Women LOVE the idea of "good girls gone bad" - until men take them seriously
Well, it seems not everyone's buying into feminist conventional wisdom (which is almost always wrong) but especially those who have experience with women and violence:
Consider - the Right-wing's many "scandals" have come to absolutely nothing, Syria was cornered without a war, and Ted Cruz's Tea Party faction was outmaneuvered - but here's the (politically pathetic) conventional wisdom after a mere website screw-up:
Or - just as "surely" - somebody's still seeing what they want to see, imagines they see, or are told to see.
Which is how we got Obama (including the real man) in the first place,...
ADDED: People losing insurance is the only problem I see Obama with, right now, and only because lives are at stake.
It's shocking, to me, what lies y'all decide are important. Very selective. "If you like your plan you can keep it" is worthy of outrage, while "water is medicine" is over 200 years old but long received either a shrug of the shoulders, prominent placement at Whole Foods, celebrity endorsements and/or some viciously aggressive evangelizing that "you can believe what you want to believe."
Obama's critics' long-standing hypocrisy, in this regard and others, serves only to highlight their own opportunistic nature and/or slavery to the ambitions of those behind today's almost-substance-free 24 hour news cycle.
They're a sad replacement for actual wisdom - and work,...
Except for white people who put their stuff online for consumption and critique - politicians, journalists, bloggers, cultists, artists, etc. - there is no white person on the planet that can say The Crack Emcee follows them around, "correcting" what they say, or that I have anything more than a casual, passing interest in white people's lives (as "white people's lives") at all. Back-in-the-day, sure - my recordings reveal that - but not since I started TMR. I've fought racism (without making it my deal) in whichever direction it flew, and there is an abundance of evidence to back me up.
I, on the other hand, have a virtual army of white people who seem to have made it their duty to make sure I don't get (or am capable of spreading) the wrong ideas. If I do, they speak up - not only to "correct" me but, I guess, to let me know they're there. They monitor my "progress" as a conservative and a black, by following me around the web, reminding me of what their interpretation is or was, of whatever they think I once said, sometime. (That's even hard to write, much less, think.)
Interesting crowd, these guys - and they're all guys. They take what I write and - rather than deal with what I write or ask why I wrote it as I did - they trumpet their assumptions that, based on conventional wisdom, they KNOW why I wrote it and by God it's ______.
Right now, see, I'Mobsessed with race. ME. That's been told to me over and over - what I'M doing - and it has to stop.
This has never been a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation at all. And there are no very-real cultish, tribal, moving, evolving racial dynamics at play in this country for TMR to finally deal with now. No, no, no. I've been hiding my true intentions all along. You know, like white people "speak in code" (wink).
So now, finally, I'm coming clean - get ready:
It was The Crack Emcee who shot Trayvon Martin - and I did it because I'M obsessed with wanting to get this conversation going (and as a way for ME to chase all the evil, money-donating white people from TMR - right as my spine got hurt - just before I could fulfill my not-hardly-long-awaited dream of debuting some of my new music) - and it's worked spectacularly.
I want to ask everyone reading this who's white - do you have your own personal NSA? Your own mini-counter-propaganda organs? It's flattering.
But it's also a bit like I'm still living in France, where every time I said "Hi" to an arab, the whispering would start amongst the whites. "What is he up to?" They never let up the pressure, either, or understood my dastardly intentions, no matter how many times I explained them. I'll tell you guys what they were, now, because (in hindsight) they're kinda funny:
The arabs I spoke to usually A) had a food stand or small restaurant that was open outside of the French's pre-prescribed hours for eating B) seemed to be happy Americans don't get hungry "on time" C) appreciated that arab food is a good and spicy fast food change from something slathered in white sauce that'll give me food poisoning, again, and D) that I liked a conversational environment where I didn't feel like I'd be kidnapped during the Iraq War.
Bullshit. That couldn't be it. Not according to the white French. They had their assumptions and they were sticking to them, spreading them to anybody else in the village who'd listen. And some of those, occasionally, pulled me aside "as a friend" - totally out of the blue - to offer "advice" about how to deal with all the commotion I'd caused. Me. Because I got a snack.
I ask you, white people, does any of this sound like a person being allowed to live a "normal" life, to you?
On behalf of TMR - the project I have to respond to the nonsense that plagues us, black and white - I would highly suggest to you, the answer is "NO" and all I'm doing, now, is everything in my power to prove it... *Ain't it great how - if the title opens with "Whitey" immediately - the blog's numbers go up? That's my fault, too. Me and my damned obsessions,...
“Can you imagine being in the shoes of the one who feels his power slipping away? Who can find nothing stable to believe in? Who feels himself becoming unnecessary? That powerlessness and fear ties a dark knot in his stomach. As this knot thickens, a centripetal hatred moves inward toward the self as a centrifugal hatred is cast outward at others: his parents, his girlfriend, his boss, his classmates, society, life....”
“There Is No Real Difference Between NOTs And Knots,...”
Ann - conventional thinker that she is - claims this is "More post-Newtown cogitation at The Stone, the NYT 'forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.' This one is from Princeton French prof Christy Wampole."
And - looking again at Ann's quote on the negative effect of society using NewAge "teachings" over coming to terms with reality - doesn't the premise end in a result that can only be wrong?
To which I reply, Boy, they must've really hated Romney, huh?
Of course, Ham doesn't come to that conclusion (the sub-head to her column is "Schizo-nation" - as though it is we who "don’t even know anymore") and leaves her piece trying to scrape together some dignity with this:
Another redemptive data point for those who say nominating the one guy who couldn’t effectively argue against ObamaCare was a mistake. For the record, I agreed with that assessment, but also was unconvinced others didn’t have equal liabilities.
As the conventional wisdom has it, we are a nation divided— perhaps into multiple personalities.
Well, considering she clearly doesn't know (or want to know) what she doesn't know, I'd say "multiple personalities" might explain Ham, anyway - especially when coupled with conventional wisdom.
Oh, and about those "others" with "equal liabilities," our poor Sarah Palin has blown it - passed on her moment - and is now also losing her footing as the sands shift beneath her feet. My advice:
Kick back, Sarah.
You backed Romney.
It won't undue goodwill, but it's enough to put you (temporarily?) on the other side of the ledger.
The Good Ol' Boys had nothing for you - let them go down, without you, too,…
Jeepers, out of all the crazy things I write about - and I've written about this one before, too - to some this is still going to seem to be the craziest:
Imagine that. This crazy man (who even Glenn Reynolds was recently saluting for the accuracy of his claims) thinks it's possible people might be considering picking a President Of The United States on more than a single issue. I know - it's insane.
But that's what I cover here, poor ol' misinformed and thinking-for-myself me,...
Howdy, Folks, how's everybody doing? I'm alright. Yeah, seriously, I'm fine. Having been pushed into a corner, politically, culturally, whatever, I'm starting to find that I like it here. I've come to think it's still part of my, long, post-divorce transition:
When I was in my marriage, I was part of something larger than myself - cared about others and all that - but, now that I'm no longer "hooked-up" to my wife's NewAge freak show, my views reflect it and I'm comfortable.
I've been called a "bigot" a lot lately, which is cool, because - as someone raised where putting others down for fun is part of our subculture - "bigot" is probably one of the lamest accusations anyone's ever leveled at me. As the late, great Christopher Hitchens labeled them, it's the kind of thing "soft-centered types" throw around, thinking they can hurt you because they imagine you're as weak-kneed (and weak-minded) as they are.
Not.
Though, I must admit, this use of the word "bigot" has puzzled me lately since - like the word "nigger" - I've always coupled bigotry with ignorance. To me, a bigot is someone who talks out of his ass against shit he or she doesn't understand. But those throwing "bigot" around now - Mitt Romney supporters - have always known far less about him and Mormonism than I, which was confusing. At least, until I read this line from Hitchens:
I don’t think I would want to vote for a Scientologist or a Moonie for high office, or indeed any other kind, and I think attempts to silence criticism of such outfits are the real evidence of prejudice."
Actually, that's not exactly true. It was that line, plus a reply from an Althouse reader (on Hitchens calling Mormonism "One of the most egregious groups operating on American soil.") that did it. Here's the reply:
Considering that comes from the pen of Christopher "Mother Teresa was a sexually frustrated masochist who gloried in squalor and filth and fellated Third World dictators" Hitchens, I'll pass on what he thinks is egregious.
Got that? Hitchens' scholarship on Mother Theresa, and any other issue, was simply pushed aside in favor of what this person wants to "believe" - in other words, total NewAge thinking. Now things were falling into place:
The prejudiced "soft-centered types," who don't care about facts, are throwing around a tired accusation regarding things they know nothing about.
Should I be bothered about that? I don't think so. NewAge wouldn't exist without it. And - when it comes to me being the target of such attacks - there's really nothing "new" there. As I have said many times, stupidity is the currency of the culture right now, and the larger culture is definitely NewAge.
For instance, if you separate "bigotry" from ignorance, as my attackers seem to be doing, then being a bigot isn't such a bad thing. Here's the definition of "bigot":
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I can live with that. I'm openly a cult critic. Considering most people know little-to-nothing about the subject, I am almost forced to appear "obstinately or intolerantly devoted" to my own thoughts on the subject. I mean, what else am I going to do? Defer to those who are "so open-minded their brains fall out"? Can't happen.
Plus it puts me in good company. Archie Bunker used to be Exhibit 'A' for what I thought was a bigot, but nowadays, he's the poster child for far-reaching conservative thought:
What's not to like about that? Everybody loves Archie - even if they didn't at the time he was on TV. (According to Wikipedia, "In 2005, Archie Bunker was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, defeating runners-up such as Ralph Kramden, Lucy Ricardo, Arthur Fonzarelli, and Homer Simpson.") If anything, Archie's example reminds me people don't like to accept the truth, immediately, when it's presented - something I knew already.
There are a few other "bigots" saying the same things I am - after I say them - so I don't feel too alone. Michael Wolff of The Guardian (U.K.) recently did a column on Rupert Murdoch and Scientology that, over a week later, makes the exact same connections I did with Mitt and Mormonism. Of course, that's an anomaly, as most do it piecemeal, unable to put all the pieces together as I do. For instance, today, there was an article stating Brad Pitt was almost a Scientologist. Now, if you're a reader of this blog and have followed Pitt's adulterous "spiritual journey" as I have - through his fascination, say, with the cult leader Ken Wilber - is this really news? No - if you read this blog and understand NewAge, it not only fits perfectly with who Brad Pitt is, but it would be a surprise to discover he hadn't looked (or almost been sucked) into it. Brad Pitt, like most people, is NOT a critical thinker - he's "spiritual."
Which is why, politically, we are where we are. Like that Althouse commenter I mentioned, above, it's all about feelings and "beliefs" for most people, and things are coming apart because such garbage in/garbage out "thinking" has no bearing on reality - except to compel it to destroy anyone or anything that doesn't cooperate:
Along with NewAge culture, part of the problem, I think, is the fact there's a velvet rope around who gets to to be heard out there. This occurred to me a few days ago, as I was listening to NPR, and they had Mike Huckabee come on to talk politics. I thought, Mike Huckabee? Do we really need to hear more from him? Is "The Huck" going to bring any new insights to what we already know - or is he just going to peddle pablum as always? He peddled pablum,…and it's the same everywhere else I looked:
The same names, pumping the same nonsense, to the same audiences expecting the same thing.
BTW - I've been listening to NPR in the car for a change, but there is none. As I said, I found Mike Huckabee on Left-wing radio just as I do on Right-wing radio, and that's the problem - it's Mike Huckabee (or someone like him) all the time, everywhere, and no other views are allowed.
What we have here is conventional wisdom, and the latest line, amongst those "soft-centered types" is that this tame-but-deceptive political race is "getting ugly." But - since the conversation stays within the range of these regular guests - I don't buy what they're selling. If this was true, Hot Air couldn't write a sentence like this:
In a palette-cleanser for a slow newsday Sunday BuzzFeed takes us back 40 years to the fashion nightmare that was my youth.
Bad 70's fashion? Astrology pants? Thanks a lot for that (I don't know what Hot Air is anymore, now that they've brought The Ham onboard,…) But, more to the point, how can there be "a slow newsday Sunday" when it's supposedly gotten so damned ugly out there?
