Richard Linklater: Librul squish abetted by squish Lawrence Wright

The Nation casts a critical eye on Lawrence Wright's new HBO documentary series. And, quite rightly so. 

Some of the most critical eyeballing by Sam Russek is reserved for Richard Linklater. Side note: From what I've read about him, and some of his "briefs" work that I've seen, I'm not a big fan. He's a gonzo type person with not much "there" there on his work when you pop open the hood.

But, I digress. 

Let's go to Russek's pretty blistering takedown, to be followed by contrasting it with hagiography from the Texas Observer:

His preferred alternative to death row is life without parole, “because that’s the worst sentence that an individual can have.” 

This is the point of view Linklater adopts. “There are sentencing options like life without parole,” he submits, almost pleadingly, near the end of the episode. Within the structure of the documentary, the death penalty once appeared to be the cruelest part of an impossibly cruel institution. By the end, it has become the only part of the system that, at least for Linklater, could possibly be reformed—and even that isn’t guaranteed. It’s as if he’s already tempered his proposal, certain it will be shot down anyway. Taken on their own, the documentary’s images could argue beyond this rather tepid conclusion, and yet Linklater’s scope appears squeamishly limited. Considering the prison-industrial complex, he tells Wright, “I guess, on one hand, it’s a blessing—it’s the local economy, largely—but it is a bit of a curse.” 

This is putting it lightly. Even if we ended the death penalty tomorrow, Texas’s incarceration rate would still be among the highest in the world—never mind the “accidental” death toll in the state’s prisons. A 2014 report from the Prison Justice League, a prisoner-rights group in Austin, found that in one Huntsville-area prison, disabled prisoners suffered high rates of physical and sexual abuse inflicted by correction officers. Just last summer, at least 41 inmates in Texas died during a heat wave, including a few in Huntsville (more than two-thirds of our prisons have no air-conditioning in most living areas). 

While court-sanctioned murder may be the most outwardly abhorrent piece of our criminal-justice system here in Texas, to remove it while saying little about the many other indignities we visit disproportionately upon poor people behind bars is like smearing lipstick on a pig. History shows that the right will resist practically any “bleeding heart” change to the prison system (though it may be moved on fiscal grounds, provided the system itself remains intact) and is quick to roll back reforms if need be. To limit our political imagination—and thus, political will—based on the whims of the opposition is not only shortsighted but also self-defeating, and it shirks the desperate need to decide what Texas liberalism actually stands for. Is it merely tweaking the worst aspects of an abhorrent system, or something altogether different? Why isn’t it possible to demand more?

Contrast that to the Texas Observer's piece about Linklater's part in the same documentary. Walter C. Long devotes two thirds of his piece to Texas good old boy type name-checking of people he and Linklater both know. Then, re the death penalty itself, after first tying it to patriarchialism, Long says:

You say, “The death penalty takes one tragedy, a murder, and expands the pain and suffering to include so many others, all the people involved in the legal and criminal appeals process that get dragged slowly to the death chamber, all the obligatory witnesses, and all the people with various jobs in the system.” Then you lay bare the moral disengagement that leads to moral injury: “The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but what could be more cruel, certainly unusual, than to have to play a part in or witness another person’s murder, however state-sanctioned?”

And? That's it. (The rest of that penultimate graf, plus the ultimate one, talk more about what's wrong with the death penalty, but ... that's it.) Long nowhere mentions Linklater plumping for life without parole as an option. He nowhere mentions Linklater buying into the prison-industrial complex.

Another big old fail from the Observer. To riff on what The Nation doesn't fully grasp, it's also another big old example of the Texas librul version of Texas exceptionalism. Molly Ivins, back all the way to her Observer days, was a prime practitioner. And, the Observer is itself still a practitioner of Texas exceptionalism. This is not the only piece to show that.

That said, and speaking of that, without using the "Texas exceptionalism" phrase, the piece at The Nation does note how Texas librulz beyond Linklater are behind the times:

This is the smothering effect of political loss after loss, which continues to constrict thinking in the series’ next episode, “The Price of Oil.” Alex Stapleton, a biracial “Texan in exile,” returns to Pleasantville, a suburb of the Houston area that she grew up visiting on weekends. ... Today, chemical fires are common there, as are cancer, asthma, and other environmental harms. ... The heightened risk comes with few rewards for Pleasantville. 

And yet, toward the end of the episode, Stapleton chooses an odd point of critique: “Among the largest oil and gas companies in America, every CEO is white,” she says. “While other industries have been put on blast for their lack of diversity, the oil and gas industry has not had the same reckoning.” Stapleton does add later that her community needs “a seat at the table” as the country “entertains” a green transition, but the only specific action she suggests is increasing the diversity on corporate boards.

There you are. And, this isn't to mention that oil-induced climate change will affect, and is affecting, minorities in the US more in general than the White populace.

The Nation then indicts Wright himself:

Standing at the base of the San Jacinto monument, which memorializes the Texas Revolution, Stapleton and Wright talk with their hands on their hips, contemplating the region’s environmental situation. “America obviously needs an energy source, and this is what it looks like,” Wright says. “I think the more we talk about Texas, the more complicated it seems.” ... Complicated, yes, but can the Bard of Texas not say more? Can infotainment, as it were, not approach these issues with some creative liberty?

Again, there you are.

Side note again? I think Wright is kind of overrated. "Looming Tower" was 3.5 stars. "God Save Texas" was worse than it appears Russek appears to rate it, but for reasons exactly tied to what Russek says above. Namely, Wright's butt-kissing of Shrub Bush in his gubernatorial years.

Bottom line? This is yet one more reason to not give money to the Observer. It needs to repent of the sin of Texas exceptionalism.

Even The Nation is worried about Genocide Joe (but not really), but the Pentagon is!

The Nation, home of virulent duopoly upholders and third-party haters such as John Nichols? Yes.

Indeed, it is Green Party hater Nichols himself who wrote earlier this week, with this headline:

"Biden Can No Longer Avoid Questions About His Fitness For A Second Term." (Somebody at The Nation doesn't know AP style for headers, as in reality, every word after "Biden" should be in lowercase, but that's another story.)

John-Boy is writing about the Biden classified documents special counsel report where counsel Robert Hur said, among other things, that Biden is:

"(A)n elderly man with a poor memory."

He is, even if Biden got indignant. (Cue Irish Alzheimer's issues.)

And, in the act of getting indignant, proved Hur right:

Biden insisted "my memory is fine" — and then referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi as the president of Mexico when talking about the war in Gaza. Earlier in the week, the president made similar gaffes, referring to Francois Mitterrand, who died in 1996, instead of French President Emmanuel Macron, and the late Helmut Kohl instead of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Oy. At least both Sisi and actual Mexican president AMLO are still alive.

Elsewhere, Dear Leader-era White House counsel Dan Pfeiffer called it a "partisan hit job" and Kamala Is A Cop said it was inaccurate. (She doesn't even have the excuse of being elderly and with a poor memory for her flubs.)

Contra Jeet Heer, not even Taylor Swift may be able to save him.

The Dan Pfeiffers of the world who say it was partisan, gratuitous and more are right. 

The Kamala Harrises who say it's inaccurate are wrong, even before Alzeimer's Joe proved them wrong. Back to Nichols:

In reality, the debate about Biden’s age was a stubborn problem before Hur released the report, in which he wrote, “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter,” but then damningly described the president as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and asserted that, during interviews with the special counsel, Biden had failed to remember the dates of his tenure as vice president and, most painfully, couldn’t recall when his beloved son Beau had died. Biden pointedly, and at times emotionally, rejected Hur’s claims, but they reinforced an impression that has been a lingering challenge for the president.

That's the bottom lime. Hur made it worse, arguably, with a semi-condescending backhanded politeness.

That said, let's not give Nichols too many kudos. He says:

But Biden has always been known for his gaffes.

And then goes into spin mode about the Sisi comment. And, he then doesn't ask the bottom-line question:

Are these gaffes more frequent now?

And, speaking of Jeet, he calls out Biden for abortion ambivalence. That's no gaffe and never has been.

That said, if Nichols and Heer were really worried about Biden, they'd be apoplectic over some of the "swing states" polling numbers that Counterpunch's Jeff St. Clair presented in yesterday's Roaming Charges.

Don't worry, though, Blue Anon. The Nation won't give Jill Stein, Cornel West or anybody even further to the left the time of day, and will loyally sheepdog this fall.

And, on Nichols? It's not generic Green/leftist hating. I called him out four years ago for "licking Biden's green taint."

And, if all of the above REALLY wanted to worry along duopoly lines, they'd read Ken Klippenstein at the Intercept. The Pentagon is worried about older elected officials in general, though not mentioning any names in a story from last September. There is this:

The U.S.’s current leadership is not only the oldest in history, but also the number of older people in Congress has grown dramatically in recent years. In 1981, only 4 percent of Congress was over the age of 70. By 2022, that number had spiked to 23 percent. In 2017, Vox reported that a pharmacist had filled Alzheimer’s prescriptions for multiple members of Congress. 

With little incentive for an elected official to disclose such an illness, it is difficult to know just how pervasive the problem is. Feinstein’s retinue of staffers have for years sought to conceal her decline, having established a system to prevent her from walking the halls of Congress alone and risk having an unsupervised interaction with a reporter.

That's even as Ken talks about Ms. Russiagate, Nancy Pelosi, announcing she was going to run again.

The late Dianne Feinstein and the still alive Mitch McConnell, as part of the "Gang of Eight," did ineed have access to classified material from the CIA, and presumably at times from the NSA as well.

But, Ken doesn't update for ... possibly Dementia Joe.

Various forms of dementia, whether Alzheimer's, Lewy body, or atherosclerotic or arteriosclerotic (types of vascular), can do more than affect memory and intellect. We're not stereotypical Vulcans, androids or whatever; our intellect includes our emotions, per David Hume et al.

Let us remember that it's Joe Biden who can get fixated in anger against the Houthis not "submitting" to him and say it's time to bomb them again. It's Joe Biden who can get fixated in anger when Hamas proposes an "unacceptable" truce.

But, the intellect is also involved, and not just memory. It's Joe Biden who may not be able to cipher through Israeli lies about the UNRWA.

Finally, since Klippenstein went Russiagate, if you will, with Pelosi, and we're in Cold War 2.0 with Russia and China, and backing Ukraine in a proxy war?

Joe Biden controls the nuclear "football." What if, as humongously unlikely as it is, Vladimir Putin launched a nuclear first strike and Biden couldn't remember the US codes? Or, back to emotions plus intellect, without bad memory. What if a new version of an Able Archer happened and Biden refused to accept NSA staffers saying there was an error situation of some sort?

This should scare the shit out of people.

And, ditto for the degree Donald Trump faces the same concerns. And, yes, Dementia Don looks more and more real, too. (Waiting for Republicans or conservative media to go John Nichols and say "Trump has always done this.")

And, the scariness of a second-term Biden should be held just as true of a second-term Trump.

The Nation returns to its "goysplaining" vomit with hasbara

As noted by Phil Weiss himself at Mondoweiss, The Nation has published new odiousness by Alexis Grenell, who invoked "goysplaning" not quite two years in relation to similar dreck, as blogged here.

Actually, I called the previous a "screed," vs. "dreck."

No, let's call this one what it is, per the header.

Hasbara. 190 proof.

Anything Hamas did before, during or after Oct. 7, or alleged to have done, comes under Grenell's microscope.

NOTHING either the government of Israel or the IDF did that provoked Oct. 7, nor anything it did afterward, gets a word of mention. But it does strawman on the word and idea of a ceasefire and more.

Meanwhile, Grenell's attacks on the DSA Roseys two years ago as part of that earlier piece I blogged about? I am minded of Harold Meyerson and others dropping out of the DSA a month ago. Though a non-duopolist myself, I still say good riddance to them.

As I tell it regularly on Twitter and in email, for supporting the duopoly, the same applies to The Nation here.

Fuck off collectively, as well as fuck off Grenell.

'The Unforgiveable Hypocrisy of the American Liberal' and other Israel-Gaza stuff, from sheepdoggers at The Nation

The title piece in the headline comes from Mondoweiss. It's a great piece. That said, while it's written specifically about the current situation with Israel, it applies to about all of American liberalism from this leftist's point of view.

For instance, this:

It helps in this regard that the American liberal understands very little about politics outside an American-centric frame. He has barely even learnt to question the framing narratives of mainstream U.S. news media.

Could easily be applied to Russia-Ukraine. (This sets aside supposed leftists like Eric Draitser who are comfortable repeating MSM tropes on that conflict. Interestingly, I've not seen him run a single Counterpunch Radio episode on Israel-Gaza. Does silence give assent, Eric?)

That said, much of what it is about is Palestinian specific, if not Gaza specific. This is pretty much the bottom line, along with further development and spinoff later in the piece:

the American liberal is only recently and haltingly educated about the entrenched history of structural racism and white supremacy in the U.S., so he inevitably finds it difficult to apply the lessons of that history to the world around him. He fashions himself a hero who would have stood against Jim Crow, Japanese internment, the Vietnam War, and South African apartheid in their time, but somehow the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” appears too “complicated” to take a moral stand. In his mind, American democracy is an inexorably self-perfecting experiment, even though the institution was founded on genocide, slavery, and apartheid and is incessantly subject to anti-democratic capture today.

And, the #BlueAnon types either sit smug in their #VoteBlueNoMatterWho ivory towers, or sheepdogging horseback saddles, knowing this is true, or else go into "who, me?" denialism.

Next, two recent pieces from The Nation.

First, Jeet Heer writes about the Biden Administration, and ultimately #GenocideJoe himself, and the Western mainstream media, being so willing and so gullible on peddling Israeli hasbara.

Second, seen via Steven Donziger on Twitter, James Bamford writes about an Israeli spy unit in the US, operating on college campuses to undercut Palestinian students. As with most of Bamford, per his recent SpyFail, it's great on the knowledge level of Israeli skullduggery.

Problem? Sure. 

As I said in a quote tweet, to get up above to the Mondoweiss piece, it's not just Blue Anons, or #BlueMAGA, whichever your handle is, that are sheepdoggers.

I don't know about Heer or Bamford, but otherwise?

The Nation is loaded with them, if you look at its masthead. Current editor D.D. Guttenplan is a big one, at least on anything Zionism. President Bashar Sunkara is one, AFAIK.

Among top-level writers? Listed right next to Heer? John Nichols is a huge one, has been for years. 

Contributing writers? I've called out Liza Featherstone before. Adolph Reed? The Communist who votes Democrat? Gregg Gonsalves has been a sheepdogger against the lab-leak theory on COVID.

The Nation, long ago and led by Nichols, had a boner for the Democratic Socialists of America. That said, it hasn't written a word about the recent DSA crack-up (I searched the site), with Hasbara Harold Meyerson and other old-timers recently deserting the part. Since then, Nichols has slurped Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (something else that pissed off allegedly pro-union Hasbara Harold was younger DSAers calling AOC a hypocrite on the railroad no-strike bill), drank the Beto for Senate Kool-Aid, and found Biden's "green" taint tasty.

Head honcho Katrina van den Heuvel is, by her silence if nothing else, a sheepdogger. She's the jefe; she could write a "Vote Green" house editorial if she chose. And hasn't. But, The Nation under her leadership DID write a Hillary Clinton endorsement.

So, unless this changes next year on official editorial stance, The Nation can print all the stuff like this it wants. It doesn't mean anything.

The Nation decides to deep-dive pander to hardcore Zionism

Never heard of Alexis Grenell before, but after seeing this screed, it's clear she's in the territory of Batya Ungar-Sargon, Bari Weiss or worse. I saw it via Philip Weiss' crushing takedown on Mondoweiss.

And, crushing it is.

Here's a few of my hot take Tweets. Let's start with the first:

Hey, The Nation? .@thenation you should be ashamed of yourselves for your blatant and cheap pandering to the worst of Zionism. Keep up those cheapo $2/month subscription offers. I'll keep taking a pass. https://t.co/rDpGfxfADc

— TheRealSocraticGadfly: Friends Crushes Xi Jinping (@real_gadfly) January 14, 2022

Then? Let's skip ahead several Tweets, as I saw that Grennell had made herself more shameful:

The Nation? .@TheNation you should be even more disgusted than before for running Alexis Grenell's piece with Grenell using the term "goysplaining." https://t.co/HA5ZHUvlBl

— TheRealSocraticGadfly: Friends Crushes Xi Jinping (@real_gadfly) January 14, 2022

"Goysplaining"? Really? What D. Fuq?

Now, as far as some of the other specific slants of the piece, like Grenell saying that "goysplaining" includes telling non-Jewish Democrats why they need to kowtow to Zionists? That's because she's apparently some sort of Democratic consultant. She's also apparently "woke" on sexual rights (sex not gender, contra her language), per this piece. But, I think Weiss is halfway woke, too, but also engages in anti-Palestinian cancel culture. She's also an anti-Democratic Socialists of America person (outside of the DSA hits in The Nation piece), enough of one to call Bernie Sanders a misogynist in 2020. In other words, total BlueAnon. OK, so we now know she's full of multiple versions of BlueAnon identity politics. (That would, of course, include Israel but not Palestine!)

Back to some of my tweets, several inspired by Tweeters that Weiss linked to. Several riffed on "rightwing Zionist" Jeremy Burton's totally stanning Tweet, per Weiss. I'll give you the full thread, individually, starting with the first:

There's also the issue that, explicitly in the segment that Burton screenshots, the piece conflates ethnic Judaism and religious Judaism, or else is going Samuel Huntington and conflating Christianity and Christianism

— TheRealSocraticGadfly: Friends Crushes Xi Jinping (@real_gadfly) January 14, 2022

Then the second:

Third, there's plenty of Jews who have engaged, and prominently, in right-wing activism. Like Roy Cohn. Or more recently, Laura Schlessinger. As for voting percentages, Jews don't tilt THAT much more Democratic than do Hispanics.

— TheRealSocraticGadfly: Friends Crushes Xi Jinping (@real_gadfly) January 14, 2022

And, that's true, and Hispanics are a larger percentage of the American populace. They generally run around 65 percent or a bit more Democratic, with Jews just over 70 percent.

As I told The Nation in another Tweet, it can continue to offer its $2 a month subscription specials; it's only increased my disdain for it even at that price.

Back to the piece?

It's trash otherwise. 

Grenell dives in the sewer to go Godwin's Law on BDS, for example. And, she's not totally accurate about the lack of support for BDS. Per Pew, among secular Jews who have heard something about BDS (this is important, as many Jews, religious or secular, have not), 45 percent of that subset support BDS.

==

Meanwhile, I didn't even tackle the utilitarian angle of this. Grenell (Dem operative/consultant, remember?) throughout the piece pushes the electoral politics angle of this, per my last Tweet and notes. In fact, it seems to me that's her overriding concern, not whether it's an ethical issue of the Democratic Party and leading national Democrats needing to be more vocal in their support for Israel, including denouncing BDS, because "never forget" or whatever. 

Nope. It's all about the politics for her, in end.

==

Update: Nation editor D.D. Guttenplan attacked Mondoweiss for not only criticizing the piece itself, but him (if not by name) and the magazine in general for allegedly pulling a Grenell and running the piece to keep top donors happy. Hadn't thought of that at first, but it is possible, just like the mag talking a lot about the urgency of climate change but little about what to do to fix that.

John Nichols licks Biden's "green" taint, finds it tasty

The Nation's John Nichols, who has never missed a chance to diss the Green Party through silence, and is another reason I wouldn't pay a plugged nickel to subscribe to that rag, is at it again, claiming that Sleepy Joe Biden (Dopey Joe? Grumpy Joe?), by presenting an alleged environmental plan, has opened himself to being pushed from the left.

Bullshit, as I told him in a trio of Tweets, which I shall post and further explicate.

Start here:

John Nichols? .@NicholsUprising You're even more full of duopoly-stanning shit than before with this piece about Biden's tepid environmental plan that doesn't even mention #fracking, which I know you're not too stupid to know. 1/x https://t.co/KrqpMpr3Vu

— Megachurch Karens: Law & order 4 thee not me 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 30, 2020

And, yes, Nichols should know that. Places even less librul (it's NOT leftist) than Nichols' rag reported the "no fracking." It was all over Twitter within hours after Biden releasing it.

Please, John.

That said, I take one thing back.

Your lie about what this plan is DID get the Green Party in the story.

Julian Brave NoiseCat, the director of Green New Deal Strategy for the research group Data for Progress, suggested that “Biden’s clean energy and environmental justice plans are, in my view, a Green New Deal in all but name.” Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins disagreed, arguing that “Biden is nowhere close to the GND. Besides having a timeline for emissions more than 20 years slower, he leaves out the other half, which is an economic bill of rights—guaranteed jobs, single payer healthcare, housing, etc.”

John doesn't openly agree with Julian the RabidDemCat, but I know where his sympathy lies.

That's because John says it himself:

That movement is what matters.

On to tweet 2:

I remember Dear Leader Obama getting butt-hurt as hell when people took him at his word to push him from the left, and you're expecting people to believe Biden will be any better when he's already promised 2 veto any #SinglePayer bill, John Nichols? Maybe you ARE that stupid. 2/x

— Megachurch Karens: Law & order 4 thee not me 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 30, 2020

And, that too is very true, and Nichols also knows that.

Beyond that, Gang Green enviros aren't into pushing from the left anyway. And, per the origin of the term, AND the laughs it drew from more activist groups, Nichols knows THAT as well.

And, on to Tweet 3:

That said, John Nichols, I'm not. I #VoteGreen, as I have for president every election this century, and neither Biden nor your Neera Tanden-level of stanning for him will make me change my mind. 3/x

— Megachurch Karens: Law & order 4 thee not me 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 30, 2020

None of this surprises me about Nichols. Per the "butt-hurt" above, he's gotten butt-hurt when I've called him on his anti-Green bona fides before.

In addition, John, RabidDemCat and others know the Paris Accords are toothless Jell-O. Related? Yale Climate Connections estimates that Dear Leader vastly underpriced the "social cost" of carbon emissions.

The Nation and its DSA bromance vis-a-vis the Green Party

I have longly, loudly and repeatedly, for many years, bitched about The Nation's refusal to give any real coverage to the Green Party. Said oversight is not just limited to presidential election seasons, and it is clearly deliberate.

The Democratic Socialists of America? Different story. Now that Bernie Sanders has made it OK for Bernibros to come out of the closet or whatever, they are. And so, the mag has run not just one but two stories, by John Nichols and by Jesse Myerson, puffing the DSA.

And, "puffing" both are.

First, Nichols talks about the DSA's "long, storied tradition."

So, let's look at that tradition.

First, the DSA is NOT a political party. It's merely an activist group. It is arguably the most conservative splinter of the breakup of the old Socialist Party, per its Wikipedia page. While I'm no David Cobb fan, Greens should note the DSA endorsed John Kerry ahead of Cobb in 2008, and Barack Obama ahead of both Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Jill Stein in 2012. (Of course, the Communist Party USA also endorsed Obama, showing just how far tokenism can go at times.)

Unfortunately, judging by a Facebook group, there's plenty of Greens who have a DSA bromance, too, and not all of them are Berniecrats wearing (for now) Green get-up.

Second, on Myerson's piece? I'm more a socialist than the Berniebros, by and large, and I'm certainly more of a socialist than Bernie himself.

And, re Myerson's breathless reporting on its growth rate? First, that's the old fallacy of appeal to the crowd. Second, the Green Party, though having a disappointing 2016 presidential run, is also growing.

Next, the likes of Maxine Phillips opposing a full-on BDS illustrate, among older members, just how conservative the DSA is.

Speaking of, Nichols in his piece ignores reporting on how perennial Socialist candidate Norman Thomas was long on the CIA payroll, a fact that I am quite sure he knows, especially since he wrote a whole book on the party. World War I-era socialists, even before Wilson Administration persecution, never would have done that.

Some people may claim the DSA is leftist by its voting at this year's convention to leave the Socialist International. Big deal. The Socialist Party USA, which is an actual party as well as an activist group, did that back in 2005. Unlike the DSA, the SPUSA, per Wiki, does not in any way, shape or form collaborate with the Democratic Party. It may not run many candidates, but it runs more than the non-party DSA. It may not be big, but at least until this year's DSA convention, it was at least as big as the DSA.

None of this, though, will ever be reported by The Nation. And, as a result, "none" is what sort of subscription I will ever buy, or money I will ever send.

And, as for Greens? Basically, to riff on a GP name or two above, the DSA is kind of what AccommoGreens like Cobb and Stein would like to make the Green Party — an activist organization to prod Dems left first (remember Dear Leader asking for that, then getting mad when anybody did it), and a political party of the left a distant second.

As for Greens shouting over the DSA having a libertarian sectional at this year's convention? I accept certain elements of libertarian socialism, while noting that not all libertarian socialists are anarchic, that I am definitely not, and that I reject anarchic ideas for the Green Party.

Otherwise, is the DSA "bad"? No. Am I glad it's moving further left? Yes.

But, Greens? For any of you having a Nation-type bromance for the DSA? Again, what presidential candidates have they endorsed?

Why I don't subscribe to The Nation

I read some of The Nation's broader socio-political pieces. But, when it comes to actual candidates, and actual politics, and ...

Actual political parties ...

I refuse to give it my dinero.

Why?

Because it refuses to give third parties the time of day.

The mag's Hillary Clinton endorsement is laughable. And laughably wrong.

After a hat tip to Bernie Sanders, the first 40 percent or so is an explicit acknowledgment of lesser-evilism and an admission that it's the primary reason for the Clinton endorsement.

It's ended with the traditional left side of the duopoly's "Oh, the SCOTUS" cry. That is, of course, a cry that ignores that Supreme Court justices consider more than two hot-button social issues and that, on labor rights, financial issues beyond Citizens United, and more, Democrat-appointed justices, while "liberal" in general in the American sense, have each, from time to time, missed the boat on specific issues in specific rulings. (It also ignores that Hillary Clinton's own sense of civil liberties is so warped she wanted to criminalize flag-burning even after the Johnson ruling.)

The mag really stumbles, though, when it claims a positive case can be made for Clinton, not just fear and lesser-eviilism.

First, we have:

And while we may disagree with some of her solutions, Clinton has been a forceful advocate of health-care reform since her husband’s administration.

Note how the lack of “single-payer” as part of alleged reforms is ignored? Note how the fact that Hillarycare is little different than Obamacare is ignored?

Next:

But now she seeks the presidency as a supporter of action to address climate change, criminal-justice reform, LGBTQ equality, respect for immigrants, debt-free public higher education, the expansion of Social Security, a public option to challenge health-care profiteering, and a great big hike in the minimum wage.

OK, let's deconstruct.

Dems on climate change are like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Yes, Republicans are worse, claiming Rome's not burning. But, in terms of necessary actions, a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

As I've said before, the Paris accords, being voluntary, are aspirational bullshit. Carbon tax + carbon tariff is the only real answer. And, this ignores Clinton's support of fracking.

LGBTQ equality? Like Bill, on things like DOMA, she was against it before she was for it. Debt-free public higher ed? Where has she mentioned that?

A public option, getting back to health care? Where? When? Don't believe I've heard that.

Great big hike in the minimum wage? Only under Bernie pressure, and like TPP, soon to be disavowed. (This sets aside that $15/hr is too high an increase in “flyover America.”)

Meanwhile, on foreign policy, The Nation self-deludes that it can push Clinton left, after giving a partial, but incomplete and turd-polished laundry list of her warhawking:

Even as we endorse her, we understand that it will be incumbent on us to challenge President Clinton to break her hawkish habits and move toward a new and progressive realism.

Yeah, right. These are positions she's held for 20 years.

And, thanks to Wikileaks giving us notes about her Goddam Sachs speeches, we also know:
1. She wants to cut Social Security
2.  Per that same link, she thinks Wall Street should regulate itself
3. Also per that same link, is an avowed hypocrite, saying politicians should have a "public position" and a "private position" on issues
4. Opposes single payer
5. Officially declares herself a "moderate"

You still support her, Nation folks?

Finally, The Nation moves on to throwing Jill Stein under the bus. (After giving the Green Party zero space in the mag for four years:

And while we share many of the views that Stein has advanced, her cause has not been helped by the Green Party’s reluctance, or inability, to seek, share, and build power, with all the messy compromise this often entails. Instead of the patient—and Sisyphean—task of building an authentic grassroots alternative, the Greens offer a top-down vehicle for protest.

First, this is a strawman in several ways.

Dems, as well as Republicans, at the level of statehouses, have killed fusion slate and candidate laws over the past 20 years. So, the refusal to compromise starts with the duopoly.

As for “ building an authentic grassroots alternative,” the Greens have had local candidates — and gotten them elected — for nearly 20 years.

Finally, The Nation says that “ 2016 is not an ordinary election.” We've heard that bullshit every four years this century. Back of the bus bullshit.

And, comes from a mag that's been tepid on true, radical campaign finance reform, let alone constitutional reforms like electing some House candidates from a "national list" and more.

The Nation, 20 years ago, helped me move beyond my parents' Republicanism, but I've since moved beyond, maybe well beyond, it.

Hey, Katha Pollit? The times HAVE changed and you moved in the wrong direction. At best, your mag in general has stayed static and failed to move in the right direction.

Booting the Blue Dogs is only half the battle

Ari Berman ofThe Nation, opining in the NYT, exhorts and pleads with Democratic leaders to boot the Blue Dogs, especially cockroaches like Health Shuler.

Of course, The Nation, which will surely endorse neolibs like Obama himself again in 2012 rather than the Green candidate for president, don't have a lot of room to talk.

Seriously, after it's Obama apologetics issue of late this summer, I expect The Nation will NEVER venture beyond endorsing the Democratic candidate for president. Not even to a nonendorsement of anybody, let alone endorsing a third-party candidate.

So, yeah, Ari, I agree with you as far as you go. Next time, write an op-ed, whether in the NYT or The Nation, calling for Democrats to boot all the neoliberals, too.

Why I despair of The Nation

Yes, Eric Alterman is right in that Obama has faced a ton of GOP obstructionism. But, even with that, he could have done better, even a lot better, than she has.

Barbara Ehrenreich DOES get it. In one of the pieces in response to Alterman's subscription-only "Kabuki Democracy," she says:

Alterman acknowledges the problem only tentatively, observing that "one might argue that this [Democratic] faith in government's ability to improve people's lives is misplaced." You betcha. The role of the left should not be to uphold or defend the government, meaning, for now, the corpo-Obama-Geithner-Petraeus state, but to change it, drastically and from the ground up. That may sound overly radical to Alterman, who seems to want "progressives who think of themselves as left of liberal" to abandon even that tiny distinction. But as the Tea Partyers keep reminding us in their nasty and demented ways, these are revolutionary times.

Beyond that, what's with Norm Ornstein getting to write in The Nation? Is it going to become The New Republic five years from now?

Of course, without considering third-party progressive alternatives, we already know that, after a modicum of hand-wringing for show, The Nation will endorse Obama for re-election in 2012.

Malcolm Gladwell, deconstructed

The Nation has an in-depth explainer of how, if you feel like you’re eating cotton candy when you read Gladwell, you actually are!

The Nation has narrow definition of ‘The Left’

At The Nation, Eyal Press “kindly” defines left-liberals like this, in talking about a Rachel Maddow show episode where she expressed the left’s dissatisfaction with President Obama:

Maddow, presumably, was referring to a much smaller cohort of self-identified (white) progressives: people who favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians, and perhaps supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary before finally coming around to Obama.

So, I guess Green voters don’t even count, not on the pages of The Nation? The same mag that has never endorsed a third-party presidential candidate during all the time I’ve read it?

As long as The Nation decides to keep both feet planted inside the Donkey’s ass, when push comes to shove, it loses a certain amount of relevance.

Maybe I should submit this to the Carnival of the Liberals for one final rejection!