The Right-Wing Martyr Complex, Nutshelled

Above: Glenn Beck

The brave, doomed, Lightweight Brigade  of the rightwing media charges on in the face of Facebook’s despotic decision not to promote the paranoid yippering of Newsmax as, well, news. Don’t worry. Mark Zuckerberg, showing more of an ability to stomach nonsense than I would have thought possible, is meeting with conservative thought leaders, including Glenn Beck, according to Re/Code.

Facebook has since argued, over and over, that the suppression charge isn’t true — or, at least, that it doesn’t have any evidence that it’s true — but the story continues to have legs.

See for example, Beck’s post, which says that Facebook has “the same problem that many in media and Silicon Valley face: suppression of conservative voices and ideas…How does a company who allowed voices to be heard in Iran and Egypt which sparked revolution silence voices of anyone here?”

I don’t think anyone who has been on Facebook would argue that conservative voices are “silenced”- Donald Trump’s fetchservant would probably agree- but this is absolute manna to the right wing. It allows them to try to distract from the Trump fiasco by turning their popguns on the most vulnerable targets: the media. The hated, disgusting, shameful media which refuses to ever let conservatives be heard, except literally all the time. You watch: they’ll figure out a way to tie this into the Rise of Trump, a grand scheme of how Facebook purposely silenced true conservatives and promoted Trump so that a New York liberal could pave the way for Hillary. This is just another thread in the tapestry of their minds, where they all envision themselves a mini-Churchill, fighting bravely against Saracen hordes. It all makes sense to them.

Also, don’t think Glenn Beck isn’t serious about getting something done. “Beck says he hopes that Carly Fiorina, ‘business icon and a woman with a spine of steel,’ will be joining.” I’m sure Zuckerberg can learn a lot about how to run a successful tech business from her.

 

Political Quick Hits: Trump’s Butler, Facebook’s Journalism, and Mark J. Perrone on Paul Ryan

 

“I’ll remove my hand when Mr. Trump lets me!”

 

  1. I guarantee you right now there are people bemoaning the fact that Trump’s racist, unhinged sycophant of a butler is getting a call from the Secret Service for wishing President and Mrs. Obama to be hung for treason and saying he’d happily do it himself. Watch this turn into a rant about the 1st Amendment and Obama’s thuggish storm troopers, sent by (why not?) Eric Holder, who’s probably up to something nefarious, somewhere. The Secret Service, of course, has to do a perfunctory investigation of every threat to the President. That’s kind of their job, and it’ll probably entail a quick conversation wherein the establish that he’s simply a racist coward who spent an entire lifetime sucking up to other racist cowards, and move on. That won’t stop the complaining of course, but they have to do it. I’m sure at one point Leon Czolgosz was like “Oh, can’t a fellow even talk anymore? Don’t I have the right to express myself? When did this turn into Soviet Germany?” (Leon was pretty prescient).
  2. That said, I can’t imagine there will be too much wagon-circling around the Senecal (though “The Butler Said It” will be about 10,000 headlines). If you’re like me, you tread warily and reluctantly into comment sections on places like Newsmax or Breitbart or FOX. That, only more unhinged, are the sections of his Facebook page. When anyone says that the only racism is toward whites or that there isn’t something wild and loose and unchained in this country, point them to these. These are seriously unstable people, and they aren’t alone. For proof they aren’t, look at, say, the Republican Primary. (Warning: screenshot below from Mother Jones will probably make you sick and wail and gnash your teeth at the very thought that we live in the same country as people like this).
  3.                                    
  4. So yeah, it turns out that Facebook’s Newsfeed isn’t entirely algorithmic, and that human editors have some say. According to The Guardian, “Facebook relies heavily on just 10 news sources to determine whether a trending news story has editorial authority. “You should mark a topic as ‘National Story’ importance if it is among the 1-3 top stories of the day,” reads the trending review guidelines for the US. “We measure this by checking if it is leading at least 5 of the following 10 news websites: BBC News, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Yahoo News or Yahoo.” This of course has caused panic on the right, despite the presence of The Journal and Fox, because of reports that the editors would ignore stories from Breitbart or Newsmax. John Thune is screwing on his most handsomely concerned face to call for an investigation. Let’s ignore that Facebook is a private company. This is an important issue; millions get their news exclusively from Facebook, so what they decide is trending actually does matter. What Facebook does has an impact on our democracy. Which is why this is the best story ever about Facebook. I mean, come on: have you ever felt so positive about Facebook before? They actually use real news sources with fact-checkers and a sense of responsibility. Pushing stories from Newsmax, a place that Trump’s butler would think is “a little leftist”, would be wildly irresponsible. This is good citizenship by Facebook. This paints them in a much better light.  It’s not like you see Daily Kos or Shooting Irrelevance there either (although the latter would be fine). It’s a sign of modern conservativism that they see unholy bias in a publishing company not promoting the poorly-transcribed fever dreams from right-wing tidal swamps.
  5. A few days ago I ranted a bit about the Friends of the Parks in Chicago blocking the Lucas Museum, calling them “petty-tyrant pecksniffs”. However, and I’m honestly not quite sure how I missed this, I read that they are being represented in court by Thomas Geoghegan, a man whom I think is among the most honorable in the whole city, and who I admire greatly. This is a pickle, and it means that I failed as a blogger: reacting without doing enough research. I still think it is absurd, but I imagine the argument being that simply because a billionaire wants Rahm to jump doesn’t mean everyone has to say “how high”, which I respect, even if I think that ultimately the musuem is a GREAT idea. But Geoghegan vs. Rahm, man, it’s not even a question of which side you pick. Geoghegan vs. Father Pfleger? That’s much tighter. Their being on opposites sides of an issue is making my moral compass all loopy.
  6. Finally, Paul Ryan, and his vacant-eyed Hamlet vacillation on Donald Trump’s rough-palmed courtship.  I actually don’t envy Ryan his position at all, but he does deserve it. For an interpretation of the last few days, I’ll turn it over to friend of blog Mark J. Perrone, Private Eye. The title is “Thou Are Not False, But Thou Art Fickle”

 

“Maybe I won’t even go to the dance!”

 

Man, Paul Ryan is the Princess and the Fucking Pea.
 
I was watching MSNBC at the gym this morning, and his big “meeting” with Trump is today.  They’re covering it like these schmucks are dividing up postwar Europe. 
 
Reporter: “Trump arrived earlier to the building via car, a bold move.” 
 
Different Reporter: “We believe that Trump and Ryan are currently exchanging human words.” 
 
GOP Tool: “We think Paul Ryan will ultimately come to accept Trump as the nominee.  He just simply doesn’t know Trump, since his every utterance has only been covered ad nauseum for a year.”  
 
That Janesville Eddie Munster’s managed to turn this into Paul Ryan Mood Watch: “Oh Whatever Do I Feel?”  Paul Ryan 2020: LEADERSHIP!.

 

Identity Politics and The “Hunger for a Third Party”

 

Pictured: identity politics

 

The Atlantic has been writing a lot about whether their political coverage should include more about third parties, if that would be more fair and democratic. The initial reaction could be “of course not; that would be a waste of space. A 3rd-party has no chance.” The flip side is that of course they don’t have a chance, because no one writes about them. You can’t breathe without any oxygen.

Personally, I think The Atlantic, and other sources, should spend more time covering other political parties, but not because they have a chance. I think even with enough of a spotlight they wouldn’t be able to grow. Money and structure make it nearly impossible for our system to truly support a third party, and the latter reason isn’t necessarily negative. This is far from the first time in our history that people have looked to break up the duopoly, and even in times of turmoil- even when Whigs fall to the whayside- it coalesces again into two parties.

Still, though, there is the need to spend time focusing on what is happening on the outside, because it makes both parties more responsible (in theory, anyway) and allows for outsiders, like Bernie Sanders, to come in and shake things up. It might not matter electorally, but it matters in terms of policy, and it helps to showcase what people are thinking in this unruly nation.

Sometimes, that’s not very pretty.

Read more to find out what’s not very pretty! 

Continue reading

Burundi, Cockroaches, And The Terrible Power of Language

1394746040n3

Hassan Ngeze was a touch and hyper-verbal little criminal in Rwanda, one of those guys who is too smart for his station, but clinically unable to be anything but a criminal. It was his instinct. He insinuated himself with the clan surrounding Rwanda’s President Juvenal Habyarimana; or, more specifically, the cruel inner circle of the First Lady, Madame Agathe, the circle out of which Hutu Power spread. It’s a cliche to say that the Madame and her family were the real power, both political and intellectual, behind the throne, but it is nonetheless true.

This is the circle to which Ngeze was drawn, and his skills made themselves valuable. He was appointed as Editor-in-Chief of Kangura, a pro-government newspaper whose name roughly translates as “Wake Them Up!” It was there he really hit his stride. The most famous publication under him was the “Hutu 10 Commandments“. This list jumped around between assaults on Tutsi women (the main target), bureaucratic racism against Tutsis, buried in the middle, #8: “Hutus must cease having pity for the Tutsi.”

It worked. Kangura, along with Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines, helped create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia and violence that helped spur murderous insanity of the genocide. Ngeze stepped up his role during the killing, passing out names of targets, but in a way those were his secondary crimes. Ngeze, along with RTLMC’s Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, were put on trial for inciting genocide, and convicted for their role. These were the first propagandists to be convicted of war crimes since Julius Streicher, the violently anti-Semitic publisher of Der Sturmerthe clear antecedent to Kangura. 

Read more for Burundi and America…

Continue reading

2016, Non-Political Nutshell

Re/Code has a interesting short interview with a professional “influencer”, someone who has mastered new media and has brands and companies clamoring for her to talk about them. There’s no snark here- these people work hard, understand the way the world works, and have created their own niche. Any curmudgeonliness that seeps through is due only to my inability to do any of those three. It’s just interesting how what even 10 years ago would have seemed like gibberish is now increasingly important.

Re/code: Hi, Taryn! Tell me what it is you do, exactly.

Taryn Southern: I’m a content creator, digital strategist and “internetainerpreneur.”[Ed. note: This is what it says on her business card.]

So what does that mean?

I create video content from development to execution to marketing. I do it for my personal channel, for media companies and brands.

Last Chance: CNN And The Trump Debate Decision

By and large, I agree with Slate’s Jim Newell about Donald Trump’s decision to skip the debate. I don’t actually see it impacting the polls too much. People who have decided “Yeah, I really think that Donald Trump should be the President of the United States” have different ideas about qualifications than you and I, and sticking it that stuck-up blond will, at worst, do little to shake their resolve. The only question is if this vocal and poll-driven support translates into action, to votes and to caucusing. So if he ends up winning Iowa this will look like a masterstroke of political will, and if he loses he’ll look like a dope, but they will be ex-post facto narratives.

empty-debate-podiums

To me, the important thing is that Trump invited the other networks to stream his “counter-programming”, a nauseatingly insincere “fundraiser for wounded veterans”, which attempts to give a patina of respectability to his petulance. It seems likely that his act can get higher ratings than the debate, if just because people will want to see how much he attacks Fox and Megyn Kelley, because people are attracted to his style(which is bizarre: his shtick sounds exactly like a peculiarly dimwitted third grader who just learned how to swear).

It’s CNN, and MSNBC, and any of the business spinoffs, that interest me, if they decide to show it. Let’s stipulate a few things.

  1. No one really thinks of CNN as journalism anymore. They do some good work, and their reach is impressive, especially during breaking news, but it is buried under speculative and sensationalistic fluff.
  2. The Republican debates have been seal-barking absurdities, completely disconnected from reality, and highlighted by the two young Hispanic hopes arguing about how the other one doesn’t hate Mexicans enough.
  3. Tonight’s debate won’t change that.

And yet, it seems to me to be important that nobody cover Trump’s event. In doing so, the networks will abdicate any pretense they have about politics being something that matters, something that impacts people’s lives. As bad as the debates are, they are necessary for people to get a glimpse at the candidates, how they are when taken off guard, their personalities, their strengths, and especially their weaknesses. Debates are usually scripted and easily veer into sideshow, but are still an important part of the process.

To say that “Trump is rewriting the rules!” is true, but it is impossible to argue for the better. Sending cameras to this self-serving egoshow only further undermines the disconnect between POLITICS! as a show and the real politics that can make lives better or worse for the hundreds of millions who aren’t on TV and in the club. It is saying that the only thing which matters is the spectacle, the human torso imping his knife-mouthed way across the screen.

Ratings are important, and advertising dollars keep the lights on. Sticking it to Fox would be fun for CNN and MSNBC, and it is always fun to see Fox get swallowed by the beast it created. At some point though, a decision has to be made on whether the commitment to democracy means something, and as over-the-top as this sounds, gleefully ignoring even the most surface-level demonstration of the electoral process so that a megalomaniacal billionaire can do his witless routine demonstrates that commitment means nothing.

David Brooks Still Refuses To Get It

So, reading David Brooks when he is critical of the GOP is sometimes like watching a movie trailer for a bad comedy. You’re nodding along, laughing, things are going great, the narrator is saying something like “They were a perfect match, and had planned the perfect life, until…” and you hear the cheesy record scratch. Then there is, I don’t know, some kind of obnoxious kid or mean aunt or something. Maybe a really big rambunctions dog who raps. It’s not important. The important thing is that you are suddenly reminded that what you were vaguely enjoying is actually terrible.

That can sum up Brooks’s latest column about what an unbearable load Ted Cruz is. He starts with a story I had never heard, about how Cruz went to the Supreme Court to try to keep someone in jail for 16 years for stealing a calculator (he should have gotten a max of two, apparently)*. It is a perfect illustration of his unbending brutality and lack of anything relatable to human compassion. There’s even a few really good lines, like when he speaks of Cruz’s always-apocolyptic rhetoric, saying “As is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everythings is described as a maximalist existential threat.”

Continue reading

The supernatural uselessness of Maureen Dowd

Lord love a duck- this one’s a doozy.   If you want to know the utter inanity of not just Maureen Dowd, cinnamon-haired High Priestess of Pablum, but the whole horse-racing, context-eschewing, inside-baseball Beltway media, this column could serve as something of an Ur-text.

WASHINGTON — NOT only is President Obama leading from behind, now he’s leading from behind Bill Clinton.

Leading from behind is a clever phrase and an interesting leadership strategy- subtly pushing other people to accomplish what you would like to happen- but it sounds pusillanimous and makes funny ledes, so fuck it.

After dithering for two years over what to do about the slaughter in Syria, the president was finally shoved into action by the past and perhaps future occupant of his bedroom.

Not office, of course.  This is a MoDo column, so a boring piece of psuedo-titillation that is sure to elicit aghast chuckles from cocktail-swilling doyens is a must.  Bedroom.  That’s where sex happens!  I was literally stunned she didn’t shoehorn a timely and relevant Lewinsky joke in this paragraph.  (“Bill may have had a cigar or two, but our vacillating President has to let Michelle tell him if he can have his mentholated Virginia Slims.”)

Clinton told John McCain during a private Q. and A. on Tuesday in New York that Obama should be more forceful on Syria and should not rationalize with opinion polls that reflect Americans’ reluctance to tangle in foreign crises. McCain has been banging the gong on a no-fly zone in Syria for some time.

Yeah, just banging about.  So hell, we should listen to him.  When has McCain steered us wrong in the Middle East?

The oddity of Obama’s being taken to the leadership woodshed by the Democrat who preceded him and the Republican who failed to pre-empt him was not lost on anyone. When Obama appointed Clinton “the Secretary of ’Splaining Stuff,” he didn’t think Bill would be ’splaining how lame Barry was.

Lame!  Not rushing into a complicated and brutal civil war in riven with historical and sectarian entanglements.   Ugh.  Just so lame.  Come on, Barry.   But anyway, this is just the lead-in.  I’m sure she’s going to talk to some experts about the Alawite power-structure or something.

As Maggie Haberman reported in Politico, Clinton said at the McCain Institute for International Leadership that the public elects presidents and lawmakers to “look around the corner and see down the road” and “to win,” not to follow polls.

Or she’ll quote Politico. 

When the man who polled where to take his summer vacation and whether to tell the truth about his affair with Monica Lewinsky tells you you’re a captive of polls, you’d better listen up.

Because…he has credibility on the subject?

Citing his own experiences in Kosovo and Bosnia, Clinton said that if you blamed a poll for a lack of action, “you’d look like a total wuss.” He added that “when people are telling you ‘no’ in these situations, very often what they’re doing is flashing a giant yellow light” of caution.

Not “looking like a total wuss” is not a reason to go to war.  Although, as history shows, it is often the main reason.  So let’s say not a “good reason”.  But that is the whole kit and caboodle, as I’ll talk about at the end.

According to Haberman, Clinton, who apologized for failing to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, continued: “If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity, the one thing you cannot say when all the eggs have been broken is that ‘Oh my God, two years ago there was a poll that said 80 percent of you were against it.’ Right? You’d look like a total fool. So you really have to in the end trust the American people, tell them what you’re doing, and hope to God you can sell it.”

Bosnia and Rwanda were probably my formative international politics experiences.   I was always into foreign affairs, but had the feeling that brutality and this kind of slaughter happened only in black-and-white.  So it was shattering, and I never forgave Clinton for his delayed action in Bosnia or his negative actions in Rwanda.  But now, after Iraq, after Afghanistan, I really don’t know what I would tell my teenage self.   But even if my teenage self was right, and I still think he maybe was, not acting in one scenario isn’t a reason to act in another.   It is that kind of blanket, ahistoric, and lazy analysis that leads to disaster.

That is the problem for Obama: selling it. The silver-tongued campaigner has turned out to be a leaden salesman in the Oval Office. On issues from drones to gun control to taxes to Syria, the president likes to cite public opinion polls to justify his action or inaction. He seems incapable of getting in front of issues and shaping public and Congressional opinion with a strong selling job.

Yeah, how come he can’t shape the opinion of a Congress dedicated to destroying him?  Louie Gohmert and Paul Broun are prominent voices in Congress.   There was maybe more the President could have done with public opinion, but there is no electoral loss for the huge majority of the GOP to obstruct everything (most Dems are also in safe seats, but that isn’t germane to Dowd’s point).

After the whistle was blown on the National Security Agency’s No Call Left Behind program, the president said he would welcome an ex post facto debate. But now that polls indicate that the overwhelming American attitude is “Spy on me,” Obama has dropped the subject.

Too bad. We’ll see what Americans have to say when someone in the mold of Dick Cheney or Bob Haldeman gets his hands on all that personal data; the West Wing has been known to drive its occupants nuts.

I do agree with this.   Point, Maureen Dowd!

On Syria, the administration now says it will begin supplying rebels with small arms and ammunition, a gesture that friends and foes alike say is too little, too late. The Times’s Peter Baker reported on Saturday that Obama himself said it wouldn’t change anything but would maybe buy time.

Time not to rush into anything.  I can’t speak for certain on the merits of the plan, and can’t speak at all for what should be done in Syria, if anything.  I don’t envy the decision-makers.   But time isn’t a terrible thing, either.

And as the White House announced this pittance of a policy on Thursday evening, the president was nowhere to be seen. He let his deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, be the face of the Syria plan, while he spent time at an LGBT Pride Month celebration, a Father’s Day luncheon and a reception for the W.N.B.A. championship Indiana Fever basketball team.

There’s a lot to unpack here.  One constant annoyance is that people will always criticize the President for the ceremonial things that are an inescapable part of the office.  “Oh, why is George Bush meeting with the Yankees when there was an earthquake in Peru?”   The President wears a lot of hats, and is constantly on the move.  One trait all President’s share is compartmentalization.  I guarantee that as Syria discussions were happening he wasn’t rushing it along to meet the Fever.  “Hurry up,” is something I promise you he never said, “I have a Fever to catch!”

On “Morning Joe” on Friday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter national security adviser, dismissed the president’s response to Syria as “propaganda,” noting the ambiguous nature of the red line that President Assad had crossed, killing 150 people with chemical weapons after nearly 93,000 had died in the civil war.

I don’t know the context of “propaganda”, because I didn’t watch “Morning Joe”, because I honestly would rather die, but actually doing something, even something small, is the opposite of “propaganda”.  I do think the broader point about why people dying from chemical warfare is somehow worse than being lined up in a dingy cell and being shot in the head, or bombed from above, or being tortured by sadistic thugs in pay of an actively cruel government, is an interesting one.    That sure would make an interesting column.  I’m sure that’s going to start soon, right?   Or will it just be Brezezinski frowning on the face of the announcement.

“It all seems to me rather sporadic, chaotic, unstructured, undirected,” he said. “I think we need a serious policy review with the top people involved, not just an announcement by the deputy head o, f the N.S.C.”

I don’t work in Washington, nor am I a governmentician, but I am pretty sure that these things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Especially, he added, since Syria could slide into a larger regional war that would pit America against Syria’s ally, Iran, with a huge effect on the international economy and America’s budget.

I mean, I bet they’ve talked about this.   But this is a Maureen Dowd specialty here.  If you notice, she’s kind of using Brezezinksi to say that any of this action is rash and could lead us into war with Iran, something that is possibly true, but is the exact opposite of “not going to war is totz lame!”   And it isn’t presented as an “on the other hand” scenario either.   It imagines a seamless whole.   It is actually kind of an amazing gift.

While the president was avoiding talking about what he hadn’t wanted to do in the first place, the former president was ubiquitous and uxorious, chatting about Syria and myriad other issues on MSNBC and Bloomberg TV; smiling on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek and offering his solutions for corporate America’s problems; presiding at his global initiative in Chicago; and promoting the woman he hopes will be the next president.

Maureen Dowd watches a lot of tv.

On Friday, a self-satisfied Clinton told the “Morning Joe” hosts about Syria, “It looks to me like this thing is trending in the right direction now.”

The less Obama leads, the more likely it is that history will see him as a pallid interregnum between two chaotic Clinton eras.

And here we go- this is the big one right here, Maureen in a nutshell.   She’s a columnist, so “chaotic” eras are a good thing.  Not getting involved in Syria is soooooo boring.   I can get one, maybe two columns about his lack of masculinity out of that.  Where’s the invented martial psychodrama I can mine for a column every other week?   Where are the opportunities for  hacky sex jokes?   Things like issues and facts and complexities and policy are really lame compared to straining 700 words about Oedipal issues through a well-used martini shaker.

Nature abhors a vacuum. And so does Bill Clinton.

We’ll see how it feels about American involvement in a third regional war.  I swear to mike, as long as I live I’ll never believe that the New York Times prints this garbage.

The point I was making earlier is that way, way too often “not looking like a wuss” is a bad reason to get involved in something potentially disastrous.  First of all, “don’t be a wuss” is never a sentiment used to prod something into doing something good or smart.  No one has ever said, “come on, wuss, make sure you donate a sizable portion of your tax-return to a well-vetted charity of your choice, and invest the rest in low-risk, steady-reward bonds.  Pansy.”   It’s always “if you don’t jump over Jagged Rock Gorge, you’ll never sleep with Suzy Cheerleader.”    So you know when someone offers that prod they aren’t giving you sage counsel.

The media drives things. It shapes and molds conventional wisdom.  In theory, that is a good thing.  I blog and have published because I like the idea of being part of the conversation and maybe having an impact.  I think being in the media, or opinion-writing of any kind, can be a noble calling, a high form of citizenship.   Otherwise, all decisions are made behind closed-doors without any input from the jumbled masses.   The problem is that the Mo Dowds and Politicos of the world have decided that any action is better than no action, because that doesn’t drive a narrative or open up arguments for years.   So they’ll shape it and try to pressure politicians into making something, anything happen.  And that’s our political culture right there.   The only way to do things is the Max Power way.