He's Still Whining After All These Posts - The Last Word I'm Posting On This Topic For Now

I really don't want to go over this again but those comedians who stayed pretty close to one thing pretty well all petered out long before they died.  In addition to Milton Berle, it's striking that the great Marx Brothers didn't make a movie after the decidedly inferior "Love Happy" in 1949 (I seem to recall Groucho said the only reason they made it was to bail Chico out of his gambling debts),  Mae West didn't do much other than repeat her earlier work from even earlier for a number of years,  before her long, sad, increasingly creepy final years.  W. C. Fields' career was fading before, like Ernie Kovacs, he died in an untimely way.  That sad clip I posted from Berele's last hurrah on network TV, a friggin' bowling show, was especially sad as the far superior Ritz Brothers were featured on it, showing how far they'd fallen.

Even a good comic shtick gets old and once people have seen it, it stops being comedy and becomes, after an interval, nostalgia. at best.  More typically it becomes annoying.  Most comedy shticks aren't that good to start with.

The comedians who last tend to be comic actors who do a number of things well, Lily Tomlin is probably the best current example of that.   You could point to her long time writer and collaborator Jane Wagner though Tomlin is also a brilliant improviser, if I had time I would look for her TV interview as what seems to have been a character. a multi-millionaire backer, she sprang on the interviewer when she was publicizing Search For Intelligent Life.  You can watch old clips of the Carol Burnett show. her work and that of her regular cast,  without the kind of embarrassment you feel from watching so many others from that era and before.  I can't comment on their subsequent careers but the work they did then stands up pretty well.

Having mentioned Ernie Kovacs, I wonder if he would have developed more if he had lived, though I think his humor wouldn't have made the transition into the later 60s and beyond very well.   Of the Marx Brothers only Groucho did much after the act broke up and he didn't do all that much, though he remained quite good for a long time.  And Milton Berle was no Marx brother.    I asked an old friend, old enough to have had one of the earliest TVs marketed after WWII if she thought Milton Berle was ever funny, she said, no, she never found him funny.  She adored Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca, from time to time she watches old VCRs of Your Show of Shows.   She's 95.  Caesar went a lot farther than his start on Berle's show.

Milton Berle was, though, superior to Lenny Bruce, though that's not a high bar to cross.  Lenny Bruce was never funny.

Comedy is like eggs, you really don't want to eat them reheated.  Canning them for later sale is a bad idea.

Update:  I'm tired of the TV retarded troll from Teaneck, he can go neck himself and his buddies. 

Pious, Scrupulous, Sanctimonious First Amendment Stupid Mail

We're being ruled by a baby-man fascist idiot and his crime family, a criminally stupid gangster who not only has his mind formed by what he watches on FOX, the ass-end of unreality TV, he is a creation of the media, mostly TV of the reality-show "reality" kind but, also, the Entertainment Tonight, type and, also, the most corrupt form of celebrity worship starting in the NYC print world, including the New York Times (I wonder if you did a study if you'd find the Daily News had been harder on him than the Great Gray Skank) and you expect me to go easy on the friggin' media?  The friggin' "free press"?   Hollywood?  

As I said yesterday, bite me. 

Also:  Two Comments 


Salty Gaming
11 hours ago
If we take free speech from anyone you may lose yours in the future.

Anthony McCarthy
11 hours ago
@Salty Gaming Well, if your precious fascists and Nazis succeed in conning a majority we're guaranteed to lose it so it makes sense to try to take it away from them, first.  You guys are fools.

There is no rational reason to let liars and the opponents of equal rights propagandize to take away the equal rights of the groups they target.   People who want to let Nazis, fascists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. promote their ideas are betting the lives of their would be victims for a pay off of these idiotic pseudo-liberals feeling good about themselves.   That it's Nazis and fascists who have taken up the slogans of free speech absolutism that idiots developed in the idiotic idea that Marxists were going to be the beneficiaries (yeah, I'm looking at you, ACLU c. 1930-the collapse of the Soviet Union) proves my point.   I would guarantee you that in 2019 easily 9 out of 10 uses of "freedom of speech" is in favor of corporate fascists and white supremacists.   The largely white, largely affluent play-lefties who recite those terms are idiots who enable fascists and, yes, Nazis, (I'm looking at you, ACLU after Skokie).  

As Catherine Mackinnon pointed out, pretending that there is already an equality that not only isn't there but is very far from present is a boon for those who profit from and, so, promote inequality.  That was a brilliant insight that radical feminism discerned long before I figured it out. 

Brexit Theater

I'm a total and complete opponent of capital punishment but every single time I hear Jacob Rees-Mogg talk I feel like volunteering to be the one who chops off his head. 

"Oh Paris, Paris, to love her is a solemn duty"

No, I Don't "Hate New York" I'm just not as impressed with it as he figures everyone is required to be.  For him that means I hate it.  That two-year-old mindset is ubiquitous among such guys. 

I'm not all that impressed with any city, anywhere.  I figure any congregation of human beings is going to concentrate what's wrong with them in one place.  Including infantile ego-centrism and an addition to self-interested lying.  

I can't remember where I heard that Paris quote, it rhymed, using the French pronunciation. 

Why For Now I'm Believing The Worst

The estimable and genuinely Honorable Jerrold Nadler has written an op-ed, published in the New York Times setting out, simply and with clear brilliance why he and the House must demand that William Barr hand over the complete, unredacted Muller Report and its underlying basis in evidence to the House Judiciary Committee and other, relevant committees of The Peoples' House.

William Barr is a proponent of the overtly fascistic theory of the "unitary executive," a theory of unlimited presidential power thought up in oligarchic think tanks, Ivy League law faculties and other breeding grounds of Republican-fascism.  Of course, like Brett Kavanaugh's legal thought on presidential culpability, it is all different depending on the party of the president - watch for the Supreme Court to see how far that double-standard goes.   If Barr is able to suppress the evidence for this most criminal of presidential regimes, it is the end of American democracy.

I don't know how far the House can go in pressuring the Department of Justice or the courts as they try to cover-up for Trump and his crime family but they should do everything they can to thwart them.  Any possible means necessary taken.   Jerrold Nadler has also said that along with his committee voting to give him the authority to subpoena the Report and its evidential basis, they will be issuing subpoenas to a host of Trump crime family figures, Don McGahn, Steve Bannon, Hope Hicks, Reince Pribus.  I hope they call in all of them to potentially perjure themselves before they call in Robert Mueller, as they must if they are going to really find out what he found out.  I strongly suspect that he was under subtle pressure by Rod Rosenstein even before Barr or the known liar and con-man Whitaker were brought in to thwart any real investigation.  You can add Trump's serial attempts to stop the investigation into this as a reason for We, The People to still believe there was collusion between Trump and Putin.   I might believe that Barr's interpretation of things is accurate IF and only if, after they have collected their own evidence, the House committee is satisfied with Robert Mueller's assurances on that point.  Absent that, absent Nadler having the full report and evidence, I'm suspecting the worst, Barr's conduct requires that.

Why Russiagate Should Not Be Allowed To Die

Pizza-gate is a neo-fascist conspiracy theory peddled to those made mentally ill by watching FOX and other media,  which is not only based in nothing but is made physically impossible BECAUSE THE PIZZA PARLOR BASEMENT IT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN BASED IN DOESN'T EXIST and it is obviously absurd.  

Russia-gate is a logical conclusion based on what sane people heard Trump say, in the hearing of millions while on the campaign trail, what his son, son-in-law, other members of his family and his campaign AND ADMINISTRATION are not only proven to have done but which some of them have admitted to doing and a huge range of evidence that is before the public.

I don't know if Mueller admitted that he merely didn't find a level of evidence above what Trump, Trump jr. Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, etc. etc. etc. have already provided to us, The People as to their own guilt in coordination with Putin and his crime family, evidence which Mueller knows but which he doesn't want to bring to court or if he's claiming that evidence doesn't matter.  We don't know because William Barr has barred the door to reading the Mueller Report and obviously is bent on suppressing it.  We have every right to believe that is because Mueller found stuff far worse than we know about already. 

I say we keep Russia-gate up and running as public discourse based on all of that evidence AND because just about every baseless, probably Putin regime commissioned "scandal" that is before the demented public is still out there and still being pushed in the media.  

If they can keep Pizza-gate going, we should keep Russia-gate going.  Want to bet which one will be proven to have been right? 

The Role Of City Guy Snobbery In Figuring The Rubes Will Keep Buying Their Stale Wares

Continuing to be harassed over the entirely unimportant issue of Milton Berle's post-sell-by date career I came across a piece written by a NYC native that claimed that Berle's rise and fall was due to him talking fast and inserting Yiddish words in his shtick.  It claimed that when televisions were first marketed only city folk bought them and when the rubes in rural areas started watching they were too stupid to understand Berle and the allegedly foreign sounding Yiddish words weirded them out. The understood idea being that city folk are smarter than country folk.* Since he had more than a decade-long nationally-broadcast radio career before he started in TV, the success of which is what gave him his chance on TV (which the article also talked about), those claims are all too typical New Yorker snob double-speak.  Berle was like so many others in show biz, someone who rose rapidly.  Since he was a joker he sold his jokes.  Nothing gets stale faster than a used joke or a used routine, once Berle had sold his inventory, the public had heard them and moved on to the next guy. Berle in the 1990s (I remember turning him off during that decade in Due South) wasn't much different from Berle in 1950.

I would like to go into the similarities on view in the recent bullshit from Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi who cherish the idea that the American People, at large, are too stupid to understand the clear collusion between the Trump family and campaign and the Putin regime oligarchs who were so successful in manipulating our elections.  That both of those assholes are alleged to be journalists, the profession that has done so much to make more Americans more stupid, they can collectively bite the rest of us. 

Given that the only reason for the corporate entity "the press" to be given freedom was so they would give us the accurate information we would need to prevent tyranny, domestic of foreign, those who are part of the campaign to minimize the danger of Putin or anyone else succeeding in what their servants on the Supreme Court have allowed domestic billionaires and millionaires to do, for them to insult the very people who have been cheated by "the press" they can collectively bite us, again.   I could say a lot more about this.

*  Given who New York City regularly elects to govern it and some of its long time congressional members, their superior intelligence is not a reliable thing, at all.

Update:  Well, offhand, I'm not so impressed with Bloomberg, Giuliani, Koch, Lindsay as mayors or the likes of Peter King as a long-time House member from that most stuck up of cities.   

Neutrality Enforces a Non-neutral Status Quo, Consent Means That Whatever You Are Forced To Do Is Attributed To Your Free Will: A Serious Response To Stupid Mail

Since you also included Catherine Mackinnon in your diatribes against Andrea Dworkin, I went looking to refresh myself on her thinking.  I found a fascinating essay from 1990 that, if I'd read it then, would have probably saved me at least fifteen years of delay in thinking about so many of the things in the orthodoxy of secular-liberalism that have produced a total disaster in the last half century.  

The following two paragraphs from "Liberalism And The Death of Feminism" are deeply insightful as to how some of the foremost idols of current culture are far from guaranteeing equality and, in fact, support inequality and privilege and a full range of values of the genuine liberal American tradition, the liberalism of the Suffrage movement, the abolition movement, I would argue, as well, the labor movement.  

These things are far from easy, there are no bright lines and the use of words to mean not only different things but things whose difference is revealed in producing an oppressive difference, something which you would have to be a dishonest wielder of casuistical language to pretend was not the outcome in reality. 

What is the difference between the women's movement we had and the one we have now, if it can be called a movement? I think the difference is liberalism. Where feminism was collective, liberalism is individualistic. We have been reduced to that. Where feminism is socially based and critical, liberalism is naturalistic, attributing the product of women's oppression to women's natural sexuality, making it "ours." Where feminism criticizes the ways in which women have been socially determined in an attempt to change that determination, liberalism is voluntaristic, meaning it acts like we have choices that we do not have. Where feminism is based on material reality, liberalism is based on some ideal realm in the head. And where feminism is relentlessly political, about power and powerlessness, the best that can be mustered by this nouveau movement is a watered-down form of moralism: this is good, this is bad, no analysis of power or powerlessness at all. In other words, members of groups, like women, who have no choice but to live life as members of groups are taken as if they are unique individuals. Their social characteristics are then reduced to natural characteristics. Preclusion of choices becomes expression of free will. Material reality is turned into ideas about reality. And concrete positions of power and powerlessness are transformed into mere relative value judgments about which reasonable people can form different but equally valid preferences. Women's experience of abuse becomes a "point of view."

The way this gets itself up in law is as gender neutrality, consent, privacy, and speech. Gender neutrality means that you cannot take gender into account, you cannot recognize, as we once knew we had to, that neutrality enforces a non-neutral status quo. Consent means that whatever you are forced to do is attributed to your free will. Privacy protects the sphere of women's intimate oppression. Speech protects sexual violence against women and sexual use of women because they are male forms of self-expression. Under the First Amendment, only those who already have speech have protected speech. Women are more likely to be men's speech. No one who does not already have these rights guaranteed them socially gets them legally.

This kind of thing which, in 1990 Mackinnon discerned in terms of how such presumed civic virtues were used against women including by pseudo-"feminists" like those who supported pornography and pimps by claiming that the women involved in porn did so in an abstract, non-existent real world which coerced their involvement, at best, permitted their sexual enslavement, not at all uncommonly.  The myth that the sex industry was creating "sex work" is a lie that affluent people who have no reason to expect that anyone in their family will "go into that line of work" tell each other.   It has aided the explosion of sexual enslavement of impoverished and underclass women, children and men.  The same ideas in the form of "rational choice" are useful to the oligarchs in their decades long program of destroying  workers rights ("right to work") and the exploitation of overt forms of slavery in other countries.  Affluent, secular-liberals even those who are supposedly supportive of equal rights either weaken the struggle for equality or leave it entirely over such secular ersatz virtues. 

The subsequent events of the last 29 years have shown how prescient these ideas are.  "Free speech" which is supposedly the great gurantee of "it not happening here" of becoming a rallying cry of neo-Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, racists,  "choice" in so many ways becoming a slogan to cover a myriad of abuses from employers by making claims of "agency" and so may liberalish, though really libertarian notions that would only work if you presupposed an equality that isn't there and, if those using those slogans have their way, never will be, those very words used to deny the existence of inequality.   The very ideas which should only ever have been seen as tools for the promotion of equality, elevated into standing as autonomous idols unconnected with that goal are even more useful to prevent equality.  

Mackinnon's observation of how  how things presented as "social characteristics are then reduced to natural characteristics" is the same phenomenon that Marilynne Robinson noted in which entirely artificial entities were treated as atavistic phenomena.   I would say that habit is one of the byproducts of the casual scientism that is a result of modernism.  I don't know if Mackinnon would endorse my conclusion but I think this is what happens when you create abstract, material gods as a replacement for God, something which even the most hostile to religion do, continually. 

A lot of the things that Mackinnon discussed in that essay, applied to different problems that are the concerns of a real American liberalism that takes the lives and rights of real people as more important than academic and legalistic abstractions can enlighten so many seemingly incomprehensible puzzles.   When you lose your fear of looking hard and critically at the idols of post-war liberalism, especially noticing when words can mean different and opposite things and, divorced from their legitimate higher goal, these necessities of equality and democracy and a decent life for all used to attack all of those. 

No One Ever Seems To Worry That They Degrade Non-Commercial Art As They Laud Commercial Shit

Hey, if someone chooses to go into producing crap that makes money and they don't produce anything higher than that, that's the choice they made.  I'm not required to pretend they made a different choice.  Lots of artists not only didn't make that choice, they weren't able to produce commercial crap or have the chance to.  It dishonors them to make believe shit is any better than it is, academia, so full of people who can't do either, pretending that pop culture is the equivalent of high culture only proves they're full of shit when they do it.   

Commercial shit tends to have a limited shelf life.  That's the nature of commercial shit.  

Stupid Mail

Apparently he's so used to cross-posting the pathetic attempts at slamming me here and elsewhere that the idiot doesn't remember posting it here since I stopped posting his lies.   I think the rise in dementia among people in the developed world comes as the end-stage of the mental debility that too much TV induces.  If you don't use it, you, indeed,  lose it.  Though I think he lost it about the time that "Mr. TV," Milton Berle lost his last regular TV gig.  His mind has obviously been on the same level as Jackpot Bowling since c. 1961.   

Update:  If Milton Berle ever did anything funny, I didn't see it.  I did see one dramatic TV performance he did that wasn't bad, he played a troubled elderly father, I don't remember much about it but remembered thinking he went the wrong way in his career choices.  Well, if art instead of making money was the goal.  

Stupid Mail

Can't find the place I heard the joke about how in the future Green Book 4 will still be winning the Oscar, only in that one it will be a white guy driving a white guy around.  Anyone know where I heard that a couple of weeks back?   Spike Lee should realize that will always happen. 

I don't care what an old, white, straight, male on the outer fringes of the suburbs of the more degraded part of what gets called "art" thinks about what I said about the possibilities of Women, speakers of small population language communities, LGBTQ, and others who Hollywood will never represent or serve telling their own stories dramatically.   He should go screw off into the industry that, as proven by the numbers, will always service the wishes, desires and dreams*  of his minority group.   Hollywood is an oligarchic lie factory.   Those are the stories it tells.  

Update:  *  I should have included appetites.    Appetites of straight, white, men is mostly what Hollywood services. 

Update 2:  Yeah, like I said, white people.  

Radio Drama Second Feature - Gary Bleasdale - Confessional

Confessional 

In London, a young woman takes a cab at Victoria station with a dark mission. It will alter the course of her marriage and perhaps her entire life. 

Can the cabbie help her avoid disaster? 

Cast:
Lisa: Catherine McCormacK
Driver: Trevor Cooper
Kate: Lisa Sadovy
Sam: Ben Price


Director: Peter Kavanagh

Saturday Night Radio Drama - Eimear McBride - Mouthpieces

Mouthpieces 

A new radio work by the acclaimed author of A Girl Is a Half-formed Thing  and The Lesser Bohemians. Mouthpieces is performed by Eimear McBride and Aoife Duffin.

Mouthpieces divides into three miniature plays, each depicting a fragment of female experience, all of them in the author's vivid, original and sharp-witted style.

In The Adminicle Exists, we hear the inner voice of a woman who saves her troubled, dangerous partner; 

In An Act of Violence, a woman is quizzed about her reaction to a man’s death; 

In The Eye Machine, the character ‘Eye’ tells of her imprisonment, flickering through a slideshow of female stereotypes.

Mouthpieces was written over the course of McBride’s Creative Fellowship at the Beckett Research Centre, University of Reading. The opening piece, The Adminicle Exists will be published in the Faber Anthology, Being Various: New Irish Short Stories, edited by Lucy Caldwell, in May 2019.Performed by Eimear McBride and Aoife Duffin.Sound Design and Sound Supervision: Gar Duffy; Dramaturg: Jesper BergmannBroadcast Co-ordinator: Jarlath HollandProducer: Kevin BrewSeries Producer: Kevin Reynolds.Group Head of Drama and Comedy, RTÉ: Shane Murphy.

In looking for radio dramas to post I always see what the latest offerings of the RTÉ,  Irish National Radio posts as well as the BBC and the few others who still produce good English-language radio drama for broadcast.  This week it was this series of very short dramas.   It also reminded me of the too-little discussed study,  Celluloid Ceiling that shows that if Women are ever going to achieve anyting like equality in show-business, they'd better not depend on Hollywood to do it. 

Male characters continued to dominate on the big screen in 2018.  While only 35% of films featured 10 or more female characters in speaking roles, 82% had 10 or more male characters in speaking roles.  Females comprised 35% of all speaking characters, an increase of 1 percentage point from 34% in 2017.  Females comprised 36% of major characters.  This represents a decline of 1 percentage point from 37% in 2017.  The percentage of top grossing films featuring female protagonists increased to 31% in 2018, rebounding from 24% in 2017, and slightly besting the 29% achieved in 2016.  Regarding race and ethnicity, the percentage of Black females increased from 16% in 2017 to 21% in 2018.  The percentage of Latinas decreased from 7% in 2017 to 4% in 2018.  The percentage of Asian females increased from 7% in 2017 to 10% in 2018.  However, this increase is due largely to one film, Crazy Rich Asians.  When this film is excluded from the analysis, Asians accounted for 8% of all female characters, only 1 percentage point above the 7% achieved in 2017.

If any of those groups of women are ever going to tell their stories dramatically they are going to have to do it themselves, audio drama is the perfect venue for doing that, all groups that are never going to have their stories told when large money investments, producers, directors, etc. are involved and if they try they'll always have their stories altered to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make money from it.  Hollywood is the exact opposite of what they need to work through.   I've made that same point about any hope for an LGBTQ theater that says something, for small populations, "minority languages" and the such.  If Women, who comprise half of the world's population can't get the movies to tell their stories, to include them, then far smaller groups have little hope of that ever happening.  

Audio drama especially in the age of extremely inexpensive but potentially excellent digital audio production gives people without resources the ability to produce writer-actor centered drama, to say things that Hollywood will never say, to give people Hollywood will never give work to for an audience that wants to or, more importantly, needs to hear.  People need to be able to imagine things they haven't imagined yet, story telling, dramatic presentations can give people ways to think about things that haven't ever been given to them or suggested to them, before. 

I'd tie this in to the excellent book I'm in the process of re-reading, Firewater: How Alcohol Is Killing My People (And Yours) by Harold R. Johnson, in which he emphasizes the importance of the stories people tell themselves about themselves and the groups they identify with.  But this is getting long for these three short dramatic plays.  I will be writing about Harold Johnson's book at length because it strikes me as laying out a far from simplistic but extremely insightful way to deal with one of the most damaging and unacknowledged causes of preventable misery and death among us. 

I will post a second-feature later today, I've got to go sit with a family member. 

Joe Biden, Indeed, Isn't The Answer For President

I was called out on a family matter so I haven't had a chance to write more today.  

Rebecca Traister has written an excellent article outlining many of the reasons Joe Biden doesn't belong in the presidential race of 2020, many of them the same reasons he didn't belong in the ones he used to enter or float rumors he was going to enter, starting in the 1980s.  

I hope that Joe reads it or hears about it and decides to stay out of it.   He should retire.  

Betsy DeVos Is A Stinking Lying Crook And Gangster

Hate Mail - No, I Don't Have Any Reservations About Citing Andrea Dworkin

What that idiot knows about Andrea Dworkin can be summed up in two things, her name and that she's supposed to have cooties because she wanted to suppress snuff porn and the such and demanded that Women's autonomy and rights AND LIVES mattered.  I doubt that idiot could even articulate the reasons why he's supposed to disdain Andrea Dworkin,  I would bet you that easily 99% of the people who have been, likewise, convinced that she is unmentionable except as an object of derision know no more than that about her, that she is to be mentioned only as an object of derision.

I have actually read some of what she wrote and listened to some of what she said and, while I don't agree with everything she said and have reservations as to how she said some of the good things she said,  I have a great deal of respect for her and think much of what she did say is not only extremely important, it's far more important, today, in the age of Trump and Incels and Jordan Peterson's boy possee and the Republican-fascist attacks on Womens' right to own their own lives, bodies and persons than it was when she said it.

There is virtually no one that an intelligent person would agree with on every point, the more that someone else says, the higher the chance that you will disagree with some of what is said.   I'm even surprised to find out that obvious fact of life even applies to what I say.  Someone who is  intelligent, faced with disagreements with someone they respect will listen to find out if they might change their own minds.   Really intelligent people will even listen to those they don't respect in that regard, from time to time.

Stupid people will discount what someone like Andrea Dworkin says on the basis of the disparagment of her they read or hear from third parties, who, in her case NEVER IN MY EXPERIENCE have had pure motives in attacking or trying to discredit her.  I would say that is true from everyone from the snuff porn merchants up to the level of Barry Lynn who I have some respect for, though less than I used to back when I was a knee jerk lefty.

I went farther left than that largely on the basis of listening to people I had been told not to listen to because they had cooties, especially "First Amendment" cooties and "Separation of Church and State" cooties and other, similar crumbly pillars of the post-war left.  My current position is far farther to the left because, among other things, I took Andrea Dworkin's demand that Womens' lives be taken with total seriousness, their rights, their welfare, THEIR THINKING ABOUT WOMEN AND MEN AND LIFE.   My absolute bottom line in judging anything, up to and including the artificial, secular sanctity for the friggin' First Amendment is that where those lead to the deaths, oppression, discrimination against and destruction of other people and entire groups of people, that is where those sacred holdings and objects give way to the vital rights of those people.

I pay Andrea Dworkin the respect of not reflexively agreeing with everything she says as I would anyone else.   I regret that she died fourteen years ago, she would have had a lot of insight into this period of angry-online-boy violence and hate mongering and bullshit artists like Jordan Peterson and fascist scum like Donald Trump.

Here is a speech she gave in 1987, consider it in light of the treatment of Anita Hill by the, then, establishment liberalism of Joe Biden in the Senate, as well as other such things.  I am not advocating every idea she set out and am not endorsing how she said things I agreed with, I'm advocating listening to what she said, considering it in the time she said it and how her ideas have stood in the following 32 years.

Update:  I wouldn't put much credence in FACT, it was mostly useful for showing how utterly wrong they were.   Here's an interesting analysis of what they actually did and the results of it.  What I say above taken into account,  I am not inclined to take much of anything Wendy McElroy says seriously, she's a right-wing zealot.  I say that on the basis of having some familiarity with her junk.  She's a right wing faux-feminist of the kind who inevitably end up supporting male supremacy and capitalist oligarchy.

Adam Schiff's Statement Should Go Down In History As One Of The Best Speeches Made In The House

If Canada Were Smart They'd Profit From America's Racist Shitheads Like Stephanie Pilcher Miller And Other Republicans

Canada, you should snap these guys up, the United States is in the hands of total racist, bigot, idiots and someone should profit from it.

The video clarifies that the skank who started this idiocy isn't exactly Stephen Miller (Mitler) but she's kind of a Ms. Mitler.

Stacey Abrams Is The Future Of The Democratic Party Joe Biden Is Its Failed Past

I do not want Joe Biden to run for the Democratic nomination, he has a record which might have made him a good vice-president for Obama, I'd give him a B or a B- on that, he has a record that would make him a terrible Democratic candidate for president, especially as it becomes ever clearer that old-white-straight-men are not the winning demographic for the Democratic Party, even taking into account that a very large percentage of old-white-straight-men do and have voted for Democrats, just not a majority of that artificial entity. 

The Biden record in regard to his awful running of the Clarence Thomas hearings should be enough to disqualify him from getting the 2020 Democratic nomination, I've reviewed the tapes, he was clearly afraid to cross his Republican colleagues whose behavior to Anita Hill was an abomination that, if what happens in the afterlife is based in justice, sees the likes of Arlen Specter in hell, soon to be joined by the sanctimonious Orin Hatch and so many others.  Biden's questioning of her was, clearly, more calculated to be acceptable to Republicans on the committee and in the right wing media than it was to find out the truth.  It wasn't an attempt to uncover the truth about Clarence Thomas's sexual harassment, something which sheds light on his behavior in office, it was to cover Biden's white, straight, male ass.   His refusal to call the other corroborating witnesses who would have supported what Anita Hill said is proof that he cared more about the idiocy of Senate comity among his fellow white-men than doing justice for women.  His failure to have owned up to his failure in that up to and including today, to apologize sincerely to Anita Hill and the other witnesses he failed to call even as he's clearly preparing to run for president, AGAIN, proves he did not get it, he has not gotten it and he still doesn't get it. 

The last thing Democrats need in the last weeks of October and the first in November 2020 is a presidential candidate who did to women what Joe Biden did as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee then.  If Hillary Clinton was defeated by a narrow margin of votes in a few states due to the phony baggage she was loaded with by James Comey, the New York City office of the FBI and the New York Times, Joe Biden's real baggage is preserved on video tape. 

That's only one of the reasons that Joe Biden should be talked out of running and, failing that, retired early in the primaries and caucuses. 

His record of running bad presidential campaigns is certainly relevant as is that also recorded instance when he idiotically plagarized a well known speech by the British Labour Party Leader of the time,  Neil Kinnock.  If you want to see how that will be a problem for Biden, google "Neil Kinnock Speech" and see what comes up.

Biden should do what Hillary Clinton seems to have done and realize that the window on the possibility of his presidency closed a long time ago, it's time for younger Democrats to get their chances.   From what I read his attempt to patch the gaping hole in his credibility that he put into it with his treatment of Anita Hill by using the young, dynamic politician Stacey Abrams to plug it up with has failed.   If she refuses to do that for him, she has more sense than he ever exhibited. 

Denise Levertov - Five Poems - Read by James Carew

Everything about her was better than AG and the beats.  She even wrote better poems about sex, transcendental as opposed to a roll in the sewer.   Why isn't she the one who gets read in classes?