually put some skin in the game and it's time to be that ally they stop talking to poc. They cite as their reason, "I don't know what to say." WTF! What do they mean? They don't have to say anything other than, "I am here beside you fighting for what is right."

But, the problem is these type of people aren't interested in actually providing material assistance. They are only interested in being seen.

For them there are no real stakes. Their politics aren't one of benevolence or deep seeded social conscience. It is not altruistic. It is narcissistic. That is not to say they don't broadly believe in fighting racism or inequality. But, for them style is more important than substance. Which is why they make statements such as "don't what to say" and then say nothing.

Think about the insanity of that. People are in the streets fighting for justice. Black people are getting hunted down in the streets by racists , getting mowed down in their own homes by the very people are supposed to protect them and still being forced to endure a system built on white supremacy that while it has been tweaked is still implicitly bias and their reaction is to just not talk to them. It is sheer lunacy!

Now, the other group is more infuriating than they are annoying. I call these people crypto-bigots lite. I am sure that term will be triggering but if the shoe fits...

They say the same trite nonsense about not knowing what to say to poc since the protests began. They claim fearing they'll say something offensive. What a load of abject horseshit!

Here is why I say that. Unlike the pseudo woke they just quickly abandoned even the appearance of being an ally or concerned with racism and racial injustice. But, like the pseudo woke they love to virtue signal.

These folks aren't real interested in scouring social media looking for people to cancel and notches to place on their belt. But, what they are interested in is taking every instance of "reverse racism" they can find so they can say, "See, it happens on both sides" but then immediately point out they support black people. This approach would be okay I suppose if they did the same for white on poc racism but usually they are deafeningly silent.

This has become crystal clear during the last few weeks. When Ahmaud Arbery was murdered they were silent. When Breonna Taylor was murdered they were *crickets *. When the Amy Cooper/Christian Cooper incident in Central Park occurred quiet as a church mouse. When George Floyd was murdered they did say they were "disturbed" but no real outrage or anger. But, when some fools started looting and rioting during the largely peaceful protests they were all over social media expressing their "outrage" and "anger". They decried the "violence" (which there certainly was some but mostly property damage) and lamented "what about the property".

Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not condoning or excusing the looting and rioting nor am I denying it. I denounced it in real time and emphatically stated my frustration and opposition to it.

That said my issue with these subset of people is they were seemingly more upset with the loss of property than they were life.

Another problem that arose which in my mind directly points to their crypto-bigotry lite was their sudden position change. As soon as a small fraction of people (most of whom weren't poc by the way) began looting and rioting their support of black people and fighting racism and racial inequality/injustice went right out the window. Many people expressed verbally and on social media they "could no longer support the fight against racism after the rioting began". That is pure insanity. Or, it was just very revealing how shallow their support for anti-racism was in the first place.

Then these nominal allies trotted out the tired often quickly debunked refrain "I don't see color". This is perhaps my personal favorite because I love to debunk and watch people stick with it regardless. Look, it is not whether you see color or not. Unless you are physically color blind, of course you see color. And, even metaphorically it's a specious statement that the vast majority of people who actually say it can be exposed as not being so honest about it. It is not about seeing color but not allowing one's color (race, ethnicity, ect) affect the way you view and treat them. Identity is cynically used by lots of people and political parties but that doesn't mean identity isn't important in certain contexts. Instead of attempting to erase identity, which is often done cynically and perniciously, we should embrace our physical differences and celebrate the uniqueness.

Now, I attempted to explain these things to a few people. Their response? Well, some removed me from their social media while others essentially stopped talking to me. Again, that is where I heard generally (not just specifically regarding myself) they perhaps they just don't know what to say because they don't want to offend.

Bullshit! The problem with the nominal allies/crypto-bigots lite is everything that led up to that point gave away the game. Maybe I could accept the notion if they hadn't consciously chose to stay silent about black people being hunted down in the streets like mangy dogs but were beyond angry enough about a Wendy's getting torched to say something out loud. Perhaps, I could buy that if they offered the critique that rioting and looting are horrendous but black people being brutalized by the police (I know not all cops or most. Pretend to understand context and be somewhat of an adult) and being hunted down in the streets by racists is unacceptable but instead their critique was the opposite. I probably would be significantly warmer to the notion if they stopped acting like we should pretend color doesn't matter in a society where it clearly does. Of course, it shouldn't but it does.

Here's the thing. Not talking to poc is not a solution nor is it a coherent responsible response. If you have poc in your life you actually care about or love whether they are friends, co-workers, fellow parishioners or just acquaintances talk to them. I am telling you when you don't talk to them they are left with little choice but to begin assuming things about you I am sure you probably don't want assumed.

I understand there are some folks who are belligerent or surly. Go to the people who aren't. If you don't have any bigotry, ill-will or racism in your heart you shouldn't be worried about saying anything that would offend. If you do say something that you think the response was off just ask. Most people will politely tell you whether it's offensive or not. And, for those who are more abrasive just let them get it out but never be disrespected. From time to time we all say something that is amiss and nobody is above being checked but being disrespected is unacceptable if you genuinely unwittingly said something.

Now, for those folks who are little more disingenuous all I can really say is be better. The "I don't know what to say" line is really one more designed to shift blame and exercise this insatiable weird need some have to be aggrieved. Let's just call it what it is.

Saying you don't know what to say is a copout. It is the way of saying, "I would say something but people are so sensitive." Essentially it is the crude reductionist anti-political correctness argument. Even more it is an admission that you do say offensive things and are simply boycotting certain people because you don't want to be cognizant of what you say.

Communication is always the key. When it comes to interpersonal racism in this country the single biggest problem is we have never had frank raw conversations.

Now is not the time to shut down dialogue. It is the perfect time to open up the dialogue.

Remembering Michael Brooks (1983-2020)

2020-07-22T20:53:00.001-05:00

Monday afternoon, July 20 2020, Progressives lost a stalwart voice and the world lost one of its funniest, kindest and most empathetic souls.

Michael Jamal Brooks passed away due to an unknown blood clot in his throat.

Micheal was the host of The Michael Brooks Show and co-host of The Majority Report With Sam Seder. Both shows are in podcast form and on YouTube. He also co-hosted Jacobin Weekend With Micheal Brooks and Ana Kasparian (also on YouTube) as well as hosting the podcast, Woke Bros, along side Wosny Lambte. In addition to his YouTube and podcast shows Micheal recently wrote his first solo book, Against The Web: A Cosmopolitan Look At The New Right, which was published and recently released by Zero Books.

Michael Brooks was arguably a rising star and one of the most sought after voices in independent left media.

He began his career in 2012 as a producer for Majority Report. A couple of years later he became the co-host. In early 2018 he started The Michael Brooks Show with Majority Report producer, Matt Lech. Later on David Griscom joined the show as a producer and contributor.

Michael rather quickly became known as one of the brightest and most knowledgeable hosts in left media. He displayed extensive knowledge of not only domestic policy but foreign policy and international affairs. He was an unashamed admitted internationalist.

In fact, The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS), became a vehicle for Brooks' vast international political and social knowledge. His show often focused on affairs abroad and he would brilliantly tie them into American policy showing why they were important. Nando Villa once said about Brooks, "He knows more about the politics of Ecuador than any CNN contributor knows about American politics." I would add Michael knew more about American politics as well.

I never met Michael. Though I wish I had. I wanted to get to Brooklyn some day and be able to meet him, Sam Seder and the rest of the crew. I only know him through watching him on TMBS and MR. But, he was a huge inspiration and role model. I started writing a blog in 2018 due to the inspiration from him.

I actually discovered Michael in 2018 right before he began TMBS. I had grown weary of the incoherent nonsense coming from most of MSNBC. CNN was god-awful. I was looking for alternative media that would stimulate my desire for good intelligent political news and analysis from a left perspective. I had watched The Young Turks off and on in previous years, so I decided to get on YouTube and search around.

I came across a Majority Report video about Alex Jones and decided to click on it. I was familiar with Sam Seder from his Air America and Keith Olbermann days. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. It was then I discovered the funniest most insightful political commentator I had ever seen. I had never laughed that hard in my life while receiving in-depth intelligent analysis . I mean who could resist an Alex Jones video and someone ingeniously mocking his grift and hustle.

Mike and Sam had me at that moment. I became an instant superfan. I spent the next seven hours watching MR and Micheal Brooks videos. I have always been a politics junkie but was never able to find a show or commentator that best aligned with my political beliefs. Until that time Bill Maher was the closest thing.

But, I found a niche between Sam and Micheal. It was Micheal who really captivated me. His takes on race, poverty and how to look at culture aligned with mine almost perfectly. I had never actually watched a political commentator who saw race and racism the way I did...until Michael Brooks.

It was a few weeks later I decided to begin my blog. On a "Michael Thursday" on MR he said the left needs voices. He was encouraging a caller and anyone else who was listening that if you really care about these issues and want a better world do whatever you can to get into the game. He said don't do it if you are only interested in clicks and internet fame but if you want to make change write, talk, produce, organize, canvas, whatever. When I heard that I thought, "I am wasting my talent. I need to get back to writing." Then, he said something to the caller that stuck with me and became a motto of sorts. He said if you change one person, make them think, you have done something significant. That touched me.

Brooks was one of the people who really shaped my politics. Like I said, I was a politics junkie, but what I learned through Micheal knowing things wasn't enough. Your politics must have a purpose and that purpose must center around working class and poor people especially if you consider yourself a Progressive or leftist, which I do.

Through him I learned to sharpen my vocabulary and speak intelligently using adult words but conveying it in an digestible way for everyone. I learned to voice my opinion clearly and respectfully but with authority. If that meant putting an edge on it so be it.

Until Micheal Brooks my mother was the only person I had ever known on the left who emphasized international politics because it all ties into US politics because ultimately we are a global community.

The brilliance of TMBS was that he could cover an array of domestic and foreign subjects with ease. Through TMBS I was introduced to brilliant important left voices like Milton Allimadi, Adolph Reed, Joshua Kahn Russell, Bill Fletcher Jr, Wosny Lambre, Nando Villa, Alyona Minkovski, Abby Martin and Ben Burgis.

It was TMBS that first exposed me to ContraPoints. She is now one of favorites. I am absolutely in love with her channel. Natalie Wynn is doing exceptionally important work. Michael was the first person to my knowledge to give her a broad platform.

And, Michael found it important to give relatively unknown left commentators a voice even as he was struggling to be recognized himself. He did it not only for Contrapoints but for people like Brandon Sutton and Benjamin Dixon.

Michael Brooks genuinely cared about people-normal regular ass people. It is what drove his politics. He was ambitious and had an ego but wasn't chasing money, clout or fame. He wanted a better world. Not in the metaphorical sense but in the actual tangible sense. He wanted the unknown person in the Sudan to have a good quality of life just like he did a dude like me in Shawnee, Oklahoma. He believed you must want good for more than just yourself or your family or friends but for people you don't know all over the world. He truly embodied empathy.

He often spoke of how poor he and his family were. Frequently he would mention the housing and food insecurity he and his sister experienced as a children. However, it didn't drive him to want wealth. He was driven to make sure other people didn't experience that. Let me tell you that is a rare quality in today's society.

You could see Michael Brooks' compassion and love for humanity shine through the screen when he talked. Issues like Medicare For All, a living wage, universal housing, universal jobs programs, poverty reduction, criminal justice reform weren't just talking points progressives should mention. To him they were absolutes and nonnegotiable because people mattered.

His view on race always amazed me. He got it. Identity politics are garbage but that doesn't mean identity isn't important because for certain swaths of people recognizing it is an undeniable reality. But, class is the key to ending structural racism and imisseration.

I would be remised if I didn't mention his impressions and laugh. His laugh was infectious. His impressions were nothing less than creations of genius. His Bill Clinton, Nation of Islam Obama, Rightwing Nelson Mandela and Chris Matthews are better than anything Frank Caliendo ever did. No knock to Caliendo.

His ability to fluidly do political satire was genius. Matt Binder, former producer/co-host of MR, said in the Majority Report tribute that he has never known or seen anyone who in the spur of the moment can go into a character or do political satire without ever pausing or stuttering. Mike is the funniest person I have ever seen, comedians included.

I am heartbroken over his sudden passing. I have been upset since it happened and foresee I will be for a few more days. I spent my entire Monday night reading tributes on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. I watched the MR tribute show yesterday. I cried with Sam Seder, his lovely sister Lisha, Ana Kasparian and Nomiki Konst. You could just see the pain in Nomi's face. But, it was Kelly Carey and Joshua Kahn Russell who ripped my heart out.They were so visibly upset and cried throughout the entirety of their tributes.

I have cried off and on for two days now. Again, I didn't know Micheal Brooks personally but he was apart of my life. He was on my tv screen just about every day. Although I am older than him he is a role model and someone I looked up to.

I feel like I have lost a close friend. In so many ways I have. We all have. I know I don't mourn alone. I have seen people I never thought I'd see cry-didn't think ever cried because of the image they exuded. Not only Sam Seder but I heard emotion in the voices of John Idarola, Kyle Kulinski, Mike Figueroa, David Griscom, Brandon Sutton, Matt Lech. I literally cried with each of them.

I don't care how it looks to some. I lost an important person in my life. Just because I didn't know him personally doesn't mean he wasn't important and integral.

The left has lost an irreplaceable voice and influencer. That is unquestionable. But, each of us who loved and admired him and believed in what he believed must honor his legacy by moving forward. In whatever way we can we must carry on his work. The project is far from over and the best way I imagine to respect his life is to see that project through. Elect progressive candidates. Support left media whether it's MR, TYT, Nomi Konst, Kyle Kulinski, Jacobin, Megan Day, Matt Taibbi, Katie Halper, Chappo Trap House, The Intercept, Benjamin Dixon, The Humanist Report, Brandon Sutton and countless others. Make certain those media outlets illuminate voices like Cornell West, Adolph Reed, Bill Fletcher Jr, Harvey Kaye, Richard Wolffe, Briahna Joy Gray, Malaika Jabali, Nando Vila, Aloyna Minkovsk, Noam Chomski and so the other authorative left voices.

Michael Brooks is loved and will be sorely missed! I love you, Brother!

Rest in power, Friend.

Left is best!

Dr. King Was Right

2020-07-16T10:49:00.000-05:00

Dr. Martin Luther King once said: "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [...]"

He said this in a 1963 letter he wrote while sitting in a Birmingham, Alabama jail. He had been arrested for peacefully protesting. After Dr. King's arrest eight white clergymen (supposed allies of the Civil Rights Movement) criticized him for an "untimely and unwise" protest against racial inequality and injustice, which precipitated the letter.

Now, fast forward 57 years to today and King's words are just as pertinent now as they were then.

However, I would tweak a part of what Dr. King said. Instead of "white moderates" I would just say "moderates". Not because of some political correct "woke" nonsense but because it is true. It just isn't white moderates but moderates who are people of color who seem to be standing in the way of substantive progress regarding race (and a litany of other issues).
During the Civil Rights Movement there were multitudes of white allies who were truly down with the struggle. Some of them lost their lives over it. Others had their lives ruined for standing up for the right thing and against racial oppression. Sometimes I believe those of us who are younger and came along post Civil Rights Movement forget that and refuse to acknowledge it. But, I digress.

That said, unfortunately, there were many more white people who claimed to "believe in the cause" but were always uncomfortable with actual protest. They said, "Of course, black people should have equal rights. It's just...". It was just they wanted those black people and their white allies to be quiet and not ruffle feathers. "Can't y'all peacefully protest?" They were peacefully protesting. What became painfully obvious was that no protest the movement enacted was ever going to be peaceful enough.

And, let me be clear. White moderates weren't the only ones. Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement had plenty of black and brown detractors as well. I don't mean the Candace Owens and Ben Carson(s) of the day. I am referring to black people who were afraid Dr. King was going to cause a severe backlash. Some had finagled their way into a comfortable position and didn't want that position nor their status threatened.

So, here we are in 2020 with protests taking place all over the country initiated by the George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor murders. A multiracial coalition is in the streets and on social media bringing attention to the abhorrence of police brutality, which has been happening to poc since the police's inception in this country. Folks are speaking out and against racism, racial inequality and racial justice. As they did in the 1960s people are [rightfully] demanding a system whose foundation was built on white supremacy and oppression of people of color be overhauled and rebuilt into a system that truly works equally for everyone.

However, just as in the 1960s there is another coalition which is multiracial that is telling the anti-racist movement to just slow down, be quieter and ease into progress. This coalition is one of moderates but it is broader than what likely comes to mind when you think of the word "moderate" in today's political climate. It ranges from neoliberals to rightwingers.

These are people who would quickly say, "I am not racist." Their favorite phrase is seemingly, "I don't see color." They are always saying, "Can't we all just get along."
They acknowledge racism exists but just not as much as some of us say. Or, they recognize the pervasiveness but live in this fantasy world where if we just don't mention the problem it will magically go away.

Those who are more right leaning feel as long as they have a "friend" or two of color they're exempt from being racist or bigoted regardless their overall poc perceptions.

The ones in the middle and to the left love to get really upset and offended about microaggressions and memes and innocuous statements. These are the pseudo woke folks.

What is consistent with these moderates is they really do not want the power structure in this country fundamentally altered. They are perfectly ok with minute incremental change or any action that comes with minimal or no material loss. This is why many of them are not happy with the taking down of statues over the last few weeks, but ultimately they'll concede on it because they realize these actions are just symbolic. They change absolutely nothing.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s the same dynamic took place. The moderates of the time were ok with a Negro or two being integrated into the schools. They were ok with working with one or two black folks. "Separate but equal" was a fair-minded policy in their minds.

But, when MLK came along talking "nonsense" about black people having true equal rights, voting rights, freedom to eat and drink wherever they wanted, being able to live wherever they wanted, date and marry whoever they wanted and attending college wherever they wanted some folks were like, "Whoa!" When Dr. King and so many others began marching in the streets and conducting sit-ins they were like, "Y'all doing too much." When King started truly critiquing the American system and pointing out this country's multiple massive failures and refusal or inability (depending on your view) to live up to the promise and standard it set some folks began to not be so sure if they were for Civil Rights.

I have mentioned this several times before and it needs to be said again. When he was assassinated Dr. King had a 33% approval rating among white Americans and it never rose above 35%. That speaks volumes.

We are in the same place now. Most people aren't racist. But, what they are is bigoted and/or have "hangups" they don't want to let go. If that is triggering, oh well. It is so obviously the truth.

People will scoff at the notions of white privilege and white fragility. But, they are real. No, it's not this corporatist neoliberal woke nonsense you might hear on MSNBC but it is not nonexistent either which you will hear on Fox News. Its existence is apparent when you see moments like the one we have been living in for the last eight weeks.

Again, let me emphasis it just isn't white moderates. It is moderates!
One of the things that have struck me but not surprised me is the relative silence from the Congressional Black Caucus and a lot of other establishment leaders of color. They haven't really supported the protestors.

Because, the protestors aren't just saying, "Racism bad". They are letting it be known platitudes and band-aids aren't acceptable this time. They are challenging the system, which threatens those politicians.
I will not get into the many complexities of systemic racism. That is for another blog. But, there are poc whom also benefit from a system built on white supremacy because that white supremacy is fueled by a class supremacy. If you can't disaggregate that I will have to explain it another time. Although it is not that hard to figure out.

True progress shouldn't be that hard to achieve but we never seem to achieve it. It is not the avowed racists who are holding it up. Of course, they're always fighting it but they are outnumbered. Truth is they have always been outnumbered.
It is the avowed white supremacists' sympathizers, enablers and the people who are beholden to the status quo who hold up progress. It is also the apathetic. It was true during slavery. It was true in the 1960s and it is true now.

Whether admitted or not there is a swath of people who are fully aware of the privilege they have. They might not ever use that privilege nefariously but they like knowing it's there in a glass case for an "emergency". We somewhat saw that with Amy Cooper and what she attempted to do to Christian Cooper in Central Park. (For those who are not familiar Christian Cooper, who is African-American, asked Amy Cooper, who is white, to leash her dog because the dog was frightening the birds. She took exception and decided to call the New York City Police lying that Christian Cooper was threatening her and her dog when the video clearly showed the opposite.)

Another aspect of this goes to the hang-ups I mentioned. Some people want to be "a little bigoted" so anything or anyone that calls that out is a threat.
As King said, the issue is the moderate is often more concerned with "order" than justice. They want everyone to pretend we are in this fantasy world instead of living in the real world. Of course, in an aspirational world color and race would play no role. But, we don't live in that world and have to work towards that world. We aren't getting there by pretending we are already there.
I keep hearing, "People should...". People should do a lot of things but don't. If you want to see that society do your part and quit telling those fighting for that type of society to be quiet.

We have tried over and over and over again the incremental approach. We have tried pretending everything is ok. We have tried being "quieter". It is painfully obvious it doesn't work.

We must protest. We must speak out. We must demand the system is overhauled because it doesn't work for poc and large contingencies of white people either.
That is not going to be achieved by locking arms and singing "Put A Little Love In Your Heart". Nor is it going to be achieved by poc pretending they are not poc. It is not going to be achieved by ignoring the problem and just not talking about it because it is uncomfortable. It is suppose to be uncomfortable.

Until more moderates begin understanding this I don't believe we are ever really going to arrive where we want. We gotta have uncomfortable conversations and do uncomfortable things to get shit done. That has always been the case. Always.
Order is important but there can be no tangible order without justice. And, for large swaths of people in this country justice is something they never receive. Until they do...No justice, no peace.

Dissent In America Is Almost Always Impugned

2020-07-09T09:21:00.001-05:00

Inarguably the Boston Tea Party kicked off the American Revolution. The Colonists dissented against what they perceived as the British government instituting oppressive taxes upon them.

The event is essentially lionized in every public and private secondary educational history book. It is portrayed (I believe accurately) as the people rising up against a system that wass oppressing them.

The dissent was celebrated. Some 240 years later it was purported to be the inspiration and foundation of the Tea Party that was born out of what its founders considered a government suppressing their rights.

Dissent and protests are implicitly and explicitly encouraged in the United States Constitution. They are seen as essential to a healthy democracy and free republic.

However, since the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution most dissent in this country has been bemoaned and often demonized. And, it should be noted most of that dissent has come from left of the political center.

The notable exception is the South's attempted secession. We all know about the Civil War and the perceived fight over "state's rights". While it is true the South had many issues with the North (The United States government) the primary issue eventually became the South's use of slavery and their insistence it was their right to employ slavery as a means of production.

But, since the Civil War any dissent or protest in this country has come from the left. And, regardless how peaceful it has or hasn't been it has always been demonized and labeled in some way "un-American" and "violent". This has been true from women's suffrage to prohibition to Civil Rights to the LGBTQ movement for equality.

Unquestionably instances of violence have occurred with each movement. In the cases of the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights, LGBTQ Movement and Occupy Wall Street the vast majority of protests were peaceful. Yet, they were labeled as violent and aggressive.

The exact same thing is happening now with the protests that arose over the last five weeks or so in the wake of the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis. Yes, there has been rioting and looting. In the last couple of weeks there has been the taking down of several Confederate statues and statues of figures seen as having problematic histories with race. However, most of the protests have been peaceful. The peaceful protestors and most of the allies of the anti-racist movement have repeatedly denounced the looting and rioting.

But, that has made little difference to the detractors of the protests and rightwing media whom has generalized the protestors and lumped all of them into a single group labeling them "thugs", "criminals", "anarchists" and "America hating".

Antifa and Black Lives Matter have become the boogeymen. Anyone displaying support for the fight against racism, racial inequality and police brutality are accused of being apart of Antifa or #BLM whether they are or not.

The common retort anytime anyone pushes back against the broad stroking or demagoguery is, "I don't have an issue with the peaceful protestors. It is the people who are rioting, taking down statues and torching Targets." This retort or anything similar is specious though. Because, the common tactic has been to label all the protests as "rioting and looting" and then strawman it.

This approach isn't new. It is the exact same one that was used against Dr. Martin Luther King and the Freedom Fighters of the Civil Right Movement.

It is chic for people today to praise Dr. Kimg lauding him as the standard bearer for how peaceful protesting is conducted. They claim he is a hero. The problem is their parents, grandparents, ancestors and in some cases themselves stigmatized MLK and the allies of the Civil Rights Movement as "troublemakers" and "ungrateful". They disparaged and lied calling them and their protests "violent" when they weren't. They said the marches and sit-ins were "riots". They lamented why the protestors couldn't just be quieter and do things differently-"more peaceful". Some questioned why were they protesting or if those protesting even knew why and what they were protesting. They bemoaned the chanting and claimed to support the cause but asked, "Why can't they be more peaceful?" When Dr. King and the others refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem they cried, "Why are they disrespecting the country and are so 'un-American'"? You often heard people say, "We love black people. We love everyone. We don't see color. We just need to get along. Can't we all just go back to normal? Don't let these troublemakers make things uncomfortable. They are poisoning your minds and making you believe things are worse than they are. The races have been getting along just fine. Things are good they way they are. Why do we have to upend everything? Sure, there are problems, but most people are decent and treat each other decently." (Mind you there were separate water fountains and public bathrooms. Even in the North restaurants were segregated.) Anyway, all of those things and more were constantly said. Any of it sound familiar?

Now, just like then, the contention wasn't really with the method of protest and dissent. It was with the protest and dissent themselves. A swath of this country has always been against any progress or true equality. Of course, many will clutch their pearls and be "offended" at that being said but we all know it is true. It is empirical that it is true.

The goalposts are always being moved. As far as the swath is concerned peaceful protest and non-violent dissent are unicorns. The protests can never be peaceful enough.

And, the thing is it isn't just the vociferous antagonists. The actual issue is the "moderates" Dr. King talked about. I don't mean white moderates. I mean moderates. In the 1960s like now you had poc bucking against progress and racial equality and justice. Just like now some hedged because of fear. Others because of self-hate or it interferes with their revenue stream. I have mentioned thousands of times before there is a lane for poc who want to grift and fetishize themselves by shitting on other poc and demonizing them. A very narrow but lucrative lane exists for poc to regurgitate far rightwing and white nationalists talking points regarding poc and marginalized communities. So, they have incentive to demonize any protest or dissent against systemic racism.

As for those white moderates, they are often the biggest opponent against any substantive real structural change. Unlike hardcore bigots and avowed racists they want racial harmony but not if it comes with any type of real price tag. They don't think they are superior to poc and want equality but not actual true equality. They are aware the current system provides them certain privileges and advantages even though they pretend they don't see it. It is why they spew pseudo-woke bullshit and get a little bowed up whenever any protest or dissent espouses talk of material change to the system.

Some recoil at the removal of these Confederate statues and figures with problematic history regarding racist. But, most relent and reluctantly give up obvious racist horseshit like Aunt Jemima because they realize giving in on symbolic gestures is way better than giving in on actual structural change. Do not get triggered because you know it's true.

While way too many black folks were foolishly getting hung up about semantics over Bernie Sanders views on reparations the establishment which many moderates of all stripes support were freaking out and having meltdowns about Sanders winning the Democratic nomination because they knew he was serious about deconstructing the white supremacist system we have and instituting one that actually works for everyone.

Dissent and protest in this country will always be fought against and demonized when it comes from the left. Because, more often than not that dissent and protest are looking to shake up the system as opposed to just cementing the implicit biases and status quo of the current system.

ANNOUNCEMENT

2019-11-23T11:11:00.001-06:00

First, allow me to apologize for the infrequency of the blog posts. I know I have people who regularly read my pieces. Thank you to the two of you! (Joking...sorta)

Honestly, I have just been tired lately and ill-equipped to put in the necessary effort to produce a quality piece. Also, this time of the year is challenging for me and my mind isn't quite right.

With that being said I will not be writing regularly until the beginning of 2020.

I have plenty of thoughts and observances on what is transpiring in politics, pop culture and sports. In fact, I do plan on posting a blog next weekend about Trump's impeachment and the absolute embarrassment that was the House Intelligence Committee Republicans during the various testimonies. Especially you, Elise Stefanik, Jim "Didn't Say A Word About His Wrestlers Being Molested" Jordan and Devin "Snowflake" Nunes.

Anyway, I appreciate your patience and readership and hope you'll stick with me. I am also hoping I can grow my audience in 2020.

I am still expressing my thoughts on social media. So, please follow me at:

www.facebook.com/robbase2110

www.twitter.com/robbase2110

www.Instagram.com/robbase2110

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Dear Anonymous Trump Book Author, Sit Yo Ass Down!

2019-11-09T12:04:00.001-06:00

A year or so ago when a "senior White House official" wrote an op-ed in the New York Times I wrote a blog calling bs. Well, the author is back. This time with an actual book depicting the horrors of the Trump administration and the way the author and others are "saving" the democracy and Trump from himself.

Well, let me begin by saying you are effing terrible in your efforts.

The author is wanting to be heralded as some sort of hero. In fact, in the op-ed they referred to themselves as part of #TheResistance. But, the truth is they are no hero.

If this person or persons really want to save our country they would reveal who they are and detail explicitly just how inept and cruel Trump is. Instead, they have chosen to be anonymous because they are "one of the few voices of reason" left in Trump's orbit.

Bullshit!

As I said earlier, if their purpose for staying in this shitshow is to curb and derail Trump's worse impulses and draconian policies, they have failed miserably. For the love of God this buffoon is in the middle of an impeachment inquiry for doing the exact same thing he was accused of and subsequently skirted in the Russia probe. He sold out one of our greatest allies in the Middle East, the Kurds. He has continued his asinine tariffs which are devastating American farmers. Children are still being kidnapped at the southern border and separated from their families. Migrants are dying in ICE and Border Patrol's custody. White Supremacists are running around brandishing hit lists and assault rifles while President Adderall thinks he became the next Dwight Eisenhower by banning electronic cigarettes.

So, again I ask what the hell is this person subverting?!

The author acknowledged that some (many) are calling this book cowardice. But, they say that assertion is false because their sticking around as the anonymous anti-hero in the open is patriotic.

Sorry, it's not patriotic. What would be patriotic is to document Trump's shenanigans and misdeeds and take them to Congress. Be a whistleblower rather than writing a book that is an obvious angle to set themselves up as the "adult in the room" when this fascist clown show actually comes totally crashing down.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think there can't be enough listing of the atrocious things Trump has said and done. Although, nothing Anonymous put in this book is shocking.

Trump being racist, misogynistic and sexist are not exactly heart stopping revelations. Him being cruel and dismissive comes as a surprise to nobody. Unimaginable amounts of ignorance and stupidity flowing from his lips isn't shaking anyone to their core. We have heard him speak and read his tweets. It is common knowledge he is a dumbass.

My point is this administration official is not serving the country by allowing this insanity to ensue. Maybe they have kept him from nuking Greenland but that doesn't excuse locking babies in cages making them dwell in their own feces.

This person needs to come forward because if the public knows who they are at least it gives these accounts some gravitas. Or, at the very least go to Congress with documentation to get this man-child out of office.

Thinking they can manage him is obviously silly and delusional. Trump is petulant and puerile and likely mentally ill. Combine that with his malignant narcissism and it's only a matter of time before he does something that is truly irreparable.

Whoever this is cannot control that. Not to mention, if I am to give this person any kind of credibility, they are outnumbered within the administration. Trump has essentially surrounded himself with sycophants and ball washers.

I am sure Anonymous would say there are others like them. Who? Pompeo? Mulvaney? Pence? Carson? LMFAO! They have all proven to be craven incompetent toadies.

This book is nothing more than an exercise in virtue signaling, which ironically the Right claims to abhor.

I have little desire to read this. Not because I don't believe it. I believe every word is probably true. The empirical evidence backs that up.

I have no desire to read it because I think it is self-serving. As I mentioned earlier, this is groundwork being laid for when this crazy train finally goes off the rails completely Anonymous can reveal themselves saying, "See, I was right and I saved us."

No! Say something now! Do something now! Resign and expose Trump's fraudulent criminal ass. Are the tax cuts, undoing Obama's legacy and maintaining power worth watching our democracy go to hell?

Until Anonymous decides to be a true patriot and shelve Conservative goals because they are not worth allowing this batshit crazy wannabe authoritarian to totally destroy our republic I need them to *take a seat*.

No, really, sit yo ass down!

Tribalism, Willful Ignorance & Lack Of Nuance Is Decaying Our Societal Discourse

2019-10-19T13:32:00.001-05:00

It is en vogue right now to bemoan the lack of civility and/or polarization that seems to be so pervasive in the country. Almost everyone of us do it pointing to all the folks who seemingly can't muster a smidge of basic kindness and respectful tone. But, the reality is many of us are as guilty as the people we call out.

Whether it is politics, sports, entertainment or preferred cuisine so many people get into their respective corners and fight for their team no matter what.

Look, the truth is by nature human beings are somewhat tribalistic. It is partially the reason sports are so popular. We can get behind a team or an university or a single competitor and cheer them on. It makes us feel as though we're apart of an exclusive community where we all have the same common goals and we can share the pain of losing and the thrill of winning.

Although it is on a more serious level the same can be said for politics . While we sometimes feel sports is life and death politics actually can be. We each have our own values which determine (at least in theory) our political and social beliefs. Those beliefs usually dictate which political party we choose. And, for some those beliefs make them ostensibly apolitical and they choose to not belong to any political party.

With all of this said regardless of what sports team or political party we affiliate with we acknowledged that ultimately we were all on the same team. However, in today's hyper polarized climate that is not the case.

Way too many of us have literally taken the position of either you are 100% with us or you are against us. Even 99% is not good enough. We state, if you don't think like we think, then you are not only the enemy you are unworthy of basic human empathy or courtesy. As a result one side hates the other and vice versa.

I see it in sports every day. I am an avid Atlanta Braves fan. From March to September (and hopefully October) my primary sports focus is the Braves. I love my team. So, because of my affinity for the Braves I hate (in the colloquial sense) the Washington Nationals, New York Mets and Philadelphia Phillies. Quite frankly, some of their fans are obnoxious. But, I don't literally hate them. I don't want to see harm come to those teams or their fans.

However, we now live in a time where some fans do want to see harm come to other teams' fans and in a few cases have taken action to make that desire come to fruition.

We know all too well this is true in the political spectrum. Unfortunately, we have seen way too many politically inspired violent events and mass shootings.

This has simply been the result of people defending their team or believing they are going to impress certain leaders.

Right now we are so polarized and tribalist that mostly we can't have a civil discussion with those whom we disagree without it devolving into a profanity laced ad hominem filled shouting match (whether in person or on social media). Nothing gets solved. Usually nobody actually explains their position. And, most of us don't care because we're more concerned with did we "own" them or entice enough tears for us to bathe in while we stroke ourselves really believing we proved intellectual superiority.

It is not about exchanging ideas or discussing policy disagreements. It is about repping the team and "winning".

This need to win or "own" somebody, which frankly is demented and puerile, is also causing us to lose objectivity and nuance. We used to at least pretend to not be sheep and have the ability to disaggregate.

In today's climate the ability to be nuanced has been thrown out the window.

This happens in politics and racial issues all the time. It drives me insane.

If a Republican does something obviously wrong, the vast majority of Republicans refuse to call it out. Worse, they pretend it either isn't wrong or it didn't happen.

The same goes, for example, with some black folks too. (Now, I must be clear I am not saying it's only black people. I should not have to clarify this, but I am because I know someone will likely get offended and think I'm attacking black folks. Again, lack of nuance and ability to disaggregate.)

Anyway, I hear and read black people who totally excuse pernicious behavior by other black folks because white people do it and get away with it or because of white supremacy or because the occupant in the White House did it. And, depending on the circumstance, that is very likely true but doesn't have anything to do with that person or those people doing something undeniably wrong. But, because said person(s) is ostensibly on our team we're supposed to have their back regardless. It's ridiculous.

As a society we have seemingly lost any objectivity. We no longer care about right and wrong or decency. We are only concerned with are you on our side and defending/protecting that side regardless the consequences.

Those consequences have presented themselves in our discourse and behavior. This tribalism has bore fruits that are pernicious and debilitating to our society.

Now, let me be clear, this isn't some woke scold about civility as the term is often cynically used. I am not advocating people don't fiercely and vociferously defend their positions and values. I certainly am not saying to stand down to people who are overtly offensive and bigoted. I am not saying let's all sing kumbaya. Some very nihilistic and ghoulish people are in our body politic and society writ large and should be called out at every turn.

What I am saying is to listen. I am saying argue or debate with integrity and honesty. I am saying be objective in your critiques. Don't defend team for the sake of team. Please stop demonizing and dehumanizing those you disagree with simply because they disagree. Take others' position on a case by case situation and proceed accordingly. Do not just broad brush because it is easier to that than take a few moments to employ critical thinking and nuance.

Many of us love to talk about others being sheep. But, let me inform you, when you take up for someone because they simply are on your "team" and not because of the merits of the situation it is you who is being the sheep.

Candace Owens Is Toxic: Here Is Why

2019-09-28T14:24:00.000-05:00

Candace Owens is a pollutant to political discourse, the African-American community and society writ large. Full stop!

This may sound a bit hyperbolic or just flat outrageous. But, I believe it to be wholly true, and I make no apologies for the statement.

If you follow this blog or any of my social media posts, you are likely well aware of my disdain for Stacey Dash's broke down cousin aka the low rent Omarossa. My contempt for Candace, I believe, is firmly buoyed by evidence.

Recently, at a Summit Tv panel featuring Candy, T.I., Killer Mike and Katrina Pierson T.I. asked Owens, "What era are we trying to replicate when America was last great?" Now, this is a question I've asked frequently and have yet to receive an actual answer. I know this is because Trump supporters cannot answer it honestly without being boxed into a corner forced to defend the indefensible. If they do attempt to answer it they go to the predictable playbook of employing red herrings and non-sequiturs, which is exactly what Candace did.

She started babbling about how "slavery was all over the world". T.I. cut her off and demanded she answer the question, which she insisted she was. She was not. She was making an attempt to justify America's actions with the always thoughtful "Well, they did it too" defense.

This weak ass sauce is a part of what encapsulates what Candace Owens is all about.

I have a plethora of issues with Candace Owens. I stringently feel her entire spiel is pernicious and distracting. Her rhetoric is often ahistorical, fallacious and disingenuous. When she does state facts it is void of context and perspective. Candace is frequently intellectually dishonest in her arguments and positions.

What I find the most disturbing is her absolute willingness to fetishize herself for a subset of white rightwingers and alt-righters who receive some sort of demented pleasure from seeing people of color go on tv or audio media trashing other people of color or poc as a whole. Even more disturbing is her regurgitating white nationalist/white supremacist talking points so they essentially can be laundered giving white nationalists and white supremacists cover to promote their hateful and insidious ideology.

An example of this is her so-called Blexit campaign which is an effort to convince African-Americans to leave the Democratic Party "plantation". She frequently reminds us that Democrats were in favor of slavery and against Civil Rights. 'Ol girl loves to spew the Republican talking point it was a Republican who freed the slaves. She loves to mention the Klu Klux Klan was supposedly a Democrat group. Candace claims social safety net programs such as welfare were created by Democrats to keep black folks in a slave mentality.

Now, here is where Stacey Dash's broke down cousin inserts some truth into her bullshit propaganda but it's drenched in disingenuousness. Yes, Democrats promoted slavery and were vehemently against Civil Rights. However, what she conveniently neglects to mention is it wasn't all Democrats it was southern Democrats (and southern Republicans for the record). The same regarding the Klan. As for welfare, if it is a trap to keep black people on the plantation it's putting some white folk there too since there are more white people per capita on welfare than blacks. Another oversight by the black Ann Coulter.

Candy also loves to spout another alt-right talking point which is this feigned concern for the absence of black men in the home. When she speaks about the detrimental effect the absence of a father can have on a family she is correct. She blames this on Democrats which they actually possess some culpability. But, their culpability lies in their cosigning rightwing projects which favors increased incarnation of young African-American men. People like Joe Biden advocated for engaging in the drug war which was nothing more than a war on black people. Not only did increased incarceration occur but so did blatant disproportionate sentencing which literally has black men in prison for multiple decades, if not life, for non-violent drug offenses. Shall I even go into stop and frisk. All of these things were Republican projects that, yes, were supported by some Democrats. But, for some reason Candace leaves the Republicans' responsibility out of it.

Something that Candace Owens has done which directly bolsters white supremacy by completing being ahistorical is her depiction of the Republican Party's strategy the last 50 plus years. A few months ago she went onto Ari Melber's show on MSNBC saying the "southern switch" and the "southern strategy" aren't real and are lies perpetrated by the Democrats. This is demonstrably false!

The "southern switch" most certainly took place. After the passage of Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965 respectively the vast majority of southern Democrats were so angry they left the Democratic Party. Where did they go? The Republican Party where they were welcomed with open arms and where they have been ever since.

Regarding the "southern strategy" it also is very real. It was created by Lee Atwater. Atwater was a campaign advisor for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, the campaign manager for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, as well as George H.W. Bush's campaign manager in 1988.

The "southern strategy", as described by Atwater in a now infamous recorded interview with a reporter, is a strategy that utilized racism and racial resentment to stir up the Republican base but did so by employing dog whistled and coded language. Atwater said Republicans can't say, "Nigger, nigger, nigger anymore" but must use phrases like "law and order" (which is code for keep the blacks in line) and make welfare synonymous with black people thus where phrases like "welfare queens" and "young bucks buying Cadillacs with their welfare checks" came into play. Any of that sound familiar?

On his deathbed Atwater claimed he felt great remorse over what he did and the stigmas he helped place on black people. He allegedly begged for forgiveness. Whatevs.

So, for Candace Owens(an African-American woman) to go on national television and lie about things that manifestly had an adverse negative effect on the black community and the body politic as a whole and still does til this day is abhorrent. It is indefensible. She knows she's full of shit but she does it anyway.

Why? Why does she do it? It is simple. Turning Points USA (a far rightwing organization geared toward college and high school students), billionaires such as TPUSA bankroller Foster Fries and conservative media like Fox News pays her quite handsomely. Also, she receives massive exposure which a narcissistic clout chasing grifter like Candace Owens craves almost as much as the money.

Owens is willing to suspend her conscience and integrity to play a role. As I stated before she fetishizes herself for a segment of rightwingers whom literally get off to seeing poc demean and denigrate other poc under the guise of "helping them". It is especially exciting when it is a black woman. They get all warm and fuzzy and horny inside. Some day perhaps I'll go into the psychosis of this perverse lunacy but not now. And, if they throw in a few ridiculous rightwing talking points along with the white nationalist ones all the better.

The perfect example of this and what truly sums Candace Owens up was her interview a year or so ago with Joe Rogan on his podcast. Rogan, who full disclosure I like despite him often being a conduit for alt-right ghouls like Candy, asked her about climate change. (Rogan strongly and correctly believes climate change is real.) Predictably like a good little rightwing oligarch funded girl Candace said she didn't believe in it. Rogan asked why. She said, "I just don't." Somewhat baffled Rogan again asked why. Owens responded she just doesn't believe it because it is not really proven. Amazed at this stupidity Rogan said, "Over 99% of scientists agree it's real." Candace said they "have an agenda" although she didn't say exactly what that agenda was. She then went to a Trumpism and said it was a "Chinese hoax". Visibly staggered by the utter ignorance coming out of Owens' mouth Rogan was about to have his mind blown little did he know. He again pressed Aunt Tomasina why exactly she didn't believe in climate change. Then she says, "Well, honestly, I've never actually read up on it." Incredulous Rogan retorted, "How can you say you don't believe in something you've never actually read up on?" Her response, "I'll read on it, but I just don't believe it."

Upon hearing this exchange any doubt I had about what Candace Owens actually is was unequivocally removed. She is nothing more than a shill regurgitating talking points. But, more disturbing and telling was she couldn't even articulate the talking points because she hadn't even taken the time to learn them and craft an argument. Not only is she a sellout and a fraud she is lazy.

Of course, she can be because her backers don't care as long as she plays the part. In fact, the reality she does appear to be lazy just plays into the narrative they're wanting to propagate.

What Candace Owens does is noxious. It is malevolent. She intentionally disseminates fallacies and ahistorical references. That is not helpful to political discourse.

It is more than I disagree with her politics. It is what she's doing is frankly dangerous. She is laundering an evil and pernicious ideology that has already shown itself a deadly hazard to society.

The truth is I could go on to cite so many other examples of her ignorance and malfeasance.

And, it must be noted literally six weeks before her "conservative awakening" Candace ran a website mocking Donald Trump and questioning his penis size. Her website also featured such intellectually thoughtful pieces as "I Can Take Your Man". But, then suddenly she realized Trump was awesome. I'm sure the Brinks truck of money she was given had nothing to do with her political rebirth.

I don't like Candace Owens. I don't respect her. Frankly, I have little to no patience for people who defend her.

Her Auntie Ruckus act is so obvious. She doesn't care about black people. If she did she would come talk to us regarding solutions instead of babbling vacuous Trump talking points about how he has done so much to help black folk when we all know he hasn't and his racism has been quite apparent. Seriously, name one positive thing Candy has done for black people.................

She is not here for us. Her ostensible purpose is to help African-Americans progress. However, her entire shtick is geared toward white crypto-racists, white supremacists and people who are mildly bigoted but susceptible to being pulled further right. She goes on cable tv and YouTube saying things these people want to say but feel they can't. She gives them cover. They can say, "Sure, what I said sounds racist but Candace Owens said the same thing so it can't be."

It is repugnant and disgusting! It is extremely harmful. And, I'll continue to call her out and debunk her bullshit just like I do with any extreme rightwing and alt-right garbage.

I don't think Candace Owens believes most of the shit that comes out of her mouth. But, it really doesn't matter if she does. What she says is putrid! And, it must be called out as such.

Biden Has A "Black" Problem (Stop Pretending He Doesn't)

2019-09-21T13:12:00.000-05:00

Through any objective lens Joe Biden has some problematic views and perceptions regarding race.

For the last four years the common media narrative has been that it is Bernie Sanders who has an African-American voter problem. However, that narrative is disingenuous and misleading. Please contain your shock that the media would propagate a disingenuous narrative. Sanders actually has a favorability rate with black voters under the age of 45. It is the older contingency where his issues lie, which is the case across the racial spectrum, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.

The current Democratic presidential candidate whom actually has the real "black" issue is Joe Biden.

As has been heavily reported Biden has quite an extensive history of holding questionable views on certain racial matters, making (if I am being kind) tone deaf comments regarding black folks and promoting legislation that has been detrimental to the African-American community.

Over his near 50 years in government he has repeatedly used language that sounded like it came out of Mitch McConnell's mouth more than the civil rights advocating liberal he claims he is. For example, when Biden was pushing for the 1994 crime bill, which by the way he authored, he routinely referred black male youths as animals, predatory and often hopeless. In a famous speech on the Senate floor he rhetorically instituted imagery that suggested little white women like his mother were susceptible to these brooding dangerous criminals (who were black).

Biden has often employed condescending statements that are dripping with tropes and implicit racism. During the 2008 presidential election he said about Barack Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Now, I am quite sure some will read that and say, "So, what is wrong with that?" Well, aside from being horribly historically inaccurate it also implies that Obama was "one of the good ones". I understand some people believe that is a compliment. I assure you it is not!

During this 2020 Democratic Primary Biden has repeatedly placed his foot in his mouth. He bragged about his ability to work and be friendly with segregationists back in the day. As if the bragging about befriending virulent racists wasn't bad enough, the "working with" he boasted about was the effort to fight bussing.

At a campaign stop he equated black people with poor people. He said (while discussing struggles of African-Americans) that poor kids are just as talented and bright as white kids.

To be fair I understand what he was attempting to convey. However, it is troubling that in his mind black kids are unilaterally the same as poor kids.

Then there was the last Democratic debate on the campus of Texas Southern, a HBCU. Biden was asked about a comment he made in the 1970s essentially regarding reparations and what responsibility people today have about healing the wounds and repairing the damage from slavery which still affects the country today as well as the racial inequalities in our schools. [And, it does regardless of what fantasyland some rightwingers want to dally in.] Biden said (in the 70s) that he "wasn't responsible for what happened 300 years ago but what his generation has done today".

Here is how Biden responded to the question:

"Look, there's institutional segregation in this
country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Red lining, banks, making sure we are in a position where — look, you talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend from $15 to $45 billion a year.

We have [sic] make sure that every single child does in fact have ... three, four, and five-year-olds go to school, not daycare.

We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It's not that they don't want to help, they don't know quite what to do.

Play the radio, make sure the television — the, excuse me — make sure you have the record player on at night ... make sure the kids hear words."

Lawd Jesus where do I begin with this hot mess?

He started off fine. He is 100% correct about redlining, institutional racism from the banks and the lack of funding for schools which is swallowed up in systemic racism. It is so engulfed I can't go into it here because it is way too detailed
and a couple of sentences won't do it justice. I suggest watching Contrapoints YouTube video about Baltimore. It explains Baltimore's contemporary issues which can be paralleled with nearly every other innercity and predominantly black and/or brown poor community in this country.

But, then he goes off into some ramble about three, four and five year olds going to school and not daycare. Honestly, I am not quite sure where he was going there.

Then he goes off the rails into implicit racism territory. He essentially questions black folks' ability to raise children and then more or less implies they don't know how to raise children. It was very condescending and Daniel Moynihan-ish. He literally sounded like one of those moderate Democrat from the 1980s that didn't believe black people were descendant from monkeys and of course were deserving of equality but are a "little bit inferior" and in need of a white savior.

He concluded his mind-numbing diatribe saying have the record player on and making sure the kids hear words. Look, I don't know what the "record player" fuckery was about. I can't even pretend I do.

However, I think his meandering about kids hearing words was in reference to some education and child development experts believing the more words children hear the more likely they are to excel and have robust vocabularies. Now, I have no desire to go down that road right now. I will just say I believe there is merit to that.

Is that what Biden was saying? I really don't know.

Regardless, the gist of his comments were troubling. They added to a pattern of Biden's that is less than flattering to people of color. It can be said his comments added to a few narratives, all of whom are problematic for someone wanting to be the Democratic nominee tasked with defeating the most corrupt, amoral bigoted president of the last 100 years.

Hey, the fact is Biden is the frontrunner. He possesses the majority of African-American support. I would argue his position on both fronts is tenuous. I believe as the time for actual voting nears and more people start actually paying attention Biden could be in trouble.

Aside from the fact people are not paying attention now and are so effin apathetic what is troubling me that these gaffes and views aren't seemingly affecting those who are paying attention right now. I guess I understand this obsession with electability, which I believe is actually an obsession with this delusion Trumpsters can be swayed away from Cheeto Jesus and they'll "see the light". That strategy is dangerous, naive and ill-conceived.

I am also aware segments of the Democratic electorate believe Biden's problematic racial views are actually beneficial. What those people don't seem to grasp is such an approach will alienate chunks of their base and voters who stayed home in 2016. For many of them Trump being a wannabe fascist menace isn't enough if they believe they are just voting for Republican light which partially got us into our current mess.

And, I want to be clear. I don't believe Joe Biden is a racist. If he is the nominee, of course, I will support him over that fool in the White House.

However, Biden has some very bothersome cringy racial views. Frankly, that is only a fraction of my issues with him.

Again, if he is the nominee, I'll down a shot of rubbing alcohol and vote for him. But, there are significantly better choices, so let's just go with one of them instead of during the general election enduring Uncle Joe deciding to reminisce about as a kid how he just loved Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben because they were "good role models for [the] blacks".

It's A Primary Debate; Not A Love-In

2019-09-14T12:18:00.001-05:00

Apparently, some Democrats are very confused about exactly how a presidential primary works.

One of the reoccurring themes throughout the Democratic Primary thus far has been this mind-numbing lamenting over candidates and their supporters criticizing other candidates.

Everyone from Bill Maher to Neera Tanden to even President Obama has whined about candidates sniping at each other and critiquing others records. A few months ago Obama referred to it as a "circular firing squad". That is just silly.

This is a presidential primary with an ungodly-and I mean an ungodly- number of people running. These candidates have to distinguish themselves and their policy sets from their opponents. They have to put forth a platform convincing the Democratic electorate why they should be the nominee to take on #CheetoJesus himself, Donald Trump. The way they do that is by selling themselves AND by ripping other candidates' records and pointing out issues. This is how campaigns have worked since....oh, I don't know.....FOREVER!

This ridiculous notion (honestly, mostly pushed by centrists, Neoliberals and hating Trump consumed liberals) that candidates should just stroke each other and not ever seize on any mistake or questionable policy stance is infantile and counterproductive. Frankly, it's undemocratic.

As I just mentioned there are certain types of folks doing all of this bemoaning and unfortunately it is a bit more nefarious than it seems.

Much of this nonsense stems from moderates, centrists and corporate media who wants a centrist candidate like Joe Biden or for some ungodly reason Amy Klobuchar because either they believe in centrism, want to maintain the status quo/return to "normalcy" or they think a centrist is most electable. Others are pushing this "everyone hold hands" narrative because they are capping for Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris because they are actually more in-line with their politics and they think will be more palatable to moderates than, say, Bernie Sanders. Also, regardless the motivation, they also believe in-fighting will lead to a repeat of 2016.

Now, on a surface level I get that. However, the argument is specious. Hillary Clinton didn't lose the election because Bernie supporters didn't show up for her. In fact, 85% of Sanders' voters voted for Hillary. She lost, in part, because of her own political malfeasance. But, I am not here to yet again re-litigate the 2016 Presidential election.

The reality is critiquing candidates and vetting their records is good for the political process. It is vital in helping voters determine whom they feel is the candidate who will best represent them. Not you! Not me! Not the donor class! Them!

And, some people really need to cease with this false equivalency nonsense that combing through one's public service record is analogous to attacking them personally. It is absolutely asinine to bemoan people questioning Joe Biden about his past comments on race and racial issues. These matters are important. And, I already know some tool is saying, "Oh my Gawd! It's not like Biden is like Trump." Right. Not saying he is. But, it's mine and others prerogative to have someone a bit more progressive on race as the person representing us.

In the same respect I believe it is beyond fair to question Elizabeth Warren on her votes regarding the increase in military spending. It is fair game to go after Bernie Sanders on his record in Congress. Kamala Harris should be forced to defend her sketchy record as California district attorney. Julian Castro should most certainly be asked about his questionable decisions while in the Obama administration. Cory Booker needs to answer about his ties to charter schools which have ostensibly disaffected the inner-city communities he's always talking about. Marianne Williamson, whom I adore, should absolutely be pushed on her "it's all about love" strategy and asked what the hell is she talking about.

All of the candidates should be picked apart and pushed. These people aren't running for the head of the Blueberry Festival committee. They are running to be President of The United States!

But, I am not naive. As I previously noted, some people are simply hawking this childish lunacy because they want the status quo or centrism. They don't want Biden or Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg critiqued or dug into because they fear if they are the Democratic base will reject them and pick Warren or Sanders who they either feel isn't electable (which is ridiculous) or they will threaten their influence and/or wealth hoarding (which is why one of them should probably be the nominee).

The primary season is not a kumbaya fest. Primary debates are not for candidates to get on a stage and slob each other up because...you know...civility.

Grab a dictionary or get on the 'ol Google machine and look up the definition of debate.

Understand, I don't believe personal attacks are good. Although, the truth is voters respond to them whether folks want to acknowledge that or not. But, some spirited discussion and calling each other out for past (and current) words and deeds is not only acceptable it is healthy.

It is called democracy.

Oh, and let me be clear, regardless who the nominee is I'll support them. All of them are significantly more qualified and infinitely better human beings than the current occupant of the White House. This should go without saying.

Bill Maher's Problematic Shift To The Center

2019-09-07T14:28:00.000-05:00

Since 2016 comedian and Real Time host, Bill Maher, has steadily shifted his politics to the center. This is disappointing and troublesome.

Maher built a reputation as a someone who was an outlier and a check not only on Republicans but the Democratic establishment. He was seen as a standard bearer for the Left-the actual political Left.

He said the quiet parts aloud about America's role in fostering Al-Qaeda's rise and its perpetual defense of and covering for Saudia Arabia. Maher was a vociferous voice against the Iraq War at a time when media figures like Phil Donahue were getting fired for their anti-war stances.

Bill Maher was a rare voice in the mainstream beating the drum about climate change in a period when political pundits and analysts weren't discussing it with any type of substantive seriousness. Maher spoke frequently about wealth inequality. And, of course, he pushed legalizing marijuana and stopping the drug war.

However, this was pre-2016 Maher. That Bill Maher early on endorsed Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Since that time Maher has steadily devolved into centrism and all its nonsensical talking points and vapid neoliberalism. He has become a cheerleader for the establishment he once ostensibly resented on some level and certainly didn't hesitate to criticize.

Now, this could be the result of him getting older. They (whoever the hell they are) say people become more conservative the older they get. Although I find myself becoming more progressive the older I get, but I am weird. Or, so that is the impression I discern some have.

Frankly, I believe it is a combination of factors as to Maher's shift. Maher has become entrenched in the mainstream. The mainstream he once ostensibly was a reluctant member of he now embraces.

Maher is a face of #TheResistance. Although I am sure he would pretend to recoil at such a label.

The idea of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is largely ludicrous. What rightwingers call derangement most people call being decent human beings repulsed by a repulsive man in Donald Trump and his draconian policies. However, some people are obsessed with despising him for the sake of despising him. Bill Maher seems to fit that description.

It should be noted Maher and Trump have a history. Google Trump suing Maher over him questioning whether Trump's father was an orange haired orangutan or not. Of course, it was a joke (the best Maher ever had in my opinion) but we all know Daddy is quite thin skinned. So, predictably he threw a hissy fit.

Anyway, another factor in Maher's shift has to do with his somewhat illogical war on social media, college campuses and political correctness. Honestly, his incessant grievance mongering about it has turned him into "get off my lawn guy".

This unrelenting whiny railing against political correctness has led him to have people such as Milo Yianopoulous, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Sam Harris on his show which, frankly, was a sign of his disturbing shift.

Look, having these grifters on his show is fine if he gave any semblance of substantive pushback against them. But, he didn't do that. Instead, he essentially laundered their toxic nonsense. In the cases of Shapiro and Milo he allowed them to seem reasonable instead of the monsters they actually are. And, when it came to Petersen and Harris, he basically had a love fest where they stroked each other off instead of providing any check on their pseudo science and crypto-bigotry. It was disgusting.

Herein lies why in part Maher's shift to the center is so problematic. His newfound ideology allowed him to provide a platform for overtly toxic cretins like Shapiro and Petersen. It gave them a vehicle to present themselves as "just logical people with a right bent". It presented them as civil when that is far from the truth.

Shapiro is a religious zealot, bigot and demagogue who has said and wrote heinous things about Muslims, Palestinians, Hispanics and African-Americans. Let's not even mention Benjamin is a shameless grifter who presents himself as an intellectual when he is the opposite of intellectual.

Something is undoubtedly wrong when a known staunch rightwinger on the BBC provides infinitely more objective checks on Shapiro than the supposed mainstream voice of the Left does.

And, Petersen literally is a conduit for incels. They see him as their Svengali. He is daddy. Yet, when he was on the show Maher was more interested in talking about 19 year old college kids upset about Richard Spencer giving speeches on their campuses and how snowflakey it was.

The other obvious problematic feature of Maher's newfound centrism is its affect on his viewpoint of the 2020 Democratic primary.

Hey, when a nominee is determined I'm all about pragmatism and realism. For the love of God Donald Trump is president. It goes without saying this buffoonish unintelligent unfit monster has to go. I get it!

However, right now pragmatism isn't required nor is it necessary. The entire reason primaries supposedly exist is for people to properly access the merits and policies of the people running for office. So, candidates must establish themselves and what distinguishes them from the other candidates. That is done by criticizing other candidates and pointing out why their policies and/or records aren't better than their opponents'.

This notion that Maher and others (including President Obama) push about the ills of a circular firing squad is utter nonsense. On recent shows Maher has lamented the critiquing of Biden's, Harris', and Buttigieg's records as bullshit nitpicking Twitter induced woke purity tests. That is demented.

Of course, Joe Biden's record matters. His refusal to acknowledge past mistakes matter.

Diminishing Kamala Harris' actions as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General as, "She was a prosecutor who prosecuted. How dare she?", is at best infantile. It certainly matters that Harris was prosecuting parents for truant children but flatly refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchikin after he essentially stole millions of dollars and left numerous people penniless. That speaks to character.

It's not "woke Twitter bullshit" to hold Mayor Pete to account for his handling of policing issues. Nor is it unreasonable to critique policy ideas of the other candidates. It's called vetting.

Regarding the 2020 election what is perhaps most troublesome about Maher is his seemingly pushing the idea that Democrats just settle and pick an extremely flawed Joe Biden or a moderate because they have the best chance of winning. Choosing a candidate based upon "electability" is a stupid idea and has historically been proven to be a counterproductive one. History has shown the candidate people believe those outside of their tent will choose is rarely the actual right choice. See 2016. If Bernie Sanders was the nominee he would've won. I've had to atone many times for not understanding that.

But, Bill Maher's push for Biden or any centrist candidate I suspect is more than about electability. The dude who at one time was all about aspirational politics suddenly is an avid cheerleader for the status quo and incrementalism. The one time proponent of Medicare for all and increased taxation on the wealthy so they pay their fair share is like, "Well, let's slow down with that. It sounds like socialism which I have no problem with but..."

Translation: Maher is a really rich guy and like most rich people he doesn't want to give a dime of it up. Now, I am sure he would say he's being pragmatic and an adult. Three years ago he was squawking about we need Medicare for all.

It is disheartening to see someone I looked up to descend into this neoliberal centrist self-serving black hole. The guy who advocated for environmental protections and making sure all people are looked after is now openly pushing an agenda that ultimately only looks out for the privileged. The man who was a progressive icon is now more concerned with rightwingers disingenuously whining about free speech allegedly being suppressed on college campuses than he is actual voter suppression across this country. The guy who was honestly the only semblance of a progressive voice in mainstream media is way more upset about Ilhan Omar making a substantive accurate critique of Israeli lobbyists that was disgustingly characterized as anti-Semitic than he is the President's overt Islamaphobia.

Maher has a huge platform he is simply using irresponsibly. And, because of his platform his politics are greatly problematic.

As I mentioned before, he will have on his show Petersen, Shapiro, Harris and Bret Stephens but never once has he invited Cenk Uguyr or Ana Kasparian or Sam Seeder all of whom viewers of his show know. And, sorry, Van Jones is not someone to use as a retort. Van is progressive but his progressivism is a bit too fluid.

I really hope this shift of Maher's is a simple product of wanting Trump gone but I sincerely fear it's not. It's been coming for awhile.

Here's The Thing: Strawmanning Democratic Socialism

2019-08-03T13:02:00.000-05:00

VENEZUELA! VENEZUELA! VENEZUELA!

Screaming this is literally an innate response for rightwingers every time Democratic Socialism or Medicare for all is mentioned. And, it's such a silly strawman.

If you have ever watched Fox News (I'm sorry for the loss of brain cells if you have) or had a conversation with Conservatives and rightwingers you are familiar with the following:

Rightwinger: Socialism is bad and evil.

Progressive (or anyone with a lick of knowledge and/or nuance): Well, I would say a system that encourages healthcare and criminal rehabilitation be based upon profit margin is evil. But, I digress. Progressives and people like Bernie and AOC don't want socialism. They're advocating Democratic Socialism which is different.

RW: No it's not! Democratic socialism is socialism.

P: No, that is incorrect. Democratic socialism has aspects of socialism, yes, but is distinctively different.

RW: VENEZUELA!

P: What?! Huh?

RW: VENEZUELA!

P: But...

RW: VENEZUELA! CUBA!

P: Are you having an episode of some kind?

RW: VENEZUELA! CUBA! You want to turn us into Venezuela!

P: No, we don't. We don't want authoritarian socialism, which by the way Cuba is communist...

RW: Bullshit! VENEZUELA! You want us eating dog food like they do there.

P: Good Lawd! No, we don't. First of all, the authoritarian regime in VENEZUELA has a lot to do with the conditions there. However, American foreign policy has wielded significant influence in how the conditions are as well. But, that's beside the point. We are talking about the Nordic countries and the medical coverage they have in Canada and virtually every other major industrial country in the world; not Venezuela.

RW: Whatever. VENEZUELA! And, those Scandinavian countries are small so they can do that there. Besides, those countries pay ridiculous taxes.

P: Well, those countries rank significantly higher than us in education, industrialization, healthcare, job productivity, quality of life, life longevity and overall happiness.

RW: Well, we're the greatest country ever! If you think those countries are so great, leave! Stand up for the flag!

P: What does standing for the flag have to do with this?

RW: You want Venezuela! I love my country! Respect the vets! Respect the anthem! Respect the flag! Damn Marxist!

P: 😐...Um, anyway, I don't see what any of that has to do with Democratic socialism. You're sounding ridiculous.

RW: Everything! And, now, you're saying I am racist because I don't agree with you.

P: WTF! How did racism get into this?

RW: See! There you go bringing race into it. You libtards always have to bring race into everything and call names.

P: What is the fucking color of the sky in your world?

RW: It's red, white and blue because I love America unlike you communist Democrats.

P: Um....whatever. You do realize we already implement socialism in this country, right?

RW: How dare you? This is America! We believe in capitalism here! There ain't no damn socialism! Damn commies!

P: *Sigh* We do have socialism. The police, the fire department, the roads...

RW: Damn, you liberals are stupid. That is not socialism. Our taxes pay that.

P: Yeah, that the government decides how that taxpayer money is allocated. The government directly runs all of those entities that serve the greater public good. And, social security, the military and Medicare are also socialist programs.

RW: No they're not! Those are all programs that simply bolster our capitalist system.

P: 😐 Medicare isn't socialist?

RW: No! And, you libtards are supposed to be educated.

P: If that is so, then why do you so vehemently oppose MEDICARE for all?

RW: Because, that is socialism. You want to raise my taxes and make me pay for other people's free healthcare.

P: How do you walk upright? That is what Medicare is now. Except under Medicare for all your taxes would literally go toward funding your own healthcare instead of just those 65 years old and older.

RW: You're wrong. You want Medicare for all so you can get rid of Medicare! We don't want your socialism here. You, AOC and that Omar take that shit somewhere else. Keep your damn government hands off my Medicare and social security.

P: No. Child. Left. Behind. Is. A. Damn. Lie.

And, this kids, is what I mean when I say many rightwingers work backwards from their conclusions.

This conversation was based on actual conversations others and me have had both online and in person. They're real.

The struggle is real.

Your Silence, Equivocation And Apathy Is Complicity (Being Anti-Racism Is Not A Stand On The Sidelines Event)

2019-07-27T12:58:00.000-05:00

It is way past time I fully address an issue that pisses me off! I have written a couple of blogs previously that in retrospect just danced around the elephant in the room.

It is just this simple, if you stand silently by while racist things are said and done, you are complicit. If you defend someone who says something racist by employing equivocation, you are complicit. If you give a milquetoast "rebuke" of a racist statement or someone who is racist, you are complicit.

I realize that many people want to be allowed to dictate the narrative about their words and actions. They want to have their cake and eat it too. However, that is not how it works with certain issues and racism is one such issue.

You cannot claim, "I'm not a racist";yet, go on these apology tours defending racism. Neither, can you say something that is racist or racially insensitive
then become all indignant when called out on it resorting to inane equivocations and what-aboutism.

One thing I have noticed people do which just makes my head explode is strawman racism. Some do it because they are simply racist and want to gift themselves some wiggle room for deniability for claims of racism. Others do it because they, too want plausible deniability. They want to be able to defend racists and racist rhetoric without the racism stench.

What these people do is constrict the construct of racism to such a narrow lane that virtually anything short of burning a cross in someone's yard while shouting, "I hate (all) niggers" is not considered racist.

For example, telling an American born person of color to "go back (another country) to where they come from" is racist. Everyone whether they are a poc or white knows this is a racist statement. Up until three or so years ago saying "go back to where you came from" was a red line for everyone except virulent avowed racists.

However, now it has been turned [by racists and racist sympathizers] into a referendum statement on one's patriotism and critique of the President. Aside from the obvious un-Constitutionality and pure idiocy of such a defense it's also a boldface lie.

I am keeping it real here. If you utter such garbage in defending this ostensibly racist statement you are actively being complicit in racism. Be triggered if you must but the truth is the truth.

It is becoming increasingly tiring, disappointing and infuriating to watch people-some whom I know, like and love- stay silent while avowed racists march in the streets or populate social media and in a few distinct case have jobs in the current presidential administration. It saddens and angers me that these same people, while telling me how much they love me and how not racist they are, remain radio silent while others say blatantly racist things. It incensed me when they simply shrugged their shoulders or regurgitated some dumbass false equivalencies about #Charlottesville.

Look, you cannot be anti-racism or abhor racism yet never call out actual racism. You can't claim to be against racism but act as if "reverse" racism is a thing while racism against poc is all in our imagination and a mere example of our desire to be victims. YOU just CANNOT!

And, part of this ignoring, deflecting and defending of racism is a result of sticking with one's team. We have become so tribal in this country that some people think if they actually criticize someone who aligns with their broader political ideology they'll be seen as a betrayer.

Of course, I am not naive. I know some people are just truly bigots and racists who are attempting to keep up some facade.

And, let me make clear, just because you have a black friend or a Hispanic co-worker you like or a gay cousin you still talk to doesn't give you categorical exemption from being a bigot or racist. Stop being a disingenuous tool.

All of these things could very well be true. But, if you believe black people as a whole are lazy and stupid, Hispanics are rapists and filthy and homosexuals are perversions and mentally ill it doesn't matter what you think about those individual people you know. You are a bigot! Period!

If you hear someone whether they be family, friends, co-workers or fellow parishioners spew racist, homophobic or xenophobic crap and you stay silent or worse laugh and/or join in you are complicit. There is no equivocation. There are no excuses. There is no defense. At best you are complicit in the racism and bigotry.

If you are, as you claim, wholeheartedly against bigotry and racism it shouldn't be hard to speak out against it. Speak out against it even if it is someone you don't like who is the target of the bigotry. It should not take it being someone you like or those "magic" words or slurs being used for you to speak out if you truly detest racism and bigotry. And, it should not have to take a poc to be present for you to speak up. Rail against racism and bigotry even a poc or LGBTQ aren't around. If you don't, it's quite telling.

I am so sick and tired of folks acting as if they are on some moral high plane yet refusing to engage in the most basic acts of human decency.

I am fed up with people saying they are Christians yet staying silent while other Christians are being dehumanized and demeaned.

I am over people who take great offense at the mere hinting they could be racist yet will defend racism in a hot second while hemming and hawing to condemn it.

It is easy. It really is. Regardless who says it, what their political affiliation is or the target call out racism when it is done and said. Just call it the eff out! No equivocation! No what-aboutism! No "but they..."! No weak ass apologist nonsense! No milquetoast responses. Just speak up, speak out and condemn it.

If you truly are not racist or sympathize with racism/racists it should be easy. Right?...

Centrism Is Trash Politics

2019-07-13T13:45:00.000-05:00

At one time I was a rank and file member of centrism. I completely bought into the triangulation politics that Bill Clinton sold and which he created a political dynasty. I really believed that being in the center on certain "touchy" issues was the most prudent position even if in my heart I was not in the center.

But now...I realize how idiotic and craven that was. I realize that compromising on certain issues doesn't work when the people you are compromising for don't nor have any intention of giving you an inch.

Now, that doesn't mean a sincere moderate position on an issue is not ok. If that is how one truly feels then that is how they feel. However, some issues-those of human decency and human rights- cannot have a moderate position.

For example, racism. Joe Biden's record and history on race has been under scrutiny the last few weeks.

I sincerely don't believe Biden is a racist or even a bigot, but I do believe he has some racial issues. He is the prototypical example of the "white moderate" Dr. Martin Luther King warned about.

Biden knows racism is wrong. He even realizes the very concept is immoral and illogical. Yet, he has a pattern of sympathizing with racists. He refuses to fully acknowledge and call out racism in a significant swath of this country's electorate.

Instead, he chooses to lay the pestilence of racism at Donald Trump's feet. He said the "fever will break" (regarding the Republican Party) once Trump is out of office. He fails to realize or acknowledge that Trump is a symptom and not the cause. And, I believe he does this because if he acknowledges the racism and bigotry he would then have to acknowledge that a section of the electorate he is ambitiously wanting to sway to his corner is racist and the country is more racist than he wants to accept.

And, a staple of centrism is to acquiesce to the fact some issues (such as race) exist but it's "not that bad" or just wait it out because the racists will come around. It's literally the same tact some rightwingers will utilize to strawman arguments about issues like the pervasiveness of racism.

One more thing about Biden is the bussing issue. Biden's stance on bussing is easily obtainable to anyone that would do 10 minutes of research.

I am sure most people are aware of Biden's bragging about working with well-known segregationists on a multitude of issues including bussing back in the 1970s. In fact, he is quite proud of the collaboration he did with them.

Biden's defenders say, "Hey, it was a different time. Besides only 9% of African-Americans approved of bussing and only 5% of the country."

Now, let me take the second sentence first. Yes, only 9% of blacks wanted bussing, but context matters. I am guessing black folks' reasons for being against bussing was distinctly different from white folks' reasons.

This is classic centrism bullshit. Let's just take a poll result that gives us cover from not taking a principled stand and pretend said poll doesn't have hella context surrounding it.

Ok, allow me to address the first sentence. Perhaps, nothing infuriates me more than when people excuse grown ass folks' racism and bigotry by saying "it was a different time". I don't give a shit!

The argument that [insert horrific thing] was more "socially acceptable" then doesn't fly. In fact, it's cowardice.

People knew 45 years ago segregation was immoral and wrong. Don't babble shit to me about it is wrong to judge past times by today's standards. They knew it was wrong. Biden knew it was wrong.

Fact is, he didn't think black kids should be going to "white schools". I don't think his stance was because he was necessarily racist. I really believe it was because he thought things were moving to fast and white folks were still dealing with the whole "Negras having rights" thing.

Biden, like most centrists, is all about incremental change. The problem with incremental change is it usually results in no change. Biden's bussing bill was in 1974-20 years AFTER Brown v Board of Education. Obviously the time for incremental change was over.

Another issue with centrism is it's about keeping the status quo even if the status quo is hot garbage. Insert Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi says ad nauseam she is a progressive, but her record decidedly says otherwise. She does what centrists frequently do. They taut populism or at least a firm principled ideology when in reality they're just interested making sure the corporatist machine is well oiled.

Pelosi has been in the news recently over her condescending remarks regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar aka #TheSquad or as I call them #ProgressiveGoddesses She has been dismissive and resentful of them since they were elected because they represent true progressive values and signal where the Democratic base truly is. Oh, and they're not interested in kissing corporate ass, which in Pelosi's book is almost as blasphemous as suggesting she sucks at her job.

Pelosi's latest ire toward The Squad stemmed from their audible disagreement with the decision of Pelosi and Democratic leadership to cave to Republicans and centrist Democrats passing a bill giving Trump money on immigration. AOC and Tlaib, in particular, voiced concern because of the Trump administration's obvious callousness toward migrants at the southern border and the conditions of the detention centers. They and others questioned (legitimately) if the Trump administration would properly allocate the money.

It should also be noted The Squad and other Democrats (from the entire party spectrum) have publicly began questioning Pelosi's refusal to begin impeachment proceedings on Trump and what is seemingly a cursory effort to hold him accountable for anything. This, too, has Nancy all in her feelings .

Her response to criticism of the immigration appropriation bill was basically BIPARTISANSHIP. How very centrist of her.

It didn't seem to matter Trump locking kids up in cages allowing the children to sit in shitty pissy snot drenched clothing. It appeared to not be enough of an issue that these detention centers were grotesquely overcrowded and it ostensibly is by design they're that way. It is apparent that while Pelosi and Democratic leadership certainly find the fact people were going 15 days without showers, being told to drink out of toilets and women are being denied feminine hygiene products deplorable it's not deplorable enough to deny him what he wanted on an IMMIGRATION appropriations bill.

Why? Incrementalism! The term after corporate donor that gets them the wettest.

I could literally write a volume of books on why centrism is a trash ideology. And, it is an ideology.

The notion that a centrist is someone who just doesn't like rightwing or leftwing politics but is a pragmatist is just disingenuous and silly. The truth is centrism is essentially rightwing politics without the racial dog whistles, overt bigotry, culture war grievances and naked corporate welfare. Sorry. It is.

And, it is time that people who are truly for inclusion, equality, fair wages and a country that works for all its citizens and not just a select group realize that incremental change is not real change. It's just less toxic and more palatable. Saying, "Racism bad" isn't nearly enough to bring forth true equality. Same goes for sexism, homophobia, misogyny, islamophobia and transphobia. Sincere principled stances must be taken even if those stances aren't popular or receive pushback.

Leading isn't putting your finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. True leadership is going in the right direction even if it is going against the wind.

People like Biden and Pelosi aren't tethered to their beliefs they claim are principled. They are way to willing to compromise on issues that should not be compromised.

They are more interested in getting along to get along instead of holding principled positions and having actual beliefs. To be fair in some instances they were never truly principled in the first place. As an example, they are all about railing against Trumpism but when it comes to actually holding it accountable and calling it out for what it is they go, "It's not the people (it is) but that bad orange man."

That is centrism.

Hey, let's just all be happy even if we aren't happy. Yes, you deserve a 100 but just be ok with your 20. We'll get you another 20 in 15 years or so. We gotta take it slow. It's all about bipartisanship. (Although we all know the other side isn't going to give you 20 because they don't want you to have the 20 you have now, but be patient because we're working on them.)

Uh-huh.

Compromise is fine if it's actual compromise. Otherwise, it's just being a cuck!

Centrism is trash politics!

"This Is Not Who We Are!" Isn't It Though

2019-06-29T13:18:00.000-05:00

In contemporary times every time the current administration proposes some draconian policy or commits some amoral reprehensible action (such as at the southern border separating migrant children from their parents and placing them in cages under horrific conditions) people scream, "This isn't America! This isn't who we are!"

But, it is.

*Gasp* How can I say such a thing I'm quite certain someone is saying right now. Well, I can say it easily because it is the truth.

One of the most destructive and annoying things we do in this country is promote this flawed ideal of American exceptionalism.

Now, before some folks get all in their feelings allow me to be clear. America is my country and I love it dearly. For all its flaws there is no other place I would rather be.

However, that doesn't mean it is perfect or infallible or hasn't been home to some of the world's most treacherous human rights violations. Because, it has. That is just an empirical irrefutable fact.

I love this country, but let's keep it real about what it has been in the past and is currently.

If you can't understand that, I am really saddened and depressed by your lack of nuance and insufferable stupidity. Moving on...

Since before this country's inception it has committed atrocities and human rights violations.

Slavery is always called America's original sin. But, I would argue our original sin is how this land became colonized.

Some people like to parse history and be flippant by saying Europeans were just savvier than the Natives they "acquired" the land from. The reality is Europeans (who later became Americans) pretended to befriend the Natives. Then, they not "acquired" but stole the land. They did it by literally intentionally infecting Native populations with diseases. They murdered people including children. They raped the women.

This vile activity continued well after the country's origins. The American government isolated Native Americans on reservations denying them access to adequate education and healthcare. And, they separated children from parents.

The same atrocities happened with slavery. It was not enough to enslave an entire group of people. Blacks were denied education. They were basically treated like cattle. And, families were constantly separated.

Look at how this country treated the Irish, Italians and the Chinese in the mid to late 1800s.

Let's remember World War II. Initially America had no interest in getting involved in the war even though we knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews. Hell, in the late 1930s there was an "America First" (sound familiar) campaign running strong that ostensibly was an apologist and empathizer for Hitler and fascism.

Then, after we entered the war the American government placed all Japanese Americans in internment camps.

Oh, we certainly can't forget the 1950s and early 1960s with the despicable way Civil Rights protesters were treated. Bull Connor having his deputies sic dogs on and spray high powered water hose toward protesters with little rebuke from the United States government.

I mean we can discuss Jim Crow, which lasted 100 years after slavery ended. Some disingenuous folks love to pretend all was well after Lincoln freed the slaves but nothing could be further from the truth.

I would be remised if I didn't mention the rampant misogyny and sexism that held women down in this country decade after decade. They were viewed as second class citizens whose only useful purposes were to cook, clean, give birth and dish up pussy whenever demanded. Women couldn't possess credit cards until 1974. 1974!!! Let that shit sink in!

Rape wasn't necessarily seen as criminal unless it was a black man raping a white woman. By the way it was routine for black men to be convicted of rapes that white men committed or never happened at all.

So, my entire point with this trip down memory lane is that what we're seeing now with child separation, trans women being murdered with little retribution, the LGBTQ community writ large being discriminated against and marginalized, racism seemingly being normalized and rape culture being coddled if not fully embraced is nothing new.

Many say, "We're better than this!" We should be! But, are we?

Look, the truth is a pesky bish sometimes. It certainly can be uncomfortable.

Fact is this country has a long infamous history of mistreating certain groups of people. We love to "otherize" folks.

A certain pattern has existed since this country's origins and before. People of color and marginalized communities are constantly dehumanized. Native Americans were labeled savages. Slaves were labeled animals. Irish and Italians were labeled "anomalys". Today African-Americans are labeled thugs and animals. Hispanics are called rapists, murderers, vermin and infestations. The LGBTQ community is smeared with being called perversions, child molesters and abominations.

All of these labels and stigmas are employed to dehumanize. The purpose of these attacks is to marginalized and demean these people as much as possible.

Why? If you make someone seem less than human it is easier to belittle, abuse and mistreat them. It is easier for others to accept the mistreatment because they don't seem legitimate. What I find ironic about all of this is many of the same cretins who have no problem dehumanizing other human beings and treating them like animals lose their fucking minds anytime an actual animal is mistreated.

Kind of let's you know how folks of this ilk view people of color and LGBTQ.

The next time someone laments or cries, "This isn't who we are" ask them,"Then, who are we?"

I will close with this. A segment of this country (at times larger than others and pertains to people of all races, genders and sexual orientations) has always been just fine with the cruelty and depravity. People must understand for many folks the current administration's reprehensible actions aren't the bug but the feature and they love it! They must also accept there is another swath (and there always has been) of people who are somewhat uncomfortable with the dehumanizing actions but largely stay silent because they don't wanna rock the boat and on some level feel the same way about the marginalized. They're just not as virulent.

It was that way regarding the treatment Native Americans, during slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, treatment of LGBTQ people and on and on and on.

So, of course, this not whom we should be. However, history and empirical evidence says, "It is though."

Preview Of The First Democratic Primary Debate (Night Two)

2019-06-22T14:29:00.000-05:00

In my previous blog (https://robbase2110-ezel.blogspot.com/2019/06/preview-of-first-democratic-primary.html) I provided a brief analysis of the 10 candidates participating in night one of the first Democratic primary debate (June 26 and 27) in Miami.

Now, I will go over the 10 candidates who will appear in the second night. This second group has substantially more name recognition and relevant candidates than the first group.

As in the previous blog I will list in ascending order based upon personal preference, policy and realistic chances of winning. (Note: These three qualities will not have equal weight necessarily as you'll see.)

So, let's get this ish started shall we.

10. Gov. John Lickenhooper- The former governor of Colorado entered the race a few months ago. And, I am still wondering why. He is not a household name. I mean I am a political junkie and I tangentially know who he is. But, what I do know is not impressive. His politics are guised as liberal but he's really more a centrist. He has ties to the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. A notable moment for Hickenlooper was a Morning Joe appearance awhile back when he had difficulty saying whether he's a capitalist or not. (He is.) The moment was funny, awkward and a bit cringy. It does seem apparent he knows he has no shot at the nomination. So, in recent weeks he has moved into the lane of protecting Joe Biden while attacking Bernie Sanders and more broadly progressive ideals.

9. Micheal Bennett- Like Hickenlooper Sen. Bennett is from Colorado. Look, I don't have much to say about this dude. He is a prototypical milquetoast neoliberal. He is even less known than Hickenlooper. The only reason he's ahead of Hickenlooper is because back during the government shutdown he hilariously clapbacked and dragged Ted Cruz. And, he did it on the Senate floor. I give him credit for calling out Cruz for the hypocrite and shitty human being he is instead of doing mealy mouth political speak. But, this dude has a razor thin better chance than me of winning the nomination.

8. Eric Swalwell- The Congressman from California is young (37 years old) but does have significant name recognition. He has made numerous appearances on MSNBC and Fox News. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, and is known for being one of the biggest proponents of the Mueller investigation. He is a vociferous critic of the President. His politics are mostly liberal. However, his substantial corporatist ties are troubling. Even more troubling he is a member of the "reach across the aisle" delusional sect who mind-bogglingly believe Republicans are really interested in bipartisanship. They just need the right person to extend the olive branch. Totally naive...or effin stupid.

7. Joe Biden-Whaaaaat? Biden is seventh? Yeah, and the only reason he is not lower is because he is the former vice president and is currently leading the polls. I set these rankings last week before Biden decided to repeatedly deepthroat himself with his own foot. I am trying to keep these analyses brief, but Joe Biden is a hot mess! Look, I don't think Biden is a racist or even a bigot. I almost wanna say it's ridiculous to suggest he is. However, Biden is out of touch. He's one of the white liberals MLK warned us all about and my mama personally warned me about. He believes racism is wrong but understands why some white folks don't like the coloreds. That is problematic. And, if it needs to be explained why this country really is in trouble. Biden working with virulent racists in Congress isn't as bothersome as the fact he seems quite tone deaf to racial issues. (Much like he is to boundary issues with women.) Also, let's keep it real here. His politics are corporatist and always has been. His delusion that once Trump is gone the Republicans' "fever will break" is, if I am being kind, naive and idiotic. But, this inane fantastical horseshit is emblematic of his broader issues. He is out of touch with the Democratic base and reality. Seriously, Biden deserves an entire lengthy blog. For now let's just break this shit down to the barebones. He cannot be the nominee, but if he is, of course I will vote for him over Mango Unchained!

6. Pete Buttigieg- Ah, Mayor Pete. I like Mayor Pete, but he has some serious flaws. He is way too centrist. The issues with the South Bend police force and the firing of its first African-American police chief is to say the least troubling. Also worrisome is while his policies unquestionably brought a thriving economy to South Bend it seemed to have left behind its more marginalized citizens. But, some people seem to be more enthralled with the fact he speaks multiple languages and is quite cultured. I get it. He is an impressive guy. Speaking multiple languages is intriguing. Especially when the current president can't even speak one. However, his politics aren't progressive despite his claims they are.

5. Kirsten Gillibrand- The Senator from New York is pretty milquetoast. Sure, she is better than the other senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, but that is not exactly a high bar. She has some good policy on immigration. She supports Medicare For All. But, her ties to Wall Street are disqualifying. And, frankly I find her boring. A substandard policy set and being boring is not a good combo. That said, she is head and shoulders better than the five candidates below her.

4. Kamala Harris-Let me state up front. I have a huge crush on the Senator from California. Just keeping it 100. And, I struggled with whether I should place her fourth or third. My crush aside I have some concerns regarding Sen. Harris. Her record as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general is beyond bothersome. Her truancy policy of jailing parents is draconian. She had a shitty record regarding nonviolent drug offenders. Her attempts to keep inmates incarcerated longer because the state was using inmates as free labor is abhorrent. It's often said during her time in the Senate she has the most progressive record of any Democratic senator. That is objectively true. She has legislated considerably more progressive than she ran the San Francisco District Attorney's office or the California Attorney General's office. I believe she is the most intriguing candidate in the field. And, there is certainly a particular petty joy I would receive from her being able to unseat Trump. But, her ties to Wall Street along with her prosecutorial record gives me significant pause.

3. Andrew Yang- Yang is a candidate who deserves his own full length blog. He is a venture capitalist who has caused some waves in the primary field. His signature policy is UBI (universal basic income). Basically, Yang says every American will receive $1000 a month with the ability to opt out. UBI is something that has been kicked around for decades. In principal I like the idea because it would give those struggling the most extra income that theoretically could get them back on track and supplement low wage earners. The problem with Yang's UBI is that he would get rid of the social safety nets. That is unacceptable and untenable. Another troubling issue with Yang is he does seem to be an apologist for the billionaires who have a hand in the current wealth gap that exists in this country. Yang has also been a source of controversy because he's seems to be liked by some alt-righters. Now, I don't believe Yang is a racist or a Neo-Nazi sympathizer. However, whether intentional or unintentional, he does appear to dog whistle to the alt-right with tweets about declining white birth rates and lamenting the ignoring of the "working class" in favor of others. All that being said Yang does have progressive policies about criminal justice reform and immigration. He is ostensibly on the correct side of the culture war issues. He is for Medicare For All. He is a noninterventionist. As I eluded to earlier I struggled with whether Yang or Harris should be in the third slot. I settled on Yang because while I do have some reservations he is more aligned with my politics than Kamala. And, he has a strong loyal base and the debate could provide him a real possibility to expand his support.

2. Marianne Williamson- I absolutely love Marianne Williamson! She doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, but I love her nonetheless. If she can't win, why is she number two you are likely asking. Because she is clearly the second most progressive candidate in the entire field (not just this group of 10). If you don't know who Marianne is read up on her. She is a motivational speaker/help guru who has written multiple best selling books. Normally, I would have no interest in someone like her. But, I watched numerous full length interviews she had and I came away deeply impressed. She is a bit too cheerful and ra-ra. However, her political instincts are great and her policies are awesome. She is for Medicare For All, criminal justice reform, marijuana legalization and the Green New Deal. She understands what must be done about income inequality and racial inequality. She is someone who truly believes in inclusion. She is noninterventionist. She has a sincerity in helping the poor and the marginalized communities. To some she'll come across as a "flower child", but she is actually quite an intelligent articulate thoughtful substantive candidate. Again, she has zero chance of winning the nomination but in a setup like this debate she could easily win the night.

1. Bernie Sanders-Do I really have to explain why Bernard is number one? He is the clear frontrunner if you are a dye in the wool Progressive. He is now and has been for decades the leader on progressive issues. He's labeled a socialist but is a Democratic Socialist. There is a difference and if you care about nuance and fact you know it. I love Warren and Williamson but Bernie is the clear choice.

The debates are this Wednesday and Thursday nights (June 26 and 27) on MSNBC, NBC and Telemundo. I implore you to watch despite some of it likely being a shitshow.