Tag Archives: J.D. Vance

“Jesus is not front and center with these guys”

That’s the conclusion of Bob Smietana looking at Joel Webbon, Dale Partridge and other “Jim Crow theobros” who preach various forms of white male supremacy: pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, pro-all-white America (a couple of them debated whether Clarence Thomas deserved to stay). And insisting very firmly that there’s is absolutely 100 percent the only Biblical position on these matters (Mark Noll would like a word). As with Christian misogyny (most of them believe in that too) they’ve taken what they think is the rightful order of society — them on top — and convinced themselves that’s obviously what the Bible says.

Plus using their various platforms to pitch supplements, T-shirts and other lucrative sidelines (or the racism and misogyny are sidelines to milking the rubes) because right-wing rage invariably has grifting attached (side-note: here’s a scam that doesn’t preach hate but does use the gospel as a scamming tool). As Fred Clark says, it’s excellent reporting, not attempting to sanewash or decency-wash these people. As to their motives, it doesn’t matter if they’re merchandizing bigotry to sell their swag or sincere bigots with a side-hustle. Neither one is excusable. Neither one is redeemable — the people may be if they ever see the light, their beliefs never will be. Their twisted faith is a poisonous tree and it will bear no good fruit.

The fruit they bear is the demands we stop caring for people because compassion is a weakness. It makes people object to supposedly righteous things like ICE murders and deporting non-white people to nations they have no connection with. They advocate as cramped and limited a view of love your neighbors as possible. JD Vance says, for instance, “love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” Worrying about immigrants and refugees when your own people are in trouble? That’s just wrong and un-Biblical!

Not that Vance is in danger of having compassion for people in this country — he is, after all, part of the Toddler’s fascist assault on human decency and American values. And a claim Jesus had a narrow view of who our neighbors are is just wrong. If nothing else, the Bible’s story of Pentecost makes clear all Christians — all races, genders, nationalities — are brothers and sisters in faith. The Toddler administration won’t even admit non-white Christian refugees any more. Only Afrikaaners, whose white supremacy has won Republican support for decades now. Obviously my view of the Bible is no more authoritative than theirs — but faced with two dueling interpretations of the Bible, I think it makes sense, as decent human beings, to choose the more compassionate one. Right-winger Megan Basham insists by telling us the story of the Good Samaritan Jesus was saying don’t help people. Bollocks: if you find someone assaulted by criminals, beaten by the side of the road, decent people don’t need to consult the Bible to know we should help them. Basham, however, has chosen not to be a decent person.

No question, this kind of bigotry has long been part of American (and other forms) Christianity. It’s still a bad thing when people say the quiet parts out loud. They embolden others. They make it seem normal — not in the sense of “there’s a lot of people like that” but “as there’s a lot of people like that we might as well accept this as a reasonable point of view.” No, we shouldn’t.

As the blogger Hilzoy once said, embracing these beliefs is addicting. Feeling rage and hate at some designated group is stimulating and often addictive to the point “you come to rely on it more and more, the fun fades, and it corrodes you from within. The more you nurse your hatred, the larger a part of your identity it becomes. But hatred is a poor substitute for a genuine self, and the more you come to depend on it, the hollower you become, and the harder it is to let it go. It eats away at your values: morality, which we ought to use to make ourselves better people and only secondarily to judge others, turns into a tool we use to excoriate those we hate, and to demonstrate, to ourselves and to others, how very, very different we are from them. Crusades are fought by the righteous, and if you need to believe that you are on a righteous crusade, you will of course need to conscript morality to the cause of maintaining your belief that you are on the side of the angels.

“At this point, as Lewis said, your view of your opponents is driven by your hatred, rather than the other way around. You need “to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black”, and your needs drive your beliefs. Your intellectual integrity is sacrificed to your psychological needs, your hatred loses any honesty it might once have had, and you surrender to fantasy. This can be hard to undo: once you give up your hold on reality, it’s hard to find your way back. And if you can’t, then you are surrounded by malevolent enemies of your own creation, enemies that can do you real damage even though they are purely imaginary. You are “fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred” which you created in your own image, and which has trapped you.

“This is dangerous. I have watched people get into real moral trouble this way. I have no wish to join them. And the only way I know to prevent it is to be absolutely scrupulous about thinking ill of people. If the facts warrant my dislike, so be it. But the moment I find myself wanting to see grey as black, then I know that I’m going wrong. And as C.S. Lewis said, whenever this impulse “bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head.” As I said, not just because it’s unjust to think ill of others when they don’t deserve it, or because it’s ignoble, but because it’s poison.”

I think that applies even if the theobros (and others of their ilk) are faking for the clicks and swag sales. Sell your wares and your podcast by angry outrageous takes on race or gender and you have a financial incentive to stay extreme or get worse. For example podcaster Candace Owens trying to grab attention by declaring she doesn’t believe in a round earth or a flat earth. And that’s assuming the hatemongers have the sense not to start drinking their own snake oil. The mask that people wear can easily become the face and, as Philip Agre put it, “few of us have the skill to hate with a clear mind.”

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Undead sexist cliche: Republicans support the family

Republicans and right-wingers have been presenting themselves as advocates for “family friendly” policies since the 1980s. Or I supposed the 1970s, when they presented women’s liberation as the anti-family movement. Even though 1950s housewives supposedly lived life on the easiest possible setting, those darn libbers kept insisting that a society that pushed women into the home and out of the workplace was sexist and unfair — that some women might prefer to work, or to balance work and childcare and maybe have the husband help out a little more. Feminism was a Jedi mind trick, fooling those women into thinking they could find happiness anywhere outside the home. In the words of Paul Deneen, “Liberalism posits that freeing women from the household is tantamount to liberation, but it effectively puts women and men alike into a far more encompassing bondage” It’s good old fashioned patriarchy that’s best for women. Spoiler: no, it isn’t.

As Deneen’s grumbling shows, Republicans are only pro-family when they consider it the right kind of family. It’s similar to the way “Republicans hate the real America. They love the fantasy America in their heads where women stay home pregnant, white men run everything, black people are invisible except as servants and gay people disappear into the closet.” When they say they’re pro-family they mean the fantasy ideal of “family” in their heads: husband working, wife at home with lots of (white) kids, girls growing up carefully groomed to be submissive handmaids, preferably not doing anything Manly like playing competitive sports. And nobody ever gets abortion or birth control because fantasy moms love kids and never want to stop having them. And of course, absolutely not immigrants — tearing immigrant families apart is fine.

(A brief pause here to salute the late Gloria Steinem and her long fight to improve women’s lots. For good commentary see here, here, here and here).

JD Vance is, I think, a completely hollow man. He’s fine supporting fascists like Hungary’s recently defeated Orban; if there was any career advantage in becoming a hardline Stalinist, he’d discover a deep communist commitment without batting an eye. However he has one true belief, at least, which is his raging distaste for independent women and childless women (as discussed here). Only parents have a stake in America’s future, therefore parents should get more votes. Childless women should not be leaders, plus they’re miserable and pathetic (Gloria Steinem seems way, way more happy than Vance ever has).

So it’s no surprise he’s one of the prime movers behind the Toddler administration’s new proposal to take funds that help working parents pay for child care and give them to stay-at-home married parents (if you’re a stay-at-home mom, remember, taking care of kids is an incredible, demanding job; if you’re a single mom, staying home with kids, in Republican America, means you’re a lazy bum). The NYT article says “officials are seeking to use a Health and Human Services Department fund that was created in the 1990s to help low-income and working-class parents afford child care so they could work or go to school … about 80 percent of the 870,000 families who currently get the child care subsidies have single working parents, most of them mothers, according to Health Department data.”

The article continues “In 2021, Mr. Vance co-wrote an opinion essay in The Wall Street Journal contending that day care can harm children and declaring, “Young children are clearly happier and healthier when they spend the day at home with a parent.” He also wrote then on Twitter that “normal Americans” want a “family policy that doesn’t shunt their kids into crap day care so they can enjoy more ‘freedom’ in the paid labor force.”

I agree with him, nobody wants their kids in crap day care. However the solution is to improve day care, not choke off its existence. Because the genius of this shitty plan is that it doesn’t involve added funds (it never does). It will take some of the current pot and redirect it to stay at home parents because why shouldn’t the government pay them for childcare too (which is like redirecting Medicaid funds to people who aren’t poor and sick)? That means much less money for day care which means many centers may close, which makes it even harder for moms to work. Achievement unlocked! Tellingly, if you’re a working mom who relies on a family member to provide child care, you don’t get coverage.

It is a depressing thought that the deeply misogynist Vance is a front-runner for the post-Toddler Republican presidency. And that plenty of journalists are willing to present him as the sensible conservative. As Grosse says, even for someone who wants to help stay-at-home moms, it’s a poor policy: “our federal government could do about a million and one things to help parents that would be more effective and more desired. According to the survey I cited earlier from the Institute for Family Studies, 85 percent of mothers ages 25 to 55 with children under 18 said that paid parental leave would be “extremely” or “very” helpful to them and 80 percent said that child tax credits would be extremely or very helpful to them. Lower-income moms support the tax credit at a higher rate than wealthier moms, while higher-income moms prefer parental leave, but a vast majority of both groups want both of those things. Few are asking for what Vance and the administration are proposing.”

It’s more important to Vance that working women suffer than that moms be happy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

We could use some imaginary Republicans right now

Back in 2004, writer John Rogers mentioned how much he missed Republicans: “Sober men in suits, pipes, who’d nod thoughtfully over their latest tract on market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Remember those serious-looking 1950’s-1960’s science guys in the movies — Republican to a one. They were the grown-ups. They were the realists. Sure they were a bummer, maaaaan, but on the way to La Revolution you need somebody to remember where you parked the car.”

Instead, we had the insanity of the W years: incompetence, opposition to science, a stupid never-ending war waged for stupid reasons (almost certainly including that W, by his own admission, wanted to be a War President), massive military spending that benefited contractors more than those who served … And two years later, in another post, Rogers concluded things had not improved.

The trouble is, that really doesn’t register with voters. A couple of months back I wrote about how Democrats not only struggle with Republicans but with the imaginary Democrats in people’s heads:

Here’s a related comment from Lawyers, Guns and Money on the “activist class” mentioned above.

(There’s also sexism towards “wine moms” in this — women just can’t be authentic working-class liberals, you know!).

The media also endorse this portrayal, as do the Sensible Centrist Democrats (see my comments Monday on Very Serious People). Dems must moderate their supposedly ultra-liberal policies, or to denounce party members who are supposedly too extreme, like Zohran Mamdani. Possibly the Imaginary Democrats are why one conservative NYC district voted for him: someone concerned about lowering their cost of living must be a conservative.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senseless centrist, just declared the federal deficit is the result of socialist polices, not the Toddler’s tax cuts (did his imaginary Long Island voters tell him that?). It never registers that even centrist Dems will be turned into Imaginary Ultra-Liberal Democrats, no matter how centrist they are. And the media will always treat the left-wing of the party as an inconsequential fluke. I doubt Joe Manchin’s efforts to push liberals to the center will get the same scrutiny.

At the same time, Dems have to run not against the Toddler, Vance and their ilk but against the the imaginary Republicans who are the polar opposite of the imaginary Democrats. The fantasy Republicans are the stereotype Rogers write about. Sensible guys (never women. They’re the daddy party after all)who always balance the budget, know how to manage the economy, believe in a strong defense and a tough-but-fair legal system. They’re battle-experienced veterans who support the military, unlike the Democrats who all protested the Vietnam War and spat on the troops coming home. Imaginary Republicans believe in America and they put their country first. They don’t believe in a nanny state regulating everything but trust Americans to make their own decisions. As witness this piece on JD Vance presenting him and his party as sensible mainstream Americans (small wonder Vance and Marco Rubio aren’t suffering from the Toddler’s unpopularity).

As plenty of bloggers and liberal pundits have pointed out, this image doesn’t seem to die. Never mind that Reagan, W and now the Toddler all set record deficits. Reagan’s 1980s economy went through a recession and the poor wound up poorer because of his policies (I was poor. I know). Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese said we shouldn’t worry about the rights of the accused because if the police accuse someone, they’re guilty. As for regulation, it’s Wilhoit’s law: conservatives don’t want government telling them what to do but they’re fine with regulations that hurt gays, Muslims, women, etc. (even though members of all of those groups exist in the Republican tent). Speaker Mike Johnson is fine with Republican red ink but eager to gut Social Security. As for the military, the draft-dodging W (who also blew off his National Guard service) squandered hundreds of soldiers’ lives in Iraq; the Toddler is exhausting our armaments in Iran. Lots of Republicans avoided the draft but somehow it was only an issue for Bill Clinton (probably because only Democrats have agency — Republicans can’t be held responsible for being hypocrites).

I’d like to hope things are changing. It’s tempting for people to imagine the Toddler is the problem and the rest of his administration and its enablers will turn into the Imaginary Republicans once he’s gone. They won’t. People have been predicting for more than 15 years their right-ward march would end soon. It hasn’t. Here’s some recent examples:

The Toddler is now thinking about more budget-busting tax cuts. Which will become a serious problem once a Democrat is in the White House.

Strong on crime? The Toddler’s pay-for-a-pardon corruption has cost victims of crime $1.7 billion because pardon recipients don’t have to repay any of their ill-gotten gains.

Supporting the troops? Well, no.

Deep religious faith? “Faith groups suing President Donald Trump’s administration filed a motion Thursday (Aug. 20)alleging the Department of Homeland Security committed “multiple egregious violations” of a court order that largely barred warrantless surveillance at their churches.”

Have I mentioned the Toddler has threatened to bomb our ally Oman?

Fixing housing problems? The Toddler finds that a big yawn.

Sensible and moderate? If you ignore the party’s Nazi wing. Or their odious misogyny.

The Toddler is far and away the biggest pimple on the face of our democracy but he’s not the problem. His entire rancid party is. Like Rogers, I miss the sensible Republicans but there’s no point in pretending they’re ever coming back. As I put in 2022, “Republicans aren’t interested in compromise. They haven’t been interested in it for years. And they do want to end democracy, in favor of a banana republic where they can do what they damn well please to the rest of us. Or so they imagine.”

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Politics, Undead sexist cliches

J. D. Vance does not want a godly America

J.D. Vance, told the Christian Post that the separation of church and state is Satanic. He’s full of it.

First off, I don’t believe a word Vance says, ever. He’s a soulless ladder-climber who’s made deliberate choices who to sell out to on every rung. To the extent he has sincere beliefs about the United States, they’re repellent. And this is no exception. According to the Christian Post article, “Vance called for ‘a more fully Christian politics,’ one that refuses to treat ‘economic growth’ as an idol, or to dismiss Catholic social teaching as merely ‘spiritual stuff’ with no input on how a nation should be run.”

“Christian politics” is as much gibberish as Mike Johnson declaring all you need to know is that he has a “Biblical worldview.” There is no one Christian politics or worldview. As Mark Noll has written, the Civil War, some Christians believed slavery was a compact with Hell; other Christians believed American chattel slavery was divinely ordained. Many civil rights marchers believed ending Jim Crow was God’s will; many segregationists believed Jim Crow was the will of god. Evangelical Christians in the 1970s were pro-choice; then in the 1980s they swung to “abortion is murder.”

I don’t think there’s any question that slavery and racism are evil; as Huck Finn said, if God wants black America in chains, our duty is to liberate the slaves and go to hell. And I think simple human decency is all that takes to figure that out. As a Christian I don’t dismiss the Bible as a guide; however if Protestants pre-Civil War could not reach a common agreement on what the Bible says about slavery, it’s not a clear, unambiguous guide. We can’t just look up answers like it was a search engine for heaven. And we are, after all, fallible mortals, as are our spiritual leaders. Even if the Bible is inerrant (I do not believe it is), we can’t assume our interpretation of it is.

All that said, I don’t believe for a minute that Vance wants “Christian politics” in the sense that all Christians should have the same right to influence the government. He wants a Christianity that supports his politics, which at the moment are authoritarian, anti-immigrant, and misogynist (I’m quite sure that if it was in his self-interest, he’d switch gears). Lots of Christians, including the Pope, are pro-immigrant; Vance is so anti-immigrant he bore false witness against legal Haitian immigrants, lying they were stealing and eating cats and dogs. There are Christians who are pro-gay and feminist; Vance is neither.

Our religion can support or influence our political positions. If, however, the only argument for our position is “God wants it,” that’s when church-state separation kicks in. Because some other Christian believes God wants the exact opposite, guaranteed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The Felon of the United States tells government to give him $1.7 billion slush fund to reward traitors.

First the Toddler President sued the IRS. Then the IRS and the DOJ settled the lawsuit before the judge could issue a (probably) unfavorable ruling. The settlement agreement gives the Toddler $1.776 billion in government funds to distribute to supposed victims of “weaponized” prosecution. You know, like the J6ers who attacked the government in an attempted coup and are, in Republican mythology, martyrs persecuted by federal tyranny.

The administration’s pretenses is that as a five-person board will decide in disbursements, the Toddler will have no say. Of course all five members are his appointees, firable without cause, so the Toddler’s in charge. There are no appeals or judicial reviews of the confidential distribution of funds and nobody but the Toddler family, the Toddler organization or the IRS can appeal the settlement.

Oh, and here’s an interesting detail: “The Justice Department on Tuesday expanded the agreement it reached this week with President Trump to resolve his extraordinary lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service to include a provision that would bar the agency from pursuing tax claims against the president, his family or his businesses. In a one-page document signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and quietly posted on the department’s website, officials vowed not to pursue any matters, including those involving Mr. Trump’s tax returns, that are currently pending.”

As we approach the midterms with Republicans increasingly unpopular, having a massive fund to payoff and reward anyone who crimes for the Toddler could be beneficial to rigging the game. Much like the Colorado governor commuting the sentence for Tina Peters, who was convicted of tampering with election equipment (JD Vance is now praising her as a martyr). If the Toddler Crime Family and those currying favor will protect you, why not do a crime?

Even if not, this is a blatantly illegal, corrupt deal. None of the J6 rioters deserves a pardon, let alone financial renumeration (unlike, say, this guy). Nor does this guy, a Toddler lackey though not a J6er, who’s seeking $2.7 million. It’s the same logic by which Justice (ironic name these days) is suing the Washington bar for disciplining the Toddler’s corrupt lawyers. And the opportunity will be abused; Andrew Johnson is a convicted pedophile who told one victim he’d buy his silence with his J6 compensation (this was before the settlement but talk about compensating the rioters has been around a while. You will be shocked (not really) that Acting AG Todd “Toady” Blance lied about this. Vance lies too, saying they’re not going to give it to any J6ers who attacked cops.

Oh, Vance also says he’s very troubled about fraudsters who steal from tax funds — but he means Medicare fraud or more likely alleged Medicare fraud (and by the little people — I don’t imagine him speaking out against former fraudster Sent. Rick Scott).

“Sen. Richard Blumenthal clearly saw the way the wind was blowing and drafted an amendment to block the administration from “making any payments to convicted child predators.” Republicans said no. And to another proposal blocking payments to convicted J6ers. We are hearing protests from one Treasury official and from Sen. Bill Cassidy. Got to say, it’s a little late for Cassidy to discover he has principles.

We’re not talking goodhearted patriotic Americans getting payouts. 78 have reoffended and “at least nine of the cases involve child sexual abuse, three are rape charges and two people have been convicted of murder while driving under the influence of alcohol – in addition to at least 19 weapons charges and nine violent assaults.”

Fred Clark at Slacktivist discusses why Republicans — the party that preened for decades that they wanted good values and morals in government — tolerates such blatant corruption. He suggests it’s the old rationalization that we’re all sinners, all corrupt, therefore the Toddler’s no more corrupt than anyone else; after all, “in God’s eyes there’s therefore no meaningful difference between taking a dubious tax deduction and being a serial killer” At the link he explains why that’s theological bullshit; I took a look at “we are all sinners” back in 2022 and how a confession of humility has been twisted into a get-out-of-jail-free card.

I do hope the next Dem president shreds this agreement, shuts down the slush fund (I imagine the Toddler will spend it all first) and ignores the press when they squeal about how Democrats shouldn’t criminalize political differences.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

For want of a nail

Well, 2026 is off to a swinging start. We have the ongoing invasion of Venezuela (NC’s Senator Ted Budd thinks that’s a wonderful thing, nobody could have any possible objections) which appears to have happened partly because the Necrotic Toddler’s fee-fees were hurt about not getting the peace prize. And he’s willing to put the opposition leader in charge if she gives him her prize. Which is not only petty, it’s a lousy standard for running a country (as is attacking it and leaving the current regime in charge). Oh, and he’ll turn their oil into a cash cow for himself.

He’s willing to pay Greenlanders $100,000 apiece out of our tax dollars if they’ll switch from Denmark to the US. Why? Because he wants it! “I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.” (at the link, see a prime example of sanewashing his comments). And as I said last week, Republican pundits and elected officials are all in on the American empire.

Then this week ICE murdered Renee Good, a mom in Minneapolis. And as in countless unjustified police shootings, they’ve declared she had it coming (see this related thread). In America we are not legally required to do whatever a cop or an ICE agent tells us and the penalty for not doing it is not extrajudicial execution. Nevertheless, authoritarian GOPers are declaring obey ICE or die is the law. Newsmax is parroting the faux outrage.

“Concentration Camp Kristi” Noem declaring the woman was a domestic terrorist. I’m not surprised; taking responsibility for ICE killing someone (and also shooting two people in Portland) would require a spine and a sense of morals, neither of which seems present in Noem’s toolbox. Likewise Border Czar Tom Homan thinks the problem is people criticizing ICE — of course if you antagonize them, you get shot. As Hilzoy says, “If your officers ate not well enough trained to be able not to kill people who insult them, then not only should they be off the street; you should be out of a job.”

JD Vance agrees, claiming Good was part of a domestic terror conspiracy. Given Vance lied in 2024 about Haitian immigrants stealing and eating people’s pets, and admitted it, I wish someone would ask him why the hell anyone should believe a single word out of his mouth. I’m not holding my breath.

As Paul Krugman says, “Renee Nicole Good’s murder is at most collateral damage, in service to his insatiable need to dominate and feel powerful — so insatiable that he is attempting to create an alternate reality, claiming that that Good ran over an agent although there is irrefutable video evidence that she didn’t.”

Lying behind all of this is the Necrotic Toddler and the 1 percent trying to replace the international nation-state order with neo-royalism, where what’s good for America or Americans is replaced by what’s good for the people in charge. Does it make the Toddler or his family rich? Does it enrich his political allies or the Silicon Valley techbros?

I’m still hopeful Krugman and Bouie were right and the Felon’s influence is weakening. No question, he can do a lot of damage before it’s gone. But I can see people chipping away at it, bit by bit. It’s true the Felon has weathered scandals that would have killed many politicians but every loss, every act of defiance, shows he’s not some juggernaut who can’t be stopped.

As I told a trans activist friend recently who was wondering if she was doing enough, “for want of a nail the shoe was lost.” She’s one of the nails that stayed in the shoe, contributing to the fight. In which spirit, here are more nails.

The town that refused to let Noem use a government-building restroom.

DC residents responding to Good’s death by telling ICE to get lost.

Fact-checking Stephen Miller’s immigration lies.

The protesters who pressured the Avelo airline to stop helping with deportations.

The judges who keep disqualifying the Felon’s illegally appointed federal attorneys. Or overruling his efforts to cut off funding for blue states. (which I suppose could be another form of neo-royalism — kings can do things like that).

Kentucky refusing the Felon’s order to give Republicans more seat.

The blue states suing the DOH over Kennedy’s anti-trans policies.

Brazil.

Republicans defying the Felon on mail-in ballots. Likewise Democratic Rep. Seth Magaziner for calling out Noem as a lying idiot.

Jake Tapper for pointing out Kristi Noem is lying.

The Minneapolis Timber Wolves.

Are we inching towards a tipping point? We can hope — and if we keep being nails, more and more of us, we can perhaps make hope a reality. Not guaranteed, but the fight is worth it. The consequences for everyone if we don’t fight are worse.

I’ll close with a quote from Krugman (same post as above): “Here’s a warning to those directly perpetrating Trump-directed atrocities: He will not be in power forever, and I expect and hope that you will be held accountable, personally, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” That should be the minimum to expect from the next sane government.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Zohran Mamdani and James Dobson

(I’d throw in something about Jeremy Epstein but I’m saving that for a bigger post).

It appears China wants Eric Adams to stay mayor of New York. Why? To quash dissent among the 600,000 Chinese-Americans in NYC and because “Beijing is also making a longer bet, she said: You never know which politician might eventually run for Congress at the national level, or become a presidential candidate.'”

Oh, side note, saying that giving reporters envelopes stuffed with cash is a “bold departure from political norms” seems very … euphemistic. Which seems to be NYT style these days. Mamdani responded better: “it is the despair and the disaffection that New Yorkers hold for politics that I am running against. And it is one that I do not blame them for, because if you were to see this each and every day, why would you believe in the promise of local government?”

J.D. Vance complaints, as so many people do with immigrants, that Mamdani should be more grateful to America instead of “attacking the U.S. for all of its problems.” Of course Vance might be grateful for living in a country that allowed him to rise from a struggling, dysfunctional family to vice president but he loves complaining about America’s problems with single women, immigrants, etc. Somehow that never applies to white guys.

Shifting from Mamdani, right-wing evangelical creep James Dobson died last month. As Mark Twain says, I’ve never wished a man dead but there are obituaries I’ve read with great pleasure. This was one of them. This is a man who supported the right of men to beat their wives — and suggests some women provoke their husbands because they know the men will be wracked by guilt (no, they won’t). He supported Roy Moore’s senate campaign, declaring Moore, the man who liked to lech on teenage girls when he was in his thirties, was a man of character. Which is true, but not the kind of character that deserves public office.

“James Dobson was a nasty dude. He liked to beat children and dogs with a belt and to rain misery and punishment on the vulnerable; we know all of this about him because he said as much in public, repeatedly, over a long and rancid public life.”

And one more: “You get one shot to treat your children with autonomy and dignity, and to model for them the kindness and love the world needs. No one is going to be a perfect parent, but treating your children like little soldiers you can train to fight in your culture war comes at a high price.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The cramped American vision of JD Vance

As someone said a while back (I don’t have the link handy), J.D. Vance’s career has been built on carefully deciding who to sell out to and when. He has few limits on how badly he’ll sell out. Last year he said he wouldn’t have certified Biden’s win (admittedly the lie the election was stolen is now a baseline Republican belief).

After Tucker Carlson gave an admiring interview to a “Nazis were the good guys in WW II” Holocaust denier, Vance refused to back off from his ties with Carlson, while insisting Of Course he didn’t share the guest’s beliefs.

As a law student he expressed outrage over Republican anti-immigrant policies. As vice president, he happily lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets.

He hates universities because teaching facts and critical thinking is antithetical to Republican policy and makes it too easy for nonwhites and women to succeed in life (he phrases it somewhat differently)

(Side note: right-wing bullshit artist Bari Weiss recently claimed it’s impossible to get into college if you’re white or Asian, which is a complete lie. CBS, which just fired Colbert for daring to criticize the Felon, is now looking at giving Weiss a news position of some sort).

After the Wall Street Journal ran its story about the Felon’s letter to Jeffrey Epstein, Vance complained the White House never saw the letter … which completely contradicts his boss’s take (these are not coordinated, well-organized liars).

Then, at a recent speech to the far-right Claremont Institute, he expressed the view that Real Americans are the ones whose families have been here for generations: ““dentifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let’s say, of the Declaration of Independence — that’s a definition that is way over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time,:

Overinclusive because it would include “hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens who agree” with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. That’s “the logic of America as a purely creedal nation.” Underinclusive because it would reject lots of extremists who presumably don’t believe in things like all men being created equal, “even though those very Americans had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.”

This is some impressive strawman bullshit. Nobody claims that simply because someone in Bhutan or the United Kingdom (or wherever) agrees with the sentiments in the Declaration, they’re American citizens. The premise of America as a “creedal” nation is that if you want to be a citizen, your race, sex, national origin and religion don’t stand in the way of that. The old sentiments that if you play by the rules, you’re welcome here. Not as a tolerated immigrant, but as a fellow American. As noted at the link above about Vance’s speech, that used to be accepted even by a lot of conservatives (even if it wasn’t always how things played out in practice).

Vance’s alternative view is not new. As Richard Slotkin chronicles in Lost Battalions, immigrants, Jews and black Americans hoped fighting for their country in WW I would prove they were real Americans; instead the country veered into heavy anti-immigrant sentiment over the following decade. Former president Teddy Roosevelt said it flat out: to be a real American you have to be Anglo-Saxon. Everyone else is here on sufferance.

It’s a view (as Slotkin shows) impossible to separate from racism, anti-immigration and misogyny. As Kevin Levin says, “Notice that Vance makes no distinction between whether your ancestor fought for the United States or the Confederacy. He doesn’t care. What matters is that they were white and that they were here.

This would be the perfect time for the Confederate heritage community to trot out their stories about Black Confederates and their view of the Confederacy as a multi-racial/cultural experiment. Don’t hold your breadth, folks. Vance also doesn’t want you to remember the roughly 200,000 African Americans who fought for the United States during the Civil War. Just under 80 percent of free born African American men of military age in northern states volunteered to fight for the United States during the Civil War. In ignoring these men, Vance appears to believe that white men, who fought to destroy the United States and create an independent slaveholding republic, are more worthy of inclusion.”

I will also mention we know a number of women fought disguised as men; many women contributed to the war in various ways. Vance would rather we not think about that, either. He loves the pronatalist fiew that women should be breeders. Misogyny seems to be one of the few principles he truly believes in, even though that makes him a bad father. And it aligns well with the old view that white American women need to breed more babies for the Reich — er, the Republican Party, to the extent there’s a difference. More on that view here.

As I wrote five years back, women are not means to an end, whether that end be maintaining the white population or taking care of the kids for J.D. Vance. Women are ends in themselves; all people are. To the extent of their abilities they should be free to choose their own path (with obvious exclusions like becoming an assassin, a rapist, or a Klansman) and figure out what having a meaningful life means to them.

I suspect Vance, and the techbros who’ve supported him, don’t see it that way. That freedom is for the elites like them. Giving it to other people would imply others really are created equal … and the subtext of Vance’s views is that he doesn’t think they are.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Undead sexist cliche: Men are the oppressed ones!

There’s an old line that when you’re used to superiority, equality feels like oppression. If you’re a man accustomed to the privilege that brings — from an edge at work to not having to be afraid walking home to having someone to clean up your house and take care of your kids — then begin asked to make your own dinner or participate in chores may feel outrageous. You’ve never raped anyone, sexually harassed anyone, you treat your wife great — why are you being inconvenienced? You may be happier not understanding than accepting there’s a problem.

Vice president and misogynist JD Vance offered a recent whine on this topic: “I think that our culture sends a message to young men that you should suppress every masculine urge. You should you should try to cast aside your family. You should try to suppress what makes you a young man in the first place.

“And I think that my message to young men is don’t allow this broken culture to send you a message that you’re a bad person because you’re a man, because you like to tell a joke, because you like to have a beer with your friends or because you’re competitive. The cultural message — and I think the president’s and mine is the exact opposite –but our cultural message is I think that it wants to turn everybody, whether male or female, into androgynous idiots who think the same, talk the same and act the same.”

I’ve no idea what Vance means about “try to cast aside your family” — that’s usually the charge made against feminists, that they hate happy marriages and want women to get divorced as soon as possible. The rest of his rant is a standard complaint dating back to the 1950s: feminists/the radical left are trying to turn women into men! Worse, turn men into women! Because a woman who works and has casual sex or a guy who stays home with the kids have given up the essence of their gender! Ahhhhh!

(I don’t have time to provide links but you can find lots on this in my Undead Sexist Cliches, in paperback or ebook. You can also order it straight from me from the Behold the Book page.)

The line about how men are being judged and condemned because they’re men is also an old misogynist cliche. Nobody I’m aware of is saying a man who tells jokes, drinks with friends or likes to compete is a bad person.

On the other hand if they’re joking publicly about a female coworker’s appearance or telling rape jokes, yeah, I think they deserve some criticism. Like executive sent out a press release announcing a new female hire as a former waitress at the (nonexistent) Knockers restaurant chain — what, don’t you think that’s funny? And if someone can’t control their “masculine urge” to the point they feel up women uninvited or commit assault (like so many of the Felon’s cabinet) — that’s worthy of a lot more censure. For a number of men, however, criticizing bad male behavior is an attack on masculinity itself. Even if they don’t engage in it themselves, they feel like it’s their right to do so.

And what about men who perform masculinity differently? Men are notorious for mocking and judging other men they deem too soft/girly/wimply/haven’t got their man-card punched. Men like Vance who whine about masculinity being criticized are often fine with guys who criticize the “wrong” sort of masculinity: drinking herbal tea rather than beer, wanting to be the stay-at-home parent rather than competing, having the “wrong” hobbies or interests, calling out other guys on their bullshit. If Vance wants to make it okay to be a man, that should include all kinds of men.

I suspect it doesn’t.

I suspect — indeed I’m certain — that some of the guys telling that kind of nasty misogynist joke think they’re edgy, daring, pushing back against a feminist status quo. The truth is, being a misogynist or sexist isn’t at all edgy: it’s conventional. It’s cliched (hence the title of my book) There’s nothing they’re saying that’s new or that the women they’re belittling haven’t heard from other men. I wonder, if they realized that would it make a difference?

Speaking of men, I’ll wrap up with a couple of links —

“For every girl who learns that she needs a man to save her, there is a boy who learns that he’s either the savior or he doesn’t have a reason to be alive.” — a look at the messages boys get from fairytales.

Movies about emotionally-distant dads who save their children when violence is needed.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

The bullshit of Basham (and JD Vance)

As you may have heard, Marko Elez, one of the Muskrats Elon turned loose on the treasury, has bragged online that he was racist before it was cool (spoiler: it’s not cool and never was), that he wants to normalize bigotry against Indians and that he wants to kill the Civil Rights Act. He was briefly dismissed from his post, then rehired after snowflake JD Vance whined it was unfair: ““I cannot overstate how much I loathe this emotional blackmail pretending to be concern. My kids, god willing, will be risk takers. They won’t think constantly about whether a flippant comment or a wrong viewpoint will follow them around for the rest of their lives.”

Marko Elez is 25 years old. That’s not a kid. And if he’s so immature his views shouldn’t be held against him, why are we trusting him on a major government project? And how is describing his views accurately “emotional blackmail”? It isn’t — it’s that Vance doesn’t think his viewpoints are wrong or not so wrong they should affect his career. Which is a common view on the right — it’s their right to be racist shits, but nobody has the right to criticize them for it. Free speech flows one way. Vance has no problem with people being hounded or harassed for being “too woke” — his compassion is for those who are too racist. Because they’re his allies.

Nobody in the Trump camp has any compassion for LGBTQ people. The VA is canceling suicide prevention training because it includes a focus on LGBTQ suicide. “The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) was told this week by DOJ that they’d lose their funding if the org didn’t remove any mentions of LGBTQIA+ issues from their public materials, I’ve learned. Staff were told they need to deadname trans kids in their reports to comply.”

Of course lots of people, even in the Republican camp, might feel slightly uncomfortable about such cruelty. Isn’t that the opposite of what Christ taught us? Vance’s solution is to lie: Jesus, he claims, taught us to “love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” As noted at the link, that’s completely wrong.

Right-wing Christian pundit Megan Basham takes the same stance, arguing the point of the Good Samaritan parable isn’t that we should help people, it’s that we can’t possibly live up to the Samaritan’s standard so we should just turn to Jesus and find salvation. Which is close to the antinomian heresy — that if we’re not saved by works don’t matter. Though I’m less troubled by that than by the implication we might just as well shrug and pass the beaten Jewish merchant by and then ask Jesus to forgive us. If we find someone beating by the side of the road, the thing to do is help them — not because it’s important to our souls but because they need help! I’m quite sure Basham would expect that if she were the victim — but she’s not paid to be nice to other people. Or to tell the truth.

Compassion for others does not benefit Republicans. Therefore they have to kill it.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics