Dear Bob,

We come to you today as friends, as family, and as people who love you. We’ve come together to face up to our own fears that we’ve let a situation go on for far too long, a situation that’s hurting you and hurting us. It’s something we can’t allow to go on for one more day because you can’t allow it to go on for one more day. We can’t stand idly by and watch you destroy yourself any longer. So as we finally admit it to ourselves, it’s time for you to admit it, too. You have to, if you’re ever going to go on to live a productive life free from the scourge that’s captured your soul and is eating you alive from the inside out.

You’re an addict, Bob.

There, I said it. I said what needed to be said.

You’re an addict, and your drug of choice, the one that’s taken you down a path that can only lead to ruin, is arguing with Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota.

I thought maybe you were getting better, that maybe you were beginning to understand that trying to reason with two people who are thoroughly unreasonable was the equivalent of hitting yourself repeatedly in the head with a phone book. Or maybe watching the last fifteen minutes of Requiem for a Dream on endless repeat. I figured that what with the newly minted outlook we saw from you last week — with the commendable but incredibly naïve desire to try to speak in sensible, nuanced terms to two men who make a tidy living for themselves being petulant, intransigent ideologues suddenly replaced by the fiery “fuck those guys” that comes with a necessary acquiescence to reality — you were getting better. But alas, I came home from work last night, logged onto my computer, and there you were, launching tweet after tweet in the direction of both of them — taking on Greenwald and Sirota at the same time in a futile suicide run — and I realized that you were completely lost.

It’s okay, Bob. It’s not your fault. It’s your disease. The disease of being a rational human being and expecting that everyone else is as well. Or if not, that the irrational can always be swayed by good arguments and bulletproof facts.

And so, that’s why we’re all here today. Again, because we love you and we want to see you healthy and leading a productive life rather than psychically waterboarding yourself over and over again, thinking that you’re making a difference. You’re never going to convince Greenwald and his submissive bottom to see reason. I know you think you made progress last night because they conceded that stripping Barack Obama of the powers granted to him by the AUMF was a good idea, but trust me — that’s just the disease talking again. They’re never going to give in. The careers they’ve spun out of their own self-righteousness are simply too lucrative, the adulation from their mindless acolytes too intoxicating.

You have to get help. And if you don’t, we can no longer enable your delusion, no matter how good your overall intentions may be. You may not love yourself enough to do what’s best for you, but we do. So, please, make the decision here and now that you’re going to take a stand, confront your demons, and move forward with your life a happier, healthier person. As the Serenity Prayer says, you have to learn to accept the things you cannot change — and there isn’t a chance in hell you’re ever going to change the minds of a couple of assholes like Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota.

Besides, if you at long last make the decision you need to make here for your own sanity, I promise to get help for my need to post silly meta-columns when I’ve temporarily run out of real subjects to write about.

Love and Cookies,

Chez

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

This has been alluded to a couple of times here over the past two days, mostly by the always thoughtful and analytical Bob Cesca, but as usual I’ll be the one to dispense with all the pleasantries and just come right out and say it: Fuck Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota. Fuck them because their opinions don’t deserve to be taken the least bit seriously. Their supposedly bottomless reservoir of intellectual honesty is really puddle-deep and, in fact, they’re nothing more than what their fiercest critics have always accused them of being: sanctimonious jokes who pretend to be dedicated, indignant fighters of all manner of civil liberties injustices when in reality they’ve bequeathed to themselves wide latitude to choose which sins to prosecute and which to forgive or overlook completely. They don’t care about all affronts by authority to your civil rights. They only care about the select few they’ve chosen to plant their flag in and dig deep on and if their slavish devotion to those signature issues happens to force them into a position of defending a set of civil rights offenses they care less about but which are in the grand scheme no less awful, then so be it.

By now you’re probably aware of David Sirota’s full-throated support of Rand Paul’s supposedly principled stand against the confirmation of CIA chief nominee John Brennan. (I say supposedly principled because in reality what Paul did was little more than a giant helping of PR stagecraft, one aimed at both improving his Q-Score ahead of 2016 and grabbing onto an Obama “scandal” that might actually have legs for a change.) It came a few days ago in a Salon piece called “Liberals Should Proudly Cheer on Rand Paul,” in which Sirota jumped on board the “Stand with Rand” bandwagon, calling Paul’s filibuster of Brennan “heroic” and decrying progressives’ pointing out Paul’s history of near-unparalleled paleoconservatism and disregard for civil rights protections as an “insidious” example of unforgiving partisan politics. Sirota, of course, being an enlightened being who cares about the issues rather than the people espousing them and who’s immune to such philistine notions as partisanship — he’s his own man, dammit — is willing to set aside the fact that, when not giving lip service to the drone issue, Paul is regularly speaking out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sponsoring “personhood” amendments that would end abortion across the board, and equating his very rich self to a “slave” in the face of Obamacare (what Lawrence O’Donnell called the statement most “unhinged from reality and decency” ever uttered in the Senate).

But, you know, Rand Paul doesn’t like drones — so who gives a damn about all that other unpleasant stuff. Why let it intrude on the comfort of your very specific outrage?

If Sirota was merely jumping on the bandwagon, though, Glenn Greenwald, as you might expect, was towing it behind his 18-wheeler Prius. I’m not going to run down the various ways Greenwald has spun himself into apoplectic circles over the tendency of anyone with a brain and an appreciation of recent history to openly mock Rand Paul’s Senate floor stunt and to attempt to add context and nuance to the drone debate; Cesca’s done a mighty fine job of that over the past couple of days. I have no idea how he does it, to be honest, since I consider any attempt to penetrate Greenwald’s force-field of pious intransigence an act akin to hitting yourself repeatedly in the head with a phone book, but I applaud Cesca’s apparently involuntary need to try to reason with the unreasonable. He may not exactly be the mental patient whisperer, but he damn sure tries and that’s to be commended, I suppose. Suffice it to say, Greenwald isn’t attacking Rand Paul for basically being a racist and misogynist whose entire shtick involves pandering to the paranoiacs of the prepper crowd; he’s attacking those who dare to attack Paul, and all because he happens to agree with Paul on one single issue. But in Greenwald’s world, it’s the most important issue in the universe. The only issue. The one he’s been relentlessly, obsessively fixated on for months and months at the exclusion of all other considerations.

And that’s the thing I can’t get my head around, the thing that should give you all the permission you need to, if you haven’t already, completely disregard everything that comes out of the mouths of these two narcissistic idiots.

It comes down to this: Why is it so easy for guys like Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota to give a pass to Rand Paul’s stance on every other issue besides his phony outrage over the Obama administration’s use of drones, while never giving Obama himself an ounce of credit for any of his myriad progressive stances, instead holding him up as some kind of tyrant because of the one issue they seem to think is above all others? The easy answer, of course, is that Greenwald and Sirota have made very nice careers for themselves out of being the exhausting, screeching opposition to power, whatever that power may happen to be and no president will ever be given the benefit of the doubt, no matter what he or she has done that they should logically support. So they’re careerists, fine. The problem is that they’re careerists who wrap themselves in the flag of ultimate, dispassionate intellectual honesty — and that’s a bunch of crap. They’ve picked their battle and will now fight it to the death, regardless of whatever new information comes to light, what nuance is offered, or what self-contradictions it should by all accounts force them to face up to. They’re Greenwald and Sirota and they hate drones. GRRRR! “Dial 1-800-555-DRONES, and leave the ‘ES’ off for Endless Sanctimony!” I’m violating my own policy of not giving a damn about these two and those like them by writing about them. That’s how well their anti-Obama career track has paid off: people who genuinely don’t think they’re worth mentioning are mentioning them anyway.

Thankfully, Sirota, who in keeping with personal tradition I have to mention wrote an entire book blaming our current political climate on Ghostbusters and Die Hard, just got his ass handed to him by the person whose original piece his painfully dumb Salon column was pegged off of: Adele Stan. She destroys him in a response piece that not only highlights his hypocrisy and mindless allegiance to one pet issue, it also manages to get a retraction out of Salon. Greenwald, meanwhile, is facing the usual backlash for his special brand of condescending nihilism, but it goes without saying that any criticism fired at him will merely bounce off the adamantium hull of his monumental ego. Still, it’s important, if not exactly fun, to be reminded why the opinions of guys like Sirota and Greenwald just don’t matter.

I guess that’s one thing we can all be thankful for: they never let us forget how thoroughly ridiculous they are.

Glenn Greenwald Honorary, Not Entirely Necessary Update, 3-13-13: Needless to say, Sirota is less-than-pleased with my characterization of him. In fact, this little diatribe of mine started an entertaining “discussion” on Twitter last night between him and MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor. Feel free to read about it here.

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

I really do try to avoid writing about the far-right wing of the far-right wing of the Republican Party. First, there are simply too many names and too many ignorant maniacs saying way too many ignorantly maniacal things that it’s nearly impossible to keep up. And many of them are just careerist trolls and former morning zoo deejays, jacking up their ratings/sales figures by popping off with anything and everything that will successfully keep their names in the news. Ann Coulter, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller and rest of the usual suspects. These are the sorts of people who don’t deserve our attention because they’re not serious players.

That said, it’s not a bad idea to occasionally gut check them anyway, just to let them know that they can’t always get away with their poisonous disinformation and agitprop gibberish.

Ted Nugent is one of the far-right dingdongs who I occasionally revisit for this purpose. Not only is he an extremist conservative thug, but he’s also one of those guys. We’ve all bumped into them in our day-to-day lives. He’s of a familiar male personality type who fancies himself the ultimate badass — a legend in his own mind, a narcissistic stuffed-shirt, a contrarian dickbag. They believe they’re the only guys who have it all figured out. They have an acronym, zinger or a maxim for everything. They always know the best way to do everything, and they’re not ashamed to condescend to anyone within earshot, especially when their company is actually more savvy and accomplished than they are. Yeah, I don’t mind saying I viscerally hate these guys.

Plus, of course, Nugent is a gun fetishist. His deeply psychotic relationship with firearms goes beyond the casual weekend hunter and resides somewhere in the realm of metallic penis-extensions, and the subsequent masturbation of said metallic penis-extensions.

Just over a week ago, Kansas City Chiefs football player Jovan Belcher murdered his pregnant girlfriend then committed suicide. Another horrific event that once again, and rightfully so, circled the American discourse back to the issue of gun control. Last Sunday, Bob Costas weighed in with a decidedly anti-gun commentary — a few tasteful remarks that subsequently and predictably incited far-right conservative histrionics, including from Ted Nugent who tweeted this in response to Bob Costas:

“Blaming guns for crime is like blaming helmuts for headbutts.”

Personally, I always blame “helmuts” for headbutts. Especially former German chancellor Helmut Kohl — always with the goddamned headbutts. Seriously, no one’s blaming the guns alone, but we’re definitely blaming the alarmingly convenient availability of guns, the prevalence of unnecessarily powerful guns and the existence of military-sized clips for the rate of gun casualties. While, yes, guns require an operator to fire them, there’s one purpose for guns, and one purpose alone. On that note, Nugent also tweeted:

“Hey Bob Costas we all kno that obesity is a direct result of the proliferation of spoons & forks Get a clue.”

I’ve heard variations of this fallacy all over the internet, which is one of the reasons why I’ve decided to hit Nugent for it. Of course there’s a massive distinction between forks and helmets and guns! Guns are specifically and solely designed to kill and injure people, not to mention animals. Even when used for self-defense, the gun’s role in the event is to inflict harm upon someone else. All weapons are designed for this purpose. A thermonuclear ICBM all the way down to a crossbow is manufactured for the expressed purpose of wounding and death.

Forks, uh-doy, are designed as a tool for consuming life-preserving food — obesity is incidental and more of a symptom of fatty, unhealthy foods, which, by the way, are also regulated by the government. Likewise, helmets are designed to protect our brains from traumatic injury — and not for inflicting headbutts. Each of these otherwise innocuous items could be used to injure someone but that’s not the intrinsic purpose. Guns are intrinsically deadly, and so in American political spheres we’re heavily engaged in a debate over which guns ought to be legal and which citizens ought to be allowed to buy them. Naturally. Because they’re designed to kill — and to kill with more efficiency, precision and ease-of-use than a knife or a club.

Ultimately, this is beside the point. Nugent and the usual NRA cabal will never lose their right to own firearms. It’ll never happen. But they all behave as if any insult or blame levied against a firearm is a personal attack worthy of a screeching rebuke — as if Bob Costas was aiming to set off a chain reaction that would repeal the Second Amendment and muster an army of Obamabots to seize every device that ejaculates bullets.

Obviously there needs to be tighter regulations to make sure recidivist criminals and mentally ill people can’t attain firearms, and there needs to be ongoing vigilance to make sure increasingly powerful weaponry isn’t easily available. But guns will always be an item for purchase — but with regulations that evolve with the times. Come to think of it, the words “well regulated” happen to be two of the first three words in the Second Amendment (say nothing of the fact that the Second Amendment was written expressly for military purposes). Nugent and the gun movement is just as confused about the Second Amendment as they are about their specious metaphors. But they’re loud and obnoxious enough to successfully shout down anyone who dares to bring up the notion of firearm regulations. And that’s how they stay in the game.

“Helmuts.” Idiot.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Glenn Greenwald: Always right. At least in his mind

By Ben Cohen: I’ve received quite a few emails and comments about my piece on Glenn Greenwald’s rant on the progressive media last week. Some readers took exception to my position that Greenwald’s rhetoric is unhelpful and counter productive, claiming my attack on him was pointless and without substance. The most concise criticism came reader Steve Rice who wrote:

The progressive blogosphere is already bursting at the seams with people who do nothing but rant about Republicans all day. Greenwald has different priorities. Yes, his focus is somewhat narrow, but that’s always been the case. If you read him, you know what you’re getting into. Given that, I fail to see the point of this article, aside from getting easy page-views from the anti-Greenwald brigade. It’s the same vague pseudo-criticism you’ve leveled at him before and you admit yourself that it has little to do with the substance of his work. So why write about Glenn Greenwald?

I’m unsure how my piece on Monday consists of ‘vague pseudo-criticism’ given I was quite explicit about what I was attacking Greenwald on. As the reader says, I don’t have a problem with the substance of Greenwald’s work, I have a problem with the tone of it and his relentless attacks on other media outlets and writers who do not follow Greenwald’s specific editorial agenda. Perhaps Bob Cesca does a better job of what I was trying to articulate. He wrote about Greenwald’s attack on MSNBC and other progressive outlets:

This new Greenwald rant is a continuation of his ongoing crusade to badger progressives who don’t make it part of their daily routine to screech at the president regarding Greenwald’s preordained three or four pet issues. Greenwald operates under the mandate that because drones are his primary concern and the prism through which he evaluates the president, so it should be with everyone else. The slightest deviation from that narrative in lieu of delivering news of a presidential success is a punishment-worthy trespass.

Greenwald has a long and storied history of extreme pettiness when it comes to dealing with other progressives, going as far as claiming Obama supporters would stand by him if he raped a nun on live television. When a blogger named “DrDawg” tweeted about Imani Gandy: “Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing,” Greenwald felt the need to add: “No – she’d say it was justified and noble – that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.” (pic of the exchange below):

Greenwald was probably being sarcastic (and trying to be funny), but the exchange was spiteful and unnecessary – particularly given it was directed towards a woman. Rape isn’t exactly a topic you make jokes about. And instead of apologize when lambasted by much of the blogosphere, Greenwald tweeted that Obama supporters would defend him in the face of “ANY evil: assassinations, child-killings: EVEN rape violent crime like rape.” Of course in Greenwald’s world, he can never be wrong, so an apology was completely out of the question.

This type of rhetoric is extremely counterproductive for a number of reasons. Firstly, you can be a supporter of any political figure, Republican or Democrat, without explicitly endorsing everything they do. I have many Republican friends who voted for both George Bush and Mitt Romney and I would never level that type of hostility towards them. Yes, I think Bush and Romney are backwards thinking dinosaurs who have spent their entire careers lining the pockets of the wealthy and cheer leading wars in the Middle East, but I don’t hold my friends accountable for their actions. Going after political leaders is one thing, but relentlessly attacking their supporters is something completely different. You can have a civilized debate with those who disagree with you without insinuating they support rape and child murder.

Secondly, Greenwald’s vindictiveness and tone detracts from the often excellent points he makes. I wrote about this in my article on Monday, but it’s worth repeating: Greenwald is a very good journalist and he does important work. He’s just limiting himself by behaving like a smug spelling bee champion.

I wrote a story on Greenwald’s excessive smugness and pettiness a few months back on these pages, and I’m guessing as a result, I have been blocked from following Glenn on Twitter (and I’m sure if he reads this, he’ll respond with something even smugger like “I don’t know who Ben Cohen is….”). My twitter account is open for anyone to follow, and as long as they are not abusive towards me, I don’t mind debating them. Greenwald apparently sees the twittersphere as a playground where he gets to pick on people he doesn’t like and block those who politely disagree with him.

Going after Glenn Greenwald isn’t an ‘easy-page views’ endeavor either. As the reader rightly points out, ranting about Republicans is quite the rage these days and people do tend to tune into scathing pieces about the latest Republican insanity more than debates between left wing political commentators. I’m going after Greenwald because he’s behaving like a spoiled child and should stop hurling bombs at people who don’t believe he is the be all and end all of progressive politics.

And just to show you this is nothing personal, I’m going to end this piece with a link to Greenwald’s excellent piece on massive US and Israeli hypocrisy in the Middle East. It’s well worth a read, regardless of what you might think of him.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

By Chez Pazienza:

Some of the most entertaining columns written for this site, I think, come from the times when Bob Cesca and I decide to get into a back-and-forth over subjects we’re passionate about. While we both write here and host a podcast together, we obviously don’t agree on everything nor should we; what the hell fun would that be? A couple of weeks back, Bob posted a piece that suggested that progressives need to stop demonizing people of faith and criticizing religion in general as being, essentially, a crutch for those not as evolved as, I guess, the liberal intelligentsia (who are generally insufferable anyway). From a purely PR perspective, he’s absolutely right. I’m always one for acknowledging political reality, and it clearly dictates that contemptuously mocking someone’s beliefs from on-high is the wrong way to win that person over to your cause. Bob’s right on the money about this.

Then today he wrote a really nice little piece about everyone’s favorite smug-prick-of-God Rick Warren — pastor of California’s Saddleback Mega-Church and cultivator, along with Chuck Todd, of the majestically sentient ginger goatee — and his ongoing crusade to become America’s most seemingly unthreatening homophobe and bigot. Basically, Warren went on Piers Morgan a couple of nights ago — which speaks volumes about his judgment right there — and claimed that being gay is just one of those natural impulses in some people that simply needs to be denied. His point is that you can have gay urges, but to act on them is dangerous and destructive. Examples of destructive urges that he, Rick Warren, personally experiences and denies include the desire to punch someone in the face and to cheat on his wife (thankfully, not the other way around, although it would’ve made for a much more revealing interview). Arsenic is found in nature, Warren says, but you wouldn’t swallow it, silly.

So far, so predictably awful.

It’s a waste to argue with Warren’s logic because there isn’t any there, which is kind of the point of what I’m about to say.

In his piece, Bob asks what exactly the “danger” is in being gay and where in the Bible it’s justified that being gay is wrong and an affront to God. Here’s the salient quote:

“If the Bible believes homosexuality is a criminally immoral act, where’s the victim? God? Why? How? No one can answer this question even though it’s the centerpiece of homophobic religious dogma.”

This is a completely fair statement to make, but it betrays the problem with faith-based religion and, as a question, basically answers itself. The reality is that Rick Warren believes that being gay is wrong, dangerous and a sin against God because the Bible says so, in Leviticus 20:13. And here’s the thing: that’s good enough for Warren and many, many Christians. An outsider, one who believes in such quaint notions as asking for proof or demanding rational explanations for things, will come up against bulletproof obstinacy: the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. There’s no reasoning to be found there and no need to debate it any further, since the Bible is a holy book, the word of God, and we know this because it tells us it is. See how you can’t get around that?

Bob, since he’s sane, is attempting to apply things like logic, the burden of proof, etc. to a belief system based on none of these things. And that’s the problem, the reason why people like myself are staunchly against not simply those who pervert faith but the concept of faith itself: because if something can’t be subjected to the parameters that govern every other thing on the planet, every other discussion and debate, every part of our accepted reality, then that notion can be almost entirely dismissed as potentially fraudulent. The truth — supported by empirical evidence — is the yardstick by which we measure reality. If you don’t have an at least functionally common yardstick as a society, everything descends into chaos. Anyone can make up any story he or she wants and call it the truth. And that’s basically what faith-based religion is.

What’s more, taking issue with someone’s beliefs isn’t necessarily off limits because it’s our beliefs that inspire our actions. Being absolutely sure that you’ll go on to another life will certainly influence your behavior in this one. Being 100% certain that the path you’ve chosen to God is the right one and that your savior demands that you educate as many people as you can while warning others about the impending doom they’re facing should they continue on their own path will influence you as well. A specific set of beliefs is what makes you you. If these beliefs can stand up to the burden of proof we demand in all other areas of our lives, no problem. If they can’t, there’s a word for that, and it isn’t faith — it’s delusion.

While I know a great many people who are religious whom I love dearly — they’re wonderful, good people — I can respect them personally without respecting the belief they’ve chosen to embrace. I also think they’d be the same good people they are now irrespective of their faith in a deity. Faith doesn’t make a bad person good or an inherently immoral person moral. I have no doubt that faith can play a positive role in people’s lives, but ask yourself this: Is it really, say, God who gives the faithful comfort — or is it the faith itself? The unshakable belief that someone is there watching out for them? The self-assurance that no matter what goes wrong, it’s all part of a grand and magnificent plan to which you’re not privy nor should you be?

There’s an argument to be made that, hey, whatever gets you through the day. But that argument isn’t, in and of itself, proof of that thing that gets you through the day. Santa Claus keeps kids excited and maybe even on their best behavior year-round, under penalty of getting a big lump of coal; it doesn’t make him real.

Rick Warren believes homosexuality is dangerous and that God hates it because he believes it. Simple as that. No point at all in arguing with him. He’s immune to contradictory theories or evidence because in his mind you can’t theorize against God and there’s no evidence that could possibly tear a belief system that’s as flawlessly self-reinforcing as his asunder. If it’s not based on proof anyway, how can it be disproven with contrary proof?

Again, I agree with Bob that beating up on people of faith is a terrible idea for those who espouse progressive politics — although it should be mentioned that when I talk about religion, despite its insidious insinuation into our political discourse, I’m generally not approaching it from the perspective of a liberal or a conservative — but that doesn’t mean anyone should turn a blind eye to the problems too much religious adherence has created in our global society.

Because Rick Warren isn’t a disease — he’s merely the symptom of one.

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

President Obama at the 2012 Democratic Convention

By Ben Cohen: I live blogged Obama’s speech last night and was left a little underwhelmed by it and couldn’t quite put my finger on exactly why. Jonathan Chait has a very insightful piece in the New York Magazine that sums up my feelings on the speech that was a bit of a let down but still did what was necessary to define the election in terms favorable to the Democrats. He writes:

The speech came, by and large, as a disappointment to political journalists and other campaign junkies. We have heard almost all of it before. The speech was probably aimed at undecided voters, who spend almost no time following politics. They received the paint-by-numbers outline of the election choice.

And I think this was pretty much exactly the strategy – a calculated play that aimed to cash in on the Obama of 2008.  But while the speech contained a lot of flowery rhetoric, it was a little less than four years ago and there were bolder definitions of the struggle most Americans face on a day to day basis and the choice they have this election – and that was a good thing. Obama basically told Americans: You are not alone, you can make a difference, and you decide how you want your government to operate. He said:

You’re the reason there’s a little girl with a heart disorder in Phoenix who’ll get the surgery she needs because an insurance company can’t limit her coverage. You did that.

You’re the reason a young man in Colorado who never thought he’d be able to afford his dream of earning a medical degree is about to get that chance. You made that possible.

You’re the reason a young immigrant who grew up here and went to school here and pledged allegiance to our flag will no longer be deported from the only country she’s ever called home; why selfless soldiers won’t be kicked out of the military because of who they are or who they love; why thousands of families have finally been able to say to the loved ones who served us so bravely: “Welcome home.”

The President rammed home this theme over and over again, highlighting the stark difference in philosophy between the Republicans and the Democrats. He basically offered a full throttled defense of the philosophy of liberalism with no apologies. And it seems to me that this is a crucial measure needed to box Romney in over the coming months. Writes Chait:

Obama poured vast swaths of American society and history into the communitarian frame – soldiers, teachers, public-spirited business owners, and so on – all in some sense emblemizing shared responsibility…..This theme appeared in Obama’s rhetoric four years ago, too. If there’s a difference between now and then, it is this: During his first campaign, Obama saw the blend of individual and communal responsibility as the obvious, shared belief of the entire country. Now he has come to see it as the belief of an embattled half of America.

Look, there’s not a huge amount of policy difference between the candidates or parties – enough to make a difference in the real world, but its not as if it’s socialism vs capitalism. It’s basically unfettered capitalism with no safety net vs slightly regulated capitalism with a bit of a safety net. There is however a serious divide when it comes to the underpinnings of their philosophies, and the Democrats clearly feel that this can make or break the election. As Bob Cesca writes:

This might not have felt like the Iowa speech from 2008, but it will be remembered as an historic one because it defined the new Democratic Party — it defined the composition of government and the significant role it can take in American life.

It was basically a beliefs speech that drew a line in the sand between Liberalism and Conservatism, and it dared Romney to up the ante over the coming months. This, I think, was an excellent strategic move because Romney has chosen to denounce literally everything Obama believes in and present himself as a stark alternative to the President’s ‘socialistic’ ways. This means Romney has to present a nastier, meaner vision for America, and the Democrats are betting on voters not buying into it. Obama laid out a vision for an inclusive America where citizens help each other and government does good rather than bad – a brighter future for a country ravaged by the excesses of corporations and banks that cannot afford to go back to its old ways.

And it seems like a good bet to me.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

In case you missed it here’s what we covered at The Daily Banter this week: After the awful events in Aurora, Colorado we looked at the complicated ways in which we make sense of tragedy, Bob argued that untreated mental illness pulled the trigger in Aurora, and Chez opined that despite the nature of the massacre, nothing will change in America. We looked at Republican attempts to make it harder to vote and easier to buy guns, and dismantled GOP claims of voter fraud. We asked why people hate liberals, and Chez talked about boycotting, and missing Chick-Fil-A.

Have a great weekend!

Ben, Editor

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Romney's election tactics: Appeal to angry whites

By Ben Cohen: There’s a very creepy book called ‘The Game’ that every woman should read in order to protect herself from sleazy, desperate guys. Written by Neil Strauss, the book details the authors infiltration of a network of ‘pickup artists’ in Los Angeles who have dedicated their lives to manipulating women and sleeping with them. I read about half the book before I had to stop. While it was interesting, it was at the end of the day, depressing beyond belief given the levels of deceit the characters would go to in order to get themselves dates. Amongst other deceptive tactics, the major strategy centered around ‘Neurolinguistic Programming’, a method used by hypnotists and motivational speakers to ‘program’ listeners into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t or couldn’t.  The guys in ‘The Game’ would use manipulative and suggestive language with their targets that would create a subconscious impression that would (at least in theory) get women into bed.

The use of this type of suggestive programming is nothing new – speech writers have been using these tactics for centuries, and the art has been boiled down to fine art in the modern political era. Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, is a master of the buzz word and advises politicians on the language they need to use to create the best impression. Luntz encouraged his Republican clients not to say “oil drilling,” but “energy exploration”, and told them not to mention “inheritance tax.”  but the “death tax,” instead. On the environment, Luntz advised Republicans not to talk about “global warming,” but the more digestible “climate change,” and on healthcare, Luntz suggested “government takeover,” rather than “healthcare reform.”  The language creates an impression with voters that changes the way they feel about issues – either riling them up or calming them down depending on the desired effect.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has clearly been paying attention to the use of language and is rolling out its latest attack strategy against Barack Obama based on buzz words and innuendo. And true to Republican form, it’s actually incredibly xenophobic and racist playing on Obama’s ‘foreign’ sounding name and belief in the use of government to help people.

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Romney told an audience that Obama’s policies were anti success and innately un-American (via CNN):

“It is changing the nature of America, changing the nature of what Democrats have fought for and Republicans have fought for,” Romney said, adding: “celebrating success instead of attacking it and denigrating it makes America strong.”

“That’s the right course for this country,” Romney continued. “His course is extraordinarily foreign.”

It’s quite a telling couple of sentences. Romney is not directly stating that Obama is a foreign communist, but the language is clear. Obama is: “Attacking success”, “Changing the nature of America” and “Extraordinarily foreign”. Those are the impressions his audience will leave with, playing into the still prevalent myths that Obama was not born in America, is in fact a Muslim and wants to destroy capitalism.

This is clearly the strategy going forward – a nastier approach that does not rely on any particular vision for America, but one based on fear of the foreign and fear of the black man in the Oval Office. Of course the Romney campaign can always deny this – the language used isn’t explicitly calling Obama a Muslim Communist, and from a technical point of view, there’s nothing wrong with his speech. But anyone who understands the use of language knows otherwise.

As Bob Cesca commented in the wake of Romney’s bizarre speech at the NAACP that was clearly designed to appeal to his base rather than the African American community:

It was only a matter of time before Romney engaged in this kind of racist dogwhistle politics that’s intended to fire up the resentful white Republican base. Every election season, the party just can’t help itself: demonize minorities, pump up the angry whites and win.

John McCain and Sarah Palin adopted exactly the same strategy in 2008, using innuendo and suggestion to ensure as many angry white Republicans came out to vote as possible. It’s amazing that this type of thinly veiled racism still works, making it more depressing than ever. There is latent racism everywhere in America, most of which is a product of the country’s complex history,  but our politicians should attempt to rise above it for the sake of moving the country forward. But politics is a ruthless game and politicians will do pretty much anything to win, including good ol’ fashioned black hating.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

john Stossel: Works hard to be disliked (Photo credit: Mr. Wright)

By Chez Pazienza: This will be quick and appropriately dirty.

A couple of weeks back, Bob Cesca and I each put together a list of the people in cable news we disliked the most, then ran down our respective choices on our subscription-only podcast After Party. A couple of the names we both came up with were obvious — the O’Reillys and Hannitys of the world — but we did actually try to stay away from easy political targets and were for the most part successful. Topping my list of the most loathsome was of course Nancy Grace; anybody who’s read me long enough knows that I consider her a dangerous, amoral monster who peddles sickening prurience in the disguise of righteous indignation, all in the name of nothing more noble than her own self-interest. Bob, meanwhile, seems to have a pretty deep-seated distaste for Fox News ultra-smug prick Greg Gutfeld. Either way, it was a fun little exercise in venting our frustration with the cable press minus actually having to do anything strenuous to effect change like chaining ourselves to a lamp pole in Midtown Manhattan or literally painting our faces blue and taking up arms.

A couple of days ago, though, I was reminded of a huge oversight on my personal list of the worst of the worst on cable news. It happened when I watched a video clip that featured John Stossel pushing the latest installment in a series he’s been doing for Fox Business News called “Freeloaders.” In the clip, Stossel was explaining to the crew of slobbering idiots on Fox & Friends how he made quite a bit of money dressing up as a homeless guy and panhandling on New York City’s streets, the point seeming to be that you shouldn’t give money to panhandlers since they’re untrustworthy and could very well be douchey Fox Business News reporters out to trick you. If you can make sense of that circular reasoning, you win a prize — and if you’re lucky it’s the opportunity to slap the shit out of John Stossel.

Now make no mistake: John Stossel is an asshole. He’s a self-described libertarian, which these days is really just a fancy catch-all word for an asshole who’s pompously aligned him or herself with an impressive-sounding but entirely BS political movement in an effort to lend legitimacy to and to outright excuse selfish, asshole-ish behavior. Stossel’s willingness to carry the torch and wrap himself in the protective cloak of libertarianism explains why he can do a story that essentially targets the least fortunate among the American population, painting them with a broad brush as alcoholic parasites out to prey on the generosity of fine upstanding contributors to society, without putting his head in his hands and crying while pleading for forgiveness for being such a shitty human being the entire time. If Stossel has a heart somewhere beneath that 70s porn moustache — and for the unfamiliar, he’s in every way a poor man’s Geraldo, who himself is in every way a poor man’s dog turd on the end of a stick — it’s long since become little more than a dessicated husk.

Think about it for a minute. At the very beginning of his pitch on Fox & Friends, Stossel admits that it’s the very wealthy who do most of the “freeloading” in this country, through corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. But of course, rather than attacking the powerful — the ones whose crimes against average, hard-working Americans would have to be infinitely more profound and damaging than those of a guy begging for loose change — Stossel instinctively eschews the precept that muckraking journalism should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable and kicks the people at the very bottom of the pyramid scheme in the nuts just for the hell of it. Sure there are panhandlers who rip you off, who buy drugs and alcohol with the money you give them; sure there are people on welfare who game the system and who simply refuse to work. But it takes a staggering lack of compassion to lump everyone accepting some form of assistance into the category of deadbeats who just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and stop taking what isn’t theirs — whose primary day-to-day goal shouldn’t be survival but should instead be getting “off the dole.” This, of course, seems to be the modern Republican line of thinking, which dovetails perfectly into the libertarian worldview: It’s almost always the victim’s fault that he or she is a victim and success is its own state of grace which buys you forgiveness for your sins, whatever they happen to be.

It’s the way assholes think.

It’s the way John Stossel thinks.

Can’t believe I left him off my list.

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

In case you missed it, here’s what we covered at The Daily Banter this week!: We looked at New York Time’s columnist Thomas Friedman’s fast food intellectualism, and analyzed Obama’s use of Karl Rove’s election tactics for the 2012 Presidential race. Bob Cesca tore into Republicans threatening armed rebellion over the health care ruling, and dismantled the Republican myth that the Affordable Care Act is the biggest tax increase in history. Chez Pazienza weighed in on Anderson Coopers revelation that he’s gay, and then did the weekly mailbag drunk….

Have a great weekend!

Ben (Editor)

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below: