Skip to main content

Queen Elizabeth II
Quite a nice lady, in fact.
Fareed Zakaria, who shouldn't be published anywhere considering his serial plagarism, is just one of quite a few writers pining for the days when Brittania ruled the waves. Naturally, the Washington Post was more than happy to publish this lament:
Britain resigns as a world power

On Monday, the Right Honorable David Cameron, prime minister of Great Britain, gave his first major speech after being reelected to his high office — once held by Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill and Thatcher. Confronting a world of challenges — including Greece’s possible exit from the euro, a massive migration crisis on Europe’s shores, Ukraine’s perilous state, Russia’s continued intransigence, the advance of the Islamic State and the continuing chaos in the Middle East — Cameron chose to talk about . . . a plan to ensure that hospitals in the United Kingdom will be better staffed on weekends.
Tut tut you Britons. How can you invade the Middle East if you're worried about seeing your doctor on the weekend?

Yes, Zakaria would rather Her Majesty's Government spend more of its resources solving foreign problems rather than its own. He goes on to cry about how the United Kingdom continues to reduce its armed forces to just 50,000 troops, cut its defense budget, reduce the price of its alliance with the United States, and certainly not get too deeply involved in American adventures in nation-building with bombs and invasions.

Zakaria, and those also inclined, might want to consider there are a few forces at work here that might explain why the British people aren't interested in global empire:

1. Been there, done that.

Much like America today, by World War 1 the British military forces were spread all over the world, spending a huge amount of its resources maintaining a global order. Well, guess what? Its costs a ton of money, it causes a great deal of death, and in the end you're much better off leaving them to their own wits. Now they can worry about themselves and mind their own business, which actually makes the English more attractive as friends. Took them two centuries or so after 1776 to get the message, but get it they did. There's still further work to do for Westminster in Northern Ireland and Scotland. But when it comes to global empire the British have had quite enough, thanks.

2. America ain't learnin'.

Besides, why bother when the Americans are stupid enough to not learn from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Spanish,  French and English? As long as the US is willing to go around the world throwing its belly fat everywhere it finds a problem, why should they? Besides, Tony Blair made their country into a ridiculous poodle and they're not going through that again. "Don't ask us to get involved America," they say. "You found the problem, you fix it."

3. They seem to be getting along fine!

London is still the leading city of the world. The pound sterling is solid. Its language is dominant globally. It remains a powerful exporter of culture. In the game of post-colonial European powers, Britain is just killing it. Look at France. Hell, look at frickin Spain! Why screw it all up following America into the land of stupid? Besides, there are internal, more pressing matters to deal with.

Instead of reflecting on exactly how the British pulled back from the world (almost bankrupted by wars) and what we can learn from it, American pundits are reduced to pining for yesterday. They fail to learn the lessons of history: Empires WILL fall. There is no question about this. And usually by overextending themselves militarily, in just about every case. The only question for us is when and more importantly how. Will we be smart enough to choose both when and how, or will it be chosen for us?

Reporters yell questions at U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton after a roundtable campaign event with small businesses in Cedar Falls, Iowa, United States, May 19, 2015.    REUTERS/Jim Young   - RTX1DNXO
Why even bother?
Well, you guys went ahead and did a press avail, and look what it got you. A bunch of bullshit questions about bullshit topics from the bullshit people who form the Washington Media Establishment. Not a single question about anything even remotely important to voters or the current issues of the day. Not even an intelligent gotcha question. Let this be a lesson to you. Do what Barack Obama has done in two successful campaigns: do not waste any time at all on these people no matter how much they complain. In fact, don't worry about it at all if they pull they entire pool. You truly do not need them. President Obama has proved this. Twice.

Take your message, and your ear to listen, directly to the people through the various channels of social media and local tv and radio outlets. When you go prime time, don't waste anytime on network news, cable news, or Sunday shows because nobody except old white people watches them and they're not going to vote for you anyway. Do Barack Obama's moves: take questions from local reporters in the places where you campaign. Sit down with local and niche radio and tv. You guys would be better off sitting down with whomever is most popular on YouTube than anybody employed in the New York or Washington media clusterjerk. Or circlefuck.  Let them cover your tweets after your millions have already read them. When you do engage them, send out the seasoned campaign hired gun who wants his or her own tv show in the future. Let them talk to their own kind.

Thank you. Carrry on.


Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:42 AM PDT

Grayson: 'Golddiggers gotta dig'

by brooklynbadboy

UNITED STATES - DECEMBER 15:  Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., participates in a news conference calling for no funding of the escalation of the war in Afghanistan on Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009.  (Photo By Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Images)
Hes got 99 problems but...
Oh boy:
The saga between U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson and his estranged wife continued Monday, and Grayson offered up another quotable moment.

"I'll sum it up for you. Gold diggers gotta dig. That's all I gotta say," he said, accord to WFTV.

LOL!  Haters gotta hate. Golddiggers gotta dig.

Folks, Alan Grayson is just writing his memoir materials right now. National or local issues aren't even on the menu, much less a Senate race.

As much as I'd prefer a better candidate than Murphy, he seems to be the only person out there determined to win.

NRA fantasy Texan.
Yep. You got it. More Guns.

Sun May 17, 2015 at 05:38 PM PDT

I'd rather be us than them

by brooklynbadboy

There's going to be about a dozen Republican presidential candidates next year, and this is a fortunate development for Democrats.

Given the circumstances, normally this would be a favorable time for an ambitious Republican to become president. The seat will be open and the current occupant is of the opposite party and not politically dominant. The Citizens United era of fundraising ensures even little known candidates can run well funded operations with the support of a single billionaire. Republicans hold Congress and a great deal of state governments which means there is plenty of staff available for hire. Finally, there is no dominant figure with a tight grip on a large natural constituency. If you are a Republican and want to be president, now is about as good as its going to get for a long time.

Now, eventually, Republican will begin to reduce this field down to two or three candidates. I can make no predictions on how quickly it will take to sort this out because I've never seen anything like it in my life. But it is safe to assume that this will get sorted out, the establishment of the GOP will finally unite behind a candidate, that person will be the nominee, and the party will unite behind that person. And, the vast majority of Republicans will vote for that person, no matter who it is.

However, I do see a rather beneficial side for Democrats in all this: We have Hillary Clinton.

Now I know all you Sanders and anybody but Hillary people will say 'no way man' and 'Bernie all the way'  and whatever and thats fine. Im not going to get into that in depth, but you're going to lose and you'll vote for Clinton eventually because youre not crazy people.

The good thing about a spread out GOP field is that its going to take them a long time to get famous. None of the people running in the GOP are breakout stars with a bit of fame except perhaps Christie and we can clearly see he is finished. The other person, Jeb Bush, is more infamous than famous, having a last name that is synonymous with failure. The rest of them face the task of getting known. The hardest part about running for President is getting famous and doing it right. You have to make a positive  impression on a huge number of people, hopefully get some percentage of those folks  to listen to you, get an even smaller percentage to ignore the case against you, and then get an even smaller number to come out and vote for you. This latter number is tens of millions of people. But that first number has to be up into the 100 million level. Ever imagine how difficult it is to make a positive impression on one person? Try 100 million.

But Democrats wont have to do any of that. Because our nominee is already known to absolutely everyone. Around the entire world. Hillary Clinton needs no introduction. She can get right down to it, and make a case for herself and she will get an ear. Because she's already famous. But more importantly, she will get the ear to make her case against a considerably less famous GOP opponent. That is critical to shaping the electorate. Because as we have learned from two successful Obama Campaigns, what matters most is the composition of the electorate. Nobody is going to vote for you if they have no idea who you are.

That's a good place to be in a situation facing the Democrats. As ive said before, its going be hard holding this seat three cycles in a row. Even against a Republican we get to define to the public before he becomes famous. Be even though we face this, Id rather have the marquee name given top billing than being on their side and trying to build a featherweight into a heavyweight in four months.

FILE - In this Oct. 1, 2009 file photo, House Financial Services Committee member Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla. listens during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, FILE)
Rep. Alan Grayson
U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the outspoken, populist Democrat who thunders against Wall Street fat cats,and used to to joke about Mitt Romney's low tax bill, incorporated a couple hedge funds in the Cayman Islands so investors could avoid taxes.

Grayson Fund Ltd. and Grayson Master Fund were incorporated in 2011 in the Cayman Islands, a well known tax Haven that Romney used as well, records show.. That was the same year he wrote in the Huffington Post that the IRS should audit every Fortune 500 company because so many appear to be "evading taxes through transfer pricing and offshore tax havens."

In a phone interview Wednesday, Grayson said the funds were incorporated in Grand Cayman at the advice of an attorney he declined to name. It was a vehicle for foreign investors to invest in his funds while limiting their tax liabilities, he said, but no money had been invested in them yet.


"When I set up my investment funds I set it up like everyone else," Grayson said, complaining about the Tampa Bay Times looking for "some stupid, bull---- story. ... You want to write sh-- about it, and you can't because not a single dollar of taxes has been avoided," he snapped.

Asked whether it was appropriate for a member of congress and potential U.S. Senator to set up an investment fund with an eye toward soliciting foreign investments in the future, Grayson scoffed.

"Are you f------- kidding? I set up a fund that might solicit foreign investors....I have no present intention of soliciting foreign investors," he said. "Your perception issue is bull----."

"This is even worse than Grayson's girlfriend might run for congress 18 months from now," referring to a recent Politico story attributed to no named sources. "This is a whole nother level of bull----....Are are you some kind of sh-----g robot? You go around sh----g on on people?"

Alrighty then.

I'll admit I've enjoyed his fiery antics and find him an interesting, amusing person. Sort of the same way I viewed Jim Traficant. As long as they are looking out for their people, a little side action never hurt nobody. Im very tolerant of this sort of thing if a politician is getting good things done. But I also understand modern politics and that many people are less forgiving. A Senate run? Methinks not.

However, Congress needs characters right now. Used to be full of em.


The New York Times, in piece flowing with condescension for the lower classes, reports that billionaires who once gave charity funds to New York's Fund for Public Schools, have decided they aren't feeling so charitable now:

Denis Calabrese, the president of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which gave the fund $1.25 million during the Bloomberg years to finance a pilot teacher evaluation system, said philanthropists who supported charter schools had probably been turned off by Mr. de Blasio’s fight last year with Eva S. Moskowitz, the founder of Success Academy, the city’s biggest charter school network, over space for three of its schools. (The city ultimately gave the schools space.)

“That was the most visible thing that funders saw in terms of gauging the approach,” Mr. Calabrese said.

Peter Sloane, the chairman and chief executive of the Heckscher Foundation for Children, which gave the fund close to $1.2 million between 2006 and 2008 for a free breakfast and lunch program during the summer, said that if the fund were having difficulty raising money, “it may reflect a more basic discomfort with the education agenda of this administration.”

What a bunch of douchebags.

See, now these are the kinds of people that should make everyone understand what is the real motive behind charter schools and the 'school reform' movement. It has nothing to do with children or their education, because fuck them. What this is about is shifting the money spent on childhood education and putting it in thr hands of financiers.

The Fund pays for a variety of extracurricular activities, and even at its most flush collected about $30 million a year, which is a pittance considering New York's astonishing wealth and the extensive needs of its schoolchildren. Those who attended the glossy fundraisers and Park Avenue galas certainly like to tell the public they were doing such wonderful things for the poor children whom would never have even 30 seconds of contact with their own children, of course. But in reality all the fund is really about is keeping Billionaires plugged into super profitable charter school scam.

Luckily, the Mayor is keeping some of the programs going with public money. Soros has chipped in for boys of color as have a few others that actually care about schoolchildren and not education policy:

About half the money counted as raised this year comes from two large, multiyear grants made during the 2012 fiscal year, from the Open Society Foundations and the Wallace Foundation, the first to support programs aimed at improving outcomes for young black and Latino men, and the second for principal development.


It is not clear if the slowdown in fund-raising will have immediate consequences. At the board’s most recent meeting, in February, members received a list of “immediate funding needs,” which detailed more than $5 million needed for programs like Summer Quest, which combines academic work with field trips and extracurricular activities, and a new summer program devoted to science, math, technology and engineering.

Ms. Chen said that since the meeting, the Education Department had decided that Summer Quest and the science and technology program would be paid for mostly with public funds. The fund still needs to raise $86,500 by May 31 for another program, the Summer Arts Institute, a monthlong arts intensive for 350 eighth through 12th graders, but Ms. Chen said she had “soft pledges, so I’m pretty confident.”

Fine. I don't have a problem with public money funding the whole goddamn fund, and inviting regular homeowners and other taxpayers to attend the damn galas and black tie dinners. Screw these rich jerks.

You are.

That's right, YOU, the American consumer.

Because you just go out and buy gobs and gobs of shit and you don't give a damn if its made here or not. And because you do that, there is always going to be someone willing to make your shit overseas and ship it to you. In fact, YOU are actually the biggest problem here. More than free trade. More than globalization. More than technology.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. You all got tons of iPhones, don't you? Well, I don't. Try as I might to find a single smartphone made in America, I searched out and found the Google & Motorola Moto X, which was at least assembled in Texas. 2500 jobs. Lots of Americans of all races working to at least put together a final product mostly still made overseas. But still, something! My Moto X is a fantastic smartphone. Does everything and is durable. Its even customized, mine is made of a very nice leather. You can get them made of fine grain wood too. Does absolutely everything.

I say 'was' being assembled because that factory is now closed.  All those 2500 people are out of work. It wasn't me who did it. It was YOU with your iPhone and your Galaxy.

Ask yourself when was the last time you made a serious effort to only buy things made in America?

A few years ago I bought a Trek bicycle. I love it, its a great bike. But it was made in China, not an America. This bothered me for years. Every time I looked at it, 'China' not 'Wisconsin' came mind.  Bothered me to the point that I just recently bought a Firefly, made top to bottom in Boston. I highly recommend.

If you work at it, you will find this country still have some life in her. You can stuff your mouth and fill up your house with trinkets all made right here. Surprisingly, I've even found it possible to clothe myself in American made gear pretty consistently. Even down to the socks and underwear. You, the American Consumer, can save American jobs by making simple changes to your behavior with your money.

And if we all do that, we will have just solved the problem of shipping jobs overseas.

But if you just keep on buying tons of crap made overseas, stuffing your face with stuff grown overseas, and killing your eyeballs with black mirrors that have super cool logo and nifty advertising, then don't get mad when your job follows your money.


1. He'd be in the South Bronx, rural West Virginia and South Texas and every place like it. On foot. Every single day. Even in red states. NOT in Berkeley or Santa Fe or the Upper West Side. Or any other place in any way similar.

2. He'd never do an interview with the Washington media on any topic at any time for any reason whatsoever. I'd have him on local radio, community newspapers, and neighborhood blogs. And a freight train load of social media. Like totally live off social media. Especially Tumblr.

3. He'd be the oldest person in every photo op. By like double.

4. I would never give him a script. Just put him out there.

5. My ads would run during "Empire" and "Sons of Anarchy" not "Meet the Press" and "Morning Joe." And I'd deep into Hulu.

6. I'd get him some tailored suits and new glasses.

7. Church. Be a guest there. As often as possible. Poor people who vote go to chuch.

8. Ignore all pundits. Especially when they offer praise.

9. Create a 'help fund me' or something like that so that when he encounters the painful stories of the American people he can have his much more affluent financial supporters do something about it. You know, from places like Berkeley, Sante Fe, and the Upper West Side.

10. Delegates, Delegates, Delegates. To both state conventions and the national one. That's what the goal is.

Why? Because I wouldn't expect to win or get elected. But I would expect to do some good for this party and the people its supposed to represent. To give those folks a voice and some real power. And to school a new generation on what America is supposed to be all about. What Democratic Socialism is all about.

That's a campaign for president folks who will never see or read this post could support.

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004
Let me count the ways. Refute them if you can.

1. Timing.

Barack Obama would not have even thought of challenging Hillary Clinton were it not for two extremely fortunate circumstances: A. George W. Bush was an unpopular incumbent leading an unpopular war.  B.  His two potential opponents for the nomination supported Bush in getting us into that war. He was against it from the start, positioning him perfectly. The timing could never have been as good as it was in 2007 when he jumped in. The war was going terribly. Bush was terrible. He just cornered the market for 'change.'

Bernie Sanders enjoys no such circumstances now. Unless of course he plans to campaign hard against the incumbent president of his newly adopted party... which (lol)  would clearly indicate he's lost his mind and isn't serious about winning.  

2. National political success.

After the successful cycle of 2006 for Democrats, Obama could benefit from a national network of political operatives and party apparatchiks who would certainly give him a serious listen. These things are important, like it or not. Governors, Mayors, country chairmen, and of course Congress critters will only give an ear to a heavyweight contender. Obama had proven himself prime time worthy from his 2004 keynote speech, had a huge warchest to draw on from the Chicago Democratic fundraising circuit, his wife was close to the Daley Administration (thus comforting the Establishment), and he was the most in demand surrogate from the 2006 cycle, drawing big crowds around the country for Democrats. In an election they won. That's some serious shine for an on the move up and comer. Even if they couldn't commit to him, although some did early, they had seen enough to stay on the fence. This man might be president. Better to wait it out and see what happens.

Bernie Sanders enjoys no such advantages. Going to be very difficult to get those Mayors Governors and the like to peel away from Clinton without the profile young, fresh blood Obama had in 2007.

3. The issues.

Despite running an unconventional campaign, on the issues Barack Obama was a run of the mill centrist Democrat. There was little difference between him and Clinton on the issus of the day, except of course for the Iraq War. Postioning himself there was not only a smart political decision (to reduce the sense of a risky bet) but as we have now seen it is basically where he is policy wise (to my and I'm sure your consternation). To the extent he gained support from the left wing was primarily a benefit of his opposition to the war and being a viable alternative to Clinton. He got that support basically gratis, offering nothing in return for it in the form of a more leftist policy agenda.  

If there is anything Bernie Sanders is NOT, its a centrist Democrat. Hell he's not even a Democrat! He's an honest and committed socialist. He's even to the left of most progressive-leaning Democrats. Which is probably why he isn't one. He's got integrity. But as Nate Cohn pointed out, he's far to the left of the rank and file Democratic voter, especially working class women and people of color. Yes, affluent white liberals will love him and support him, but they arent even close to a majority of Democrats. A key element of our coalition for sure, but not enough for a majority.

4. Demographics & Style

By the time the 2008 primary was drawing to a close, Hillary Clinton was explicitly tailoring her message to white people. I don't think for one minute this had anything to do with racism, but rather political reality. She had been leading by big margins with black and Hispanic voters who were the core of her base. Then Barack Obama won Iowa. The campaign took on a double historic dimension, of either the first woman or the first minority president. I remember in my household this made for a tough decision for the missus. But when you combined all the other advantages he had, plus the fact that he was able to go out and win in a lily white state like Iowa, the situation was pretty clear. Clintons core left her and now she had no choice but to get those working class white women especially to turn out for her, and they did. But it was too late and not enough. And there was the youth, with whom Barack Obama was able to develop a cultural affinity and a message that went beyond the campus class presidents or debate team and scored with the basketball team (he's a long time jock), sorority princesses (he's handsome) , and aspiring yuppies (Columbia, Harvard, snappy suits). And there's that photogenic winning smile and young beautiful family. Trust me, this stuff matters to low info voters. Barack Obama used all these tools to his advantage in the primary, but especially did in the general election.

Bernie Sanders. Well. He's an old disheveled white guy. And I love him for that, beleive me. As  a Brooklynite I couldn't be prouder seeing him out there. But I do know our Brooklyn style wears thin on folks outside the five boroughs. And as far as old white guys, we had have plenty of those as president. So there's that. But more importantly, I dont know if you all have seen Bernie give a speech but he tells it like it is and it is depressing. Because it is. But a presidential candidate just can't say it.

I, for one, feel its about time Democrats had a woman leading the party and running the country. Hillary Clinton is an exceptional woman, to say the least.

5. Hillary is much stronger now than in 2008.

Finally, even after you combine all these advantages a young Senator Obama had going into that campaign, HE STILL BARELY WON the nomination. There was less than a point worth of votes separating him and Clinton. All that, just to eek out a razor thin victory. So he had a lot to overcome, even when there was just 15 points between him and Clinton when he announced for president. Hillary is a lot stronger now. As I've said before, she has numbers approaching that of an incumbent president seeking renomination. You gotta be Bobby Kennedy to beat these kinds of numbers. She did two things: she reconciled the party beautifully in 2008 and was a forceful advocate for Obama, and she served in the highest capacity in his administration. That core that left her after Iowa of 2008? Its back. And the way she has been running, she intends to keep it this time.

Bernie Sanders, God bless him, has none of these advantages and a 55 point deficit. Boy, it will literally take a miricle or something terribly unfortunate because I'm not seeing any path for him to the White House. Especially not the Barack Obama path.

I don't expect to, nor want to dissuade anyone from supporting and voting for Bernie. He's a good man and plus he's from Brooklyn. Give him all you got if you're with him. But, there is no need to wage war on Hillary Clinton to try and damage her because she will be the nominee, like it or not. Or to use his candidacy for that because you hate her. Just be FOR BERNIE and not against Hillary. He's got plenty to offer with the platforn he will be given. Encourage him to make the best use of it. Because he will not be our nominee nor will he be president. That's reality. For a reality based community.


Jack Shafer has spent his most of his 40 years of adult life as what passes for a journalist these days. Those two facts alone should give you a clear understanding of why he writes for Politico, the US Weekly of the decline of the American political press. Yes, like most successful Washington political writers, he too was caught up a ridiculous hoax as actual news, didn't do his job as editor, and like the politicians he covers just failed right on up the ladder.

Mr. Shafer has some advice for Hillary Clinton on how she can improve her coverage guessed it...people like Jack Shafer. In his piece which he trumpets as a guide to winning over the political press in 14 easy steps, he pours the Washington on nice and thick:

Psst! Mrs. Clinton! May I chew on your ear for a minute? I have no business giving you advice—unsolicited or otherwise. It isn’t a journalist’s job to help politicians improve relations with the press or otherwise assist them in winning elections. If anything, journalistic duty commands us to find the most revelatory material about you—and run with it as fast and far as we can.

Still, the press corps owes you something for the mountains of high-grade news ore you’ve dumped into our smelters over the years.

Typical of the kind of people who are the press corps, he then goes on to do what he says he has no business doing. I'll save you the sickened stomach of reading it by giving you a quick summary:
  • Be sincerely nice to us, emphasis on sincere because "above all, you must be sincere, because if there is one thing the press can’t tolerate, it’s a phony." I swear that's a quote.  
  • Get a hobby we find interesting. He recommended she become a home brewer. I kid you not: “ 'Hils for Pils'  would be an excellent 2016 slogan."
  • Buy us food. "Menu: craft beers, pork rinds and canapés. If you don’t feed the press, the press will feed on you."
  • Do yoga. "Embrace it. Make it the golf of your presidency—should the campaign gods look favorably on your candidacy."
  • Be a dear to Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. "Make yourself a Fox regular: You won’t lose any votes and may actually win a few. Besides, potential voters can be found via Fox News!"

Yes, it is going to be a very, very long election season for everyone outside of the male dominated, lilly white, circle jerking press corps. During that time, a few of them might even get around to covering Hillary Clinton the way a journalist ought too. But if you have any suspicion that that head you see babbling on your TV is a decent human being and a real professional, just read this. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Washington Media Establishment. Vapid. Self-centered. Dumb. Completely uninterested in journalism of any kind.


We had visitors in from the Midwest (Kansas City) this weekend, folks we hadn't seen in many years. This was their first trip to New York and they wanted to do touristy things, which was fine. Now we almost never find ourselves in Times Square and do not go to the City all that often. However, being hosts, we didn't mind doing things I would generally never even think of doing. Like going to Top of the Rock.

It was all rather eventful for them, and me and the missus of course beamed with understated pride as our friends marvelled at our mighty City. Of course there were lots of tourists. But what was really crazy was overhearing a couple of obviously American males from somewhere say something to the effect of they 'couldn't understand how Americans could live here.' That and that its 'not a good place to raise your kids.' 'Nobody speaks English. 'And too top it all off something about high taxes and liberals.

Now I held my tongue and didn't tell them what I was thinking, which basically amounted to get the fuck out. But after we were back downstairs I told me friends that he sounded just like a Republican. To wit they responded they knew the type well and my one friend made it clear:'Im proud of having a city like this in America. But they hate America. They like the symbols of America, but not actual America. '

So true. Conservatives love the symbols. The flag. The military parades. The blad eagle. But actual America, its people and the things they do, they hate those things. They don't want to see gay people making art, or black people making music, or jewish people making literature. Those things are liberal, alien, foreign. Not America. But to me, these things are what makes America what it is. Including them and their backward, provincial ways. I love all of it, including the parts I'd rather flyover than visit. I'd never call them un-American just for being who they are. Yet Conservatives feel like if you aren't exactly like them, you don't get to be a part of it. Symbols of America matter more than its people.

Yes, Conservatives, America is also big city, high taxes, people of all nations of the world, and yes, even liberals. Its really a shame you hate it.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site