Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

The World is Always Going to Push Back



System Of A Down drummer John Dolmayan has hit back at fans who have criticised his controversial political opinions.

The musician sparked outrage back in June when he spoke out in praise of Donald Trump, describing him as “the greatest friend to minorities” in the US. He later targeted Black Lives Matter, saying that the movement “never had legitimacy” and calling it a “propaganda tool” for the Democrat Party.

Taking to Instagram yesterday (September 8), Dolmayan shared a negative online review of his Las Vegas comic book store, Torpedo Comics, in which a man named Jeff Jones called the drummer “a fascist sympathiser who pedals [sic] in racist conspiracy theories”.

Dolmayan can say and believe whatever he wants. He can put all of his beliefs out there and he can submit them to the marketplace of ideas. What happens after that is entirely up to the people who can either buy in to those ideas or reject them. 

Why is he surprised to find out that nobody wants to listen to his pro-Trump bullshit? Does he think that what he believes is beyond reproach?

Musicians who have liberal or centrist beliefs are subjected to criticism and online nastiness all the time. Standing up against racism has literally ended musical careers. Taking a stand has usually meant being savaged by the people in your fanbase who don't agree with what you're saying.
I mean, grow up, dude.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Counting Down to Insanity




I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but what the hell is this nonsense?

Today they may be sketching out their best attacks on the Democrats’ leading potential candidate for 2016, but once Dick Cheney, Paul Ryan, et al. had plenty of nice things to say.
For the better part of a quarter-century, Hillary Clinton has loomed over American politics as a hate figure for many on the right—and she seems poised to re-assert her dominant position in right-wing demonology in 2016. But there was a time, stretching roughly from her concession of the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama in 2008 to the Benghazi attack in 2012, when conservatives changed their tune on Clinton. In fact, plenty of Republicans even said nice things about her.

Ben Jacobs goes on to list some "nice" things that were said about Hillary Clinton. And, rest assured, none of these "nice" things will be repeated next year when the 2016 Presidential Election begins to gain some steam.




The Republican Party does not do nuance and it does not handle history very well. None of these people will remember what they actually said and they'll deny saying it if it costs them money or votes. They cannot be collated or reminded of the things they have actually done--that's for liberals, not conservatives. There is no accountability for past actions. Hypocrisy, for Republicans, is non-existent because no one, and I mean no one, acknowledges anything other than this morning's news cycle or the latest bit of oft-repeated conventional wisdom. They have hated Obama since day one. They will hate on Hillary Clinton like nothing you have ever seen before.





In short, these people are going to lose their mud. 





You see, hating Democrats is our new national pastime. If you thought the last eight years were crazy, get ready for an upside down ride on a red wagon straight to hell. They are going to demonize this woman for breathing air and having a resume. They will hate her like they hate everything in this world that isn't old, confused, Reaganistic and vaguely corporate. 





This country has a big bucket of crazy to eat and no one has any napkins.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

The Puritans Still Rule America




No surprise here. This is the lesson that people in politics never seem to learn--it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Everything you think had gone away will always come back around and bite you in the ass. And anything that involves sex will be exposed because the American appetite for naughty news is insatiable:

As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.


But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.


The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.


Jack Lew was the White House Chief of Staff when this happened. Covering up the involvement of the White House in this scandal probably went through him. If it did not, then you can plainly see why he did not hold the job for very long.





The Secret Service and the White House are locked in a struggle against one another. No one is well served by this and no one should mistake the impact this will have going forward. The rest of President Obama's turn in office will resemble siege warfare, and, in my opinion, the leaks that will involve this kind of activity will increase.





There is also an undercurrent of a cultural clash here. When you send Americans abroad, no matter how sophisticated they pretend to be, there is simply no way they can handle the customs and the practices found in other countries. We are still a Puritanical society and we bear the imprint made by a long-dead religious sect that flourished in New England on American customs and morals. This is why the Old West shocked people back east--it resembled the way the world still works in many places, with sex between adults treated like a retail transaction and with little regard for what made preachers uneasy.





The direct link to Puritanical values can be found when you laugh at the idea that the actor, Stephen Collins, should be the face of conservative family values. He once had the gall to criticize Jessica Biel for trying to have a viable career in Hollywood. He will likely never work again and the media elements at the level of TMZ will attempt to make the same buck that the Colombian prostitutes made when it was known that they were able to use the law to embarrass the government of the United States.





Everything can be traced back to hypocrisy and Puritan values that are outdated. No wonder the French still laugh at us.

Friday, June 6, 2014

John McCain is Flip Flopping and as Senile as Ever




Honestly, how do they allow this man access to microphones and public places? Who on this man's staff allows him the opportunity to embarrass himself by constantly going on television?

At this point in John McCain's career, you would think avoiding television would be the smart move. He's a fool if he runs again and he's finished in American public life. The media now uses him as the de facto voice of the opposition, letting him bluster and give belligerent answers. It's great TV. It's a farce when you think about the importance of governance.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Benghazi This and Benghazi That




The spokesperson for the administration that used the tag line "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" is daring meteorologists to perpetrate the right wing's delusional talking points about the attack on Benghazi.

The farce that is the conservative mind continues to scream Benghazi until it does, in fact, become the scandal it never was. How wonderful it will be when our working media buffoons decide to start laughing at their idea of what constitutes a scandal and do their jobs.

Welcome to the most ham-fisted scandal startup ever.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Always Good For a Laugh




Ann Althouse misses the point entirely when she makes her attack about our weak campaign finance laws and not the complete and utter disregard of the rule of law by half-assed conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza. It isn't about the law--it's about the fact that D'Souza is a serial hypocrite of the highest order who got caught because he simply didn't respect the very simple and basic rules that govern who can give money to a candidate and how much they can give. So, there's that. And, of course charging him with violating campaign finance laws is "political" because D'Souza operates entirely in a political world where everyone is accountable for their actions except himself. His respect for the rule of law is legendary--especially family law.

Saying that the law is "oppressive" is laughable. How can the law be oppressive in any way, shape or form for a conservative intellectual of D'Souza's background? Did he not go to college? Wasn't he supposed to be a smarty-pants? That's the kind of stupid Ann Althouse is famous for. And her braying pack of jackasses will eat it up until they all dissolve into their wine and confusion.

D'Souza will claim he is a martyr, that he is being silenced, and that President Obama spends all day, huddled with his advisers, trying to find a way to destroy him. It couldn't possibly be the case where D'Souza acted like an idiot and got caught doing something ridiculous. It couldn't be a case where he got caught doing something that a functioning adult with basic common sense could have gotten away with just by operating with the barest of noble intentions. Nope.

If you're stupid enough to get caught violating laws no one enforces anymore, you deserve to be indicted and blasted for it. The "weird details" of Althouse's imagination really don't go any further than getting caught giving a candidate more money than they were supposed to give and then reimbursing them with payments that can be easily traced and discovered:

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan said that Mr. D’Souza encouraged others to give $20,000 to a Senate candidate and reimbursed them for the donations. Election law prohibits such arrangements and caps donations at $5,000 per donor to any one candidate. 


The Senate candidate was not identified in the indictment. Mr. D’Souza donated to only one federal candidate in 2012, giving $5,000 to Wendy Long, a New York Republican who lost her challenge to Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat.

If that's not breathtakingly stupid, what the hell is?

Monday, December 16, 2013

Ed Schultz is a Powerless Hypocrite




The public meltdown of MSNBC host Ed Schultz has played out exactly the way I thought it would--stung by criticism, Schultz reveals that he has no power whatsoever to actually pressure the people who pay him lots of money to create mediocre television:


To rebut criticism over sums paid by unions to advertise on his show, Schultz — after saying it was a “rather awkward thing for me to do, because it sounds rather grandiose” — ran through a list of donations he’d made to charity. Schultz said his the donations or commitments added up to $343,000. He told listeners he would not apologize for making “a hell of a lot of money,” and that “anyone who follows me on Twitter knows I – I show pictures of my airplanes.” He added, “Back when I was in the middle class, I owned a 172.” 


“There’s all kinds of envy out there on the left,” said Schultz. “I’m still there … Don’t be deterred by all of these people that are printing stuff that is flat-out lies.” He told listeners, “Well, now I’m a 59- year-old one-percenter. I’m not gonna hide it.” 


A self-identified conservative radio host called in to defend Schultz taking advertising dollars from unions on the grounds that “you endorse products” and “this is absolutely no different from that … All you’ve got to do is say, ‘Of course I advertise for these guys, I agree with them.” Schultz responded, “Well, that’s the best tip I’ve ever had from a righty … There is no question about it: they’re buying the audience.” 


Later in the show, when a caller referenced Schultz “talking about some other shmegegi[Yiddish for a fool] that was attacking you,” Schultz promised a different tack: “You’ll never hear their names mentioned again. Never. That was my mistake by ever just acknowledging that they breathe air.” (Full disclosure: I’ve appeared once on Schultz’s MSNBC show and a couple times, with a guest host, on his radio show.) When a Twitter user suggested that meant Schultz had “lost it,” Schultz shot back with two tweets during the show. First, “I refuse to waste my time on misinformation and lies..” Then, “is it fair to put up with lies and misinformation?”


Alec Baldwin gave a lot of money to charity as well and it didn't help him keep his gig, either. So what?


This is what it looks like when someone has a public meltdown. They find common cause with a political opponent and ratchet down the crazy. Schultz is crying out that he's the aggrieved party. That's wrong. The people who are aggrieved work for MSNBC and they work for a union. Schultz is too terrified of his employers, who have a long, proud history of punishing him, to say anything to support them.


Nobody envies his wealth; they abhor his inability to see that his wealth could be put to better use helping people to earn a decent living. Schultz doesn't understand the basic maxim of being classy about being successful--kiss down, kick up. Anything else is letting your ego get in the way of taking care of the people who make it possible to be wealthy in the first place. It's very telling that he uses the language of dehumanizing people who disagree with him. His statement that he shouldn't acknowledge that they breathe air is an indication that his anger has risen to the point where he wants them to stop breathing and not exist. This is a man who can't control himself when he's criticized. In other words, he's the classic hypocrite who enjoys screaming at others while he dabs his ample chin with the fine cloth of a privileged man.


I agree with Schultz on political manners more often than not. But that doesn't mean that his peculiar brand of hypocrisy shouldn't be called out, especially when it comes to supporting unions and supporting the rights of workers, which he has tried to tout again and again as what sets him apart from other opinion broadcasters. Now he has, to a large extent, been put through the wringer because he has no power to pressure his employers to deal fairly and honestly with the union employees who work for the same company that he works for. He cannot show solidarity with them--he'll be fired. 


So, like a cowed and beaten man who fears the loss of his extravagant "one percenter" lifestyle, he shuts his mouth when union workers need the support of his voice. If that's not being a hypocrite--if that's not the very face of being utterly classless and cheap about what constitutes standing for something--then what the hell does the word even mean anymore?