How to Defeat Trump

It’s looking more and more like Donald Trump is going to win the next U.S. presidential election. Why? Mainly because the economy is doing well and that issue is the biggest issue of all. People are content as long as they are able to buy stuff. It doesn’t matter if income disparity is growing at an ever increasing rate or if tax cuts for the rich burden the middle class as long as people have enough money to buy stuff. After all, being an American means being a consumer, so the economy has to do well enough for people to at least have a job. (Or at least a better job than the ones they’re not willing to do which these same people accuse illegal immigrants of taking away. SMH.) If the economy is okay, the sitting president gets elected. That’s all there is to it.

Trump has added benefits, too, as far as his base is concerned. He appeals to evangelicals (despite every evidence to the contrary of being one himself) and white supremacists who still don’t know that white people didn’t invent agriculture, mathematics, clocks, or even the gunpowder and bombs they love so much. Jesus, not even their religion – Christianity – was invented by white people.

That being said, it looks like it’s going to be hard for Trump to lose to any one of the Democratic contenders, especially when all of the contenders’ platforms revolve around immigration. While the situation at the southern U.S. border is terrible, no amount of suffering by illegal immigrants is going to override the economy’s health. (Making any social issue the focus of their campaign is going to get the Democratic nominee defeated.) So not only do the Democrats need to shift their focus away from immigration – sorry, I know it’s really tough –  they need to target the only demographic Trump may not be able to secure: Independent voters. And the only way to sway those independent voters who may have voted for Trump in the previous election is to make Trump look like an ass in debates. Trump already always looks like an ass when he goes off-script but realize that most of the time he’s under control due to the pandering of sycophants such as when he’s talking with Fox News (which is always). While many of us already know Trump’s incapable of making logical rash decisions and sound judgments, this needs to be witnessed on a national stage by the casual independent voter. Independent voters need to be able to say to themselves, “Wow, this guy’s a maniac. And not in a good way.” Get Trump going off-script in debates and the Democratic contender will at least stand a chance.

Democrats, heed my following points well. You risk ignoring me at the country’s peril. The stakes are too high to lose again. Bite the bullet, take the low road for once, and do what needs to be done. Defeat Trump in the debates by following the suggestions I’ve laid out before you:

·        1-The one rule to rule them all (do it immediately and do not let up): Get under Trump’s skin – challenge his vanity, for example, by alleging that Trump wouldn’t have won the election without Russia’s help. Bring up Russian interference and all the people around him that have faced criminal charges. (So much for appointing the ‘best people’ who either leave because they were incompetent or have faced criminal charges. Heck, go so far as to imply Trump has partied with underage teenagers with Jeffery Epstein. The Trump administration can’t vet anyone properly, it seems. Of course, Trump never needs to because he is a great judge of character.) Bring up Russia and the Mueller Report a lot. Point out that Hillary won the popular election. Trump hates that. It doesn’t even matter if what you say about him is true – we live in a post-fact world anyway – say his golf swing sucks. The thing is, once Trump gets flustered, he wings it, and we all know how well that turns out.

·       2-In case you didn’t just hear me, keep bringing up Russia and how Putin is an enemy, not a friend. Ask Trump about election security since he has no plan whatsoever.

·       3-Oh, I forgot to mention that it’s really important that Trump faces a woman for the presidency. Trump has been very successful at challenging every man’s but Putin’s masculinity, so if the Democrats put up Biden or, God forbid, Bernie the Dems will need to get nasty and talk about what Stormy Daniels said about his genitalia. I know that’s wishful thinking but it’s the only defense. Again, it would fluster Trump. He’ll already be annoyed to be facing a woman.

·       4-Bring up all the times Trump has ignored the Constitution – challenge Trump’s knowledge on the Constitution since he has none.

·       5-Trump’s foreign policy has been a disaster and we all know why he wants desperately to be friends with Russia, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia – hotels. Make it known that the Democratic contender will rebuild confidence with our traditional allies and fight terrorism against journalists with sanctions. Accuse Trump of being played for a fool by North Korea.

·       6-The Trump administration’s environmental record is another (literal) disaster to harp on. A central issue of the Democratic nominee’s platform should be combatting climate change and cleaning up the environment. Bring facts about how environmental disaster is impacting areas Trump voters live in. This will have Trump frothing at the mouth about global warming being a hoax. Ask him which oil company told him that.

·       7-Ask Trump where his health care plan is after saying the GOP would become the party of healthcare. Healthcare should be another central issue for the Democratic nominee. And sorry, the Democratic nominee will need to back off of saying free healthcare for illegal immigrants. That annoys even me and I’m pretty liberal on most social issues. If you’re not going to take care of Americans first, you’ll lose the election in a landslide.

·       8-If Trump says he’s doing well and the economy proves it, bring up the tariffs and the farmer bailouts. This is how you’re going to combat accusations of socialism, which Trump is going to do often. Ask Trump if he even knows what socialism is. For that matter, ask him if he knows what fascism is and how it relates to how private companies like Twitter and Facebook do their business. He won’t know how to answer. Watch him talk out of his ass.

·       9-Take Trump to task for all his vacations at taxpayer expense, which Trump accused Obama of doing. Ask Trump why it is okay for him and why it wasn’t for Obama. Point out his never ending hypocrisy; if Obama was such an ineffectual president why has Trump spent so much time rolling back so many of Obama’s implemented policies?

·       10-Like Trump’s associates who face criminal charges, accuse Trump of pandering to ‘good people’ like racist white supremacists and fringe evangelicals who are curbing women’s rights. Attack Trump for attacking the four congresswomen who are supposed to ‘go back where they came from’ even though three of the four were born Americans. Bring up Trump’s racism which has now been fully realized. When Trump mention immigrants, outline the horrible things Trump’s base is doing. Statistically, you’re more likely to be shot by a white male than an immigrant and everyone knows it.

·       11-Bring up Trump’s nepotism and how he overruled the FBI to give his family members clearances. Ask him what makes his family more qualified for certain positions rather than people with actual qualifications.

·       12-Accuse Fox News of being state run TV and all their instances of fake news. Bring up Trump attacking journalists just because they’re not kind to him. Call Trump a snowflake who is so easily offended that he shouldn’t be running the country.

·       13-If for some reason Trump should talk about the Democratic nominee’s personal relationships, they’ll need to get nasty and talk about Donald’s affairs and how the women he sleeps with aren’t exactly the brightest. Sucks to have to insult the First Lady, but remember that she’s an immigrant and us Americans don’t like immigrants.

·       14-Bring up his taxes and investigations. Ask him what he’s hiding; if he’s not guilty of any wrongdoing, he should release his taxes.

·       15-Address his tax cut for the rich and the future consequences. For once, do some fearmongering. Except it’s not fearmongering. As always, it’s going to come down on the middle class and they make up the majority of voters.

·       You may have to go way off topic to point these things out and Trump might even recognize you’re off topic (doubt it) but it’s the same as trying to get Trump to stay on topic. The chances of Trump staying on topic are about the same as him staying on top of the same woman.

It’s going to be a longshot for the Democrats to pull off a presidential victory in the next election unless they get ballsy. You can’t fight insanity with sanity. You will lose every time. Are your principles really worth four more years of a complete shit-show? Please, Democrats, please grow a spine just this once. Asking for more than one-half of the United States.

Millennials: Spoiled Brats Meme Edition

I think I feel a micro-aggression coming on. 

South Park takes on Safe Spaces

Safe from...reality?

FYI: It's the new high school diploma.

He dealt with macro-aggressions.

I'm all for free college; strings attached.

Tell me again why feelings should supersede thinking?

And Finally...

Alan Dershowitz & Peggy Noonan Epically Destroy the Regressive Left ON FOX NEWS! GOLD!

The Necessity of Art to Freedom

In America, we are living in an age when millions, excuse me, billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into bullets, bombs, and luxurious embassies for U.S. emissaries around the world. The necessity to do so may be subject to debate, but one has to wonder given all those tax dollars, who is getting shortchanged? Should more government money be spent on education? Perhaps if school funding were more than an issue once an election cycle, senior government officials, by virtue of their education, would have seen 9/11 as inevitable and taken the necessary steps politically (if not militarily) to prevent the terrible events of that day.

In the need to fulfill many government services, federal and state legislators routinely shortchange public schools. School lunch programs, the athletic department for all non-essential sports (only football is essential, obviously) and the art departments are usually the first to fall in the battle for funding. But are these programs even necessary? Yes, they are all vitally important. However, if school administrators must decide upon which of these departments are most necessary, especially which one is most valuable to freedom, then the art department may be the most valuable.

Though art is often taught in pre-school through middle school, it is done so almost as an afterthought. By the time a student reaches high school, training in art is not likely to be offered, presumably because art is not as valued as math, science, or history. (Let’s put aside America’s abysmal scores in these subjects for the time being which would otherwise lead us to question the value of those subjects as well.) Among those subjects, though, history is nothing like math or science, and history is not particularly crucial given America’s One-Billion-Hamburgers-Sold, consumer-driven society that routinely ignores historical facts. Why then is history required for high school students? Because it teaches them something, particularly the way the prevailing local government wants students to develop their worldview.

Traditionally with art, it has been taught because of what it does where what it does is necessary in safeguarding freedom. We should be requiring art classes in high school because developing artistic talents aid in the development of critical thinking and communication skills. Art teaches us to think in different ways, providing us with an ability to evaluate the world around us. There is also the matter of what art does for students as a means of self-expression.

Although art is a form of communication primarily associated with visual arts, it encompasses so much more. Art also comes in the form of music, literature, and our bodily movements. Art can be found in architecture and other forms of technology as well. As a form of communication, it is a language that coveys lessons and messages that, “…succeeds where words fail” (Lynn Olsen). And it is a language every bit as important as mathematics. As Albert Einstein said, “The value of an education…is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think of something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” Is it ethical to deprive a student of the unique voice and ear art has to offer?

What are the implications of withdrawing art appreciation from our schools? Without the ability to recognize and decipher the language of art, we open ourselves to manipulation. As columnist Lynne Olsen once noted, “Totalitarian rulers recognize the power of art.” The Nazi’s, for example, instituted strict rules upon artists with only themes sanctioned by the state being allowed for the sake of manipulating public opinion. If a student does not learn to think in different ways, they become prone to monotonously linear thinking, and easily swayed to believe any truth a government may want to invent.

 

Case in point 1: American cable news. Cue the Fox News logo; red, white, and blue. Not only are these colors the colors of the American flag, they are primary colors well known to lure flies into spiders’ webs. The Fox News channel logo is quite intentionally, and they have the rating to prove it. As stock quotes and headlines tick by, a once ever present “Terror Alert” graphic reminded the public that war is permanent. Down the fauxhole our taxpayer dollars go.

Case in point 2: Advertisers use art to manipulate consumers all the time. All one has to do is mention the words “Coca-Cola,” and immediately, flowing white cursive lettering on a red background – a color combination know to invoke hunger and thirst – forms in one’s mind. But who would know to resist this application of art without any art training? Without critical thinking and communication skills, anyone is at risk of being open to propaganda and advertising. If students do not learn to be creative, conventional wisdom cannot be challenged, and what America is left with is a population susceptible to corporations, fascism or some other form of tyranny.

Many tyrants have imposed restrictions on artists. Art as a form of self-expression is vehemently opposed, leading to a culturally bleak existence. An existence without art, as artist Zel Brook put it, “…is the same as telling us that we should go through our days ignoring our senses, with endless days of frustration…with no hope the situation will ever change.”

In the 18^th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, surrounded by the constant turmoil and conflict in Europe, explained that engaging in the arts is the only way to release one’s self from an otherwise painful existence. Another philosopher, the ill-regarded Karl Marx, felt that repressing an individual’s expression with art will ultimately result in noncompliance or violent revolt, given that in totalitarian or fascist societies, the public has no outlet for social criticism. Likewise, teenagers who have not been instructed in art face limited means of expressing themselves or will become the target of criticism by their classmates when they buck the status quo when they do express themselves in a unique manner. Is the American teenager’s obligatory rebellion or fits of depression a product of artistic repression, from not being heard?

Art helps express the ineffable. Cathy McGuire, an art therapist in Portland, Oregon, says, “The physical act of creation connects our bodies with the external world…what we are really making is ourselves.” As any parent can attest to, it’s hard enough to communicate with their children. Limiting the means by which they can communicate only complicates issues. Surely, parents would rather understand their children than roll their eyes at them. Or would parents simply rather their children be compliant with their governing beliefs? With parents often attempting to mold their children in their own image, I suppose they should then be happy with the disposal of any art department. Why bother questioning advertisers who will attempt to manipulate everyone into buying their products, the safety or efficacy of those products be damned? Politicians, men of power who love nothing more than more power, why wouldn’t they want to cut funding for the arts in public schools; they simply don’t want people thinking for themselves if they expect to remain within a sphere of influence. 

That is the problem faced with art. Without artists, the world is a colorless and dull world shaped by the demands of the figures of authority. Whether or not such a world is the world we should be living in is another question, but without all the practical tools and languages with which to debate the question, how can we be sure of the truth?

Few people will dispute the pleasure of freedom. However, it should be realized that freedom and artistry cannot live without each other. Is it necessary for the arts to be taught in high school? Yes, it is vital to everyone’s freedom if freedom is in fact what we value. 

The Idiocy of Dinesh D'Souza

Last week, Fox News’ Sean Hannity had fellow demagogue Dinesh D’Souza on his show so that the proud immigrant-cum-old-white-man’s-proponent could cry foul for Costco pulling his book, “America,” out of its stores. Costco defended its actions on grounds that the book was selling poorly. D’Souza, whining like the cowardly liberal babies he’s always attacking, went on to make a number of logical fallacies in his defense. This really shouldn’t surprise us since logical fallacies are consistently D’Souza’s soup-de-jour.

Does D’Souza have a right to be upset about Costco’s actions? Sure, he has a right to be upset but that doesn’t mean that his being upset is justified. As a Republican and, moreover, the fact that D’Souza extols the virtue of free markets without or with minimal regulation in his latest book, Costco should be able to sell or not sell whatever it wants. This is where D’Souza’s defenders, Hannity among them, cry ‘censorship’ apparently not knowing what the word ‘censorship’ means in relation to free markets. So here you have Costco acting in exactly the manner Republicans want businesses to act, that is, until one of their own doesn’t like it. If Costco is guilty of censorship, aren’t Christian book stores guilty of censorship for not selling books that criticize Christian beliefs? (Remember, Christian book stores are not churches and therefore are for-profit, meaning they have to play by the same rules as every other business. Hypothetically, anyway, since we know which way the Supreme Court currently leans. Thanks, Hobby Lobby.)

But Hannity and D’Souza’s main argument is to tie Costco to the Obama Administration, basically saying that there was a conspiracy to pull the book from the store. Nevermind that a score of other books by Conservative authors remain on Costco’s shelves; the decision to pull “America” was purely political. I see. So, by that argument, whenever a company contributes campaign funds to a politician, we should be wary of those types of relationships. I do not necessarily disagree, but you can’t say Fox News ever brings such

Old White Guy in Indian clothing.

relationships to light when it’s their politicians and their lobbyists. If Fox News doesn’t report it, we can’t decide. Clever. But the strangest thing about this particular argument is that Hannity and D’Souza claim a mere $303, 000 in contributions to the Obama Administration from Costco, which they consider excessive but which the rest of us consider paltry compared to what, say, oil and coal energy companies contribute to the Republican party. (Yes, they contribute to Democrats, too, though not nearly as much.) So D’Souza isn’t being any more consistent than he’s being logical. We should be wary of people like that.

If for no other reason, D’Souza’s book “America” should be pulled for being a screed minimally based in logic or reasoning, though we should expect such a book from someone can’t operate without his logical fallacies. A quick flip through his book at Costco (they restocked it) is all that is needed to observe the same tired, old fallacies and poor reasoning. A very quick analysis in no particular order  reveals:

1 - D’Souza criticizes Obama and social progressives for trying to install an all-watching, all-knowing government whose mission is to keep us all ‘safe’ for our own good, nevermind that it was Bush Jr. who signed the Patriot Act into law. Hmm, sounds like Cherry-picking to me. Yeah, you’re never going to see D’Souza criticize Republicans who actions harm the country. It’s just that goddamn all-powerful Obama and those 900 Executive Orders. Nevermind that this number is an out and out lie and that currently the last Prez, Bush Jr., has signed more Executive Orders. 2 – The U.S. is set for a radical cultural change (and by extension, political change) that will demolish traditional American values. First, traditional values doesn't mean those values are inherently good. Second, the U.S. today is radically different than the U.S. in 1950, which was radically different form the U.S. in 1900, which was radically different from…Wow, D’Souza is a visionary. 3 – D’Souza implies that (the philosopher) Foucault’s political philosophies are mistaken by invoking Foucalt’s sex life. Ad hominem and genetic fallacies. 4 – The U.S. should not be morally condemned for conquering America and taking it from Native Americans since conquering other peoples is simply how humanity operates. On this account, I don’t see why D’Souza is upset by the growth and progress of social liberals in the U.S. since this is simply how humans operate. 5 – The U.S. is in decline, basically on all accounts, nevermind that this has been the case long before D’Souza came on the scene. So, again, not prophetic. The idea of “American Exceptionalism” was never real to begin with, but apparently no one told D’Souza. 6 – D’Souza decries the loss of the Constitution’s real meaning, where all men were created equal except slaves, while at the same time condemning slavery; these are internally inconsistent viewpoints. (At least we agree that reparations for slavery should not be paid.)

Most of us know D’Souza’s history as an immigrant who came to the U.S. and “made it” though he “made it” by basically believing and espousing all the things old white men with power believe and espouse. If someone like D’Souza “makes it” but is on the other side of the political spectrum, D’Souza regards that person as a threat to the U.S., nevermind that such success is what D’Souza is supposed to love about the U.S. I guess, but success only on his terms. 

[Oh, and btw, D'Souza pleaded guilty to illegal campaign contributions in May 2014. Way to display good ol' American values, Dinesh.]

Still Full of Shit

So much for taking a month off to blog about nonsense like style and music. I think it's time to get serious about nonsense.  

I knew within moments of the Boston marathon bombing yesterday that the event would be another fist-pumping confirmation to conspiracy theorists of some nefarious New World Order plot to take over the world. Conspiracy theorists would rather confirm their own biases based on information they simply do not know than take a minute to sympathize with victims of an evil deed. Not only are conspiracy theorists full of shit, as I wrote in a previous blog, they're douchebags, too. I'd be sick of their nonsense if I weren't so fascinated by their delusional beliefs.  

I'm fascinated by conspiracy theorists for the same reason I am fascinated by religious zealots; their propensity to believe stupid shit. For example, conspiracy theorists believe that the misinformation that is often a result of the news outlets' rush to report is in fact intentional. What they don't understand is that news media is a business and the agency that leads with information wins. (Take for example the 2000 US presidential election, in which Fox News called the election for George W. Bush without justification.)  

And so conspiracy theorists like to play connect the dots where either connections or dots do not exist. They can't tell you the difference between a correlation and a cause. One conspiracy theorist I know well had the nerve to speculate that recent events with North Korea, Cyprus, the drop in value of gold and silver, and the Boston Marathon are all connected, a plan to part American citizens at least from their God given rights. It's all well and good to speculate, but how about proving such fucking absurd assertions? 

Nor do conspiracy loons ever search for other possible explanations for such events. For example, what's more likely, that the Boston Marathon was bombed by a fucking nutjob or terrorist group, or that it was the latest chess move by some global shadow government, a government that no one has been able to expose with hard evidence? There's hard evidence of government corruption alright, it's just not the evidence that points to a secret conspiracy. The fact that lobbyists from big businesses such as Monsanto wind up with government jobs is a matter of public record. The fact that US CEO's make approximately 285 times their average workers is something just about everyone knows. There doesn't need to be some Illuminati plan for world domination. The average person allows themselves to walked all over despite the great injustices of this world.  

It is my belief - as long as we're on the topic of erroneous beliefs -  that conspiracy theorists are simply upset that they have so little control over their own lives and are looking for a scapegoat, seeing how their shitty lives can't possibly be their own fault. That's where conspiracy theorists referring to themselves as "truthers" really becomes laughable; they're going to expose all the horrible truths about the world, all of them, except the truth that where they're at in life is their own fault. (Or not; it depends if you believe in free will.)

I also take issue with conspiracy theorists for their cowardice. They are simply not willing to do what it takes to overthrow the evil forces at work against them and everyone else. They could organize and lobby their representatives en masse or take up arms against their enemy, but they don't do that. No, they think it is enough to get their somehow reliable information to people from safely behind their computer screens, over the internet that the big, bad New World Order isn’t bothering to monitor. Supposing there really were a reptilian shadow government to expose, do you think they’d let “truthers” expose the truth on the internet? Nah, they’re content to allow conspiracy theorists to add to all the misinformation already out there. On a side note, conspiracy theorists, Youtube – that outlet for all your temper tantrums and misinformation dissemination – is as much a “Tell-A-Vision” as television you fucking dipshits. 

To be fair, difficult as that may be, I’m not going to say governments never do bad things. Yes, The US government has committed some pretty heinous acts in the past and will likely do them again at some point. But that particular monster is not lurking around every single corner. If that monster is, then I say: Fucking prove it. That is, prove it in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. I’m betting a gajillion dollars no conspiracy theorist can do it. (Why a gajillion dollars? Because that’s how much money the conspirators have.) 

In the meantime, conspiracy nuts, here’s a little gem from Patton Oswalt that reveals just how little the New World Order is controlling all of us, because if they were, no one would have run to help the victims of the bombing.

* * *

Boston. Fucking horrible.

I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, "Well, I've had it with humanity."

But I was wrong. I don't know what's going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths.

But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out. (Thanks FAKE Gallery founder and owner Paul Kozlowski for pointing this out to me). This is a giant planet and we're lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they're pointed towards darkness.

But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago.

So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will." ~ Patton Oswald