False equivalency.

     In light of the events in Charlottesville, I need to say something. I'm sick of people equating the far Right with the far Left. Right-wing Facebookers, Tweeters, bloggers, and Trumpolini himself have done this.
     If you're mugged at knife-point, and you kick the hell out of the guy in the struggle, do the cops do nothing and say "Well, there was violence on both sides."?

     Anti-fascist violence has little to do with "punching people who disagree with you." It's about fighting back against violent people who disagree with other people's right to live safely and with dignity.
     The anti-fascist movement is a cause taken up by diverse Americans. Black, LGBT, and various religions are tired of being marginalized and vilified as "other". White people are tired of being lied to and told who to be afraid of, and told they can be the top dog in the kennel, by the kennel keepers who rely on divisive tactics to keep their scheme going.

     These fascist terrorist groups have been growing, rather metasticizing, in America because people have let them go untreated.
     At this point, America's disease has gotten so destructive and widespread that there is only one hope for treatment, anti-fascist retaliation.
     Yes, it's true that this radical treatment can be damaging and disruptive. But it's often needed as a last resort.

     The fascists have brought sticks, shields, ballbats, tear gas, guns, and cars. When counter-protesters fight back, it's often long-overdue. It's hard to admit, but sometimes talking back doesn't work and you have to get your hands dirty.

An open letter to Donald Trump.

Dear Mr. Trump,


     You don't know me, and I'm pretty sure you don't care. I'm just a struggling, poor, minority, so this won't even be a blip on your radar. However, these things I want to mention are things that need to be said. Maybe they already have; that's the thing about very truthful things - not just one person comes up with them. But, nonetheless, I want to take a moment to compile them and filter them through my point of view.
     Before I go further, I want to say that I wasn't a Hillary supporter. I supported Sanders in the primary, but those on the left did not get their "big change" candidate. Thus, I took my vote further left and voted third party; in Indiana, a state that mostly votes Republican, you have the luxury of a protest vote; and I wanted to say that Hillary had to have something more to offer than "not being Trump."

     You are not the president that America needs. America needs an executive commander in chief that will begin paving the way for social democracy, like just about every other developed nation has. Yes, there are problems in social democracies, but they don't come close to the problems of the corporate oligarchy that America has become. You, who looks at the job as president as being the CEO of the country, stand in complete opposition to what America needs.
     However, you are the president that America deserves. In the Information Age, we have the ability to spread word of mouth to every corner of the industrialized world; but we let garbage information and junk entertainment cloud the airwaves. People have lost the ability to critically think, and you definitely taken advantage of that.

     When I went to work the day after your election, I looked at my coworker and said "He did it. That son of a bitch did it." It took a few days to cobble together my senses after the stunning upset, but I did, and I pieced together what happened.
     Knowing that people have been angry, you took what America does best and put your business branding know-how into marketing the idea that you could lead a middle-class revolution. Catch-phrases and anti-intellectualism have taken hold, and you rode that wave to victory.
     One thing I still can't fathom is how you convinced your working-class followers that you speak for the common American; you're a man who was raised in wealth, a man who called his dad's million-dollar start-up a "small loan", a man who sold his namebrand steaks at an appliance store, a man who uses a gold bathroom in his palatial penthouse that bears his name, and a man who stamps his name on every business venture before crashing it.

     As I said before, America has latched onto catch-phrases. Whether it be "Ger 'r done," "Smoosh-smoosh," "That's hot...", or "Happy Happy Happy," people jump the bandwagon. "Make America Great Again" is no different.
     So, I have a catch-phrase for you. "This is why no one likes you, Donald." I often find myself Tweeting that to you whenever you do something embarrassing, or Tweet something deplorable, or say something that is out of sync with someone who could pass a 9th grade civics class.
     The big reason behind this catch-phrase is because you care so much about your popularity. For example, you lost the popular vote; no amount of obsessing over the non-existent voter fraud will make this untrue. You lost the popular vote because, of the already low voter turnout, only 46.1% voted for you. In addition, your approval rating fell below your disapproval rating faster than any other president.
     You can plug your ears and chant "La la la", you can call it "fake news" like fascist dictators throughout history have done, you can wall yourself in and surround yourself with yes-men who have a tenuous hold on your administration's facade, but these will strengthen my catch-phrase: No one likes you, Donald."
     But, on a personal level, what IS there to like? You're an uncouth bully at home. Abroad, you are every horrible American stereotype rolled into one, and cranked up high. You're a schoolyard rich kid bully who buys the few friends that he has.

     Ever hear of Godwin's Law? It's a neat Internet adage, so I'll briefly tell you what it is. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1" I admit that I did breathe the political "F-word": fascism. But, with all that you have done, I am not really setting myself up for ridicule for calling a duck a duck.
     Let's compare what you've done with 14 Points of Fascism, compiled by political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt.
1. "Powerful and continuing nationalism" - There's patriotism, then there's hate-riotism. The calls to make America first, and protecting only so-called American interests even abroad, cross that line.
2. "Disdain for the recognition of human rights" - Whether it's demolishing healthcare and welfare for the needy, or encouraging knuckle-draggers to beat people who speak out against you, you care little about human rights.
3. "Identifying enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause." - You've successfully marketed the idea that it's not corporatism that is the root of America's problems, it's Mexicans and Muslims.
4. "Supremacy of the Military" - Yes, the military industrial complex has lobbied the government for decades, but you've taken war-hawking to a new level; you've called for more nuclear weapons, and are chomping at the bit for war.
5. "Rampant sexism" - You've bragged about sexual assault, you've hit on your own daughter, you've lashed out against any woman who has even breathed a word in opposition to you. You're not a friend to women.
6. "Controlled mass media" - Your administration has all but refused to fairly engage with the press. Sequestered away, hiding behind your Twitter account, you've verbally attacked the press as liars and enemies of the American people.
7. "Obsession with national security" - From the wall to the Muslim ban, you want to push the idea that sweeping, empty gestures will keep people safe.
8. "Religion and Government are Intertwined" - You've embraced the Evangelical Right-Wing, and they have hypocritically embraced you. Your education secretary, Betsy DeVos, has said she wants to use public schools to advance "God's kingdom".
9. "Corporate power is protected" - You promise your followers that you would "drain the swamp". But you really appointed destructive corporate forces to lead critically important agencies. For example, your pick for head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has lead the fight to destroy... the EPA.
10. "Labor power is suppressed" - Like with the EPA, you've attempted to destroy an agency by planting an enemy within. This time, it was your pick for Labor Secretary, Andrew Pudzer, who is a long-time union critic who has been sued for labor violations.
11. "Disdain for intellectuals and the arts" - The campaign of anti-intellectualism has been ramped up with the appointment of DeVos, who has spent years trying to dismantle public education. You've been highly critical, and encouraged rabid criticism, to artists and performers who have expressed an opposing view.
12. "Obsession with crime and punishment" - In your desire to be the "Law and Order President," you've suggested going after terror suspects' families, which would violate Geneva Convention rules. But what do you care about international laws and rules? You don't even care about the good old American Constitution; this is especially true with the fact that you want to violate the 10th Amendment and send it federal law enforcement to combat violent crime in Chicago (which has actually been improving).
13. "Rampant cronyism and corruption" - Your appointments to federal agencies, the Russians, it's all there.
14. "Fraudulent elections" - Under the guise of "I really did win the popular vote", you are trying to subvert the electoral process again with voter fraud laws. I say "again" because you have already done that before.
     And it all started, again, with a nostalgic idea of "Making the country like it used to be."

     In conclusion, just step down, Mr. Trump. You've bitten off more than you can chew; everyone knows it. You can't stand that everyone is protesting and ridiculing you. This is why you're always up at 2 to 4 in the morning, ranting via Twitter. I'll just leave you with that; you're unfit, and we all know it.

Venting

     I've been seeing a lot of political posts circulating at the hands of conservatives that have been sorely misinformed by Fox News and right-wing commentators who pose as journalists. I need to vent about them.

     "Liberal policies would only serve to hurt small business and punish success."
     Progressives/Social democrats want to level the playing field; that is to say that the 1% need to pay their fair share, and they have no business buying the government that the people have elected.
     It's a lie that the 1% are small business owners. The 1% are the billionaire military, prison, and oil industrialists who bribe our elected officials. Those elected officials then campaign by spinning any idea for progressive reform as an attack on small business owners, then the media (bought by industrialists) trot out a few small business owners who have been convinced their lagging business is the fault of progressivism. Most small business owners aren't even millionaires, let alone members of the 1%.

     "Liberals want nothing but big government overreaching into business."
     Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but environmental laws, freeing the slaves, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, and sexual harassment laws are all examples of government interfering in business.
    Yeah, government really needs to keep their hands off of business. Because some people are just tired of being bitched at by tree-huggers, having to pay their conscripted "immigrant" workers, not being able to hire cheap 10 year old labor, being sued by fingerless employees, and not being able to enjoy a good coerced blowjob in the office.
     That was sarcasm, but the truth still stands, the people need representation to level the playing field.
     The Libertarian mindset of "We don't need government to tell us what to do" is borne out of privilege. This is why most Libertarians are members of ethnic or gender groups who have never needed government to ensure their right to vote, marry, or conduct business freely. Basically, if the government allowed itself to be more bought out by special interests who benefit from racism, and people started freely discriminating based on race or national origin, the average Libertarian wouldn't be affected.

Generations at war

     I read a question on Facebook regarding why baby Boomers regard Millennials as being lazy.
     The way I'm looking at it, from the point of view of Generation X, the Boomers had the establishment by the balls, and had leverage to affect great social change, but didn't.
     Instead, we watched as the past 35+ years saw the collapse of the economy, and our government slowly bought out by organized criminals, creating a corporate feudalism.
     Then, in turn, they bought the media and told the Millennials that it's perfectly fine to slave away at two or three jobs to keep your nose above water, while they entertained boys with gold plated macho dreams and preyed on girls' insecurities; with the media, they told Gen X that the corporate takeover was all in our heads, while slowly marginalizing the non-conformists and preying on the insecurities of the conformists; and they used their media to tell the Boomers it's all the fault of the Millennials, because the Boomers worked one or two jobs and were able to buy a house and car.
     What perpetuates the resentment regarding work ethic is, as I've said before, conservatives of the past three generations still believing the Cold War era lie that unbridled capitalism is the truly American way of doing things, and to think otherwise makes you less than a good citizen.
     Those who are protesting and making a big fuss are those who aren't fooled. We're the ones who see through to the corporate agenda that tries to get the generations to fight amongst each other.

What do celebrities know?

     Someone on Facebook posted a meme with a quote from Mark Walburg. It basically said that celevrities shouldn't talk politics because they live in a bubble and are out of touch with the common citizen. I saw a few things wrong with what he said, so I came up with a three-pronged attack to deconstructing this statement.

     First, there is a hypocrisy, which the Right is never short on.
     "What do celebrities know about life? Let's ask Mark Walburg." I'm smelling a whiff of bullshit here. When a celebrity talks about social justice, the Right dismisses it, citing they're "just a celebrity", then seek celebrity endorsements for their own views.
     In another example, Fox News often asks "Why are we paying attention to what celebrities think?" Then they turn around and ask for Hank Williams Jr.'s take on things. The bullshit is strong with this one.
     The Right always asks "What do celebrities know about life?" Then they turn around and elect as president of the only superpower a reality show star, who refers to his dad's million-dollar start-up as a "small loan", who married a mail-order bride, who shits in a golden toilet, who sold steaks at an appliance store, who's popped up in many movies, and who slaps his name on every one of his failed business ventures. The bullshit is so immense, it has its own gravitational pull; the day the electoral college confirmed him as president, we crossed the event horizon of bullshit; if it keeps getting worse, America will be crushed in the singularity of bullshit.

     So, why should we ask celebrities their opinion? Why not? From the standpoint of anthropology, celebrities serve a purpose.
     Their purpose traces back to a time in our species' tribal past. Celebrities are the modern tribe's storytellers and lorekeepers. They sing the songs that speak to the hearts of individuals and become the anthems of movements. They convey onstage mankind's greatest achievements and our worst tragedies. This has always been a vital purpose in the survival of the tribe.
     Why else should we listen to celebrities? They come from every place - from bustling metropolises to backwater towns. They each have a diverse story to share. They have life experiences that overlap and form a bond, but also diversity that creates a dynamic synergy. Hollywood, for all its silly flaws and sometimes shameful excesses, is a cultural force that is not just American, but human. The arts dare to speak truth to power, which tends to be a liberal thing.

     Who's really in a bubble? It's the plutocrats. Pure and simple. They created the military-industrial complex that makes the lives of troops expendable in the name of freedom, but really for oil. They created a prison-industrial complex that shuffles minorities from shitty schools to shitty modern slavery. They tell you you don't need civil representation in running the tribe, robbing us of our modern tribal elders, then turn around and install their own representatives.
     And in the end, most damning, there is nothing analogous in our tribal past that equals the modern plutocrat. They serve little purpose, but in fact threaten the tribe. They are an anomaly thriving in a bubble.

     All in all, what does the Right know, other than hypocrisy?