Category Archives: Politics

Gary Johnson – Chaotic Neutral

I thought it would be fun to pigeon hole the presidential candidates into their respective Dungeons & Dragons alignment.  I recognize that these aren’t going to be perfect, but it’s one of those things that are fun to game out.  All references to alignments can be found on Wikipedia.

I hereby deem Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, to be Chaotic Neutral:

A chaotic neutral character is an individualist who follows their own heart and generally shirks rules and traditions.  Although chaotic neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free.

There really isn’t much information about Gary Johnson to hang any individual alignment on, but his record is certainly Libertarian and no alignment screams Libertarian like Chaotic Neutral.  He is huge on personal freedom (he was big on ending the war on drugs before it was cool, which kudos).  He believes in a minimalist government with zero interest in the consequences of what his policies (or lack thereof, really) will do to his constituents.  He was big on privatization of prisons and school vouchers.  As two-time governor of New Mexico, he holds  the record for number of vetoes (47% of all bills in his first term).  His governorship is generally considered a success and he was well liked, but I’ve not been able to find much evidence for or against Johnson’s term.  It looks to me like New Mexico grew at about the same pace as the rest of the country during his term in office.  I can concede that Libertarianism may be able to work in states whose population density is 17 people per square mile.

One thing I can say about him is Gary Johnson is the one person running for president that I would love to get a beer with.  He really does seem like a fun guy and you just know it wouldn’t end with just one beer.  Suddenly, you’re six beers in and Gary’s all like “Shots!” and you’re all like “I don’t really do shots” but suddenly you’re draining one down and there’s already another one in front of you and you’re like “What the hell!” and you pop that one down your gullet as well and then you regain consciousness at Gary’s house and everyone’s dropping LSD and Gary is offering you some and you take it and suddenly there’s this psychedelic music playing and all these colored lights and you have this absolutely mind blowing experience and as you come down,Gary’s there with some weed to help you mellow and you realize that it’s already 6 AM and you have all these chores to do before visiting your family so you say good bye to Gary and thanks for a fun evening and as you’re leaving Gary says to you, “We’re still on for next weekend, right?”

Donald Trump – Chaotic Evil

I thought it would be fun to pigeon hole the presidential candidates into their respective Dungeons & Dragons alignment.  I recognize that these aren’t going to be perfect, but it’s one of those things that are fun to game out.  All references to alignments can be found on Wikipedia.

When I said these aren’t going to be perfect, that was in respect to all the other candidates.  Donald Trump fits the definition of Chaotic Evil to a T.  Check this out:

A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people’s lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative.

Is that not spot on?

No respect for rules? Check. Check.

Other people’s lives?  Just read his Twitter account which I am not linking to.

Anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel? Check.

They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people? Check. Check.  Check.  Really, there’s way too many examples of this.

Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative?  Witness his fairly laid-back attitude at the Convention (at least by Republican Convention standards, that is) versus his actions both before and after, for example.

And yet, some polls have this man in the lead to be our next President of the United States.  With Brexit, we were finally able to lord our political superiority over the United Kingdom for the first time in decades.  Now we’re just going to throw that superiority away by electing Joffrey Baratheon.  What a total waste of a good lording.

Can We Get Back To Politics? Please?

I’ve been avoiding commenting about politics because primaries are a depressing shit show that reveal sides of humanity that should probably stay bottled up. It’s like that giant pimple that you just want to pop all over your bathroom mirror even though you know you shouldn’t but you do anyway and then you look at that mirror with all that puss and blood and you exclaim how gross it is before you wipe it off with some toilet paper and move on.  Well, the primaries are over and it’s time to move on.

I find the “both sides do it” argument tiring and obviously false.  As I like to say, if one side throws a rock at you and the other side shoots you, sure, on the surface they’re both committing violence, but to say they’re equally bad is absurd.  Well, this time around, one side brought a nuclear missile in the form of Donald J. Trump.  It is fairly well recognized how much of a danger a man like him is to, well, everyone, but that hasn’t stopped many Republicans who were, a scant few months ago, exclaiming that danger from being all like this:AzEAPZ

So please, cut the crap about both sides do it.  Especially now.

And to all you Never Hillary folks and especially those who were Bernie supporters, take a look at your skin.  Almost assuredly you are white.  Take a look in your pants.  More likely than not you have a penis.  Things will be fine for you even if Trump gets elected.  Congratulations.  You think now is a good time to issue a protest vote against the system?  Take a look at your black friends or your female friends or even better, your Muslim friends.  Things will assuredly be worse for them under a Trump presidency.  This is a man who has said he will ban Muslims from entering the country.  This is a man who said that we should keep a database of All Muslims living in the United States so we can keep track of them.  This is a man who thinks that women should accept sexual harassment from those who give them jobs or offer them advancement.  This man is currently the Sword of Damocles hanging over all of their heads and you would help him swing it?

Look, I’m glad you’ve had an awakening.  I’m glad that you’re finally realizing that our system is rigged.  I’m glad you’re motivated to do something about it.  But you don’t start complaining about a leaky faucet when the fucking levee is about to break.  Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are not going to win a single state.  Heck, they likely won’t even be on the ballot in all 50 states.  They can’t even get enough support to hold primaries in all 50 states.  Voting for them is grabbing your wrench and attempting to fix that leaky pipe while the rest of us are hauling sandbags attempting to prevent the country from flooding.  You owe it to all the people who don’t look like you to help them.

Stay angry, though!  Your anger is justified.  Keep that anger and filter that anger into local politics.  You can not and will never affect change at the top without first establishing a ground swell from the bottom.  Run for local office.  Support those who want to change local offices.  The changes there will rise to the top as assuredly as money rises to the 1%.

Oh, and you should also watch Michelle Obama’s speech from last night.  It was gorgeous

 

We’re All In This Together

1462882_707028285974819_696507278_n

Harris Rosen is a real person.  He really did give free daycare and college scholarships to all high school graduates in this very poor little neighborhood in Orlando, FL.  It is unclear for how long he did this or if he continues to do this now and the graduation rate statistic is suspect, but it’s still truly inspiring.  What is interesting is how different people find this inspiring.  A conservative friend is the one who posted this on Facebook (Yes this is another Facebook argument.  Yes something is wrong with me.).  My response was this:

Imagine all the money the government is going to save on welfare. Imagine all the extra money the government is going to make in taxes from the increase in income that comes from going to college. Imagine that instead of one neighborhood winning the rich-guy lottery, we all got together and pooled our resources to make this a reality for all. Imagine if everyone in the U.S. had free daycare and college scholarships. Imagine how much better the U.S. and the world would be as a result.

When talking to conservatives, use conservative talking points.  Don’t throw in inflammatory barbs like “Imagine if there were someone running for president right now that has promised to provide these things.  Feel the Bern!”  Though I was sorely tempted, that’s just poking the bear.  His response was:

I get it dude, but forced philanthropy breeds resentment and entitlement. There’s no substitute for a kind heart with a smiling face, proving to a neighborhood that they matter, are not forgotten, and have a gift that requires stewardship.

Which is really along the lines of “That’s all fine and dandy but if you force people to do the things that inspire them they’ll resent you and the people that benefit from it will feel all entitled and stuff.”  It’s such a low view of humanity.  It’s as if benefits don’t count unless you can put a face to the benefactor.  Which is absolutely hilarious when you realize that this seems to be a very popular view in certain Christian circles.  Maybe it has something to do with being told from birth that you’re a dirty sinner and undeserving of anything and thus must work hard from conception to get what you want.  Try to pinpoint exactly who would be resentful and who would feel entitled and you can’t (You know, people.  Not me.  Not my friends.  Those other people.), which was my next point:

 Resentment from whom? Entitlement from whom? Those who would resent this are already resentful. Those who would feel entitled already feel entitled. I think most would feel grateful. Most would feel empowered. Everybody would win; the resentful, the entitled, the rich, the poor. If you’re the one who would feel resentful, fine, conversation over, but if you wouldn’t feel resentful, you are much closer to those that are resentful than I. Change minds. Change spirits.

He “liked” this which is basically a polite way of ending the conversation, but then someone else posted something that I think gets to the heart of why conservatives don’t quite get what the stakes really are even though they should be blindingly obvious:

Let me empty your bank account to pay for my sister’s medical bills and we’ll see who’s resentful.

If you legislate charity, it becomes theft. If you force someone to give..it’s not giving. And if you didn’t make the money, it’s not yours to give.
I’d like a great many things, doesn’t mean I should get them. And just because someone is in unfortunate circumstances, doesn’t mean they should have someone else solve their problems.

I wanted to concentrate on the first sentence only because the rest is just boilerplate libertarian nonsense that people reflexively repeat.  The last sentence is also worth commenting on briefly, though.  This person is obviously Christian and obviously cares about certain things.  These things even correlate very closely with the goal of providing basic childcare to all children.  But she wants to decide exactly whom to help.  She wants to be able to pick a winner and loser.  Take that agency away from her and you suddenly go from an obvious good to grounds for rebellion.  But back to the first sentence:

Um, I am a perfectly healthy male with insurance. I DO pay for your sister’s and hundreds of thousands of other people’s medical bills. Probably not your sister specifically since we are almost assuredly on different health plans, but you get the idea. Plus, we’re kind of switching subjects from education to healthcare, but the whole point of pooling resources is so that any individual DOESN’T get their bank accounts emptied. That was the biggest problem with insurance pre-Obamacare. Have a preexisting condition and you’re uninsurable and you either find a way to pay for your condition or find a magical benefactor or you die. I gladly pay property taxes for the education of children that I won’t have because a better education for all makes us all better. I would gladly pay more in taxes to provide daycare for all because well taken care of children make better prepared children makes us all better. I would gladly pay more in taxes to provide a college scholarship for those that graduate highschool because smarter people get higher paying jobs which allows them to buy more things and provide more things which makes us all better.

I don’t want to live in a world which depends on a magical benefactor who sweeps down on a vanishingly small subset of humanity to provide for a basic need like a child’s education. I want to live in a world where we all recognize that childcare and education are a fundamental necessity for children who had zero choice in to whom they were born and where they were raised. I want us to recognize that this benefits not just the children but all of us. I want to live in a world where the popular belief of “I suffered and so should you” is replaced with “we suffered now let’s try to make things a little better for you”. I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. My brother is not just Tangelo Park. My sister is not just Orlando, FL. My brother, my sister is the United States of America. Harris Rosen has proven how beneficial childcare is to primary education on a small scale. Let’s make it nationwide and reap the whirlwind of benefits together. No child is not deserving.

It’s a little speechy (I sometimes get like that when I write), but I believe it hammers home my point.  We’re all in this together.  Not a single one of us has the wisdom to decide who is deserving and who is not.  This is true for every single human being, but especially true for children who should be considered deserving by default.  One person proving that providing basic childcare benefits those children immensely is absolutely inspiring.  Learning from that and pooling our resources to make it a reality across the entire United States would be awe inspiring.

The Right-Wing Schrödinger’s Cat

Benjamin Netanyahu gave his controversial speech to Congress today and it was as banal as expected.  Iran is evil, Iran must not get nuclear weapons, Iran plans on destroying Israel, Iran supports terrorism, Iran plans on taking over the Middle East.  He presented nothing that hasn’t been heard by every single Congresscritter and every single individual on earth that pays attention to events in Israel haven’t heard a million times.  In other words, the speech was useless propaganda with Congress playing patsy to a foreign leader.

What gets me is how much of what Netanyahu says seems to contradict each other.  Take for instance the contradicting beliefs that Iran both plans on being a major power in the Middle East and that it is a suicidal power that only wants a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.  The former is almost certainly true.  Iran uses proxies in many of the Middle Eastern countries to exert some sort of control over those countries in the underwear gnomes hope that they will somehow profit.  The latter is absolutely ridiculous.  Any use of a nuclear weapon by Iran or by a proxy of Iran will immediately result in Iran becoming a desert of glass.  Iran knows this.  Israel knows this.  The U.S. knows this.  End of story.

So Iran is both suicidally against the existence of Israel and wants to project soft power all across the Middle East.  Netanyahu needs Iran to be this geopolitical equivalent to Schrödinger’s cat in order to play to his base who would re-elect him at home and to play to his base who will lend him political cover here in the U.S.  And our right-wingers are more than eager to lap up this drivel like it was the richest of cream.

I don’t know enough about the U.S. negotiations with Iran to say whether the deal is good or not, but all the arguments I hear against it are disingenuous at best and flat-out lies at worst.  At it’s heart, once again, is that Obama hates America and is a secret Muslim.  And the Otherness campaign against Obama runs apace.

The Streak Continues!

So, I did end up voting yesterday.  I had just enough time to run home after work (and boy are my legs tired!), vote, then run all the way back downtown to do my volunteering gig.

Who I vote for:

Mayor – Bob Fioretti – I’ve know of Fioretti for a while now as he used to be the alderman of my mom and aunt and my mom always had good things to say about him.  I also really liked the answers he gave for the Chicago Tribune questionnaire.  I am not at all upset that Chuy Garcia was able to force a run-off against Emmanuel and will gladly vote for him in the run-off.

Alderman – Ameya Pawar – This was a pretty easy call even though I didn’t know I was in the 47th ward until yesterday.  They just changed the boundaries for this election.  The guy who was running against Pawar seemed like a one issue candidate, that issue being fighting against density increases, which I am against.  Also, Pawar has a very impressive background and as an added bonus is the first person of both Indian and Asian descent to serve on the City Council.

All the rest of the races were uncontested.

For the referendums, I voted ‘yes’ for all of them.  The only one that I was kind of waffly about was the domestic violence treatment requirement for city employees.  I am all for people who need help getting help, but I have some issues with employers demanding changes from employees for things that occur outside of work.  Domestic violence is a serious enough topic, though, to let me see past my issues.  Paid leave for workers was a no-brainer.  The campaign finance reform offered is not my first choice of reform, but it’s at least a step in the right direction.  Electing school board members I’m kind of neutral on.  On one side, it seems like it may turn out to be yet another low information ballot item like judges, but on the other side, I like the idea of some sort of community control for our schools.

I Forgot To Vote This Morning

For the first time in my adult life, I will not be voting in an election.  I was supposed to do so before I left for work this morning, but it didn’t even cross my mind until I was well on my way to downtown already and I’m not going to be home again until late.  I completely zombied my way to work today.  Or maybe I “Time to make the donuts”-ed to work.  The former is more hip while the latter shows my age.  And yours too if you get the reference.

I have what I’d consider a decent excuse, though.  It was a very long night of getting paged for work and I’ve been up since 3:00 AM.  It was so cold in the house that by the time I finished working and tried going back to sleep, my feet were so freezing that I couldn’t get at all comfortable.  So everything was crawl out of bed, shamble to the shower, go through the motions of getting ready.  I almost left without putting on a belt.  I remembered it as I was putting on my coat.  That was the moment when I would have remembered to vote, but my brain decided to waste its processing power on putting on the belt instead.  Stupid brain!

It’s probably best I didn’t vote as I might have accidentally voted for Rahm *gasp*.  I also didn’t even realize that I was redistricted into another Ward for 2015 so I was all set to vote for an Alderman who doesn’t even represent me anymore.  Stupid low information voters!

So if any of you were going to vote for Rahm today, I’d like you to just leave it blank so my counter vote would be effective.  Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal said it best, “It’d be more efficient to have every person find someone who votes the other way, then mutually agree not to vote.  Then only people who can’t find a pair will actually go to the voting booth.”  I’m not sure that logic applies in a 5-way race.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Man, the Eurozone is a complete mess.  Yep, it’s still trying to hash things out with Greece.  Twice this week, there have almost been deals to basically kick the can down the road and proceed with the same completely not sufficient solution of bleeding Greece dry.  Today, Germany quashed that agreement because…something something.

The actions of Germany during this whole fiasco both make some sense and make no sense at all.  They make sense because concessions to Greece will likely mildly hurt Germany’s economy.  Germany likes being on top.  That’s understandable.  But what they’re trying to force Greece to do is barbaric.  Greece has already had its economy shrink by 25% because of the austerity forced upon them by the European Central Bank and its people are suffering horribly as a result.  This is Weimar republic post World War I levels of shrinking that was forced upon Germany by the Allies.  Germany and many other countries want to squeeze more blood out of that rock.

The sad thing is all of this could easily go away with just a little debt forgiveness.  Greece is already making enough money cover its day to day costs.  They just need to borrow money to service the interest on their debts.  Keep the status quo and offer up some debt forgiveness and Greece would be in ok shape to grow back to a nominally functioning economy.  But debt forgiveness is verboten in any discussion because how will they learn their lesson if they don’t suffer.

There’s also some weird politics going on here as well.  Greece recently elected a solidly left government whereas the rest of the Eurozone is fairly center-right.  Gotta keep the right happy or your government collapses and you lose power.  And much like here in the U.S., staying in power is the first rule of business.  So the right wants to stick it to the only left leaning government to show that a left government can’t function and the center goes along with it because they are somewhat of a same mind and want to keep control.  And damn the consequences.

What are the consequences?  Well, Greece would be stupid to accept more austerity.  That doesn’t mean they won’t, but I don’t get the feeling the current government wants to go down that path both because they campaigned on less austerity and because it’s fairly obvious from the performance of other nations that austerity doesn’t work.  It looks as if the Eurozone is not willing to budge either which means Greece leaves the Euro and defaults on its loans.

And now we come to completely uncharted territory.  Greece leaving the Euro is likely to be devastating to Greece, but also pretty harmful to the rest of the Eurozone as well, leading to another European recession.  Greece, its economy in shambles, will be unable to repay its debts by itself at a time when the Eurozone will demand it.  This means a third party has an opportunity to step in and lend Greece assistance.  Who can do this?  Well, certainly not the Eurozone.  The U.S. could and should do it, but I doubt we have the political will to do so.  So that leaves China, which hasn’t shown much interest in meddling with European political affairs and Russia.  Russia is currently fighting a proxy war in eastern Ukraine, has control of the Crimean Peninsula, and shows all outwards indicators of wanting to expand that influence.  In exchange for money, Greece allows Russia to build naval bases thus giving Russia a base of operations in the Mediterranean Sea and locking its dominance of the Black Sea.  If a far-right ultra-nationalist party comes to power in Greece as a result of these maneuvers, we have all the makings of a recipe for disaster.  Greece could then decide to solve its border disputes with Turkey and Albania with a healthy backing of arms from Russia and the world has a second proxy war.  Things can only escalate from there.

All because no one will agree to a little debt forgiveness.

This Is Why You Can’t Yell “Fire!” In A Crowded Theater

I went to see science rockstar Neil deGrasse Tyson at the Auditorium Theater last night with some friends.  And it was AWESOME!  Yeah, you’re jealous.  Allow me to bask in your jealousy for a moment…  Ok, done.  Our seats were less than stellar.  (Ha!  See what I did there?  I’m funny.)  We were on the sixth floor in the third from last row.  There was no elevator.  Past the fourth floor, the theater can only be described as purposely death-trapish.  The lighting is dim.  The stairs are black.  The railings are the same color black and groin level.  And when you get to the seats, the stairs are small, steep, and tilted forward towards the abyss.  The rows are cramped and the seats are tiny.  There was just enough room to fit my smaller than average frame and my back is still hurting from the experience.

There was an older gentleman who sat behind me.  He was overweight, had to walk with a cane, and was near death from exhaustion and likely fear by the time he got to his seat.  The poor guy ended up having to sit on the stairs because the seat was so uncomfortable for him.  He was far from the only one having issues.  If there was an actual emergency in that theater, I do not know how much of my level would make it out alive.  If one of those bigger guys goes down, which they invariably would, they’d block the exit for everyone in that section and it would be almost impossible for them to get back up given the conditions.

It’s because of places like the Auditorium Theater that we have building codes.  Governmental regulations aren’t made in a vacuum.  They are usually preceded by a tragedy, but experience and forethought have given us the ability to predict problems and regulate against them before they happen.  Yes, I’m sure some regulations are stupid and/or out of date, but most are not.  They are there to protect us whether you can understand them or not.  So the next time you want to complain about governmental overregulation, take a trip to the sixth floor of the Auditorium Theater and get back to me.

No, You Are Certainly Not Charlie Hebdo

I only read David Brooks when his word salad op-eds go viral.  This is a good choice for both my health and my sanity.  David Brooks is the Kim Kardashian of the journalism world.  That he has a following at all is proof to me that kids these days are no more stupid than the adults that accuse them of such.  In his latest, he complains about the hurt fee fees of the left when people express vile opinions.  What follows is my first FJM treatment.  Brooks’ words are in bold, my responses are not.

I Am Not Charlie Hebdo

Are you sure?  Your writing is every bit as offensive as their cartoons.  Or at least it should be considered such.  Wait, no, you’re right.  They occasionally make a valid point, you do not.

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression

Uh oh, I smell a false equivalence coming.

but let’s face it:

Can we not?  Please, please, just shut up now and save us all from your mindless drivel.

If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Wow, with the very first sentence he’s already comparing the massacre of civilians whose only crime was publishing offensive material to student protests and with the very next two he proves he has absolutely no idea what Freedom of Speech means.  I got news for you, Davey, Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom From Consequences.  The groups that you are about to spend 800 words whining about are tackling offensive speech the way it should be tackled.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Because they’re dead, you moron!  No one would give a crap otherwise.  Hell, Charlie Hebdo was firebombed and no one gave a crap.  But yeah, when a couple of whack-a-loons decide to introduce the insides of peoples’ bodies to a few ounces of lead just because they are offensive, we’re going to take notice.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions.

Oh, crap, here it comes.

The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.

Yep, this is certainly as bad as 12 dead people.

The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A.

You centrist you!

Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

I love the smell of Christian persecution in the morning time.  Oh, wait, no, the first was teaching something that has no place in a classroom, the second, I have no idea what you are talking about, but again, Speech has Consequences, and the third is a fairly common sense policy about inclusion.

Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

Shoot me.  More lack of understanding about  Freedom of Speech.  Listen up, Bobo, the Charlie Hebdo people are dead.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali is alive.  Charlie Hebdo created its own platform for its speech, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not entitled to be given a platform wherever she shows up.  That’s not how it works.

 So this might be a teachable moment.

Hey something I agree with!  David Brooks is a hack who doesn’t understand a single thing about Freedom of Speech or anything else, for that matter.  Lesson learned.  The End.

As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.

Dammit, he thinks there’s another lesson to be learned!  And that lesson is, apparently, to give our controversial figures carte blanche to say what they want where they want whenever they want.  Or something.

The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo.

In which Brooks shows his complete ignorance of how the the English language works.  If I say “David Brooks is a douche”, I am not saying that he is the actual feminine product, I am saying that they are both items which, despite the incontrovertible proof that they do no actual good, continue to exist because of a combination of snappy packaging and shaming.

Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.

Yes we do.  Every single one of us.  Without exception.  For instance, I’m about to tell a joke that even makes the infamous The Aristocrats joke to shame.  David Brooks.

 We might have started out that way.

Insert picture of David Brooks in a three-way with Jesus and Muhammad here.

When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.

Hurray for Google Translate!

But after a while that seems puerile.

And this is why you (and most of your profession) fail as a journalist.  It’s your freakin’ job to stick a finger in the eye of authority!

Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others.

In which David Brooks proves he has never talked to another human being.  Ever.

(Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.)

If Brooks were at all aware of his own constant ridiculousness, we wouldn’t have to read this article.

Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths.

Um, what?  Don’t you cover politics?

We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.

In which David Brooks proves he doesn’t know how a conversation works.

Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.

Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.

This is how you fill column space, folks!  A few definitions, a few innocuous generalities and we’re good to print!

In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.

Now he’s just repeating himself.

If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.

Come see the violence inherent in the system!  Help, help, I’m being repressed!  Oh, wait, no, no one is.  If you can carve a space for your speech, you are welcome to that space.  I am not required to provide that space for you.

Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes.

David Brooks should never, ever use the word “supple”.  Please, Anonymous, hack his computer and remove it from his dictionary.

Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.

Except for pretty much every society that has come before us, but who’s counting?

In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table.

Guess which one Brooks thinks he sits at!

The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table.

Pompous much?  You know damn well it took every fiber of his being not to use the New York Times as an example.  Establishment organs?

The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

Ah, the “both sides do it” argument rears its ugly head along with some great false equivalence.  Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are not at all the same.  One is a joke and the other is a comedian.  Also, the world is surprised to know that David Brooks thinks Ann Coulter has ever said a “necessary thing”.  Says a lot about you Dave.

Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people.

In which David Brooks makes the arguments for “separate but equal”.

Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect.

Tell that to climate scientists, Barack Obama, or anyone trying to make even the most reasoned response to the realities of our justice system.

Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect.

Way to throw pretty much the only group of journalists worth listening to a bone.

Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect.

Explain the Republican party.

People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

Again, explain the Republican party.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes.

Nothing up my sleeve!  Presto!  I saw a bird get into an argument with a squirrel the other day.  This should be used as an occasion to end speech codes.  Plus, who is enforcing speech codes?  Oh, right, nobody.

And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.

Do you know who is legally tolerant toward offensive voices?  The entire freakin’ country!  Do you know who would benefit from reading this David Brooks article?  No one.