Sanders, Trump, and the Cult of Victimization

The year is 2016.

When people act like cavemen, in ‘unevolved’ sorts of ways, it is inevitable that someone is always there to ask “What year are we living in?” meaning, there is something allegedly shocking to a person of reason about how slowly large groups of people evolve socially over time. As Donald Trump grows closer to securing the Republican nomination, he continues to indirectly but not so subtly pander to the racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters who are not above rising to violence who happen to think Trump’s presidency will ‘change things.’ The question is, what is it Trump supporters hope to change? It’s not like a whole lot of racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters haven’t benefited from the status quo for, well, pretty much all of American history.

And that’s just it; for Trump supporters, what they are hoping to change is the direction in

which the country is changing. Trump’s overwhelmingly white supporters see the writing on the wall; for example, they’re currently under attack spiritually as the number of diverse religions grow within U.S. borders. Heaven forbid a Christian from Bala’ama be forced to share the street with a non-Christian! (For the sake of brevity, now replace ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ with ‘white folk’ and ‘people of color,’ ‘men’ and ‘women,’ ‘the uncultured and illiterate’ and ‘a gay from New York,’ etc.) Of course, least we forget that the Mexicans are stealing jobs Americans don’t want to do. Somehow, Trump supporters feel victimized by the growing number of people who don’t think conservative white men should be allowed to keep victimizing people the way they have for over 200 years now. Oddly, if there is anything Trump supporters should be fighting, it’s the narrative of victimization that seems to be the driving force in the lives of U.S. citizens these days.

The middling success of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is indicative of this narrative. People of Color, gays, Millennials, left-of-left leaning liberals and people who don’t want another Clinton in the White House are flocking to a socialist who sounds like a Sweathog from Welcome Back Kotter. While blacks more than any other group of minorities have suffered from institutionalized racism (Native American aren’t around much to persecute anymore), it is hard to see why they think a frazzle-haired Jewish president would suddenly make them equal in the eyes of conservative white men, seeing how Obama’s presidency hasn’t helped much. Really, though, blacks and gays are the only groups of people who have truly been victimized throughout U.S. history, though it is arguable the LGBT community has had a great deal more success in being accepted. Meanwhile, Millennials and left-of-left leaning liberals feel victimized by being born into a culture that is largely a meritocracy. People who don’t want another Clinton in the White House feel victimized by the lack of Whole Foods supermarkets in their neighborhood (that are owned by a Republican by-the-way).

What both sides have in common is that they feel victimized by the status quo. The difference is slight at best; Trump supporters want to stop the status quo from ceasing to be the status quo while Sanders supporters think the status quo can’t change fast enough. In the meantime, both groups of supporters (read: fanatics) are being forced to live in a world that is utterly horrible, one that doesn’t kowtow to their respective beliefs. This is, however, merely indicative of a larger problem insofar as it has become every American’s prerogative to perceive any transgression – no matter how slight – into being victimized. Politically, both sets of supporters want to sell everyone on the idea that their candidate is for freedom when in fact both candidates are diametrically opposed to freedom – one is out to curtail freedoms for certain people while the other is out to curtail the freedom of certain ideas. The U.S.’s currently culture of victimization is born directly out of having too much freedom: The fact is that in almost no other country do the citizens have so much freedom to protest that their freedoms are under attack. Keep in mind that this is despite the media in the U.S. almost entirely being under the control of a mere five corporations.

Moderate independent, liberal and conservative voters alike have long mocked the ‘special snowflake’ narrative of left-of-left liberals and Millennials when it appears all groups suffer from this delusion that they are special and deserve special or preferential treatment. Chances are, unless you’re an overweight, militant, gay Native African-American who wears glasses, you haven’t been victimized by anything other than your own ego. While both Trump and Sanders supporters would like to get rid of a culture that is a meritocracy (in theory, anyway) it is perhaps best if we actually employed a culture of meritocracy. Special or preferential treatment should be earned regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or nepotism. I say this because employing a true meritocracy is the best way to ensure everyone is treated fairly and no one can be victimized except by themselves.

Trump and Sanders supporters will never admit they have anything in common which only further demonstrates their inability to recognize their own humanness and the flaws that accompany it. Both groups think their candidate can fix what ails the country, but it is highly unlikely that more poison is the cure. Common ground is the cure, not a sharp divide.

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.]

10 Things I Love About Not Being A Christian

10. I don’t have to tell my wife to be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Let’s get something straight once and for all: As necessary as they may be, pregnant women are NOT attractive. Besides, my wife is a terrible cook.

9. I can go almost anywhere on a Sunday morning and it’s not crowded. I hate crowds, or at least I will until I am famous.

8. I don’t have to construct cockamamie philosophical arguments to prove my god’s existence (as opposed to any other god). This in particular frees me from the Herculean task of defining what a god is. Wait, was Hercules a god or a demi-god? If he was a demi-god, what was Jesus? Oh crap, see what I mean?

7. No tithing! Which sounds like ‘teething’ which reminds me of babies which requires pregnant women. Refer back to number 10.

6. I don’t have to automatically vote Republican. Thank goodness, since I can’t stand people who justify war, mistreat the downtrodden, and sympathize with the rich like Jesus did.

5. I don’t have to use fear to get people to coerce people to behave. That is SO old! I’d much rather subtly manipulate people without them realizing it. I respect that kind of game-play.

4. Speaking of fear, there’s no Hell. Even if there was, it can’t be as bad as staying at a Days Inn in bumfuck New York.

3. I don’t have to claim there is a culture war in America that is unfairly targeting Christians. Because if there is one thing no one likes, it’s when the shoe is on the other foot.

2. I don’t have to read the Bible. I mean, it’s SO long. And if 99% of Christians can’t be bothered to read it, why should I?

1. I don’t have to pretend a male god making the first person ever another man isn’t a totally gay thing to do. Do you know why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? To look the other way.

Morons and Chain Email

Know what I hate? People. Stupid, stupid people. Human beings just can’t stop being irrational, spiteful jackasses. On top of that, they have the audacity to lay claim to some measure of intelligence. Such arrogance!

Take for example the architect of a semi-recent email about who Barack Obama really is, an email designed to strike fear into the hearts of every former slave-owning, white Southerner who lacks education and refinement. The email, sent to me by parties who shall remain anonymous, was intended to dissuade me from supporting the junior senator from Illinois. Problem is, I think for myself. My opinion is not easily manipulated. So let’s examine the email with a critical eye because really, that’s what anyone should do.

The email begins innocently enough by saying everything is factual. Heck, the info is right there on snopes.com, and by golly, if it’s on the internet, it must be true…”Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from Wichita, Kansas.” Hmm, okay, not that innocently. Barack’s name is pointed out for obvious reasons (he’s related to Saddam Hussein! OMG!). Then the author spells out in caps the word “Muslim,” as if that’s so vital a point as not to be missed. As an atheist, I‘m practically offended. As everyone knows, evil atheists orchestrated the brutal and oppressive communist Soviet government all those years ago. But it looks like we’ve got nothing on Muslims.

“Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.” Again, “Muslim” is spelled out in caps while “Catholic” is not, as the author intends/pretends to appear, uh, fair and balanced. What is not mentioned here is that in that Muslim school, no one is taught Islamic doctrines. Catholic schools on the other hand, well, I think they’re busy even today teaching kids that the Sun goes around the Earth.

“Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.” How are they trying to do that exactly? I’m pretty sure that if he talked the talk and walked the walk (praying five times a day to Mecca, strapping bombs to his chest—because all Muslims do that—while shouting ‘God is great!’), someone would notice. In what manner does Obama act like a radical and how does his staff cover it up? Have they been hiring Cheney’s people or what?

“Keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead, the Koran.” Actually, according to snopes.com, this is false. Sooooo, where-the-*$@# does the author get off previously stating all the information was factually correct, being that it appear on snopes.com?? What’s also worth mentioning here is that religious tests are not required to hold office. Again, wtf? Is the author implying that we should only trust Christians? Why the hell would I trust anyone who says they are a follower of Jesus Christ but doesn’t act anything like him? And isn’t the Catholic Church busy going bankrupt because their priests couldn’t keep their hands off kids? I’m just sayin’…

“Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience…Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.” Factually incorrect again, not to mention sensationalist. Obama was photographed without his hand over his heart while the national anthem played. Make of that what you will, just be sure to look around the stadium next time you’re at a ballgame. See how many patriots can’t be bothered to put down their beer while the Star Spangled Banner plays. At any rate, I’d rather have a president who doesn’t put his hand over his heart for the national anthem than a president who treats the Constitution like toilet paper.

“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!” So…George W. Bush is a Muslim? Oh, sh*t!

The author closes by saying that while Oprah may want Obama to be president, he does not! Well, who are you going to trust, Oprah, or some jackass who won’t give you their name or credentials? I don’t typically give a hoot what celebrities say, but I’m gonna trust my gut and go with Oprah on this one. I don’t know about you.