« Department of oxymorons, Israel division | Main | Bashar Assad's speechwriting process »

Tuesday, March 29, 2011


I wonder if anyone at the magazine thinks that the actual Mother Jones would've been an Obama supporter.

My wife & I had people over on the weekend. Urban liberals (not that this means much any longer), I know most if not all voted for Obama over my loud and repeated emails and in-person arguments that a Wall St warmonger was all they were going to get. Amazingly, astoundingly, I heard impassioned argument that the "unarmed" Libyan rebels were being saved by the High Holy Jesus H. Christ Obama through his cruise missile diplomacy, which was "saving civilians."

I read these dispatches in CounterPunch and so forth, and not seeing too much TV news and having given up on The Nation et al. years ago I'm still astounded that the Cruise Missile Liberal actually exists, in real life, outside of punditry and the Beltway.

I went through the usual sets of arguments on Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Gaza, the constitution, collateral damage, Pentagon lies, stray missiles, etc etc down the line. No real impact. The TV and Saint Barry said that some Arabs need another missile up the ass, thus this is a "liberal" position. When I just blurted out that if GW Bush were doing the same things with the same excuses everyone in the room would call him a lying warmonger, they kinda looked at their shoes and changed the subject.

America is doomed in large part because Democrats DO NOT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE TRUTH, EVER as doing so would necessarily cause any thinking person to start taking personal responsibility for real grassroots politics, a hard multiple-decade struggle with a lot of grunt work. Moments like this I'm kinda ashamed of my friends. And this is the so-called "left," a poor joke.

I wonder what large "liberal" donors keep the mother jones magazine positing its nonsense.

obama has systematically deconstructed almost all of the liberal infrastructure by having the heads cut off the bodies.



I wonder what large neo-liberal donors keep the mother jones magazine positing this nonsense.


I am indebted to you, sir. I have often entertained the thought that I should be reading MJ, and now you have given me good reason not to bother.

1) You link to a certain author as an exception who is worth reading, but I note there are no articles listed by that person in Mother Jones after the spring of 2008.

2)Re Libya, from an article in today's Financial Times by James Blitz:

In the early stages of the conflict [the rebels] could be cast as victims of repression. But as they gain momentum, the international media is taking an increasingly hard look at them. There is lingering uncertainty about who the rebels are and what they represent. No less worrying are their tactics. On Monday there were reports that the rebels had fired rockets and missiles into Sirte for a few hours, without any idea whether they were hitting Gaddafi forces or civilians. If the west’s avowed mission is to protect the local population, actions such as this may prove to be a problem.

I packed it in with MJ (Sorry, Mother, you deserve better) when Joshua Hammer (correct name?) did his hatchet job on Rachel Corrie back in, well, it must have been sometime during that year - 2003.

Sad, angering, pfffffft!

I'm glad I missed that one (or purged it from my memory).

...an exception who is worth reading...

Actually just one who doesn't live in a magical fantasyland--though he's also worth reading, but moreso at his own site than MJ.

I mentioned in a previous thread my latest conversation with an Obama supporter -- a strident one who said I'd be happy once Obama finally fixes the economy ("you'll see!). I mentioned to her -- specifically to avoid this upcoming problem -- I mentioned that when faced with a person who is unhappy with Obama stealing from the poor or murdering children or torturing heroes, some of his more vehement supporters will accuse the speaker of being a Republican -- a particularly noxious charge since Obama (and, by virtue of that, his supporters) are far more Republican than the speaker is. Despite that little aside, she went out of her way to accuse me of being Republican not a minute later. And it's not the first time I've seen this, with me or others. It should go without saying that, for me, being accused of being a Republican is near the vilest insult imagineable.

Right-wing authoritarianism is not a Republican phenomenon, and while this cancer is in both parties, it is not a creature of our politics but of the human condition. This noxious combination of celebrity worship and spite, besides being a personal bitch as I mentioned above, has done an excellent job of turning the Earth into a shithole. The human capacity to kiss the whip is, bar none, our most enduringly horrible feature, for an otherwise decent person who becomes lickspittle to a monster cheerfully becomes a monster himself.

What vexes me is how fucking cheap authoritarian standards are. Obama was hardly golden on paper. Being half-white and not coming from either a) abject poverty or b) parents who are both from the U.S. doesn't fit the perfect narrative. His past record, before politics, wasn't overwhelmingly impressive -- not to knock it*, but it was mundane as far as potential-super-jesus-for-everyone is concerned. (*Obama is a bad man because he's a thieving, torturing, murderous asshole, not because I disliked his career choices. I'm snide, but not petty.)

He never said or did anything special during or after either of his campaign runs and he did all of those things in a meticulously tiresome and unimpressive way. He stood out because his speaking style was less-terribly-bad than his peers: modern politics in the U.S. has embraced a clumsy, pathetic sort of insincere jabber that sounds little like our previous leaders. (Probably a result of actual social distance between the rulers and the ruled, combined with an increasingly technocratic and focus-group obsessed style. Our pols are uncomfortable with us, and it shows.) Obama wasn't eloquent in an absoulte sense -- he was mediocre. His peers were absymal. Plenty of presidents and congressmen of yesteryear that I dislike had a poise and gravitas that makes jackasses of our current crew.

But our society latched onto him anyway. He could basically phone it in.

Why would Obama have to do a damn thing keep people kissing his ass? He didn't do shit to get them to start doing it in the first place.

This is already too long, but here's a spot of irony for sitting through this wretched post: rightwingers are driven, both leaders and followers, partially by spite -- mostly for some. They hate the idea of anyone but themselves benefitting from privilege. Nevertheless, because of their own priorities, they have no narrative for the fact that Obama's popularity is pretty much a creature of indulgence. Sure, they used the slur Obamabots, but not only did non-rightwingers use that term, but, in true rightwing fasion, the term was used for anyone who disagreed with them -- much like how Obama's supporters sometiems use the term "Republican."

My (much delayed) point is this: rightwingers can't even get spite done correctly.

Kevin Drum in Mother Jones today (paraphrazed liberally):

Gee, I'm just too damn stupid and ignorant to know anything myself, or even have opinions. Good thing I trust my president (a la Britney Spears). He is all wise and all knowing. Even if I did have the temerity to think that I might know something, and have an opinion differing from that of my personal Lord and Savior, I would, of course, be happy to defer, change my mind, and lick his boots and beg for forgiveness. I am a lap dog and a toady. If my God decides to take my country to war, it must be the right decision, because he is so superior to me. In fact, let me amend my previous statement, I am not worthy to lick his boots, although of course I would eagerly do so until I wore a hole in my undeserving tongue.....


Money will always seek power, and Power will always seek money. Which is why I favor small government and a progressive corporate tax structure.

"Mother Jones" magazine has been taken over by fascists and bootlickers and rather than abusing the real Mother Jones' good name, they should chamge their magazine's name to "War Jones" instead. David "GMO" Corn is just as wrongheaded and dull as Kevin Drumm, both partisan shills for fascists posing as democrats pretending that they are any better than fascists posing as republicans.

If you don't know who Mother Jones, the cofounder of the IWW, was:

Both Alternet and Mother Jones suck !

The comments to this entry are closed.