One of the biggest examples of double standards in modern society.
This is the biggest crock of shit I’ve ever seen.
Or, as my friend Captain Subtext would say:
"I don’t understand why more people aren’t sufficiently ass-hatted to blame marginalized groups for internalizing oppressive myths."
Remember that time, recently, when someone said to you, “Hey, I wonder what Dinesh D’Souza thinks about [whatever]”?
I wonder why.
LTMC: It really is shocking just how much of an idiot Dinesh D’Souza is. He is an articulate crackpot with a slight veneer of intellectualism flowing from his dubious exploits in academia and occasional punditry. His actual political stances, however, are incoherent on a good day, and when they are comprehensible, border on delusional (remember the stupefying Obama-Kenya-colonialism article?).
To be sure, I normally don’t go straight to ad hominem, but sometimes you have to call things by their right names. What does “Grown-Up Trayvon” even mean? Does D’Souza himself even know? What is this other than the ramblings of a mad man, driven insane by his own irrelevancy?
This is really, really mind-bogglingly bad. Where do you even begin when writing something like that?
Aw, man. Can’t have nice things, etc.
Still gonna make guacamole.
Can’t eat fruit or veg thanks to Dole. Can’t eat meat thanks to factory farms. Can’t eat guacamole thanks to drug cartels. On the plus side, sanctimony and unicorn farts are very nutritious.
Stop apologizing and eat like a winner
When customers are all like, “Is this meth organic,” I’m like, “I’ve got other buyers if you want to whine about it.” And then they’re like, “No, it’s cool.” It’s like you have to choose between being ethical and being a kingpin.
But take Vicodin, for example. You have to draw a line somewhere. I’m not getting in bed with big pharma.
The “Obamaphone” welfare program (actually called Lifeline) has nearly tripled in cost since 2008.
My mind would be blown—but not nearly as much as it would be blown if Heritage acknowledged that the lifeline program was created under Reagan’s administration.
And even that mind-blowing would pale in comparison to how blown my mind would be if Heritage were to admit that its current concern over the program has to do with its belief that its base has some … demographic concerns about the lifeline program.
It seems reasonable that various economic conditions could cause this sort of crisis of homelessness. And it’s reasonable that other economic conditions could cause a glut of vacant homes. But when we see both at the same time, the train has gone off the tracks. Maybe it’s time to stop evicting people after foreclosure if they’re willing to pay some reasonable amount of rent.
When I tell this to the attorneys in charge of doing the evicting, they tell me to be reasonable. I’m afraid I no longer know how. When the world is stuck in a fun house mirror and the world is warped beyond recognition, it’s hard to draw a straight line.
I understand the sentiment behind this, but does anybody know the real statistics?? Every time I see this, it’s different numbers…
"There are about 1,000,000 homeless people and 18,000,000 vacant homes" for example, is one that I saw
The links in the post go to the reports that cite the “real statistics”.
I will jam a knife into you on the altar of private property and watch you bleed all your justice out.
I think we mostly understand each other. And I think you understand what I mean when I say good luck with that. My claim isn’t just that caring for your fellow human beings is the right thing to do or whatever. It’s that it’s devastatingly effective.
It seems reasonable that various economic conditions could cause this sort of crisis of homelessness. And it’s reasonable that other economic conditions could…
Okay. Exclude the homes with no transit and limited utilities. Maybe that gets us down to 10 vacant houses per homeless person.
Let’s leave aside that the copper piping wasn’t torn out until somebody evicted. I’m happy for people to pay some minimal amount of rent.
That is not a true thing. We put up shotgun houses decades ago. But houses built recently tend to be pretty solid.
Who’s not going to call Section 8 a success? The people in the 10 year waiting list? The landlords scrambling for reliable rental income? We’ve all got criticisms of elements of the program and how it affects project-based housing. But usually when people bad mouth Section 8 they really mean, “I have stereotypes about poor people.”
While this does happen on occasion, it’s hardly true that nobody is trying to stop it. Home liberation movements are doing all sorts of stuff that’s cooler than I am. But it really helps people who want to fix the pipes if they can be confident that they won’t be evicted immediately.
I just can’t help wondering whether delighting in high rates of uninsurance is going to be a viable political strategy long term.
They win elections when they cheers about poor people and children not having food and college students struggling…
p>With respect, the Tea Party got rolling in 2010. None of the Senators in that class have been up for reelection yet. Scott Brown might count—but he lost.
In the meantime, candidates like Todd “Remember That Guy?” Akin have lost races the Republicans could have won. I suspect Cruz will be reelected. But Rubio and Paul could both be in trouble.
Every few years, it’s time to tweak the followed list as the people I was following quit drift away, quit the Internet, or find new jobs and become productive members of society.
So the carefully crafted followed list is getting kind of boring and unbalanced. I’m mostly interested…
I thought about giving you an honorable mention in a footnote around the word unbalanced—but decided against it. It’s partially unbalanced in the progressive sense. But it’s more unbalanced in the sense that half of everybody I’m following are mainstream publications or other large organizations. The kind of place where people get sacked for saying something interesting. I don’t mind being part of somebody’s social media outreach. But I’d also like to see some less polished stuff.
What if the traditional gap between political support for pieces of laws (EG no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions) and specific laws (EG Obamacare) is not because of “messaging” and is instead the result of justifiable public concerns about implementation?
Lots of people like roads but our tax system sucks ass, etc.
I think the gap should be because of justifiable implementation worries. I’m not sure that it is.
Although, maybe it is. Maybe the people screaming about Nazis and Communism and government incompetence are largely concerned about unintended consequences of a potentially disastrous transition.