In a time of global political chaos, surging domestic culture wars, and the baffling emergence of enough GOP presidential candidates to effectively recast every Wes Anderson film ever made, there is one enduring, rock-solid truth we all can count on: If you live in America, you cannot escape Taylor Swift.
This is not good writing; this is a confused person with no point to make gesturing towards cultural phenomena.
In the ensuing paragraphs we learn that Taylor Swift exists, Lena Dunham is a liar about how women get raped, that women who get raped are usually drunk, and because Taylor Swift makes money women never face egregious discrimination in the workplace.
My daughter is 10, and is very much in the Taylor Swift wheelhouse. If TS is singing about how my kid is going to have to put up with sexist bullshit, good. Because she will.
Real Life has intervened for a while so I have not of late been monitoring weirdo sites like Townhall Dotcom. Most of it is boring; all of it is crazy. There is very little new under the nut, but I was charmed to discover this stray goofball champeening, of all fucking personages, Calvin Fucking Coolidge.
And, of course, also Dennis Prager. Because why not.
Anyhow this Townhall someone does offer a very pithy explanation of how True Conservatives, deep down, comprehend concepts like democracy:
The electorate may redefine and change moral and legal constraints but conservatism does not.
One of the only things all the major Irish political parties agreed on from the first days of the Saorstat to the Fianna Fail triumph in 1932, was that Ireland needed a strong censorship regime: certain things could not, by law, be said, lest the Indomitable Irishry face domination.
You shouldn't allowed to print anything about "race suicide." That is, contraception.
And you also could not publish anything to do with homosexuality.
To help this sink in: in the 1920s -30s the major political parties had as their major point of convergence a mutual desire to shoot each other dead. But they agreed that no Irish person should ever say anything about how maybe homosexuality was no big deal.
Hatred of homosexuality has been baked into dominant ideas of "authentic" Irishness for generations. This vote is seismic.
(Yes, I am using the term "political parties" extremely loosely. Fuck off.)
You -- yes, you -- can be morally superior to Dennis Prager merely by gazing at him and thinking he's kind of a dick. I mean.
As one who loves America -- not only because I am American, but even more so because I know (not believe, know) that the American experiment in forming a decent society has been the most successful in history -- I write the following words in sadness: With few exceptions, every aspect of American life is in decline.
Is one of those exceptions that we're not as horribly racist as we've been for most of our history, at least overtly?
Ha ha a joke. By "decline" Prager seems to mean that "America" is becoming ever less "decent." The American "experiment" is to do with dispositively establishing the claim that, in regards to other nations, Fuck You, we are the decentest.
By what metric?
The Decline of the Family: Nearly half (48 percent) of American children are born to a mother who is not married. Forty-three percent of American children live without a father in the home. About 50 percent of Americans over 18 are married, compared to 72 percent in 1960. Americans are having so few children that the fertility rate fell to a record low 62.9 births per 1,000 women in 2013. And in an increasing number of states, there are now more deaths than births.
For openers, all citations are omitted, because this is Townhall. I am willing to bet that these statistics are all trash, but I can't be arsed to look them up any more than Prager could be arsed to cite them.
But it's fun to note that Prager seems to be bitching that "America is having too few babies, and the only babies we have are popping out of sluts!"
The Decline of Education: Compared to nearly all of American history, the average American school teaches much less about important subjects such as American history, English grammar, literature, music and art. Instead, schools are teaching much more about "social justice," environmentalism and sex.
I have not yet encountered the liberal-minded individual who has advocated cutting funding for literature, music, and art in our public schools. But it's still YOUR fault, hippie fuckface.
As for "environmentalism," presumably Prager means that kids should not learn about how physics works so that Our Kids are not brainwashed by Science into believing bullshit about what happens when shitloads of carbon are pumped into the atmosphere.
Any of us who receive emails from large numbers of Americans can attest to the deteriorating education -- including among those who attended college -- in written English. In sophisticated commentary on websites as well as in email, one encounters the most basic errors: "it's" instead of "its;" "their" instead of "there;" "then" instead of "than," etc.
You write for Townhall, asshole, which has comments sections. And many, many dumb columnists. And is edited by nobody smarter than a bowling ball. Wanna play?
This is also of course not a sign of "deterioration" even remotely, of course, as regards grammar skills. There is an extensive literature -- oh, fuck it, what do I know, besides my fucking doctorate that Mao himself gave me.
Most universities have become secular seminaries for the dissemination of Leftism. Moreover, aside from indoctrination, students usually learn little. One can earn a BA in English at UCLA, for example, without having read a single Shakespeare play.
To the extent that American history is taught, beginning in high school and often earlier, American history is presented as the history of an immoral nation characterized by slavery, racism, colonialism, imperialism, economic exploitation, and militarism -- not of a country that, more than any other, has been the beacon of freedom to mankind, and the country that has spent more treasure and spilled more blood to liberate other peoples than any other nation.
I'm actually coming up blank on a single example of the US "liberating other peoples" that is not highly qualified by someone, you know, explaining what actually happened, and why.
Beyond that, please don't teach my kids propaganda? Shouldn't that be beneath us? Prager? Prager?
The End of Male and Female: Whatever one's position on same-sex marriage, one must acknowledge that at the core of the argument for this redefinition of marriage is that gender doesn't matter. Marriage is marriage, and gender means nothing, the argument goes. So, too, whether children are raised by mother and father or two mothers or two fathers doesn't matter. A father has nothing unique to offer a child that a mother can't provide and vice versa.
This is hilarious considering the previous grammar snobbery: Gender! Prager is too dumb to know what pointless fights he's already lost.
Anyway there is no evidence of any sort to back up Prager's nonsense, though there are a lot of lies.
Blah blah blah transgenders are bad... OK:
The End of Right and Wrong: At least two generations of American young people have been taught that moral categories are nothing more than personal (or societal) preferences. Recently, an incredulous professor of philosophy wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times titled "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts." In it he noted, "Without fail, every value claim is labeled an opinion" (italics in original). This extends to assessing the most glaring of evils. Since the Nazis thought killing Jews was right, there is no way to know for sure whether it was wrong; it's the Nazis' opinion against that of the Jews and anyone else who objects. I have heard this sentiment from American high school students -- including many Jewish ones -- for 30 years.
Human beings committed the Holocaust. Human beings sat in judgement of those who ran the camps.
There was, you know, no supernatural entity taking part in the Nuremberg trials. That was all run by humans.
"Moral categories" ARE "nothing more than personal (or societal) preferences." This is precisely why us nasty progressives are so passionate about moral issues. It's because history shows that anyone who conceives of morality as some sort of abstract system of absolute rules has turned out to be, in practice, a vicious asshole. Like, say, someone who says "gays shouldn't marry" and then whines when he's told to fuck off as a bigot.
The End of Religion: There are no moral truths because there is no longer a religious basis for morality. More than the Enlightenment, it was the Bible -- especially the Hebrew Bible (which was one reason America's Christians were different from most European Christians) that guided the Founders' and other Americans' values. Not anymore. Instead of being guided by a code higher than themselves, Americans are taught to rely on their feelings to determine how to behave. Instead of being given moral guidance, children are asked, "How do you feel about it?"
I don't get how "obey the imaginary person" makes one automatically more "moral" than "I've thought hard about this and I've decided to treat my fellows as I would like to be treated."
And why shouldn't children be asked "how do you feel about it"? This is a snorter.
The End of Beauty: Just as morality is subjective; so are beauty and excellence. There is no good or bad art or literature. You like Beethoven; I like rap. You like Shakespeare; I like Batman. "Street art" (aka graffiti) is worthy of museum exhibition; paint thrown by an "artist" from atop a ladder onto a canvas is considered high art and fetches over $100 million; and a giant sculpture of a dog with lifted leg urinating adorns the front of the Orange County Museum of Art in California.
Given how much fun Shakespeare had with dirty shit, this is hilarious.
Prager is complaining that he doesn't get to make the rules anymore.
More than that, he's writing a boring and lazy appeal to old white bigots so that they send him money.
On the actual substance of these Democratic complaints, Erikson is silent, opting instead to fowl the air with tu quackquack nonsense, thus ducking the question.*
Of greater fascination is his closing, and his evident conception of a Devastating Putdown:
Tough shiitake mushrooms for you.
I am not joking when I say that this all is the sign of a diseased mind -- the kind of sick stuffed shirt who gets rock-hard at the thought of ordering up a war or a waterboard like it's a cigar, but who declares himself on the side of the angels because he won't say "shit" in public, nevermind "fag" or "kike" or "nigger" and so on, world without end fuck yeah. And who also beats his wife because Jesus. The dumb hypocrite cracker fucker. **
You can examine the particulars your own selves, but what it boils down to is an accusation that "grass-roots conservatives" are being ripped off by shady PACs who collect donations from the rubes, but then "line their own pockets" and don't spend any money on getting crazy far-right idiots elected.
Well, yeah, I guess that happens.
But the question is: so?
What conservative "media organization" isn't a scam?
I mean, holy shit, this is coming from Right-Wing News, one of dozens of pretty the exact same wingnut sites featuring the exact same gibberish from the exact same authors collecting checks for the exact same rubbish cant. The American Thinker? Townhall? Big Dead Breitbart? The Fuckulist? The Daily Crawler (half cuckoo political smears, half tit-gazing?). And The Grand-daddy, the ghastly NewsMax (which is straight-up a platform for fraud*)?
None of these places, nor their smelly likenesses, commits anything like journalism, or do anything other than feed the mindless maw of outraged anger that is Conservatism and the garbage-demons who get paid to stoke the hate.
Cite: John Fucking Hawkins' own fucking article:
Additionally, for those of us who have a lot of friends in the Tea Party and among grassroots conservatives, stories of abuse have become rampant. That may be why you’ve heard people like Ann Coulter and Dana Loesch publicly suggesting that there are groups out there ripping people off.
I put that shit in boldfaced red because it is my point exactly.
Ann Coulter and Dana Loesch are bitching about how their rubes are getting gouged by other rubes.
That they may be nuts enough to be sincere is of no nohow.
I haven't pulled a snap inspection of the Townhall inmates in a while. Poo everywhere! Let's get shipshape! This means you, person whose name I always forget seconds after reading it.
Not a neuron firing. What do you have for us?
Italian prodigy, Raphael, once painted two angels in the Sistine Chapel. One chubby cherub wears a mischievous expression as he rests his chin on his hand. The other looks wide-eyed and innocent. This angelic pair has celebrity status if you consider how often they have been reproduced.
Indefensible commas and an aesthetic derived from inspirational posters featuring kittens. Pray continue.
Political historians like myself surmise that these cherubs are also known as "Stupid Cupid" and "Smart Cupid."
Yes. That is exactly what "political historians" of your class would do. I have no doubts at all in this regard.
There follows prattle so debased it includes a "Michael Moore is fat" joke. It need not detain us.
Other Townhall entries are more sophisticated, in the sense that they're just as dumb. Like:
"Someone said" is a KAPOW! Subject + Verb start to a News Article. You know you are in Fine Hands. And the thesis is inarguable: "Obama, as a Muslim, knows full well that Islam means 'surrender' to Allah-- or death-- and is inherently violent." So if you were curious about why your hijab chafes, now you know.
In other exciting Townhall news, the Laws of Physics dictate that Charles Darwin was a dick and God's Indomitable Will gave us spirochetes, the US Senate, and who the fuck knows, malware.
With Valentine's Day upon us, female readers are again pummeling me with questions on how to woo the modern male.
This is a Townhall "joke."
Dear Tom: I appreciate that my boyfriend takes care of himself, in part because he wants to look good for me, but I wish he were a little bit more like my father's generation. When we went to a football tailgate recently, he refused to drink beer like the others - and whined the whole time that nobody brought a bottle of decent chardonnay. Also, his man bag - OK, it's a purse - is bigger than my purse and he doesn't even seem to be embarrassed about that. Am I being overly sensitive? - Overly Sensitive
Dear Overly Sensitive: If anyone is being overly sensitive, it is your boyfriend and millions of men from his generation. These sensitive New Age men are often so in touch with their own emotions and needs that they don't much notice anybody else's. If such a fellow drinks a beer, a rare thing, it will be an exotic brand from some remote part of the planet. He won't drink from a mug, either, but from a wine glass. At baby showers - yes, men are invited to those now - he'll get misty. If he ever becomes a father, he will clap the loudest the first time Junior uses the commode for "No. 2."
No, I don't get it either. But then the whole "heterosexual" thing seems to be going OK with me so far, even if I do get to drink wine on occasion, when I'm not beating the crap out of Dothraki or some such shittery.