Beyond all the statistics, graphs, interview transcripts, and anecdotes within Jonathon M. Metzel’s 2019 book, “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics oBeyond all the statistics, graphs, interview transcripts, and anecdotes within Jonathon M. Metzel’s 2019 book, “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland”, there is a horror movie, one that has been giving white people nightmares since white people landed on these shores. It’s called “The Non-White Others”, and it is literally driving white people insane.
Let’s be honest: Racism is at the heart of nearly every policy that has been enacted in this country. It has been the not-so-secret motive behind every war this country has been involved in, from the American Revolution (partly slavery) to the Mexican-American War (mostly slavery) to the Civil War (totally slavery) to Vietnam (hatred of yellow people working in rice paddies). It’s the trigger behind most, if not all, mass shootings in this country. It’s what got Trump elected.
White people have always been, still are, and probably always will be terrified of anyone that is non-white. They (the “they”, as in “us vs. them”) are either going to steal your spouse, rob your house, take your job, or bring your property values down. They are lazy, shifty, dirty, angry, less intelligent, and always looking for a hand-out. They are rapists, super-predators, or just worthless drains on the system, and they probably come from a “shithole country”. Sure, Melvin who works in the meat department at the grocery store is one of the “nice” black guys, and Marcie, the Chinese receptionist at the bank is a sweetheart, but as a group, blacks and Chinese and Mexicans and Koreans and Pakistanis and all those other non-whites are secretly up to no good. White people know this. They may not say it, but they feel it.
Metzl’s book is a thorough examination—-backed up by facts, statistics, and actual quotes from everyday (racist) Americans—-of how and why white people almost always vote against their best interests, not because they don’t know that the policies or candidates they are voting against will actually improve their lives but because they don’t want the Mexicans or the blacks or the Chinese or the other lazy immigrants to benefit from them.
So, white people will continue to fight to own guns, which—-according to virtually every study—-exponentially increases their chances of being killed by gun-related homicide or suicide, as well as putting those of us who don’t like guns at higher risk for gun-related violence.
White people will continue to vote against universal health care or health care reform that will actually improve—-and extend—-their lives, ostensibly because it’s “socialism”, but, in actuality, because they don’t want the government to help the blacks and the hispanics.
White people will continue to vote for austerity policies that will cut funding for education, social services, and infrastructure repairs, so the school systems that made people move to the suburbs in the first place will start to fail miserably, and the bridges and roads will start falling apart, but, hey, the rich motherfuckers in their wealthy gated communities will get a tax break, at least.
Many people have an opinion about Critical Race Theory (CRT). A majority of those opinions are based on faulty information. More often than not—-in myMany people have an opinion about Critical Race Theory (CRT). A majority of those opinions are based on faulty information. More often than not—-in my experience—-opponents of CRT are unable to actually define it when asked to elaborate.
Harlan Ellison once said, “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
The key word in that quote is “entitled”, which is defined as “believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.” This word, more than any other, is perhaps the best word to describe the forces of white privilege/supremacy that CRT is trying to bring to light.
A recent spate of books about CRT has been published to counteract the overload of disinformation and falsehoods about the academic movement, espoused by Republicans as an attempt to confuse and mislead the public. While I have not read them all, the one I have read is as concise and succinct an explanation of CRT that I have read thus far, one that may be a good start when conducting further research into the subject.
Victor Ray’s “On Critical Race Theory: Why It Matters & Why You Should Care” may be short (129 pages of text, with nearly 30 pages of endnotes), but it is dense with information, and it requires careful reading.
A brief summary of Ray’s main points might be helpful but would ultimately be a disservice to his in-depth and nuanced approach to the subject. Nevertheless, I will attempt to give a concise encapsulation of Ray’s already wonderfully concise examination.
It may help to first point out what CRT isn’t. It is not, as some CRT opponents have incorrectly implied, an attempt to alter history through a lens of anti-white historical revisionism. It is not taught in any school, at any level. While some primary and secondary educators may have an academic knowledge of CRT, it is not something that can be implemented into any school curriculum. Ignoramuses, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who claim that schools are being overrun with CRT agendas (read “woke”), have little to no idea what a CRT agenda actually looks like or that it even exists at all. (Spoiler: it doesn’t.)
CRT, as described by Ray, is simply a belief—substantiated by lots of historical evidence—-that racism has played, and continues to play, a significant role in how our society is structured, in everything from education to the economy to the law. More importantly, it’s the belief that racism has been, and continues to be, a major motivator in American history. Racism is built into the political system of our country, and it is this systemic racism that continues to stifle and counteract attempts to improve the lives of Americans, white and non-white alike.
At its core, CRT is founded on a few main beliefs: 1) Race is a social construct, not a biological one; 2) Racism is systemic; and 3) whiteness is more than just an identity, it is a sense of entitlement and property that has helped to maintain systemic racism throughout American history.
The rightness of these core beliefs should be obvious to anyone with skin in the game (no pun intended), but the fact that a major backlash against the CRT movement exists at all is clear evidence that it is not. ...more
Full disclosure: I’ve never been what one would call a fan of Britney Spears. Like most Americans, I was aware of her significance in the pop music scFull disclosure: I’ve never been what one would call a fan of Britney Spears. Like most Americans, I was aware of her significance in the pop music scene, and I was even familiar with some of her songs. I’ll put it this way: I never changed the channel when one of her songs was on the radio, but I never liked her enough to buy any of her albums.
That said, I became intrigued by her life when hearing a story on NPR about her conservatorship, set up by her parents. It sounded weird that a grown woman—-with two children—-was basically being treated almost like an indentured servant by her own family. Accusations of mental illness were bandied about, along with insinuations of her alleged promiscuousness and party lifestyle, but a lot of these accusations seemed to come from her father, who controlled the conservatorship. One didn’t need to be a lawyer to understand that the man who was benefitting the most, financially, from the situation was also wielding the guardianship like a Sword of Damocles over his daughter’s head.
In October 2023, Spears published a memoir, “The Woman In Me”, which was an opportunity to tell her side of the story.
It tells a very moving, sordid story of the dark side of fame and celebrityhood, one that most celebrities probably wouldn’t have the courage to write. With self-deprecation and a wisdom beyond her age borne of some pretty heavy tragedies in her life, Spears manages to give a vivid account of a young girl from a lower-income family in Louisiana who made it big with her two passions: singing and dancing.
It was a success story with almost a not-so-happy ending. A whirlwind romance with Justin Timberlake ended in an abortion and a very public break-up, one in which Timberlake made some rather hurtful statements about Britney. Hounded mercilessly by paparazzi, treated unfairly by a sexist media, and enduring a short-lived marriage with Kevin Federline, Spears became stuck in a life that seemed exotic when the cameras were on but was a hellish nightmare behind closed doors.
Her only bright spot was the birth of her two sons, whom she doted on. So, it was only inevitable that her money-hungry father would use the boys as leverage when he started the conservatorship. He would control every aspect of Britney’s life—-what she ate, how often she would perform, who she could date—-while constantly dangling her sons’ lives and her shared custody with their father, Federline, as carrots on a short stick.
Thankfully, in 2021, Britney was able to speak out in a courtroom about her years of practically being a prisoner of her family. The judge ended the conservatorship, and Britney was finally free from her family’s hold.
It’s hard to believe that an experience like Spear’s still happens in this day and age. Conservatorships seem so draconian and belonging to a more primitive era, but they are actually quite prevalent.
“The Woman in Me” is an eye-opening and engaging memoir about the freedom to make, and learn from, one’s own mistakes and failures.
This was an Audiobook, read by Michelle Williams....more
The language is straightforward, not much room for misinterpretation:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of PresidThe language is straightforward, not much room for misinterpretation:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”—-Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Seven months after Trump incited a violent mob of American citizens—-duped into believing that the 2020 election was stolen—-to attempt to violently disrupt the peaceful transfer of power by attacking Capitol police officers and breaking illegally into the U.S. Capitol Building, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) appointed Liz Cheney (R) to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
Cheney—-one of only ten Republicans to vote for impeachment of Trump after J6—-witnessed the cowardice of members of her party as they downplayed the events or blatantly defended Trump’s indefensible actions (and inactions) of that notorious day.
Even after many of her fellow Republicans initially made statements condemning Trump, she—-along with the nation—-listened as most of them backtracked and tried to get in Trump’s good graces again. Inexplicably, she witnessed her party become something ugly. She watched as her fellow Republicans—-people she once considered friends—-turned their back on the oaths they took: to the country, to their constituents, to the Constitution. Seemingly to appease one man.
Cheney writes about her experiences being there, at the Capitol, on January 6 and being on the subsequent investigative committee in her memoir “Oath and Honor”, an important read if ever there was one about this event. It’s especially significant coming from her, a Republican. Regardless of how one feels about her policies and philosophies (and I am, admittedly, by no means a Cheney cheerleader), it must be noted that Cheney went into this knowing that she was putting her political career in jeopardy. She pissed off a lot of people in her party, for doing nothing more than calling out Trump’s atrocious behavior. The fact that Trump committed actual crimes is, tellingly, seemingly lost on many of her fellow pro-Trump Republicans.
Here, in one of the most disturbing conversations she had with former Representative Kevin McCarthy, illustrates the problem:
“”Kevin,” I said, “This is about the Constitution. Think of what Trump did. Think of how appalled any of our previous Republican leaders would be about this. How would Reagan have reacted to this? How would Bush have reacted? Think of my dad.” A large portrait of Ronald Reagan hangs in Kevin McCarthy’s office. But he apparently no longer believed in the conservatism of our 40th president. “This isn’t their party anymore,” Kevin said. He wasn’t wrong. The GOP was becoming an anti-Constitution party. And too many of our leaders were willing to accept that.”
****
“In all the cases that were brought—-I have looked at the more than 60 that include more than 180 counts… the simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case… And in no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real.”—-Ben Ginsberg, Republican election lawyer, referring to the numerous accusations of voter fraud levied by Trump
It all started with the Big Lie: Trump’s baseless accusations of rampant voter fraud in November 2020.
Cheney admits that Trump—-as with every president—-had the legal right to at least ask the questions and pursue juridical avenues. The problem came about after nearly all of the cases filed were dismissed or denied based on no merit, some of these overseen by judges that even Trump appointed. Despite this, and knowing full well that there was no evidence for what he was saying, Trump continued to spread the lie that the election was stolen. (https://campaignlegal.org/results-law...)
Everyone (well, nearly everyone, anyway) in Trump’s circle wasn’t buying his bullshit. Many staff members resigned in droves. Members of his Cabinet were also resigning angrily.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos wrote, in her resignation letter to Trump, “There is no mistaking the impact your rhetoric had on the situation, and it is the inflection point for me… [I]mpressionable children are watching all of this.”
The handful of people who stayed by Trump’s side—-the sycophantiest of the sycophants—-plotted and planned something big. And illegal.
I don’t know much about the electoral college. I admit, I wasn’t paying much attention that day in my political science class. (More than likely, I was asleep, as the subject put me to sleep, and it still does.) But legal experts and political smarty-pants, according to Cheney, have gathered enough evidence to prove that what Trump and his bootlickers were doing with “fake electors” was definitely a crime.
Then, along came January 6…
****
“I fought in Iraq and I have never encountered the violence I did out there today… It was medieval and bloodthirsty.”—-law enforcement officer speaking about his experience protecting the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021
Law enforcement agencies were getting chatter long before J6. There was a definite disturbance in the Force, a feeling in the air of impending doom. Something wicked this way came.
Trump fueled the flames with incendiary tweets, and he wasn’t the only one. But his was the voice that mattered most to the militant white nationalists, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Neo-Nazis, the Q-Anoners, and the hide-wearing antlered nut jobs who had come to Washington, D.C. that day because they believed that they were “taking the country back”. All of it based on a lie, of course.
What followed was a nightmare. A bloody conflagration of misinformed idiots who had been fed four years of “alternative facts” and FOX News right-wing propaganda and Trump’s constant stream of bullshit. What resulted was nine dead, three million dollars in property damage, and hundreds of police officers and Capitol staff workers and House members who now suffer PTSD.
Thankfully, Cheney did her job. Along with good people like Adam Kinzinger, Bennie Thompson, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin, and Elaine Luria. It’s due to these people that Trump is now facing numerous indictments and possible jail time for very real federal high crimes and misdemeanors. ...more
Hunter S. Thompson's classic 1971 gonzo journalistic novel/memoir "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is proof that the shit you find hilarious and deep Hunter S. Thompson's classic 1971 gonzo journalistic novel/memoir "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is proof that the shit you find hilarious and deep when you are ridiculously high are almost always neither. Also, what may have been profound and shocking for a 1971 audience is, in 2024, dumb and cringe-worthy.
This is not to say that Thompson's book is without merit. It is, in fact, laudable as an excellent snapshot of a particular time and place, a perfect encapsulation of the zeitgeist of the early-'70s, an epitaph for the death of the '60s.
Plus, Thompson was just a fucking good writer, and he always seemed to be at his best when he was angry. And, in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", he is furious.
Much of his anger has to do with Vietnam, Nixon/Agnew, the police, capitalism, women, birds, and himself. There is also a lot of imbibing, ingesting, and injecting of a wide variety of drugs--- many of which I have never heard of---which contributes to his angry mindset. Mostly he seems to be angry that the American Dream---the hippy-dippy lovefest of the countercultural movement of the '60s---seems to have been replaced with a militant, money-hungry, apathetic suburban nightmare.
It's pointless to give a synopsis. The point of Thompson's particular brand of journalism---"gonzo" as he called it---was that it was virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction. One has no idea if what he is writing about actually happened. That's part of the fun, I guess.
It should be noted that the character of Raoul Duke, Thompson's sidekick/Samoan attorney in the book was based on Thompson's real-life friend Oscar Zeta Acosta, a Mexican-American attorney. Acosta and Thompson had a falling out over the book, Acosta claiming that Thompson misrepresented him. Considering that Thompson portrays Duke as a knife-wielding hothead and (in one extremely uncomfortable scene) a rapist of a drugged-out underage girl, I would hope that Thompson misrepresented him. Acosta disappeared, and was presumed dead, in 1974 after getting involved in the Sinaloa drug cartel.
While I'm a fan of Thompson's writing, I'll be the first to admit that he is far from a model citizen. Raging asshole is more like it. And what the fuck is up with his obsession with grapefruit?
Still, Thompson did manage to offer a strangely poignant and intelligent alternative to the mainstream media bullshit....more
An extremely timely and important book, Sara Kamali’s “Homegrown Hate: Why White Nationalists and Militant Islamists Are Waging War Against the UnitedAn extremely timely and important book, Sara Kamali’s “Homegrown Hate: Why White Nationalists and Militant Islamists Are Waging War Against the United States” is dense with information; practically an info-dump of anything and everything having to do with domestic terrorism. (One-third of the book is endnotes, sources, and bibliography.) Yet despite its disturbing subject matter and the sheer amount of academic (albeit fascinating) information, the book manages to still be readable and engaging.
One of the more disturbing take-aways is that White Nationalist extremists do as much, if not more, damage (loss of life, property damage, stress on the system and individuals) in this country than their American-born Militant Islamist counterparts, but, due to the fact that there is, technically, no federal ordinance against domestic terrorists, especially if they are white or Christian, very few are punished as severely as terrorists who happen to be Muslim. (Another win for white privilege! Yay!)
So, the terrorists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, with the intent of overthrowing the government and torturing and killing government employees and officials, can’t, technically, be branded domestic terrorists. At least, not officially, since there is no federal criminal statute for it. This should make anyone who witnessed the horrific events of that day (and NOT the “high fives and hugs” that the Republicans witnessed through their bullshit-tinted glasses) feel sick to their stomach.
Why does this matter? After all, it’s essentially just semantics, right?
Wrong.
The differences between being branded a “domestic terrorist” and a “homegrown violent extremist”, according to the language of the respective federal ordinances, are subtle, but it boils down to the fact that a person is a homegrown violent extremist and NOT a domestic terrorist if, and only if, that person has ties (directly or indirectly) to a militant Islamist organization. So, because the Proud Boys didn’t receive funding or moral support from ISIS, they are not, technically, terrorists. Even if they are. Make sense?
Here’s some eye-opening stats (from the United States Government Accountability Office… and, yes, I’m just as surprised that such an office even exists, too):
“In ten of the fifteen years, fatalities resulting from attacks by far right wing violent extremists exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists.
“In three of the fifteen years, fatalities resulting from attacks by far right wing violent extremists were the same as those caused by violent radical Islamist extremists.
“Of the eighty-five violent extremist incidents that resulted in death, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for sixty-two (73 percent).
“Of the eighty-five violent extremist incidents that resulted in death, violent radical Islamist extremists were responsible for twenty-three (27 percent).”
In case you need it spelled out for you, those sentences are basically saying that, statistically, white Christian assholes are far more violent than brown-skinned Muslim assholes. But let’s be honest: this is like saying that Donald Trump’s penis is uglier than his ballsack.
White Nationalists and Militant Islamists actually have way more in common than one would think:
They both absolutely hate the U.S. government. Kamali gives detailed histories of both movements. Interestingly, using a straight line from Ruby Ridge to Waco, TX to Timothy McVeigh to January 6, she succinctly demonstrates how White Nationalists are overwhelmingly anti-U.S. government. Equally, due to a lot of history that the U.S. was a part of that has shaped (in a pretty bad way) the turmoil in the Middle East, Militant Islamists are vehemently anti-U.S. government, as well.
They both absolutely hate and want to kill anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs. For White Nationalists, anybody who is non-white (and, for the most part, non-Christian) are simply in the way of their goals. Likewise, Militant Islamists just want to kill everyone who is not Muslim. To be fair, both these groups are using very perverted interpretations of Christianity and Islam, but, hey, it’s all good because
They both want to establish a perfect Utopian World government. The problem is White Nationalists want an all-white Christian theocracy, and the Militant Islamists want a Muslim-only theopolity. Awkward!
Kamali’s book gives very in-depth explanations of concepts and terms that many people have heard but may not understand, like the Fourteen Words, RAHOWA, White Genocide, Christian Identity, Creativity, Wotanism, Al-wala, Wa-l-bara, Takfir, Jihad. Trust me, you will know what all of that shit means by the end of the book.
In light of recent events in the Israel-Palestine War and in light of January 6, 2021, Kamali’s book is an important and useful primer on terrorism....more
Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of Autocracy: (noun): 1) the authority or rule of an autocrat; 2) government in which one person possesses unlimMerriam-Webster Dictionary definition of Autocracy: (noun): 1) the authority or rule of an autocrat; 2) government in which one person possesses unlimited power; 3) a community or state governed by autocracy
Stuart Stevens had a “come to Jesus” moment in 2020 when he began to realize that his political party drank the Kool-Aid of Trumpism and—-for many of his friends and former colleagues—-there was no going back to a state of sanity. He wrote about this disheartening revelation in his book “It Was All A Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump”.
In his latest book “The Conspiracy to End America: Five Ways My Old Party Is Driving Our Democracy to Autocracy”, Stevens has seen how, in a short three years, Trumpism has exploded into a Bizarro-world of anti-intellectual, anti-Constitution, and anti-democracy lunacy. His book is a dire warning that the presidential election in ten months is critical and will determine whether we even have a democracy a year from now.
Trump, according to Stevens, wasn’t born in a vacuum. He is less a person than he is an idea, one that was born long before Trump was even born. Nor will it mean the end of Trump if he loses the election in November, as if Trump (or the idea of him anyway) actually needs to seal the deal with an election. Trump (or the idea of him) has become a figurehead for a movement that began as early as the 1920s—-perhaps even earlier—-when racist white idiots in pointy hoods began to organize and gain ground among poor white uneducated farmers.
Now, militant and extremist white nationalists call Trump “daddy” and are “standing back and standing by” for when he calls for civil war. The uneducated farmers of yesteryear are now the uneducated white people in low-income areas, suburbs, or big cities who are terrified of the day (coming soon!) when white people in this country will be the minority, when the “majority-minority” of blacks, Latinx, Asians, and miscellaneous brown people will outnumber white people.
Experts who study this demographic shift may have some hope that a new era of true diversity and multiracial harmony will result, but it’s more than likely going to get a lot worse before it gets better. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/22/...)
Nationalism is going to get bloody. It already has. (See January 6, 2021.) It’s been building for a long time. Whatever democracy we have left in this country could be completely eradicated if Trump wins in 2024. If that unthinkable thing happens, the trend that has been happening everywhere else in the world—-Europe, Asia, Africa, South America—-will finally get us: autocracy. Rule of a small group of wealthy powerful men or, simply, one man. It’s also called a dictatorship.
Trump’s had a lot of help the last couple years, but the structural foundations of autocracy, according to Stevens, were started years, even decades ago.
The five “building blocks” of autocracy, according to Stevens are:
1)Propagandists: Since its launch in October 1996, FOX News—-the brain-child of mogul Rupert Murdoch and Republican consultant Roger Ailes—-has been the primary propaganda tool for the Republican Party. Sure, it wasn’t always so upfront about it. At one point, FOX News actually gave people news. Then, it started giving people “news analysis” disguised as news. Now, it just broadcasts complete and utter horseshit, and it doesn’t even bother to pretend that it’s news.
2)Support of a major party: The Republican Party used to have some semblance of respectability. There were, at one time, people with some integrity and honor who called themselves Republicans. Now, though, they are a party who considers domestic terrorists “patriots” and won’t even stand up or shake the hands of police officers who protected them when they needed protecting. Oh, and they spend more time kicking people out of their party who do have some semblance of integrity (See Liz Cheney) than they do anything useful for the country.
3) Financers: a.k.a. Rich White Assholes. (See Koch Brothers) People like Trump are always backed, financially, by people like Trump. If they have their way, we will see an end to regulations in all businesses and an end to protective governmental services like the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the FDA. So we can all burn to death when the ozone layer disappears after we’ve cut down all the forests, and/or we’ll die of either more Three Mile Island-like accidents or high fructose corn syrup overdoses.
4) Legal theories to legitimize actions: “Yes, Mr. President, it is perfectly legal to create fake electors to throw off electoral college results, and Mike Pence absolutely has the authority to overturn the results of the election.”
5)Shock Troops: Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, Creativity Alliance, Tucker Carlson, those guys down the hall who totally have that weird “InCel” vibe....more
There’s a scene in the movie “Bad Teacher” where Justin Timberlake’s character—a well-meaning but incredibly naive liberal high school teacher—-says, There’s a scene in the movie “Bad Teacher” where Justin Timberlake’s character—a well-meaning but incredibly naive liberal high school teacher—-says, very passionately, how much he hates slavery. Jason Segel’s character—-a more jaded, weathered physical education teacher—-tries to make a point by talking about how vicious and blood-thirsty sharks are, which elicits a passionate “Ooh, I hate sharks!” From Timberlake. Almost within the same breath, though, Segel then says how much he admires and respects the power of sharks, which Timberlake then responds with a comment about “the nobility” of sharks. Segel walks away, knowing that, while Timberlake is clueless, the other teachers in the break room get the point.
It’s easy to hate something that is almost universally hated. I hate rape and murder, but that should be something that everyone hates, so it’s pointless to even make a comment about it. As a liberal, I think it’s easy to find outrage in certain obvious things. Homophobia, for one. Racism. Greed. Narcissism. Antisemitism.
Unfortunately, too often, I think liberals make statements without truly understanding what their statements actually mean or what they’re about. I hate Antisemitism, too, but do I really know and understand what Antisemitism is? I’m not a Jew, so I can honestly say that I’ve never been a victim of Antisemitism. But would I be able to recognize it and call it out if I were to see someone saying something truly Antisemitic? I would like to say “yes” to those questions, but I’m not sure.
Rabbi Diana Fersko’s book “We Need To Talk About Antisemitism” helps to clarify some things and helps to make the answers to those questions a firmer “yes”.
Antisemitism is on the rise and has been steadily rising since 2016, according to data from numerous sources including the Southern Poverty Law Center (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-ha...).
Under President Donald Trump, white nationalist and far-right hate groups such as Proud Boys and Oathkeepers flourished. Like the Ku Klux Klan—-a hate group that had its heyday a century ago, and is still around in some form—-groups like Proud Boys disseminate ancient Antisemitic lies such as blood libel and the conspiracy theory that Jews secretly run major institutions such as banks and Hollywood. They are idiotic untruths, but, sadly, a growing percentage of the population believes them.
To rational-minded people, Antisemitism doesn’t make much sense. Judaism is, according to Fersko, unique in that Jews aren’t a race but they have historically been, and to some extent still are, considered a race. And despite a 21st-century scientifically-enlightened view about “race” being non-existent, antisemitism is still a major issue. For that matter, racism is still a major issue. It’s a confusion kept alive by idiotic racists.
Fersko’s book has gained even more importance as of late since the Israel-Hamas War started in October 2023. Antisemitic hate crimes have almost tripled in the subsequent months following the start of the war. To be fair, hate crimes against Muslims have also risen considerably. (https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/us/hat...)
Israel has been criticized for its military response against the surprise attacks by the Palestinian organization known as Hamas (a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) as designated by the United States), and casualties on both sides have been in the thousands. (https://crsreports.congress.gov/produ....)
The topic of the war has become so sensitive that nearly any criticism of Israeli policy is viewed as Antisemitic and any inclination to defend Israel’s response is viewed as anti-Palestine. There is no neutral ground in this argument.
Due to the war, the information in Fersko’s book hasn’t become any less valid. On the contrary, her book has become even more important. We really need to talk about Antisemitism now....more
”The first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that’s classified? How do they do it? You know why? Be”The first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that’s classified? How do they do it? You know why? Because it’s an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. Really ashamed.”
—-Donald Trump, February 16, 2017; four years before Trump literally handed over highly classified documents to a reporter visiting Mar-A-Lago, where Trump was illegally storing thousands of highly classified documents in rooms that weren’t even locked.
Really nothing more than the official legal briefs of the four criminal cases that former president Donald Trump faces in the upcoming months, “The Trump Indictments”, edited by Ali Velshi, nevertheless tells a fascinating and, frankly, disgusting narrative of a man who shouldn’t have been president proving why he shouldn’t have been president.
This book requires no review nor any comment really. (My only comment being, of course, the obvious question: How the hell are there still idiots that support this guy and plan to vote for him in November?)
It’s simply a highly organized document, in very clear language, listing the 91 criminal counts that former U.S. president Donald Trump faces in several upcoming trials scheduled for this spring and summer.
Honestly, Trump’s own miscellaneous tweets, e-mails, phone call transcripts, and other public statements speak for themselves:
”Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” —-Trump, after trying to convince the U.S. Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to illegally change the outcome of the election
December 19, 2020 tweet: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”—-Trump
January 5, 2021 tweet: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen… Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore! We hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office.”—-Trump
January 6, 2021 comments from speech: “I hope Mike [Pence, Vice-President] is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.” —-Trump, one of several attempts to convince Pence to illegally overturn election results
January 6, 2021 tweet: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”—-Trump, after Pence made a statement that he would not illegally overturn the election results, subsequently resulting in crowd members of the insurrection chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” over and over…
January 6, 2021 tweet: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”—-Trump, after inciting an insurrection that would result in nine deaths and roughly three million dollars in property damage. ...more
The history of the United States of America has been an intellectual battle for a single ideal: equality. While the names have changed over the two ceThe history of the United States of America has been an intellectual battle for a single ideal: equality. While the names have changed over the two centuries of the existence of the country, there have always only been two sides: those who have fought and died for equality for all (white, non-white, men, women, gay, straight, and everyone in between) and those who want power collected in the hands of a select few (white, male, and rich).
Historian Heather Cox Richardson has written a succinct but powerful history in her book "Democracy Awakening", which examines, in a short 286 pages, the struggle for black people, women, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and the poor to have a voice in our imperfect democracy. It is a struggle that is ongoing and, probably, never-ending.
A must-read for anyone who still believes in the experiment started by our Founding Fathers in 1776, when the words "All men are created equal" were written on a page by Thomas Jefferson....more
If an extinction-level event were to occur tomorrow (let’s say, hypothetically, a viral pandemic that would turn every human’s brain into guacamole) aIf an extinction-level event were to occur tomorrow (let’s say, hypothetically, a viral pandemic that would turn every human’s brain into guacamole) and, in a thousand years, an alien expedition of extraterrestrial archaeologists happened upon our human-free planet, their best source for understanding human culture in the last 23 years of human existence would be found in Chuck Klosterman’s “X: A Highly Specific, Defiantly Incomplete History of the Early 21st Century”.
Never mind the depressing fact that, due to the extinction-level pandemic, Klosterman’s “History” would actually be complete.
Also never mind that the book was published in 2017, which means that the alien archaeologists would never read about the last six years, which means they would never read about Covid-19, January 6, 2021, Ron DeSantis’s book “The Courage to Be Free”, or The Golden Bachelor. (On second thought, maybe that’s all for the best.)
Klosterman hand-picked a selection of essays from numerous sources to illustrate life in the 21st-century, which is basically a history of the rise of anti-intellectualism, pretentiousness, moral relativism, political apathy, and a bizarre fascination with spinner fidgets.
Every essay in this book is entertaining and intelligent, even the ones having to do with sports. (I will never understand or appreciate Klosterman’s love for sports of any kind, as I find most, if not all, sports unbearably stupid, barbaric, and pointless, but they seem to have some kind of social, historical, and religious importance to many people.)
I, of course, have my favorites, including: Klosterman’s defense of, and appreciation for, Taylor Swift’s musical talent; his interview with novelist Jonathon Franzen; his love for the long-running political talk show The McLaughlin Group; his revealing (in a way that was incredibly non-revealing) non-interview with Tom Brady; and his love letter to the rock band Kiss, which includes a full discography and reviews of each and every Kiss album.
I find it amazing that Klosterman has the rare ability to make almost any subject riveting, even if it’s not a subject that I would have necessarily been interested in. For example, Klosterman starts the book with an essay about a legendary 1988 basketball game between two relatively unknown North Dakota colleges. Two subjects I have zero interest in—-college basketball and North Dakota—-suddenly become a compelling underdog story; like “Rocky”, only with Native Americans and, well, basketball.
Many of the essays in this book are short (2-3 pages at most), and they all run together in a stream-of-consciouness kind of way. It feels random, and yet it doesn’t.
The great thing about reading a Klosterman essay is that I don’t feel guilty about wanting to re-read a Klosterman essay. That’s just really good essay-writing....more
I am---perhaps unhealthily---obsessed with the events of January 6, 2021. Like many Americans, I was shocked, apalled, disgusted, and terrified by theI am---perhaps unhealthily---obsessed with the events of January 6, 2021. Like many Americans, I was shocked, apalled, disgusted, and terrified by the images of Americans breaking into the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. with the sole intent of disrupting and overturning the (normally) peaceful transfer of power. That the President, himself, was the one who instigated and fuelled the insurrection that day made it all the more terrifying, with frightening implications for the health of our democracy.
I tried watching the subsequent televised hearings, but, like most Americans, I had a job which prevented me from doing so. Probably for the best. I did manage to catch occasional highlights.
One of the brightest spots of the hearings was the testimony of a young woman named Cassidy Hutchinson, a Trump aide who, by virtue of the fact that she was literally in the room where a lot of shit went down, felt the need to shed light on what Trump and his sycophantic lackeys were doing (or not doing) during the entire insurrection, an event which took the lives of nine people and resulted in roughly three million dollars in property damage.
Hutchinson exhibited a poise and deportment far beyond her age and experience. (She is currently 28.) She also helped to fill in the blanks of that infamous day with accounts that were, to say the least, unflattering of the men that were her superiors and whom she called "boss" for several years. Needless to say, she was not well-liked by Trumpers and some of her former co-workers. Receiving numerous death threats, Hutchinson has had to live a life of relative solitude since then.
In her much-anticipated memoir "Enough", Hutchinson writes about a life devoted to the ideal of public service, one that she has aspired to since she was in elementary school. She also writes about how she was attracted to the conservatism of the Republican party, a party that she felt---until the Trump administration--- was home.
Like many Republicans, she ignored some of the early warning signs of Trumpism, or she simply wrote them off as "Trump being Trump". But in the weeks following November 5, 2020, she could no longer simply dismiss the dumpster fire that was the Trump White House. She began to recognize---something her colleagues wouldn't or couldn't---that Trump's actions were dangerous.
Torn between being branded disloyal by her friends and colleagues and doing what she felt in her heart was the right thing, Hutchinson thankfully chose the right thing.
"Enough" isn't just about her decision to give her testimony to the January 6 Commission, though. The book is also a subtle examination of her evolution from a timid woman who is constantly mistreated by narcissistic, sexist men (starting with her own father; being leered at by pervo Matt Gaetz; and being groped by assholes like John Boehner and Rudy Giuliani) to a woman who can finally say, "I deserve better than this"....more
“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” —-F. Scott Fitzgerald
You know who Sam Bankman-Fried is. At least, you can r“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” —-F. Scott Fitzgerald
You know who Sam Bankman-Fried is. At least, you can recognize him when you see his face on the evening news. He’s young, always wearing a t-shirt and cargo shorts, and sports a Jew-fro. Seth Rogan is bound to play him in the inevitable biopic.
But you don’t know who Sam Bankman-Fried is. Nobody—-not his parents, not his brother, not his friends (a very small group, to be sure), not his numerous employees, not his lawyers, not the general public—-truly knows this kid. (And let’s not forget: he’s only 31.)
Even after spending a lot of time with him, and even after writing a book about him, Michael Lewis doesn’t even know who this kid is. Is he a financial criminal the likes of Bernie Madoff? Or is he just a socially-awkward (possibly on the spectrum?) financial genius nerd who got in way over his head?
“Going Infinite”, Lewis’s attempt to explain SBF and the whole weird world of crypto-currency, is 254 pages of fascinating and riveting information as only Lewis can write it. Unfortunately, after reading it, I felt that I learned absolutely nothing.
Crypto-currency is still a mystery to me. This was to be expected, honestly. I love reading all of Lewis’s books on the economy and the world of finance, but I rarely grasp any of it. If my brain was a pie chart of how much knowledge I take away and actually understand, the slice that illustrates my actual understanding would be paper-thin. The slice, however, that illustrates how much entertainment and enjoyment I get from reading a Lewis book would be about 75% of the pie. But, yeah, what I know about crypto-currency now, after reading the book: still not a lot.
But figuring out SBF is the real enigma. I’m not sure whether to hate this guy as a typical super-rich asshole who doesn’t understand how much his actions have hurt people or feel sorry for him as a kind of clueless dumbass who got lucky in a business that only an idiot savant would truly succeed in and then lost it all because of a lack of business savviness.
Because this guy is the very definition of “different”. Here’s a kid who did well in school and graduated from MIT, but hated reading books because they were “dumb”. He even admits that he only has the attention span to read blogs.
Here’s a kid who has never made any serious lasting friendships in his life. Even his so-called “romantic” relationships with women have been more business transactional than romantic.
Here’s a kid who claims he has never felt joy or pleasure in his life. It is an actual disorder called anhedonia. But imagine that: Never. Feeling. Pleasure.
Here’s a kid who admits that talking about his feelings is pointless because he has none.
I’m sorry, but does anyone else get the feeling that SBF is actually a robot? Or an AI in a human body?
The strange thing is, SBF is precisely the kind of real-life outlier that Lewis loves to write about. Out-of-box (way way out of box) thinking, genius level understanding of a field that a majority of people have absolutely no clue about, social outcast, unwilling to accept no for an answer.
As weird as SBF is, I think Lewis was rooting for him. Hell, a lot of people were. Which makes him a weirdly tragic figure. ...more
Genocide: (n) The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or grGenocide: (n) The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
It is a sad irony that a nation-state built primarily for a group of people who suffered a near-successful genocidal campaign by a psychotic world leader in the 20th century has, in the 21st century, engaged in a similar genocidal campaign against another group of people, an almost-perfect textbook example of the oppressed becoming an oppressor.
Please don’t twist my words, either. I am not being Antisemitic in that statement. Criticizing the colonial policies of the Israeli government should not imply a hostility or hatred of the Jewish people. Unfortunately, the world being what it is, such a statement will inevitably be misinterpreted.
The truth, though, is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has used the Israeli-Hamas War that started on October 7, 2023 as the impetus to continue a deliberate ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip that began roughly more than a hundred years ago.
Rashid Khalidi’s 2020 book “The Hundred Year’s War on Palestine” is an immensely eye-opening history of the conflict that has turned an area of the Middle East that is considered sacred by three of the major world religions into a profane killing field.
Blaming Israel is disingenuous, of course, as British Imperialism is as much at fault as the popular Zionist movement at the turn of the last century for creating the Palestinian displacement. In what has now become known as the Balfour Declaration—a single sentence recorded in a November 1917 cabinet meeting by the secretary of state for foreign affairs, Arthur J. Balfour—-Britain essentially declared its support for the eventual creation of a Jewish state in what was the country of Palestine. Perhaps nothing more than a statement to appease the growing number of Jews supportive of the Zionist movement in Europe at that time, this statement threw open a door that led directly to the creation of Israel many years later, a prospect that many indigenous Palestinians feared.
Jewish settlements, with the support of Britain, began to appear in Palestine after the First World War, bringing an already-existing Jewish population of roughly 6% of the whole to roughly 18% by 1926.
In 1947, The United Nations General Assembly voted for the partition of Palestine. Known as resolution 181, the plan provided an area of the country (42%) for the Arab population, an area of the country (56%) for the Jewish population, and the remainder (2%)—-an area comprised of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem and surrounds—-designated as an “international zone”.
It was only a year later that Israel officially became a country, under David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency. Helping to establish legitimacy was U.S. President Harry Truman’s recognition of the state on the same day it became the State of Israel, May 14, 1948.
Almost immediately, the violent upheaval that resulted in roughly 750,000 Arab Palestinians expelled from their homes began in earnest by the new Israeli government. Called the “Nakba” (an Arabic word meaning “catastrophe”), this ethnic cleansing of Palestine ushered in a new era of violence on both sides.
The Israeli narrative of this event vastly deviates from the Palestinian perspective. The tendency by some Israelis even today to downplay, ignore, or completely refute the violence committed by its own government during this time period ironically earns it the expression “Nakba denial”.
Palestinian militancy grew stronger in the subsequent years, eventually culminating in the foundation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), initiated by the Arab League (comprised of the seven countries of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, North Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Transjordan), in May 1964. This was the first organization to officially represent the Palestinian people.
The group Hamas was formed many year later, in 1987.
The late 1960s was the beginning of what Khalidi refers to as “the classical period of the Arab-Israeli conflict”, in which the United States and Israel became unofficial “partners” during the Cold War against Russia, which “unofficially” offered support to militant Palestinian groups.
Amidst the violence perpetrated by Israel and militant Palestinian groups, it is important to keep in mind the vast number of innocent Palestinian people—-children, especially—-caught in the crosshairs of this conflict. Just as it is wrong to lump all Israelis together as anti-Palestinian, it is equally wrong to lump all Palestinians as terrorists. Unfortunately, this is essentially what happened.
Over time, the PLO denounced many of its own militant tactics, such as suicide bombing, and became simply a political arm of the Palestinian people. Many times, the group came close to getting countries such as the U.S. and Israel to recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian people as a nation-state without a nation. But a two-state solution has never been adequately devised.
If any progress was made with the countless talks and accords over the years (and, frankly, there hasn’t been much), President Donald Trump set the conflict back considerably with his proposed peace plan announced in 2020, a plan rejected almost unanimously by Palestinians.
Then, October 2023 happened, where Hamas launched a full-scale attack against Israel from the Gaza Strip. According to recent data, roughly 1,200 Israelis have been killed and 5,341 injured; roughly 35,091 Palestinians have been killed and 78,827 injured.
Khalidi’s book is a good start if you want to understand the situation overseas. He lays bare his own personal history, one that divulges some of his own potential biases, but his book manages to be as objective an account of the last hundred years as is possible....more
The story of serial killer Israel Keyes is so unbelievably weird and horrifying, it feels more like fiction. To hear it, one would think it belonged wThe story of serial killer Israel Keyes is so unbelievably weird and horrifying, it feels more like fiction. To hear it, one would think it belonged within a novel by Stephen King or Richard Chizmar, but it is, believe it or not, a true story, which makes it all the more horrifying. Maureen Callahan, in her book “American Predator: The Hunt for the Most Meticulous Serial Killer of the 21st Century” tells the story.
Keyes was caught for the kidnapping of a young girl named Samantha Koenig in Alaska in 2012. It would take too long and sound too convoluted to go into how he was caught. It would not be an exaggeration to say that his arrest and interrogation was almost an accident on the part of the Alaskan police. To several of the detectives who worked the case, the whole thing was kind of an embarrassment, especially when, at several points, they nearly let him go. Much of it was due to an inept U.S. attorney named Kevin Feldis who insisted that he lead the interrogation, and his inexperience nearly destroyed the case.
The local Alaskan detectives received help from the FBI, which they asked for, as they were unprepared for someone like Keyes. As it turned out, so, in a sense, was the FBI.
The reason you may not have heard of Keyes is because, unlike Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, Keyes didn’t fit neatly into any of the FBI profiles.
Keyes led a somewhat normal domestic life, having a girlfriend and a young daughter from a previous marriage. By all accounts, he appeared to dote on his little girl. While this isn’t necessarily unheard of for serial killers (Dennis Rader, a.k.a. The BTK Killer, was happily married with two children throughout the many years he was committing violent serial murders), most serial killers tend to be loners.
Also unlike many serial killers, Keyes did not keep to any routine both in terms of modus operandi or geography.
Many serial killers like to kill in a certain way. Some prefer knives. Some like guns. Some like to strangle their victims. Keyes didn’t seem to have a preference. Or, if he did, he made sure that it didn’t reflect in his crime scenes. This made it all the more difficult for authorities to link the different murders to the same person. Keyes was a serial killer that authorities weren’t even pursuing.
As to geography: Many serial killers tend to stick to a certain area, but Keyes literally went everywhere within the continental United States, picking random victims in small towns that did not have large police departments or access to big-city investigative units, making it easy for many of his crimes to go unsolved and unconnected to him. He was also extremely careful in not leaving trace evidence. He admitted to having read many books by and about FBI profilers. He knew how to leave a crime scene clean.
Keyes will always be a mystery, sadly, because, in December 2012, he committed suicide in his jail cell under highly questionable circumstances. Suicide was never in question, but there were many questions as to the due diligence and integrity (or lack thereof) of the prison guards and the lackluster Alaskan prison system that somehow allowed Keyes to so easily off himself.
Only three actual murders are attributable to Keyes, but the FBI can potentially link him to eight more. Some in the FBI think that the number of his kills is much higher. We will never know.
Callahan’s book is true-crime at its best. While it certainly leaves more questions than it answers, it definitely shines a light on the frightening scenario of the serial killer that is currently operating out there that nobody is even looking for, because they are experts at making their crimes look like random tragedies....more
Religion, like politics, is one of those conversation topics that most people find uncomfortable, except, of course, for those people who are deeply rReligion, like politics, is one of those conversation topics that most people find uncomfortable, except, of course, for those people who are deeply religious and vocally political.
Full disclosure: I was one of those deeply religious people. I was a “born-again” Christian, which basically came about when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Born-agains live for church and worship songs and telling more people that they should accept Jesus into their life, and, for a while, I was really into this lifestyle. I went to Bible study weekly, had prayer sessions, and I was supposed to really like “Veggie Tales” and “Seventh Heaven”. I also wasn’t supposed to even think about sex before marriage, and I wasn’t supposed to like Marilyn Manson.
My foray into Evangelical Christianity didn’t last that long. Probably a little over four years. What ended it? Honestly, it was George W. Bush.
Like many liberal Americans, I thought W. was dumb. Like, really really dumb. (Keep in mind: this was before Trump, who came along and said, “America, hold my beer…”) I was supposed to really like W. because he was a Christian, but I thought he was—-besides dumb—-shifty, shady, and full of shit. He reminded me exactly of why I never joined a frat in college.
Bush—I’m not exaggerating here—-ruined Christianity for me. Because politics, for me, became pretty important in my life, moreso than religion. Rather, my religious doctrines that I was supposed to be preaching and believing quickly became at odds with my political views. I was for same-sex marriage and perfectly okay with homosexuals. (Christianity told me that I was supposed to consider gay people “sinners” and that same-sex marriage was an affront to God.) I was pro-choice. (Christianity told me that I’m supposed to believe that abortion is murder, which I don’t believe. I’m not a huge fan of abortion, mind you, but I just believe that it’s a big decision that is ultimately up to the woman who is pregnant to make.) I don’t really like guns and I don’t want guns in my house. (Weirdly, Christianity—-or a huge segment of Christianity anyway—-told me that I’m supposed to love guns and the Second Amendment.) I think things like lying, committing adultery, secretly committing huge crimes and covering them up are wrong. (Christianity told me that these are wrong UNLESS they are committed by a person who is a Christian, and then it’s okay because Jesus forgives them. “Love the sinner, not the sin,” I heard constantly. Unless, of course, the sinner is gay, had an abortion, or believed in gun control.)
I’m being flippant, I know. And kind of an asshole, but you get my point.
You know what the really sucky thing is about losing your religion? A huge part of me still really misses believing in something that strongly.
I am, apparently, part of a hugely growing demographic of people leaving the church (any church, of any and all denominations) and considering myself non-religious. There are many names for us: lapsed, de-churched, Nones (a term that stems from checking off “no religious affiliations” on forms that ask that question).
Russell Moore is not part of that demographic. In fact, Moore is a Baptist minister. When he comes across that question on a form, he probably checks off the “really really religious” box.
But something really weird and awful happened to Moore back in 2016. He had the audacity to say that Donald Trump was not a good man and not qualified in any way to be president of the country. Surprisingly, many of his Baptist friends (including some of his mentors) lambasted him and kicked him out of his job. Rather than see Trump for the awful human being that he was, many Christians were letting Trump’s many past transgressions (and crimes) slide. Apparently, for a lot of ultra-conservative Republicans who happened to be Christian, politics trumped religion. Pun intended.
Moore, a smart guy, spent a lot of time mulling this situation over. The result is his book “Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America”, a book that I have no idea why I decided to read and a book that I don’t understand why I actually really loved.
Well, that’s not completely true. I loved it for a few very specific reasons.
One reason is that the book is not an anti-liberal diatribe or a vitriolic vengeful hit-piece against all the people that ostracized and hated on him. Indeed, Moore—-who professes to be very conservative—-doesn’t pick on liberals. In fact, he—-more times than any conservative should be comfortable with—-makes statements that are pretty liberal-ish, like this one: “[M]any evangelical Christians don’t recognize authoritarianism because the petri dish for authoritarian experiments has often been evangelical churches.” (P.72) He also often quotes famous liberals (and, Egad! Socialists) like Hannah Arendt, who said, “[T]hose who choose the lesser evil quickly forget that they chose evil.” (p.162)
Another reason is that Moore is talking about Character, which is one of those words that a lot of Trumpian conservatives and Trumpian Christians kind of hate now, because it’s wrapped up in concepts such as Ethics, Morality, and Integrity. You know: everything that is missing from Trump. Moore believes that the ends don’t always justify the means, but the means should always justify the ends. I totally dig that.
Moore also kind of reminds me of why I was attracted to Christianity in the first place: Christ. Let’s face it: Jesus was just an awesome dude who preached a lot of good stuff, like loving one’s neighbor, turning the other cheek, forgiveness. Christians, according to Moore, occasionally get so wrapped up in all the legalistic religiosity bullshit that they forget that it’s all about the “WWJD?” moments in life.
I recommend this book for anyone who, like Moore, recognizes that major changes are happening in Christianity, and that they don’t have to be scary or awful changes. I also recommend it for anyone who, like me, laments the loss of their faith and still holds out some hope of maybe one day getting it back....more
Here’s a legitimate question: Why are conservatives in this country losing their shit over pronouns? I don’t get it. I don’t understand how FOX News cHere’s a legitimate question: Why are conservatives in this country losing their shit over pronouns? I don’t get it. I don’t understand how FOX News can have hour-long “discussions” about how people who prefer to be called “they/them” are destroying America. As if there aren’t a hundred other more important things that they could be talking about, like how racist immigration policies and global climate change actually are destroying America. I don’t think they are having round-table discussions about those issues on FOX.
(In case I get called out on this, let me say that I actually witnessed an hour-long discussion about the “idiocy” of pronouns on FOX News. It was an episode of Gutfeld! that aired recently. Gutfeld!, in case you don’t know, is a late-night talk show on FOX News hosted by Greg Gutfeld, one of the few FOX News personalities that I kind of like, as he isn’t afraid to make fun of himself. That said, his comedic rants tend to lean hard to the right, despite his contention that he is a somewhat moderate libertarian. I cry bullshit on that, as I think he is a conservative in sheep’s clothing. While I do think he is, at times, humorous, I can’t say that I agree with a majority of his politics. I don’t watch his show with any regularity, mainly because it airs way past my bedtime, but I will occasionally catch episodes on-line. If you go on Youtube, you will find at least a half-dozen episodes of his show devoted to the issue of “pronoun abuse”, which seems like a ridiculous amount of time devoted to—-in my opinion—-a non-issue.)
People (and by “people” I generally mean conservatives and Republicans) are truly angry over this, going so far as to claim that being asked to call someone “they/them” is a violation of their First Amendment rights or, in some cases, against their religion. (???) And, again, in case you are about to call me out on this, I have had very awkward and confusing conversations with angry conservative co-workers on this subject, and they have used those very arguments.
My rebuttal is often a very simple question of how their rights are being violated. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to call a co-worker “they/them” or forcing them to call Brad a “she” or Tabitha a “he”. It seems to me that they are simply asking for courtesy regarding their gender identity. To me, it’s no different than if a co-worker asks to be called “Michael” rather than “Mike” or Mikey”, or if a woman prefers to be referred to as "Ms." rather than "Miss" or "Mrs.". If that’s what they prefer, then it’s common courtesy to accommodate their wishes. It’s not violating your First Amendment rights or religion to do so.
Personally, I think a lot of this ridiculousness stems from a residual homophobia of conservatives who—-for want of anything else to bitch about, since same-sex marriage has been legalized—-still harbor a disgust and a deep mistrust of anyone within the LGBTQ+ community, mainly because they don’t understand “those people”. They claim that members of the LGBTQ+ community are forcing the issue of “gay pride” and “tolerance” and “acceptance” on them, when the only people I see forcing the issue are conservatives. Every gay person I know pretty much just wants to live their life. They aren’t pushing an agenda or forcing people to join in gay pride parades or even asking anyone to even like them. They just want to be treated like human beings. And if that means that Brad wants to be referred to as “she/her”, what’s the big deal?
Being a gay, transgendered, or non-binary person today is probably easier than being one twenty years ago, but a lot of the homo- and transphobia still lingers in society.
Merle Miller, in 1971, published an essay in the The New York Times Magazine entitled “What it Means to Be a Homosexual”. Revolutionary for its time, the essay was a response to a homophobic article in Harper’s Magazine. Miller was angry at the way homosexuals were still denigrated and ostracized in society, especially while so many other groups—-such as blacks, chicanos, women—-were seeing civil rights victories, and gay people were still being called “faggots” by so-called upstanding citizens. The essay would later be published in book form under the title “On Being Different”. It would also be personally significant for Miller, who publicly “came out” within the essay.
This short (all told, the book is only 42 pages long) but powerful book still resonates today, because while views on homosexuality (and the more recent accompanying issues of transgenderism, gender-fluidity, and non-binarianism) have progressed over the past several decades, there are still troglodytes who believe that homosexuality is a sin or a mental illness or a choice that can simply be “deprogrammed” out of a person. I like to believe these people are a minority that are dying off, but they unfortunately still manage to suck the oxygen out of the air and embarrass the shit out of rational-minded people when they blather idiotically on FOX News....more
True crime is quickly becoming one of my favorite genres. There is, however, a lot of crappy true crime books out there. Most of these read like policTrue crime is quickly becoming one of my favorite genres. There is, however, a lot of crappy true crime books out there. Most of these read like police reports, without trying to delve deeper into the broader picture or offering insights into the human condition. Many of them are prurient and sensationalistic.
I like true crime that tells a story about what it means to be a human being and how to live a life beset on all sides by temptation and evil. I like true crime that transcends its own genre into works of important literature.
Certain authors in this genre stand out: Truman Capote, Ann Rule, James Renner, Michelle McNamara, David Grann. All of them have taken the true crime genre to elevated places in their work, attempting to find some meaning in meaningless acts.
Published in 2010, David Grann’s “The Devil and Sherlock Holmes” is a compilation of articles he has written over the years, originally published in a plethora of magazines, including The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, and The New York Times Magazine. All of them could be classified under “true crime”.
More than one of the twelve stories in this book has already been made into a film or TV show. All of them would make for a fascinating documentary film or series on Netflix.
They cover a wide swath of subjects and a wide range of themes, but all of them have, at their heart, a horrible crime. It’s not always what one expects, either.
For example, in the story “Trial By Fire”, a horrible house fire in which a man loses his three children is determined to be an act of arson by fire investigators. Later, the science is questioned, and another team of investigators overrules the findings of the original arson “experts”, who used faulty science in their investigation. The man, sentenced to Death Row, turns out to be that rarest of all criminals: one who is innocent of his crimes. Despite numerous petitions and attempts to have him released, however, the state justice system (including the governor) puts the man to death anyway. One crime (determined to be not a crime after all) leads to an even bigger crime committed by the government.
In another example, the story “Which Way Did he Run?” begins in New York City on September 11, 2001: one of the worst crimes perpetrated on American soil. An entire company of firefighters is killed in the World Trade Center, except for one lone survivor. Miraculously, he walks away from the tragedy, only to discover a new tragedy: he has amnesia. He can’t recall anything that led up to the moment that he arrived at the WTC. Even worse: he is haunted by the horrible thought that the only reason he survived is because while his fellow firefighters were running towards the danger, he may have been running away from it. Cowardice? Or merely a human fight-or-flight reaction?
All of these stories describe a true crime, but they also provoke numerous thoughts: What would you do in this situation? What would you decide, as a juror, if given the facts? Are the people in these stories criminals or victims?
Of course, there are no easy answers, and Grann does not often—if ever—-provide the closure that one might find in a murder mystery or a crime novel....more
Sadly, what I know about the Alamo comes almost exclusively from Brian Kilmeade’s book “Sam Houston and the Alamo Avengers”, a book that I actually enSadly, what I know about the Alamo comes almost exclusively from Brian Kilmeade’s book “Sam Houston and the Alamo Avengers”, a book that I actually enjoyed, despite the fact that it was written by Kilmeade, a FOX News anchor who has said and done some boneheaded things in his career.
The fact that Kilmeade’s book—-and what Texans have been, and are still, taught about the Alamo in schools—-is mostly horseshit shouldn’t be surprising, given what we know about Kilmeade and Texas. And the United States, for that matter.
History is wonderful and exciting, but you couldn’t tell that from listening in on an average American middle school or high school history class. Mostly, it’s the sound of crickets or students snoring. The teachers aren’t necessarily to blame, either, as there are so many factors—-outdated textbooks, lousy content standards, more class time devoted to standardized testing than actual learning—-that make history so boring for kids. We are basically raising a nation of children to not give a shit about history, which is not only shameful but dangerous.
Thankfully, there are historians out there who still give a damn. Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford have collaborated on one of the best history books I have read in a while, “Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth”. It’s a lightening-rod title, and it’s meant to be.
Much of this book may not resonate too strongly with anyone who is not a history buff or from Texas, as it is almost exclusively an issue that affects only Texas historians and academics, but it has repercussions for all Americans and encompasses a lot of hot-button issues such as the rise of white supremacy, political correctness, and critical race theory.
It’s more than a book of history. To be clear, this book is actually more historiography than history. Historiography is the study of the way history is told and the different methodologies through the years that have shaped history. It is the way history is interpreted and revised through the lens of any particular era.
For example, for many decades following the famous 1836 battle at the Alamo Mission near what is now San Antonio, TX, Texans considered the fallen defenders (estimated between 180-260 men) against an army of roughly 1800 Mexican soldiers to be heroes. Indeed, the Hero mythology surrounding men like Sam Houston, William Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett elevated them to almost God-like status, and any criticism of them was akin to sacrilege.
Now, historical revisionists are looking at these so-called “heroes” in a different light and pointing out that much of their “heroic” actions they are known for probably didn’t actually happen and was based solely on fictional accounts in popular novels, movies, and TV shows. Much like the events of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, AZ, a lot of what we think we know about the event was simply not historically accurate.
There is also the strong element of racism in the Alamo’s historiography, as many Texans of a certain generation grew up calling Mexicans “murderers” in much the same way that ignorant Christians still brand Jews as “Christ’s murderers”. In truth, the cruelty and viciousness of the Mexican army was, in many ways, exaggerated tenfold, simply to create a narrative in which Mexicans were the villains of a story where, truthfully, there were no actual heroes or villains.
And, of course, there is the over-arching shadow of slavery that covers this entire story, a shadow which has—-up until recently—-been all but erased from much of Texan’s knowledge of the Alamo. That early Texans engaged in a violent revolution against Mexico primarily over the right to own slaves is still an important piece of information that tends to get glossed over in Texas school books.
Historical revisionists have, in the past couple decades, tried to set the record straight, but they are getting major push-back from a largely conservative right-wing contingent who deride the revisionists as leftists who are taking “political correctness” too far.
The good news is that many more voices are being heard that lend a different and fresh viewpoint to the story of the Alamo. More Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, and women are entering the story, none of which take away from the importance of the event. If anything, their voices simply add more depth to a story that has always been slightly one-sided.
“Forget the Alamo” is a must-read for anyone who loves history. It’s also a must-read for anyone who has a hard time accepting the “official story”. True history often shows itself when enough people dig deep to find the actual story....more
It was a painful slog, but I finally made my way through the entirety of Ron DeSantis’s campaign autobiography “The Courage to Be Free”.
I should prefaIt was a painful slog, but I finally made my way through the entirety of Ron DeSantis’s campaign autobiography “The Courage to Be Free”.
I should preface this review with a full disclosure of certain facts: 1) I will not be voting for DeSantis for president in 2024, assuming he wins the Republican nomination; 2) I am a dyed in the wool liberal, and I’m quite proud of it; 3) My family and I are ridiculously die-hard Disney fans (we’re going to Disney World in mid-July for two weeks); 4) I come from a family of teachers, and I’m married to an elementary school teacher, so I’m not a fan of politicians who make policies that make a teacher’s job more difficult, especially when said politician has never taught a day in their life; 5) I am a fan of facts, especially those that are well-sourced, or sourced at all.
Let me also start by saying that I don’t hate DeSantis with the vehemence of some of my fellow liberals. I am not the kind of liberal who writes off a Republican simply because they are Republican. I don’t think he’s “evil”. I think it’s that kind of rhetoric that has created the violent divisiveness between the parties in this country and made it all the more difficult to actually do anything productive within local, state, and federal governments.
I will say that much of DeSantis’s memoir is a red flag to me. The most glaring red flag is that DeSantis’s memoir does not have a sources section at all. Zero. For a book in which the author throws out a lot of “facts”, there should be some foot- or endnotes. Especially when he frequently accuses Democrats and the liberal media of not sourcing their own “facts”. This strikes me as being hypocritical, to say the least.
This review will end up being a list of more red flags, but I should say a few things that I respect about the current Florida governor.
He is far more intelligent than other members of his party. Granted, the former president set the bar pretty low for members of the GOP, but DeSantis actually went to Harvard and Yale. I’m old-school enough to still be impressed about stuff like that. Despite DeSantis’s weirdly hypocritical (there’s that word again) stance against “liberal elites” and his constant anti-intellectual criticism of “experts”, I can’t help but determine that the guy actually has some intellectual chops. Of course, it doesn’t help to explain his support for Trump, but like most if not all Republicans during the last six years, this can be explained by an inexplicable fear of angry tweets and accusations of being a “RINO”.
I also respect the guy for getting to where he is on actual hard work and not resting on his laurels or having a rich daddy to pay his way through life. He seems to have attained his position by doing things the right way and winning fair and square.
All that said, DeSantis seems to spout the same old Republican Party talking points, much of which is gibberish and/or completely false. (Again, this is where sourcing might have actually helped.)
Take, for example, his chapter on Critical Race Theory (CRT), virtually all of which he writes is a completely incorrect representation of what CRT actually is and isn’t. It’s not surprising that DeSantis is waging a partisan war against an academic theory that very few people outside of college history circles actually fully understand or even utilize. (CRT, by the way, is not “taught” in any K-12 classrooms anywhere in the country. The few “examples” that DeSantis includes are examples of overzealous curriculums confusing history with historiography.)
It’s not surprising because most Americans—-Republicans and Democrats—-couldn’t adequately define CRT even after months-long research. A quick Google search is far from adequate, but DeSantis seems to have simply typed in “What is CRT?” In the Google search bar and scanned the Wikipedia page. His muddled “definition” is a complete and utter misunderstanding of what CRT actually is.
DeSantis has also made a name for himself (in a bad way) by signing into law his Parental Rights in Education bill, dubbed (rightly or wrongly) the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Regardless of what it intended, the law ties the hands of teachers, administrators and school districts in regards to dealing with and helping young children who are questioning their sexual identities. Here are some eye-opening statistics about the subject: (https://www.thetrevorproject.org/reso...)
Then, of course, there is DeSantis’s ridiculous ongoing battle with Disney, which is based solely on the afore-mentioned bill. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, DeSantis’s stance against Disney can only be looked at as extremely petty.
Here’s a guy who, as a Republican, claims to be a fan of the free market, but hypocritically (again, that word!) rails against a corporation who is taking a political stand against a position that it feels is wrong and detrimental to the well-being—-and the ECONOMY—-of the people in the state of Florida. DeSantis’s whole tirade against the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion (DEI) policies being adopted by corporations across the country is going to bite him—-and Republicans in general—-in the ass. The free market is founded on the main principle of making a profit, and the best way to make a profit these days is to not offend consumers away from a consumer product. Pissing off black, gay, female, Latinx, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. consumers isn’t “woke”, it’s bad business.
By the way, nobody running for president should use the terms “woke” and “cancel culture”. DeSantis uses the terms ad nauseam.
If you plan on voting in the next election (and I highly encourage you to do so), I recommend voters read as many books by and about the candidates as possible. I’m a firm believer in knowing exactly what the candidate you are voting for (or not voting for, for that matter) believes and/or supports....more
Loading...
