California is not on fire because of being "woke."

So, I've had to explain to a few geniuses on the Twitter that the California wildfires are actually not a result of California's "progressive" governence.

Surprisingly, it has not gone well.

Remember this whenever you hear the word, "Progressive".

— Andrew A. Hennessy (@AndrewAQLD) October 27, 2019

PG&E is a private, for-profit compny. Nothing "progressive" about them.

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) October 27, 2019

Hahahaha!!

Which state body sets the regulations they must abide by? Which state sets the environmental regulations for that region?

— Andrew A. Hennessy (@AndrewAQLD) October 27, 2019

No one set any regulation that made them neglect maintenance.

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) October 27, 2019

You didn't answer my question.

— Andrew A. Hennessy (@AndrewAQLD) October 27, 2019

Because it's a stupid and irrelevant question.

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) October 27, 2019

It's not, and that's why I ask.

— Andrew A. Hennessy (@AndrewAQLD) October 27, 2019

It is. I'm sorry that you can't understand why.

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) October 27, 2019

But holy shit, even the cement-head randos on Twitter couldn't come up with as idiotic a take as Dave Rubin and Tucker Carlson.






So, they can't possibly blame PG&E. PG&E is a private, for-profit corporation and therefore does everything in the best and most efficient way or the invisible hand of the free market wouldn't tolerate them! But clearly the fires are due to PG&E's neglect of maintenance. So somehow - somehow - it must be the evil liberal government who forced PG&E to abandon the perfect principles of the free market and thus caused these fires!
So presumably, Rubin spent a lot of time pondering, wondering and doing every type of mental gymnastics and logical contortionism trying to find a way that California's Governor Newsom could be made to shoulder the blame. Then it hit him. Of course! It's so simple! It must be because of "wokeness!"

So, somehow, and this is a little tricky to follow, but somehow, California requiring public utilities to keep track of minority hiring (which I can't say for sure if they do or don't) somehow that caused PG&E to lose tracvk of the state of their infrastructure because a large multi-billion-dollar corporation is only capable of keeping track of one thing. Obviously. Then somehow, this affects the various fire departments who are battling these blazes. And somehow, because the fire departments care about hiring some black and/or LGBT firefighters, their ability to spray water at a fire is compromised.

Somehow, this also has to do with taxes going up but homelessness continuing to exist. It's all very complex,

And the crowning achievement, the cherry on the top of the jerk-off sundae, is the two dullards laughing about the "absurdity" of not wanting to "put too much pressure on the grid."

Also worth noticing is the way that Tucker nods soberly and quietly murmurs "yes, true" whenever Rubin says something particularly idiotic as if he were honored to be in the presence of such an insightful sage.

And bonus points for the utter preposterousness of white supremacist Tucker Carlson shouting "Who WOULD care?" if the firefighters sent to his home were black. "Who would care about something like that?" Well, you would, Tuck. None of the "woke" "liberal" Californian strawmen you like to pretend to beat up on would care, but you would.

Anywayyyy. . .

I haven't lived in California for a while. But I was there for the last round of "rolling blackouts," during the Enron Arthur Anderson debacle. And every county in the state of California had these blackouts except for one. Care to guess which one?

It was Los Angeles County.
Know why?
Because they have a municipal power company.
The county of Los Angleles - that is, the people of L.A. County - own the utility. And they were the only county to keep the lights on.
Maybe because municipal power companies don't do things like neglect maintenance in order to increase short-term profits. Because there are no profits to consider. PG&E did that, but a socialist/communist/pinko-liberal municipal power company doesn't. And maybe municipal power companies don't have to skimp on infrastructure repairs in order to pay out a few billion dollars to their shareholders. PG&E did that..

You know, it's almost as if the California fires are more the result of capitalist excesses than the desire to hire a few gay firefighters or something.


Speaking of which, here's a little thank you to some of my readers for putting up with my long boring rant.

Third Annual Halloween Dance Party

I came up with some new spooooooky tunes this year.
Ready? Let's dance!

A ridiculous article about impeachment from a ridiculous website

Oh, this should be good!

Democrats Are Embarrassed By Schiff’s Impeachment Tactics, And They Should Be

By Adam Mill

OCTOBER 24, 2019

All right, I'm all ears. Who are these Democrats who are supposedly "embarrassed" by Adam Schiif?

Criticisms of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment tactics have begun to bite. Fair-minded people have begun to ask why is it necessary to have secret witnesses, secret hearings, and leaks of distorted, out-of-context excerpts from transcripts,

No. No, that's incorrect. No "fair-minded people" have begun asking that. Because it's bullshit. The witnesses aren't secret, we know who they are. And the hearings aren't secret. Testimony is being taken in a closed-door hearing because that is the way the process works. That's how the Benghazi hearings worked. It's how every grand jury proceeding works. Have you never seen Law & Order?

Why is it necessary to block the president from sending representatives to attend these hearings so he can have equal access to any evidence?  Why was it necessary for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff to “parody” the transcript of the president’s call to the Ukrainian president? Aren’t parodies supposed to be funny? Shouldn’t the chairman be proceeding with sober deliberation and fairness instead of romping about with gleeful shtick?

Yes. should he not give this proceeding the sober deliberation it deserves? Have some goddamm respect for the gravitas of the situation. . .










. . . sorry, you were saying? something about sober deliberation?

If Schiff cannot take the proceedings seriously, what of the 218 representatives who voted against the resolution condemning Schiff?

Well, I'm pretty sure that Schiff is taking the proceedings seriously. despite one moment of levity and that the 218 reps who voted not to condemn him were exercising something known as "common sense."

And why are Democrats shutting out Republicans from the process?

Because they fucking aren't, you lying, mendacious little rodent dropping!
There are three comittees involved in the impeachment inquiry. All Three Of These Committees Have Republican Members. You know this. I mean, I assume you know this. You can't be stupid enough to not know this. You're just lying. You're just repeating the official Republican party lie. Everyone knows that there are Republicans who are in the hearing room. About a dozen of these Republican shitweasels decided that, instead of attending the hearing, they would rather join the circle jerk outside, claiming that they have been denied entry. It's bullshit. They know it's bullshit, and so do you.

Listening to the Democratic presidential primary debate last week, I heard something that made my ears prick up. The criticisms of the fairness of the impeachment inquiry have begun to resonate.

Oh, this should be good!

The evidence: Some of the candidates and their fawning CNN enablers felt compelled at least to pay lip service to the importance of a fair process. I had to review the transcript to confirm that my ears were not playing tricks on me.

Yeah,  you heard right. That's Democrats in a nutshell. Always insisting on respecting rules and norms no matter how shamelessly the opposition party flouts them.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked candidate Cory Booker, “Sen. Booker, you have said that President Trump’s, quote, ‘moral vandalism’ disqualifies him from being president. Can you be fair in an impeachment trial?”

Booker responded, “So, first of all, we must be fair. We are talking about ongoing proceedings to remove a sitting president for office. This has got to be about patriotism and not partisanship. Look, I share the same sense of urgency of everybody on this stage. I understand the outrage that we all feel. But we have to conduct this process in a way that is honorable, that brings our country together, doesn’t rip us apart.”

And you'll notice that at no time did he intimate that that was not what was being done. He was just stressing the importance of proceeding fairly even though it's blatantly obvious to anyone with two good eyes that Trump in guilty. Of the Ukraine business and so many other things.

Also, that is such a centrist Dem response. Still holding out hope that, if they act honorably enough, they can get the drooling knuckle-draggers to see that they are virtuous and the country can all come together as one as if that were still possible.

Another 2020 presidential contender, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, said, “If impeachment is driven by these hyperpartisan interests, it will only further divide an already terribly divided country. Unfortunately, this is what we’re already seen play out as calls for impeachment really began shortly after Trump won his election.”

Okay I'll give you Tulsi. But Tulsi's kind of a nut. You want to know how nutty?

 This ad   


is right there next to this article.
Yeah, she's advertising on the goddamm Federalist. Quite possibly the most laughably ridiculous of the far-right websites. Why? Who the hell knows? I guess she has that Democratic Party idea that if a candidate stresses their military service enough, they will win the respect of Republicans who loooove the troops so much! Remember how well that worked for John Kerry?

  

Sen. Bernie Sanders added, “Mitch McConnell has got to do the right thing and allow a free and fair trial in the Senate.”

Aaaaand, you're somehow casting this as a criticism of Adam Schiff and the House? Sanders said something about Mitch McConnel and the Senate, and you think this is indicative of a feeling of embarrassment about a completely different person and a different chamber of Congress?

See, this is the sort of thing that makes the Federalist so goddamm funny. I mean, if there really are people out there taking this site seriously, then that would be a bit scary, but I have to assume that no one is reading the Federalist for any reason other than its comedic value and you're just being propped up with wads of Koch money.

Like a Nicolas Cage movie!

Cooper challenged Sen. Kamala Harris’ apparent pre-judgment of any potential trial of Trump, saying, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that members of Congress have to be, in her words, fair to the president and give him a chance to exonerate himself. You’ve already said that based on everything you’ve seen, you would vote to remove him from office. Is that being fair to the president?” Harris must not have received the memo, because her answer dismissed any possibility of voting to acquit the yet-uncharged president.

Which clearly shows how embarrassed she is by Schiff's impeachment hearings?
Have you already forgotten the thesis of your article?

Also, you have Anderson Cooper challenging Kamala Harris which kind of undercuts your whole "the candidates and their fawning CNN enablers " premise.

Schiff’s Tactics Have No Defenders

Yeah, that's not true. That's not even close to true.That has no basis in fact. It's like saying the sky is green or giraffes are short.

Indeed, my survey of articles from left-leaning writers revealed no defense of the Schiff process. Nobody, and I mean nobody, seems willing to argue in favor of Schiff’s nakedly political process. The best the authors can muster is a half-hearted mumbling about fairness not being required.

Oh, your survey? Your survey? Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, I'm sure you did an exhaustive reading of "left-leaning" writers and their articles about the impeachment. You wouldn't just make up some bullshit like that, would you?

Writing for Reuters, Jan Wolfe recently tackled the question, “Does the impeachment probe violate Trump’s civil rights?” Her short answer is “no,” but the way Schiff is running roughshod over the opposition is undermining the process. She notes, “Legal experts say because impeachment is a political, and not legal, process, the House has broad authority to set the ground rules for an inquiry. Allowing Trump’s lawyers to participate anyway could build public support and make it appear more fair, however, they said.”

Well, I think that the painstaking nature of your survey of left-leaning writers can be best illustrated by the fact that you refer to Jan Wolfe as "she" and Her," when in fact, THIS 



is Jan Wolfe, the writer for Reuters.


Now, I wasn't familiar with Wolfe either, but it took me about 10 seconds on Google to find out that he is a man and that he doesn't really seem all that lefty-loosey.

MULVANEY: "Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server." https://t.co/hjpQQt4cb7

— Jan Wolfe (@JanNWolfe) October 17, 2019

I'm old enough to remember when @IlhanMN and @SRuhle suggested Lindsey Graham was being blackmailed into supporting Trump https://t.co/qbUGYaXgZP

— Jan Wolfe (@JanNWolfe) October 16, 2019

Anyway, the quote that you cited definitely does not indicate that he thinks that there is any unfairness in the procedures, just that "some legal experts" feel that allowing one of Trump's chimpanzee clownn lawyers to be involved would make it appear more fair.

The normally left-leaning Keith E. Whittington posted to the lawfareblog.com a prescient article in 2017 warning that “An Impeachment Should not be a Partisan Affair.” 

Oh my God. Well, if someone wrote an article two years ago, that surely proves that he is uncomfortable with something that is going on now in the present day!



Honest to God, you couldn't make this shit up. The Federalist would give the Oniuon a run for their money if they weren't trying to be taken seriously.

The bullshit never ends.

Oh my God, there is just no end to the bullshit. There is a bottomless supply of whacko billionaire money to fund a never-ending production of bullshit. Here's a new one. Or at least one I hadn't heard about until just now. They're called "AllSides" Which, honestly, is probably enough for you to judge the level of bullshittiness they put out.

They produce, among other things, this handy-dandy bias chart for schools and libraries to teach kids about the leanings of various news sources. Which would be great. If it weren't bullshit.

Look at the below chart:






I mean, I don't know where to begin,
I guess I could start with the fact that the New York Times op-ed section, the home of David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss is listed as "LEFT." So right away, you're being lied to. It's not even a plausible lie. Does the Times have a single columnist who could accurately be described as "left?" "Liberal, maybe.. But I can't think of anyone I would consider a real lefty. And even if they did, they are more than balanced out by the far-right hacks the Times sees fit to keep publishing. At best, I would rate the Times editorial section as "Center," but if I'm being honest, I gotta go with "leans right."

Also, it's one thing to say that Democracy Now! and the Nation are as lefty as National Review and Breitbart are to the right, but they're ignoring a very important distinction, which is that National review, Breitbart, and the others listed on the right make shit up. Yes, there are outlets like the Nation or Alternet who have a left-leaning bias. But they don't lie. They don't smear. They don't traffic in wild conspiracy theories the way every one of the right outlets do. Also, if you are lumping in milquetoast liberal outlets like HuffPo with the Jacobin, you clearly need more categories. And if you're listing the Daily Beast, an outlet that features Meghan McCain, on the "Left," you either have no idea what you're taking about, or you're just being extremely dishonest. Ten seconds on Wikipedia will tell you all you need to know about the Daily Beast.

Editor-in-Chief John Avlon began pairing reporters from both the right and left sides of the political spectrum to cover stories on the White House. In particular, they are using both Asawin Suebsaeng (formerly of Mother Jones) and Lachlan Markay (formerly of the Heritage Foundation) to file stories on the Trump Administration. Avlon commented about the approach saying, "We're nonpartisan, but not neutral. And so bringing these two perspectives together, I think, helps us stand out from the pack."^[14]

So it's bullshit. And I'm sure they know it's bullshit. It's typical right-wing bullshit. When you can't deny your own malignancy, simply pretend that the other side does the same thing and everyone else is just as bad. But they're feeding this bullshit to kids. Look:

Today, the library taught my students to use the "AllSides" media bias chart when evaluating sources, and to avoid the far right and left. I hate this chart, but mostly because I'm supposed to believe The New Yorker is somehow equivalent to Breitbart. pic.twitter.com/Fx4abdxLqE

— Dana Liebelson (@dliebelson) October 14, 2019

So, who is "All Sides?" Well, here's how they describe themselves:

AllSides has done the seemingly impossible. We’ve found something both sides of the political aisle agree on: that respectfully listening to understand all perspectives is a solution to navigating our modern world, and that it’s worth investing in that outcome — for the good of democracy.

No. Not really.
I mean, if one side is Elizabeth Warren and the other is Bernie Sanders? Yeah. We should listen to each other's points of view. But when one side is Warren and Sanders and the other side is Breitbart, Bannon, Trump and the "very fine people" who favor white nationalism? Hell no!
There is nothing to be gained by humoring or entertaining the racist, misogynist, xenophobic and anti-LGBT denizens of the right. They bring nothing to the table but hatred. These are not the "conservatives" of previous generations. There are not Eisenhower conservatives, or Bob Dole concervatives or even Nixon conservatives. These are the people that previous generations of conservatives were afraid of. Not so afraid that they didn't court their votes and rely on their support, but still. There's an expression I heard somewhere that you shouldn't give the devil a ride, because the devil will end up driving. The Laura Ingrahams and Tucker Carlsons of today's right are the devils who have seized the wheel. We do not owe these people a listen. We have no obligation to hear them out. They are poison.

That also means that at AllSides, you are sure to find someone involved who you don’t like or agree with. Our readers are pretty evenly split among left, right and mixed political leanings – about one third each.

Yeah. . . I don't believe you. I notice there's no link to any kind of audience research data. I mean, you just toss out this statistic with nothing to back it up. I would bet more money than I can afford to lose that you're bullshitting again.


So, where does a bullshit production company get its funding? Well, the answer just may surprise you not at all if you've been paying attention to politics for the last few decades.

AllSides has also worked with organizations and received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation. 

I know. Shocking, right?

Oh, but of course, it's not just Koch money. They get funding from other sources too.

For example, we have partnered and received some funding from some organizations that are dedicated to bridging divides, and many of these are run mostly by people from the left. Some have received money from people like Tom Steyer, billionaire donor and leader of progressive causes.

So, I see we've expanded the definition of "progressive" to mean "anything to the left of Mussolini?"

Tom Steyer is no progressive.
He is a centrist at best, running on a platform of appeasing the 99% just enough that we don't start building guillotines.

Look at his website:

Tom on Health Care

Tom believes health care is a basic human right. As president, he will:

• Fight for universal health care coverage as a right
• Create a strong public option to compete with the private insurance marketplace and give the people a choice in their care

We want single payer. We want what they have in Canada. Or something similar, manybe what they have in France or Sweden or the Netherlands, whatever. We want Medicare for All.

70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal

Steyer proposes "options" and "choices," ensuring that the leeches of the for-profit healthcare system can remain in business.

Tom on the Economy

Unchecked capitalism has allowed corporations to hijack our democracy. Tom’s economic agenda puts people over profits by:

• Breaking the corporate stranglehold on government
• Investing in the American people
• Harnessing innovation and competition

Ooh, harnessing innovation and competition? You left out "the invisible hand of the free market!"
it's all vague, blandly pleasant-sounding pablum. Nothing I would call "progressive." Certainly he's no counterweight to the god damned Koch brothers!


So I have not been able to find out how many schools have been infected with the AllSides strain of bullshit. There are testimonials from teachers in several states, but  who knows? Also, I don't know if these arer public schools or weirdo private ones. But this bullshit is out there and it's pretty much guaranteed to spread.

Flashback Friday

Today's category: Songs about listening to music on the radio