MCJ COOKING POST

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, November 20th, 2016 | Neat Stuff and Ideas | 15 Comments

Have any of you guys ever cooked a Turducken?  I’m thinking of taking one on.  For those of you who don’t know what a Turducken is, it’s a very large bird that’s native to the United States and that quite a few people prefer for their Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter feasts.  How long do you roast them?  And how good is Turducken gravy?

I’m thinking Turducken, stuffing on the side, Turducken gravy, a green-bean casserole and absolutely NOTHING containing even the smallest hint of sweet potatoes or yams since I refer to both as Vege-Nazis.  As far as dessert is concerned, since I am fiercely opposed to all squash-related foodstuffs, pumpkin pie is out.

We’ll be having this.

And while I’ve got your attention, have any of you ever cooked with rattlesnake?  There’s a place online where you can order it and I’ve always wanted to make a rattlesnake chili just to be able to say that I did it.

Doable?


AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, November 19th, 2016 | Election Fallout | 59 Comments

Trump voters?  You’ll be pleased to know that Geoff Holsclaw, a professor at Northern Seminary and pastor of Life on the Vine Church in suburban Chicago, doesn’t believe that you’re evil people:

To the evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump:

I believe you. I believe in you.

I believe you love others. I believe you are doing your best. I believe you want good for America.

As a fellow evangelical, a local church pastor, and a seminary professor, I believe you want to be true to the gospel — to the “good news.”

In supporting Trump, I believe you did what you thought to be right by trying to vote for the lesser evil.

I believe you are not a racist, a misogynist, or a white nationalist because you voted for him. I believe you try to love your non-white neighbors, your Muslim coworkers, and your gay family members. I know you feel marginalized and shamed for your values.

I believe you see your vote for Trump as a call for another way, even if it was a vote for the lesser evil.

I believe you.

By my count, eleven “I believe you’s.”  Which basically means that Geoff really believes that you people suck.

But a spike in hate crimes and harassment since the election reveals the consequences of voting for the lesser evil.

The empowerment of hatred because of Trump [Really?  Got any empirical backing for that claim, Geoff? – CJ]  is now being felt across America: A woman was groped in the aisle of a grocery store in Grand Rapids, Mich., Swastikas and Trump’s name were spray-painted on windows in Philadelphia; a Chinese American woman said she was harassed by a white man in Minneapolis and told to “Go Back to Asia.”

Trump was elected with the support of four out of five evangelicals — people of the “good news.” But countless stories since his election show that, for people of color, women, and Muslims, his election has been very bad news.

I believe enabling this hatred was not your desire. You were just voting for the lesser evil.

But if you do not confront racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia wherever you see it, then your vote for the lesser evil will become a vote for hate.

So you’ve never actually read Exekiel 18, have you, Geoff?  Odd, coming from a church pastor.  Washington Post house “conservative” and #NeverTrump bitter-ender Jennifer Rubin contributes this.

We seem to have come full circle. In response to secular, liberal critics, evangelical leaders have defended their participation in major political and social battles, citing the example of the civil rights movement, when faith leaders from Christian and Jewish denominations lent their moral authority to the fight for racial justice. If, however, Christian conservatives are now making amoral, political calculations, they cannot very well set themselves up as arbiters of values or tell their congregants how faith should influence their votes.

We underscore one more aspect of evangelicals’ support for Trump. There is no issue on which evangelical conservatives have been more vocal and indignant than on the issue of “religious liberty” — the First Amendment right of Americans to avoid obligations that might otherwise fall on them so as to preserve their religious tradition (e.g. a conscience clause for doctors who object to performing abortions). However, in embracing a candidate who painted an entire religion as the enemy, for a time wanted to ban all its adherents and favored a “Muslim registry” (!) these evangelicals have been revealed to be egregious hypocrites and, yes, even religious bigots. At least we know with whom we are dealing.

The problem there is that I can remember a time, not all that long ago, when evangelicals, traditionalist Catholics and other Christian conservatives thought that candidates for public office ought to maintain certain moral standards and were angrily lectured to, particularly by the Christian left, that they had no right to “impose their interpretation of the Christian religion” on the rest of American society.

So what did we do this year?  We did what much of the left always wanted us to do, namely, to express our preference for the First Civil Servant of the United States of America while leaving our “interpretation of the Christian religion” off the table.  For which we are labeled “egregious hypocrites and, yes, even religious bigots” by titanic dolts like Jennifer Rubin.

As far as Jen is concerned, we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t.

David Gushee, of all people, actually kind of gets it.

There is a certain kind of anti-Trump person who continues to be convinced that to have voted for Mr. Trump, after everything that he said and did in the campaign, was itself an incomprehensible act of moral evil that more or less places the voter beyond the pale of human decency. Many relationships have been strained or broken because of the implacability of this conviction or resistance to it. Thus we again see the extent of the political division in our country. It is acutely painful.

Academics, especially in the humanities, tend to be liberal in their politics. They also tend to take words very seriously, to be especially committed to diversity and inclusion, and to center their politics on defending marginalized groups. Thus it is no surprise that many academics have been especially appalled by the vote — because they found the words and policies of Donald Trump repeatedly offensive to their values and assumed that most others would be similarly offended.  The gap between their values and the apparent values of sixty million Americans leaves them deeply frustrated and dispirited, and is already leading to considerable anguished conversation at our academic professional meetings.

Some anti-Trump people have about them a mood of teachability, while others are having difficulty getting past pure outrage and incomprehension. The former want to know what they didn’t understand, what they missed, about the American electorate. They may still be very deeply upset over the election results, but they are trying to listen, to break out of their echo chambers, to seek greater clarity. I noticed in this past Sunday’s New York Times opinion section a considerable amount of this kind of reflection, which I appreciated, and am hearing it some from Democratic politicians and activists.

Anti-Trump people of my acquaintance struggle to understand that anyone could have had anything approaching a serious moral or policy objection to Hillary Clinton, at least by comparison to Donald Trump. But this is to underestimate concerns held by many millions of Americans, especially Catholics and evangelicals, about the unresolved moral issue of abortion. And worries over the ethical baggage that over four decades has accrued to the Clinton account mattered to many. What people count as morally important varies. And morally important issues are not the only issues people vote on.

Divisions in economic circumstances are very often invisible to those who are privileged. Most of us now live and move in economically homogeneous circumstances. For example, I am a knowledge worker who has done well economically, especially in the last decade when many other Americans have struggled desperately. It is hard for me and those like me to properly weigh up the economic concerns of people whose jobs are disappearing and communities decaying, none of whom I actually know very well. If desperate people found hope in one candidate and no hope in another, in very large numbers, but I am not in the social class of those who chose the other candidate, perhaps I have some things to learn about the rest of America, rather than dismissing them as dupes and rubes.

Should be an interesting four years.


DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, November 18th, 2016 | Election Fallout | 16 Comments

It is SO cute when Europeans pretend that they understand the United States.  Bob Tyrell schools the BBC:

The interview got off to a bad start and became worse. The moderator commenced with: “The first ever black president will be followed by a president who was endorsed by the KKK.” Then I was asked, “Where does that leave you?” My response was what any normal American would say, “I can’t imagine anybody [sic] more marginal to American elections than the KKK.” I went on to say, “every four years the KKK comes up because people like Hillary want to bring the KKK up.” I began to add that the Klan was composed of a few hundred stoneheads living marginal lives in the American outback, until they could be dredged up to serve the Democrats’ malign purpose, but the moderator interrupted me. “So it doesn’t shock you?” I responded why not talk about the influence of the Knights of Columbus?

My interlocutors apparently had no idea what the largest Catholic men’s organization in America might be. The host inquired, was it “another extremist group?” It was at that point that I was reminded that fruitful conversation is utterly impossible with the woefully ignorant.  My thought was reinforced by the ever-helpful Chimamanda who observed, “There seems to be a refusal to accept reality. So she [the moderator] asked you [that being me] a question about the KKK, and it hasn’t been engaged with, and instead we’re being told that there’s this other group called the Knights of Cint—whoever….” My reply was “Balderdash, utter balderdash,” which “engaged” both of these ladies.

The conversation continued its downward spiral. Memorable moments came when Chimamanda notified me, “If you’re a white man; you don’t get to define what racism is. You really don’t.” I responded, “Do you know what the false consciousness [is], which is the theory you’re [employing]? As I pointed out, it ‘is a Marxist concept.’” The lady had not a clue as to what false consciousness meant, but you might think about its consequences for intelligent debate the next time you hear it employed by a lazy mind. Then la Chimamanda came up with more evidence of the president-elect’s alleged racism. When he says a judge “is unable to judge him fairly because he is Mexican, that is racist.” I supplied her with the judge’s name. It was Judge Curiel, who I suggested was as white as me. We are both white men. Race was not at issue between us. My correction had no impact on her. She continued in her invincible ignorance.

A couple things.  Anybody who attempts to make anything at all about a Ku Klux Klan “endorsement” of Donald Trump is, quite frankly, too stupid to be allowed out in public unsupervised.  If I was depraved enough to want to, I could quite literally start my own KKK tomorrow.  Quite a few idiots already have.

The KKK, in all its various versions and iterations, currently consists of the scum of the Earth.  Anybody who thinks that the Klan still has any influence whatsoever in this country is deliberately lying.  Or Democrats, if you’ll pardon the redundancy.  But if you’re interested in intellectual consistency, you can go ahead and kick Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and US Senator Robert Byrd out of the leftist pantheon.

Because both were members.


HAP CRAPPENS

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, November 17th, 2016 | Election Fallout | 27 Comments

I don’t want to be anywhere around when today’s college students don’t get that first job that they really wanted or ever get let go from a job because I don’t think they’ll take it at all well.  SINCE DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (sorry, couldn’t resist), this kind of garbage has been going on all over the country but this example from the University of Pennsylvania is particularly idiotic:

A dorm at the University of Pennsylvania on Wednesday hosted a post-election “Breathing Space” for students stressed out by election results that included cuddling with cats and a puppy, coloring and crafting, and snacks such as tea and chocolate.

The event at the Ivy League insitution was hosted by the faculty director of Fisher Hassenfeld College House.

“There were actual cats and a puppy there,” Penn student Daniel Tancredi told The College Fix via email. “There were sheets of paper available with black and white printed designs on them for students to color in. Essentially they looked like pages from a coloring book that were printed from a computer. They all had positive feel-good messages on them. Students colored them in with colored pencils.”

“For the most part, students just hung out and ate snacks and made small talk,” Tancredi said. “Of course, that was in addition to coloring and playing with the animals. The election was mentioned a few times, though mostly in very timid and fearful tones. The event as a whole seemed to be an escape from the reality of the election results.”

Kids?  You’ll never learn this in whatever stupid, wildly-overpriced kindergarten university you happen to attend so here’s one way that actual adults deal with these kinds of situations:

(1) Go to a supermarket or a liquor store and buy yourself a big bottle of some serviceable bourbon.  Jim Beam, say, or Evan Williams.  There’s no point in breaking the bank for something top-shelf because it’s not going to matter after a short time.

(2) Go home, lock your door, put your car keys where you can’t easily get to them, sit down and start drinking.  You can cut the stuff with water, ice or both if you want to because, as I implied before, a fine bourbon-sipping experience is not what you’re after here.

(3) About five or six drinks in (or whenever you come to, depending), you’ll realize that the SINGLE most important rule in all of life can be summed up in six words.

YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME.

(4) Once you understand that is when you sack up, grow up and quit whining.  In terms of winning and losing, a few of you kids may eventually turn out to be New England Patriots while a lot more of you will turn out be St. Louis Blues.  But that’s for another lesson.

And more bourbon.


THE ELECTION EXPLAINED

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, November 16th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 19 Comments

Know why Hillary Clinton really lost?  Seems that some of you gals don’t much like women:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a new culprit for its loss to Donald Trump: Self-loathing, sexist women.

During an appearance on MSNBC on Monday, former Clinton campaign communications director Jess McIntosh claimed it was women with “internalized misogyny” who couldn’t bring themselves to vote to elect the first woman president.

When she was asked by Chris Hayes why Hillary didn’t do better with white women than Barack Obama did in 2012, McIntosh responded, “Internalized misogyny is a real thing and this is a thing we have to be talking about as we go through and see.”

“We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power. We are uncomfortable about that and we seek to justify that uncomfortable feeling because it can’t possibly be because we don’t want to see a woman in that position of power,” McIntosh said.

“We have work to do talking to those women about what happened this year and why we would vote against our self-interest,” McIntosh said.

Don’t look at me.


FRIENDS IN UNEXPECTED PLACES

Posted by Bill (not IB) | Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 7 Comments

There have been all sorts of reactions to the election of Donald Trump. Relief, joy, fear, protest – you name it, someone has expressed it.

Nonetheless, I was astonished by an item in today’s Dallas Morning News:

I’m a feminist and I’m glad Trump won

This is a very well thought out and worded statement, and it’s near and dear to my heart – I am a Libertarian as well, but in order to preserve the United States my vote for president went to Trump, rather than the Libertarian candidate.

Anyone who thinks Hillary is a feminist, or that she understands “women’s issues”, is in serious need of a brain transplant. She let her husband get away with multiple infidelities, and even helped in trying to hush them up, and then whitewash them away. As an adult, she has never faced economic adversity; she has had opportunities that most women could only dream about; and for her, the “glass ceiling” was a mirror, rather than a barrier.

It was always a mystery to me how the major women’s/feminist organizations could bring themselves to give Bill Clinton a “pass” on his egregiously sexist behavior. Given that Hillary didn’t file for divorce, she can’t run away from those issues either; she’s in them up to her ….

So seeing an article from the perspective of ” the opposition” which says many of these same things is downright refreshing.

UPDATE…

Here’s another interesting item:

Oprah Expresses Hope for Trump Presidency

And of course, Oprah is getting *really* slammed for failing to join in the Trump-bashing/paranoia…


AND NOW…IDIOTS

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 | Idiots Unlimited | 16 Comments

Noam Chomsky displays his usual moderation and rhetorical restraint:

Another event took place on Nov. 8, which also may turn out to be of unusual historical significance for reasons that, once again, were barely noted.

On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.

Do tell.

Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous.

Got that right, Chompers.

But is it?

Yup.

The facts suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life.

“The blue belladonna has been tested and it’s real killer stuff, so get into it.”

There is no historical precedent for such a stand.

I would think so.

Is this an exaggeration?

Pretty much, old timer.

Good old Chompers.  That doddering old linguistics professor has his fans.  Years and years and years and years ago, at one of this site’s earliest iterations, I said something derogatory about the old fraud and got into a serious e-mail throwdown with a couple of his acolytes.

That particular exchange is kind of why I still do this.  God help me but it’s fun to piss off the right people.


SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, November 14th, 2016 | Political Incorrectness | 26 Comments

Kirsten Powers gets it:

After all, these same voters have watched as every Republican candidate in recent memory has been accused of waging a “War on Women.” If Democrats are going to claim that Mitt Romney and John McCain hate women (and they did), then they shouldn’t be surprised when voters ignore them when they say Donald Trump hates women. If every Republican is a misogynist, then no Republican is.

While many liberals have dismissed the idea of political correctness as a right-wing manufactured hysteria, it is in fact a real thing. That Trump has stretched its meaning to encompass pretty much any horrible thing he wants to say makes its existence no less real.

Conservative white Americans have watched (often fearfully) as liberal cultural elites demand that everyone fall in line with their agenda or risk being called a homophobe, racist or misogynist. The concept of persuasion and debate has been overridden by a quest for immediate and forced cultural conformity. My friend Sally Kohn, the liberal commentator, summed up the left wing view fairly honestly when she told me in a recent debate over free speech that, “If [conservatives on campus] feel like they can no longer speak against positive social change, good.”

This is a paradigm where honest disagreement about abortion makes one a woman-hater, holding orthodox religious views on marriage equates to gay-bashing, and refusing to cop to white privilege — even if you are a working class white person struggling economically — defines you as a racist.

When you break sow the wind, what sort of crop, as the saying goes, should you expect?

(Sorry, CJ, but I *had* to make that edit… BnIB)


ARE YOU A RACIST?

Posted by Bill (not IB) | Monday, November 14th, 2016 | Politics | 38 Comments

Let’s get on board the “Wayback Machine” for a journey back to 2008, and examine the political situation during the campaign which resulted in the election of Barack Obama.

Do any of you recall being called “racists” back then? I’m sure you do. And I’m sure you remember *why* you were tagged with “racist”:

It’s not because you supported the KKK.

It’s not because you called for a return to segregation.

It’s not because you said you’d vote for John McCain.

It’s not because you were a Nixon campaign volunteer years ago.

It’s not because you said Al Sharpton is a “whoopie cushion” in disguise.

It’s not because you didn’t join the Michael Jackson fan club.

It’s not because you refused to name the NAACP in your will.

What horrible, unreasonable, bigoted action on your part resulted in you being forever labeled as a racist?

You didn’t vote for Barack Obama.

Never mind that he didn’t represent the viewpoints that you hold.

Never mind that he was from a different political party than the one you support.

Never mind that the Democratic campaign platform scared the bejeepers out of you.

Never mind that Obama himself was a big question mark, with little to explain the man or his agenda.

The fact that you did not vote for a black means you are anti-black. Your taking a position contrary to that of the first African-American candidate for president clearly shows that you are not merely bigoted, you are filled with hatred, venom, and a desire to set race relations in the USA back by at least 500 years.

Well, Hillary Clinton is *not* black. (I realize that many of you will be surprised by this statement…)

And, despite what many ignorant, biased, and angry people say –

Donald Trump is not a racist.

But, there’s a certain message that is being regurgitated after 8 years of a Black President in office. Again, from 2008:


To show the empty “logic” that Jack Cafferty of CNN employs in his political commentary all one need do is check out his September 16 Political Ticker blog post on why the race for the White House is so tight in the polls. Reason: the country is filled with racists. Yes, folks, if you are voting against Obama (and no matter who or what you are actually supporting and why) it must be because you are a racist. It isn’t because you stand against what Obama stands for, it has to be because you are a racist.

This delusional, preconceived notion is becoming the excuse du jour with Democrat supporters that have lately seen a dawning hint that McCain may just win this election. And, that is really all it is, too. An excuse. An excuse that ignores all the warts and obvious problems with Barack Obama, his record, and the fantasy stage show that is his campaign.

Here is what Cafferty posted:

Will race be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House?

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

Time magazine’s Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.

There is a certain syllogism that has been defined here:

“If you do not vote the way ‘I’ think you should, you are a racist.”

I had always thought that being a racist was tied to making outright hateful statements about minorities, denying them equal rights, seeking to cause them harm, and otherwise treating them as lesser beings. I was unaware that something as simple as which lever I pulled in the election booth would place me in the category of”racist”.

But then again, I’m just a rural hick with no sophistication, social awareness, or education. I’m trailer park trash, insofar as a certain political party (personified by an ass – how apropos) is concerned.

Never mind that:

I support myself. Even when unemployed, I have never taken government benefits (although I could have done so).

I have ALWAYS paid taxes – many years, in an amount that makes me cringe, but I do recognize my responsibility to do what the government requires, painful as it may be.

My level of education, while unofficial, would quite thoroughly send most “liberals” back to kindergarten. The number of books I have read is something I couldn’t even begin to estimate – it is certainly thousands, perhaps more. I will say, with no humility or bragging, that I am extraordinarily well informed.

Yet – I am a racist. A bigot. A hateful, evil, narrow-minded person whose sole purpose in life is to bring grief to others.

Why?

Because I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton

Note that it’s not so much a question of voting FOR the Donald, as it is NOT voting for the Hilly. It’s not who you support, it’s who you fail to support.

There have been a number of writers who have caught on to the notion that normal, everyday, reasonable Americans have grown sick of being labelled as hateful, bigoted, racist, etc. And those people are the ones who pulled the lever for Donald Trump when they voted.

Damn Right.


MUERK?

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, November 13th, 2016 | Prayer Requests | 29 Comments

Are you and your family and friends okay?  We’re all praying for you and everyone else there:

A severe earthquake has hit New Zealand’s South Island in the early hours of Monday morning.

The initial, largest quake was magnitude 7.5 and 15km deep, according to monitor Geonet. Its epicentre was 15 km north-east of Culverden, close to Hanmer Springs, at 12.02am local time (New Zealand is 13 hours ahead of GMT).

Tsunamis have been created by the quake, and people on the east coast of both South and North Islands have been told by civil defence and via emergency sirens to leave immediately for high ground.

New Zealand civil defence says the first waves have arrived, but more – and larger – are expected in the coming hours.

 


MIDDLE FINGER EXTENDED

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, November 13th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 17 Comments

I don’t intend to spend a whole lot of time making fun of the reactions to the 2016 Great Progressive Cataclysm of Tuesday last.  My colleague’s doing a bang-up job keeping ahead of the continuing leftist tantrum.  And most of the reactions have been basically the same anway.  “BecauseRACISM!!  HITLER!!”  And to paraphrase Wilde, one would have to have a heart of stone to read overwrought hysteria like this (UPDATE: Or this) without laughing.

I stayed with the TV coverage a whole lot longer than I thought I would.  All the way to the end, in fact.  It was damned compelling television and the talking heads were the reason.  This was never directly uttered but I got the feeling that the media types started out the evening thinking with slight but discernible annoyance, “Okay, when can we call her the winner and start lecturing the Republicans?”

Then the polls closed here in the Midwest and suddenly there was the huge red gash across the center of the map of the country.  And that’s about when a terrifying thought began to fester in the media types.  “Oh my dear God.  Do you seriously think that…that…clown…might actually…win this thing?”

And that thought built and it built and it built some more.  Trump opened a gap that Clinton couldn’t seem to make any serious headway closing.  Then it got down to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all of which were repeatedly declared too close to call.

Suddenly, out of the blue, the bomb dropped.

Hillary conceded.

And the media ran on fumes the rest of the way.  It was all some of the most glorious television that I had ever seen.  Ace refers to this feeling as a schadenboner and CBS’s Will Rahn explains the reason for it:

The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

Since we were completely in the tank for her and all.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

Come to find out that the yokels really do hate our guts and really do think that we’re partisan hacks.

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

Which is understandable, I guess, since we hate them and have for some time.

And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.

But thank Walter Cronkite, peace and blessings be upon him, that we still have our bumper stickers to fall back on.

You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.

This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!

Which they have.  So obviously we need to keep lecturing the idiots until they realize how wrong they are.

That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.

Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.

That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.

And there it is.  We veterans of the Anglican/Episcopal wars know this mindset intimately.  We’re right and you’re wrong so we need more “conversation” and more “dialogue” until you realize this.

There’s kind of a law of diminishing returns at work here.  You can declare that I’m a “racist” for disagreeing with you only so many times before I stop listening to you or caring what you say.  Aren’t I concerned about Donald Trump’s “misogyny?”  Same as I was when Bill Clinton strapped on the ol’ presidential milking machine in the Oval Office, which, as I recall, didn’t seem to bother the rest of you very much.

After all, it was “just sex.”

It gets down to this.  If you’ve got actual arguments why I should vote a certain way, I’ll be happy to listen to them.  But if your “argument” is “Vote for Hillary Clinton or you’re a racist, misogynist, ‘homophobic’ bigot,” then you don’t have anything I need to listen to so I’ll be voting for Donald Trump.

The fact that my vote pisses you off is merely the cherry on top of that banana split.


LAUGH RIOT

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, November 12th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 19 Comments

Faced with great tragedy, one should always try to keep one’s sense of humor as much as one possibly can:

Aides also blamed the media for the loss.

“The media always covered [Hillary Clinton] as the person who would be president and therefore tried to eviscerate her before the election, but covered Trump who was someone who was entertaining and sort of gave him a pass,” Podesta said. “We need to reflect and analyze that and put our voices forward.”

The campaign chairman blamed the press for “the dominance of the way they covered the email” controversy, saying it overlooked “the conflicts of Trump’s businesses, the Russian contacts we are now learning to be true, the failure of the press following the 3-page leak to the New York Times to really dig into the income tax question.”

“We need to be mindful of the fact that they’re going to continue, they won’t quit, they’re going to continue to throw mud,” he said of the press, adding that Clinton supporters need to “defend her and her legacy and the kind of person she is.”


THE PROTESTS/RIOTING EXPAND

Posted by Bill (not IB) | Friday, November 11th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 85 Comments

firedTo those who said about my earlier post that a few protesters doth not a crisis make:

Riot Declared in Oregon

Thousands Protest Not My President Across US

Racist Mob beats White Man for Voting Trump

Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

Colleges try to Comfort Students Upset by Trump Victory

American University Students Protest Election and Burn Flag

What I’m worried about is there’s already a lot of momentum built up around the “Black Lives Matter” issue, and if that’s transferred to anti-Trump activity, a *real* crisis could arise.

It doesn’t help that so many of the Democrats/liberals are tagging anyone who voted for Trump as an ignorant, bigoted racist. Hillary’s comment about “deplorables” showed the real vision that the left has of Republicans/conservatives, and I think that was reflected at the polls. If you badmouth folks, they *will* react – and unlike the leftists/liberals, instead of rioting, blocking highways, etc. those of us in the “Red” portion of America choose to simply use our votes to deal with matters. The surge of hatred and violence that seems to be building reflects just as accurately how the tolerant, peaceful portion of our society deals with facing ideological frustration.

We were damned as racists for not voting for Obama. We’re damned as racists for voting for Trump. Do I see a pattern here…. ?

And for those who are screaming about “Trump lost the Popular vote”:

He’s not the first, nor will he be the last. Four other presidents have won the electoral college but did not have a majority of votes: John QUinch Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush. It is completely legal and valid; the way our presidential election system has been set up, the Electoral College is the final voice in determining who has won the election. Those who don’t like it – just rewrite the Constitution.

Oh – and what is Chris Matthews’ leg doing now, eh?


SO LONG, IT’S BEEN GOOD TO KNOW YOU

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, November 11th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 26 Comments

Now Oregon wants out:48er

Two days after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, two Portlanders have submitted a petition for a 2018 ballot initiative to have Oregon secede from the United States.

On Thursday morning, Jennifer Rollins, a lawyer, and Christian Trejbal, a writer, filed the Oregon Secession Act.

“Oregonian values are no longer the values held by the rest of the United States,” Trejbal said over the phone Thursday.

Those values? “Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,” Trejbal said, “plus equality.” 

“Obviously,” he said, the ballot proposal “came about partially in response to the election results on Tuesday.”

“But,” he added, “it’s been developing over time.”

As long as you take care of my oldest sister who lives there, I’d be fine with it.  Vaya con Dios, as I said before.


MIXED MESSAGES

Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, November 10th, 2016 | Trump Triumphs | 10 Comments

For all except the first six months, give or take, of my earthly existence, I’ve lived in the St. Louis area which means that I’m supposed to hate the Chicago Cubs, the oldest professional sports team in this country.  Our baseball interactions with the City of the Big Shoulders go back more than a century, we took their first pro football team (later sending it to Arizona) and their hockey team was the reason why ours got started.

Granted, this is nowhere near as fierce a sports rivalry as Red Sox/Yankees, say, or Texas/Oklahoma.  Stan Musial got his 3,000th hit at Wrigley Field and the folks there that day gave him a long standing ovation.  And I can still remember that terrible day in 2002 when Cardinal pitcher Darryl Kile was found dead in his Chicago hotel room and Cubs catcher Joe Girardi struggled to tell the crowd at Wrigley why there wasn’t going to be a game that day.

So while there’s supposed to be a rivalry, I have to admit that I’m seriously thinking of buying a Cubs jersey:

Jake Arrieta, the Chicago Cubs’ pitching ace and World Series star, delivered a little chin music after Donald Trump was elected president overnight.

He fired off a tweet mid-morning Wednesday in which he told “Hollywood” to “head for the border,” adding, “#illhelpyoupack #beatit.”

Various Twidiots called him anti-Semitic, for some reason.

Support The MCJ                        

 
                                   
 
Email the editor-in-chief                    
 
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
 
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments

Search

Blogroll

Annual Archive