This study from the APA is tremendously important. "Toxic masculinity" is a tremendous problem, and in manifests in and arises from a variety of ways. There's a poisonous blend of high and low expectations of men, especially boys. As boys typically mature later than girls, they come into conflict with the accelerated expectations that we increasingly place on elementary school children. Standardized testing and the requirement for order that large classes need means that rambunctious boys (and girls, but that's a much smaller subset) struggle to find their academic footing.
Struggling to define themselves in positive ways, boys rely on masculine stereotypes to provide emotional shelter. Playground masculinity starts as a cloak, but becomes a straightjacket.
The article twice mentioned stoicism as being part of toxic masculinity, and I understand they are referring to emotional distance. But I've found basic stoic ideas to be very helpful in relieving some of the burdensome expectations of the world on masculinity. Stoicism is highly and happily fatalistic. "Do not obsess over that which you cannot control. Things will unfold as they should." Part of the problem with stereotypical masculinity is that it demands command. To be a man is to dominate. Yourself, your situation, your peers. That's unrealistic, obviously. Stoicism argues against mastery over everything except yourself, knowing that that is the only thing anyone has control over anyway.
There is something rotten in our society. Despite living in a time of true abundance and relative peace, we kill ourselves and each other with appalling regularity. We are not a happy people.
How can we be, when we spend our lives trying to become what other people tell us we should be?
Monday, January 14, 2019
Sunday, January 13, 2019
As I Was Saying
Martin Longman lays out the case that the FBI and CIA have been on Trump as a Russian asset all along, and that we shouldn't be surprised.
Basically, what I said yesterday, but with more evidence and documentation.
Basically, what I said yesterday, but with more evidence and documentation.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Not New
There's a story in the Times about the FBI opening an investigation into whether Donald Trump was/is a Russian asset. There seems to be some breathless responses to this, but wasn't this always the question since 2016-17? Haven't we been asking this question since the Republican Convention in 2016?
I guess it's just another case of the Dirty Filthy Liberal Bloggers being right years before the sensible center catches up.
To save some time: Global warming is real and caused by human activity. Wealth inequality is a threat to democratic governance. Donald Trump is a criminal.
Try and catch up.
UPDATE: OK, maybe the big news is that the NSA, FBI and CIA all have copious wiretaps on Trump's communications with Russia and others. That would, indeed, be a big f-ing deal.
I guess it's just another case of the Dirty Filthy Liberal Bloggers being right years before the sensible center catches up.
To save some time: Global warming is real and caused by human activity. Wealth inequality is a threat to democratic governance. Donald Trump is a criminal.
Try and catch up.
UPDATE: OK, maybe the big news is that the NSA, FBI and CIA all have copious wiretaps on Trump's communications with Russia and others. That would, indeed, be a big f-ing deal.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Look, Trump's a combination of stupid, incurious, incompetent and uninformed. So are many of the people around him.
But they have so backed themselves into a corner over this Wall bullshit, that I suppose the only way around it is to declare a national emergency, lose in the courts and then run against the courts in 2020.
It's all deeply stupid, and Trump could've had wall money a year ago if he wasn't a impulsive racist pig surrounded by calculating racist pigs.
There has to be a way out of this, and it won't be because Mitch McConnell cares about the will of the American people.
But they have so backed themselves into a corner over this Wall bullshit, that I suppose the only way around it is to declare a national emergency, lose in the courts and then run against the courts in 2020.
It's all deeply stupid, and Trump could've had wall money a year ago if he wasn't a impulsive racist pig surrounded by calculating racist pigs.
There has to be a way out of this, and it won't be because Mitch McConnell cares about the will of the American people.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
The Upside Down
Holy crap.
Read this and tell me if you can believe your eyes.
To some degree Carlson and even Coulter are simply diagnosing a problem that liberals and leftists have been screaming about for decades. Unsurprisingly, they aren't really big on solutions.
But I think it's important that more and more voices are agreeing on the consensus that late 20th-early 21st century capitalism is failing a substantial number of Americans. They may disagree on how to solve it, but the first step is admitting there is a problem. Yes, they ignored the effects of poverty on minorities, and they are only paying attention because now it's white people who are suffering. But who cares, as long as they begin to admit that African Americans are poor because of economic conditions.
Read this and tell me if you can believe your eyes.
To some degree Carlson and even Coulter are simply diagnosing a problem that liberals and leftists have been screaming about for decades. Unsurprisingly, they aren't really big on solutions.
But I think it's important that more and more voices are agreeing on the consensus that late 20th-early 21st century capitalism is failing a substantial number of Americans. They may disagree on how to solve it, but the first step is admitting there is a problem. Yes, they ignored the effects of poverty on minorities, and they are only paying attention because now it's white people who are suffering. But who cares, as long as they begin to admit that African Americans are poor because of economic conditions.
Both Sides
I was going to write about the execrable analysis by the AP about how "both sides" bear responsibility for the government shutdown.
Instead, here's two different sides of the same institution.
Catholic charities are taking the lead in helping refugees on our southern border.
Meanwhile, a cardinal might finally be held accountable for the predation within the church.
I can't help but notice that it's the nuns helping migrants and old white men abusing their positions of power. Completely coincidental, I'm sure.
Instead, here's two different sides of the same institution.
Catholic charities are taking the lead in helping refugees on our southern border.
Meanwhile, a cardinal might finally be held accountable for the predation within the church.
I can't help but notice that it's the nuns helping migrants and old white men abusing their positions of power. Completely coincidental, I'm sure.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Charlie Brown And The Football
Someone, years ago, suggested the image of Lucy holding out the football for Charlie Brown to kick, only for her to pull the ball away at the last second, as a metaphor for the media and conservatism.
Conservatism continually holds out the football of normalcy and then yanks it away from credulous media figures at the last second.
Basically that happened last night. Trump tried to be normal, but in the end he pulled the football away, retreated into his lies and most of all came across as false and insincere.
And every network covered it.
Conservatism continually holds out the football of normalcy and then yanks it away from credulous media figures at the last second.
Basically that happened last night. Trump tried to be normal, but in the end he pulled the football away, retreated into his lies and most of all came across as false and insincere.
And every network covered it.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Emergency
Greg Sargent lays out the reason why the medieval border wall is an "emergency." It's not because it's needed, but in fact precisely because they can't prove that they need it. Or rather, there is no national security or criminal enforcement reason that makes the wall necessary, only political realities.
There is some presumption that declaring a national emergency on the wall, then losing the case in courts (as Truman did during an actual war) would allow Trump a face-saving way out of his impasse.
Deeply stupid and deeply wrong.
There is some presumption that declaring a national emergency on the wall, then losing the case in courts (as Truman did during an actual war) would allow Trump a face-saving way out of his impasse.
Deeply stupid and deeply wrong.
Monday, January 7, 2019
Uh, What?
One thing Donald Trump promised to be was a "disrupter."
Judging by this Tucker Carlson piece, he could possibly scramble politics in ways we can't anticipate. I'm not sure what a true right wing populism would look like in the US, but if we could move away from "more money for rich people," that would be nice.
Judging by this Tucker Carlson piece, he could possibly scramble politics in ways we can't anticipate. I'm not sure what a true right wing populism would look like in the US, but if we could move away from "more money for rich people," that would be nice.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
One More Thought On Tlaib
The burbling nontroversy about Rashida Tlaib's comment "We are going to impeach the motherfucker" revolves on two axes.
First is motherfucker. This is largely bullshit. The idea that men and women don't use obscenities in everyday life is ridiculous. The policing of "tone" is among the laziest, worst ways of commenting on public discourse. The counterargument that Trump has said worse is slightly off target. The appropriate response is not to argue that Trump's language gives permission for Tlaib or others, it's that no one fucking cares, as long as you aren't doing on live TV during prime time.
The second makes a little more sense, but only a little. This is the idea that Democrats can't "rush to judgment" on impeaching Trump. The House must act like a sober jury from the imagination of responsible centrists. This ignores the fact that we already have ample, ample evidence in the public record that Trump is guilty of numerous crimes, and that he is manifestly unfit for office. We absolutely SHOULD impeach the motherfucker.
There is an argument that impeaching Trump won't mean anything unless the Senate convicts and removes. Maybe, but perhaps putting the onus on the Senate to defend Trump's criminality is its own reward. Here's another idea. You could impeach Trump on charges of campaign finance violations. Senate acquits. Impeach him on Russian collusion next. Senate acquits. Then impeach him on emoluments. Let the GOP Senate continue to defend the indefensible, up until November 2020.
The question becomes how the Never Trumpers will respond. Right now, Democrats are siphoning off moderate, suburban women Republicans. You want to make them Democrats, so that you can win past 2020. Once they identify as Democrats and not as Never Trump Republicans, you've got them. So...maybe...that cohort wants to see a sober, impartial impeachment process, whereby the House Democrats act like regretful public servants rather than partisan warriors. Maybe that's the thinking, and if so, it makes sense to slow-roll impeachment.
But it's going to be difficult in the next six months NOT to impeach, given what we already know about Trump. Best get used to the idea.
First is motherfucker. This is largely bullshit. The idea that men and women don't use obscenities in everyday life is ridiculous. The policing of "tone" is among the laziest, worst ways of commenting on public discourse. The counterargument that Trump has said worse is slightly off target. The appropriate response is not to argue that Trump's language gives permission for Tlaib or others, it's that no one fucking cares, as long as you aren't doing on live TV during prime time.
The second makes a little more sense, but only a little. This is the idea that Democrats can't "rush to judgment" on impeaching Trump. The House must act like a sober jury from the imagination of responsible centrists. This ignores the fact that we already have ample, ample evidence in the public record that Trump is guilty of numerous crimes, and that he is manifestly unfit for office. We absolutely SHOULD impeach the motherfucker.
There is an argument that impeaching Trump won't mean anything unless the Senate convicts and removes. Maybe, but perhaps putting the onus on the Senate to defend Trump's criminality is its own reward. Here's another idea. You could impeach Trump on charges of campaign finance violations. Senate acquits. Impeach him on Russian collusion next. Senate acquits. Then impeach him on emoluments. Let the GOP Senate continue to defend the indefensible, up until November 2020.
The question becomes how the Never Trumpers will respond. Right now, Democrats are siphoning off moderate, suburban women Republicans. You want to make them Democrats, so that you can win past 2020. Once they identify as Democrats and not as Never Trump Republicans, you've got them. So...maybe...that cohort wants to see a sober, impartial impeachment process, whereby the House Democrats act like regretful public servants rather than partisan warriors. Maybe that's the thinking, and if so, it makes sense to slow-roll impeachment.
But it's going to be difficult in the next six months NOT to impeach, given what we already know about Trump. Best get used to the idea.
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Reporter Heal Thyself
Let's take three members of the incoming freshmen class of the new Congress.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a new brand of politics. She is incredibly adept at social media, and at trolling her critics with both wit and substance. As the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and with considerable reserves of charisma, she has become some sort of symbol for "the Left." She will stake out certain positions to the left of her caucus, because that's what she was elected to do. Dana Milbank's middle aged tut-tutting at her mild dissents is typical of the reportage on Democrats. "They'd better be the grown-ups! They'd better play politics by the old rules!"
Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib said at a Move-On rally, that she was ready to "impeach the motherfucker." The pearl clutching was extreme. While some of this pearl clutching did exist with the many, many times Trump has violated certain social norms, let's recall that Tlaib said this at an event that was not broadcast live on TV (like calling certain countries "shitholes"). This represents a subtle double standard both on gender and partisanship. Democrats are required to be the responsible party that doesn't blow stuff up and governs responsibly.
Meanwhile, America "elected" a vulgarian reality TV star.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has taken the role of Jeff Flake. For this his rebuke comes not from the Dana Milbanks of the world, but from a fellow Republican Senator. Romney is being reminded that the GOP cult of authoritarianism will not brook dissent. The media lauded his heterodoxy, but the GOP won't stand for it. When Democrats are heterodox, it's a sign of chaos. "Dems in disarray!"
The reason is that the GOP has abandoned all pretense of normal governance, and the reporting class wants that normal governance (even as they secretly bask in the media floods of Trumpistan). The Democrats represent "normal order" whereas the Republicans represent the dark hordes of barbarians hammering on the gates of the Madisonian system of government.
The problem, of course, is that people are angry. Everywhere. About everything. Bland centrism and quiet nostrums aren't really going to allow Democrats to hold on to the power they have just been given.
People voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party because they were angry at that motherfucker. Why can't people see that? Why are we so attuned to white working class anger that we can't see the ocean of rage among women, people of color and the largest political party in the country?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a new brand of politics. She is incredibly adept at social media, and at trolling her critics with both wit and substance. As the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and with considerable reserves of charisma, she has become some sort of symbol for "the Left." She will stake out certain positions to the left of her caucus, because that's what she was elected to do. Dana Milbank's middle aged tut-tutting at her mild dissents is typical of the reportage on Democrats. "They'd better be the grown-ups! They'd better play politics by the old rules!"
Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib said at a Move-On rally, that she was ready to "impeach the motherfucker." The pearl clutching was extreme. While some of this pearl clutching did exist with the many, many times Trump has violated certain social norms, let's recall that Tlaib said this at an event that was not broadcast live on TV (like calling certain countries "shitholes"). This represents a subtle double standard both on gender and partisanship. Democrats are required to be the responsible party that doesn't blow stuff up and governs responsibly.
Meanwhile, America "elected" a vulgarian reality TV star.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has taken the role of Jeff Flake. For this his rebuke comes not from the Dana Milbanks of the world, but from a fellow Republican Senator. Romney is being reminded that the GOP cult of authoritarianism will not brook dissent. The media lauded his heterodoxy, but the GOP won't stand for it. When Democrats are heterodox, it's a sign of chaos. "Dems in disarray!"
The reason is that the GOP has abandoned all pretense of normal governance, and the reporting class wants that normal governance (even as they secretly bask in the media floods of Trumpistan). The Democrats represent "normal order" whereas the Republicans represent the dark hordes of barbarians hammering on the gates of the Madisonian system of government.
The problem, of course, is that people are angry. Everywhere. About everything. Bland centrism and quiet nostrums aren't really going to allow Democrats to hold on to the power they have just been given.
People voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party because they were angry at that motherfucker. Why can't people see that? Why are we so attuned to white working class anger that we can't see the ocean of rage among women, people of color and the largest political party in the country?
Friday, January 4, 2019
The Media President
Jon Chait makes an important point about how the media covered Trump. Trump was scrutinized, but not vetted in 2016. That is to say, he threw scandal after scandal, damaging statement after damaging statement into the wind and watched as the media tried to keep up. No particular story could land, because they just kept coming. Clinton, meanwhile, was subjected to a single, over-arching scandal: the damned emails.
So, the cable nets in particular kept covering every new outrageous utterance of Trump, which amounted to free coverage. Trump, however, had cemented himself in the public imagination via a fictionalized "reality show" as a successful billionaire. Those claims were briefly examined - mainly by David Farentholdt - but were dropped in favor of whatever outrage Trump visited upon civility. Those outrages served to burnish his "maverick" credibility and "owning the libs" persona, and his servile followers trusted in the "billionaire" businessman who never actually existed.
Trump was a celebrity, playing by celebrity rules. He never underwent the rigorous vetting that takes place over a long public career. Cory Booker will need to explain his closeness to Wall Street. It wasn't a liability running in NJ, but it will be in a national race. Elizabeth Warren already stepped in it with the DNA testing. John Kerry had to explain contradictory votes in ways that Trump never did. Trump was always Trump, and that required no explanation.
Trump will now be vetted in ways that he never has been before. But tearing down the persona he created over several decades will be difficult, if not impossible, for those who dearly want to believe that persona that they voted for was real.
So, the cable nets in particular kept covering every new outrageous utterance of Trump, which amounted to free coverage. Trump, however, had cemented himself in the public imagination via a fictionalized "reality show" as a successful billionaire. Those claims were briefly examined - mainly by David Farentholdt - but were dropped in favor of whatever outrage Trump visited upon civility. Those outrages served to burnish his "maverick" credibility and "owning the libs" persona, and his servile followers trusted in the "billionaire" businessman who never actually existed.
Trump was a celebrity, playing by celebrity rules. He never underwent the rigorous vetting that takes place over a long public career. Cory Booker will need to explain his closeness to Wall Street. It wasn't a liability running in NJ, but it will be in a national race. Elizabeth Warren already stepped in it with the DNA testing. John Kerry had to explain contradictory votes in ways that Trump never did. Trump was always Trump, and that required no explanation.
Trump will now be vetted in ways that he never has been before. But tearing down the persona he created over several decades will be difficult, if not impossible, for those who dearly want to believe that persona that they voted for was real.
Out Of The Impasse
Quite a few people are weighing in on the politics of the wall. This has always been easier than covering actual policy, because it's primarily "this is my opinion and why I think I'm right" rather than digging into things like how much the wall will cost in real terms, the engineering hurdles, the lost opportunities to solve other problems. Horse race journalism is easy, especially when you are talking about a hypothetical future horse race.
Anyway, the shutdown can't continue forever. How do we get out of this?
Last year (or was it 2017?) there was a package deal that would've given wall funding in return for a DREAM Act. Trump vetoed it, because of Stephen Miller and Fox News, but it could be the only way to get the petulant baby-in-chief to sign something.
Can Democrats negotiate that outcome with much of their base uninterested in giving Trump anything? I doubt it. It would probably be worth it as a political trade-off, but that's not where our politics are right now.
Anyway, the shutdown can't continue forever. How do we get out of this?
Last year (or was it 2017?) there was a package deal that would've given wall funding in return for a DREAM Act. Trump vetoed it, because of Stephen Miller and Fox News, but it could be the only way to get the petulant baby-in-chief to sign something.
Can Democrats negotiate that outcome with much of their base uninterested in giving Trump anything? I doubt it. It would probably be worth it as a political trade-off, but that's not where our politics are right now.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Oxymorons
Jon Chait is a Liberal. As such, he gets slagged a lot by the online Left, and some of it is deserved, because Chait likes to troll them every once in a while.
But there are few better critics of "mainstream conservatives" than Chait. His takedown of how Conservative Ethics is an Oxymoron is excellent. But this is not something that is new or unique to Trumpistan. There has always been an authoritarian streak in conservatism. Even so-called Burkean conservatism has a reflexive respect for established norms, rules and traditions. From there, it's a short walk to "follow the leader."
And "follow the leader" is pretty much the modern GOP in a nutshell. The fact that their current leader is an immoral criminal with the intellect of an angry badger isn't an accident. Trump represents the average Republican voter, rage-drunk on the mendacity of Fox News. So there is a natural confluence between the leader and the lead in conservatism. Stepping outside that stream is dangerous to your political health. Just ask the retiring cowards, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker. The GOP has become a fear fueled id, and Trump is the personification of it. Your nice aunt who thought Dubya was a really nice man and tried his best...she may tut tut at Trump's name, but in the end, she will fall in line behind the leader.
This soft authoritarianism is deeply rooted in one political party. Don't believe me? Watch the coming cannibalism of the Democratic primary. Visit Twitter for the incessant warring between the Bernie Bros and the Clintonistas. The left of center party has ALWAYS been fractious and ungovernable. When the Republican was roughly left of center during the Gilded Age (at least in comparison to Democrats), they were constantly riven by factions. Dissension and factionalism are hallmarks of liberal politics. Toeing the line and following the leader are the hallmarks of conservative politics.
We have created an conservative ecosystem, however, that is so divorced from reality, that you have the authors Chait describes above who can't acknowledge the extraordinary moral failings of Donald Trump. How can you be an ethicist and look at Trump - his criminality, his lying, his selfishness, his racism, his sexism - and not see a human sewer?
Because you're a conservative. And he's your leader.
These people should not be anywhere the levers of power.
But there are few better critics of "mainstream conservatives" than Chait. His takedown of how Conservative Ethics is an Oxymoron is excellent. But this is not something that is new or unique to Trumpistan. There has always been an authoritarian streak in conservatism. Even so-called Burkean conservatism has a reflexive respect for established norms, rules and traditions. From there, it's a short walk to "follow the leader."
And "follow the leader" is pretty much the modern GOP in a nutshell. The fact that their current leader is an immoral criminal with the intellect of an angry badger isn't an accident. Trump represents the average Republican voter, rage-drunk on the mendacity of Fox News. So there is a natural confluence between the leader and the lead in conservatism. Stepping outside that stream is dangerous to your political health. Just ask the retiring cowards, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker. The GOP has become a fear fueled id, and Trump is the personification of it. Your nice aunt who thought Dubya was a really nice man and tried his best...she may tut tut at Trump's name, but in the end, she will fall in line behind the leader.
This soft authoritarianism is deeply rooted in one political party. Don't believe me? Watch the coming cannibalism of the Democratic primary. Visit Twitter for the incessant warring between the Bernie Bros and the Clintonistas. The left of center party has ALWAYS been fractious and ungovernable. When the Republican was roughly left of center during the Gilded Age (at least in comparison to Democrats), they were constantly riven by factions. Dissension and factionalism are hallmarks of liberal politics. Toeing the line and following the leader are the hallmarks of conservative politics.
We have created an conservative ecosystem, however, that is so divorced from reality, that you have the authors Chait describes above who can't acknowledge the extraordinary moral failings of Donald Trump. How can you be an ethicist and look at Trump - his criminality, his lying, his selfishness, his racism, his sexism - and not see a human sewer?
Because you're a conservative. And he's your leader.
These people should not be anywhere the levers of power.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Greetings From Ultima Thule
Apparently, the little green men there can't believe we elected Trump either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)