Since we’ve been reviewing reviews here recently, I remembered this 1 review I read that was shocking not only in how bad ’twas, but by the fact that the person who wrote it was a professional reviewer who was paid by a real, physical magazine to write it & who is renowned ’nough to have a Wikipedia article, & who is apparently known as the “dean of American rock critics”, which says something dire ’bout American rock criticism thruout the last half century if that’s true. No wonder this music genre’s dead. Luckily, there’s no chance this geriatric cracker will get anywhere near to deanship to hip hop criticism.
Anyway, let’s get to the review. Now, ’cause I like to focus on the arguments o’ the reviews & not having the “right” or “wrong” conclusions, I’m going to leave out the title o’ the work he’s reviewing, since it’s irrelevant. He could be reviewing the worst Puddle of Mudd album & this review would still be terrible.
Anyway, here it is, in all its majesty:
The plus is because Peter Townshend likes it. This can also be said of The Crazy World of Arthur Brown. Beware the forthcoming hype–this is ersatz shit. D+
Like I said in my previous review o’ reviews, it’s impossible to offer any substantial analysis with only ’bout 50 words, so relying on only half as many is an e’en bigger challenge. & yet e’en here Christgau wastes his words. Nearly half the words are making an irrelevant comparison to some other album. Mo’ are wasted on complaining ’bout other people liking the album, which would be fine, if this reviewer bothered to say why they didn’t like it or e’en to make a statement ’bout why others would like it. There are reasons one might like terrible art — oft shallow reasons, which may be worth bringing up for complaint, to try debunking them, to make people understand why popularity need not always mean greatness. He’s not e’en being funny in his snideness: “beware the forthcoming hype” sounds like bathos in its o’erwrought drama. ¿Why should I give a shit if a bunch o’ idiots like shitty music?
But the worst failure o’ this review is the 1st sentence, where the most substantial point he makes is that ’nother musician likes the work. This is a shocking L, as the zoomzooms say, for a critic to take — to hold up somebody else as an authority. You’re s’posed to be the authority: you’re s’posed to be the one who has to articulate why you think the album sucks. It’s a lame-ass “dean of American rock critics” who has to turn tail & quiver under the protective cover o’ some paternal rockstar authority — specially when it’s the leader o’ 1 o’ the most boomeresque of ol’ rock bands, The Who. The fact that this band was e’er considered interesting in the 60s is proof that the hippie generation were always ol’ grampas, e’en when they were in their 20s & smoking pot.
But the crux o’ this review, if we trim the empty fat, is the final 2 words: “ersatz shit”. It’s an unfunny AVGN review. But e’en here he fucks it up: “ersatz shit” is ersatz English, so awkward that I’m not sure what he e’en means by it. I’m guessing he’s calling it both fake & shit; but the problem is that in normal English people use “ersatz” before a word, “ersatz” applies to that next word, not to what is being described by both. So it sounds like he’s calling it “fake shit” — feces that fails to truly be feces. Maybe that’s what he’s truly trying to say. To be honest, I don’t know how deep his review scores go: maybe D+ is a lukewarm score, maybe he’s saying that this album isn’t e’en audaciously shitty ’nough to be shit, but is just halfhearted shit. Much as some say the glass is half full & others say the glass is half empty, while most critics say a 5/10 is half good, Christgau says it’s half shit. If this is truly what he meant to express, that would be ’head o’ its time. But I have an inkling that Christgau just wanted to call this album both fake & shitty, but wanted to look smarter by digging thru his thesaurus for a fancier synonym for “fake”.
By the way, this review is for King Crimson’s In the Court of the Crimson King. Yeah, I wouldn’t have guessed it, either. You can find it on Christgau’s website, lovingly created by his 10-year-ol’ nephew in the late 90s in FrontPage.
You know, e’en if one thinks In the Court of the Crimson King is shit, you’d think one would think it relevant to bring up its political themes & its discussion o’ mental illness, e’en if one thinks they’re trite themes & one thinks King Crimson’s takes are shallow or inane, or, you know, bring up the style or genre this music is in & how it compares or represents said style or if said style is bad in & o’ itself. My best guess is that this album is “ersatz” in that it actually sounds like the composers had to use artifice when composing these songs, whereasThe Who sounded like they played whate’er notes came into their head @ the time & Townshend just squealed like a sea mammal in pain, which is mo’ real. Real, ordinary people aren’t creative or weird or have talents that stand out, but just stand there picking their noses. The Who was a band for the common man who picks his nose; King Crimson is for… well, 21st century schizoids, obviously.
Fuck, he couldn’t just wrote as his review, “Schizoids may like the album, but sane people won’t. D+”, & it would’ve been infinitely better. Christgau better flee to Argentina, ’cause a coup’s going on, & we’re getting a new dean o’ American rock critics, motherfucker. As the song goes:
As someone who has written a review or 2, I’m fascinated by the art o’ reviewing in & o’ itself: not just the conclusions they set out, but also, specially, the arguments they set forth to try & back up those conclusions & how persuasive they seem to me. This is why I’ve written a few attacks gainst reviews in which I agree with the conclusion, such as an inane praiseworthy review for my favorite video game, Wario Land 3. This comes from my schooling, which ( probably to avoid getting sued for potentially violating freedom-o’-speech rights ) was openminded ’bout just ’bout any kind o’ conclusions, no matter how revolting, so long as one made a sophisticated attempt @ backing one’s arguments.
Thus for today I will go all the way & look @ reviews for a book I’ve ne’er read, some 2021 books called “Sorrow & Bliss: A Novel”. Yes, it really has “A Novel” as the official subtitle, & no, I have no idea why.
In case so many of the rest of the books on this list haven’t given readers enough anti-science egomania, this idiotic, carpingly condescending story of a woman with a “mental illness” that mainly seems to turn her into a too-online Twitter-hole ought to make up the difference.
This is an all-too-common example o’ 1 o’ my least favorite types o’ terrible reviews: 1 that focuses so much on conclusive opinions & not ’nough on textual evidence or examples &, worse, is so vague in its criticisms that e’en after reading the review I have no idea what kind o’ book this e’en is. Granted, less than 50 words is way too short for an adequate review for anything worth reviewing, since it leaves no room for detail. I think, ironically, the person who wrote this review is “too-online”, as he assumes I’m familiar with whate’er Twitter bullshit he’s vaguely alluding to. Unfortunately, beyond copypasting the poems I post on this blog into Twitter with a grunt & then leaving ( which I’ve stopped bothering to do now that I’m convinced Musk will be the death o’ it ), I don’t do hardly anything on Twitter ( & I suspect hardly anyone will within the next 5 years thanks to Musk ), so I have no idea how this “Twitter-hole” ( ¿why is there a hyphen there? “Hole” is a separate word, not a suffix ), nor what “anti-science egomania” this book has or why this reviewer puts scare quotes round “mental illness”. ¿Does this reviewer who tries to imply that he’s pro-science deny the existence o’ mental illnesses — which is to ask, is this reviewer a psychology-denying crank, which is certainly not what I or any civilized human being would consider “pro-science”?
Ultimately, this review is just a bunch o’ cursing disguised as intellectualism by the use o’ vaguely-alluded implications. Being “anti-science”, an egomaniac, carping, condescending, & “too-online”, do, indeed, sound bad, but one can’t be sure if they truly are bad without understanding how they are these things & what the reviewer thinks makes this book “anti-science” or what he interprets to be an example o’ the vice o’ being “too-online”. This is a common tactic for people with unpopular opinions who want to disguise their unpopular opinions as general-held sentiments. Thus, “believes that depression is a real mental illness”, which is something with which all civilized people agree, is turned into a generally-hated dog-whistle “anti-science” much in the way rightwingers turn “treats black people humanely”, which, ’gain, all civilized people think is good, into “woke”, which sounds bad & ridiculous, e’en if most couldn’t tell you what it’s s’posed to mean.
So intrigued by this antireview that failed to give me any information, but, ironically, made me mo’ curious to see what kind o’ book would inspire this vague mess o’ ideas, I had to look up the book on Amazon — specifically its blurb.
In this reviewer’s defense, while I must emphasize ’gain that I have not read this book & cannot adequately review it myself, the blurb doesn’t inspire confidence in me. I can definitely say that the blurb is poorly written:
Martha Friel just turned forty. She used to work at Vogue and was going to write a novel. Now, she creates internet content for no one. She used to live in Paris. Now, she lives in a gated community in Oxford that she hates and can’t bear to leave. But she must now that her loving husband Patrick has just left.
A common vice o’ modern literature ( that is literature o’ today, not modernist literature, which is some o’ the best literature out there ) is relying on childish choppy sentences. This paragraph is particularly fragmentary, since the different sentences don’t e’en connect. Most o’ this paragraph is empty details stripped o’ any importance. “She used to work at Vogue and was going to write a novel”. Cool. ¿Who cares? E’eryone is “going to write a novel”, & writing a book ’bout a tortured “genius” middle class white person struggling to become an uppercase-A “Artist” is the most cliché & uninteresting concepts for a book. Meanwhile, bringing up that our protagonist used to live in Paris, but now lives in a gated community, which she hates, but can’t bear to leave, is some unironic 1st-world-problems & exhibit #200,000 o’ how detached from reality upper-class Americans are. That said, there’s no indication o’ “anti-science” in this book so far; & honestly, the concept o’ a book ’bout someone who “creates internet content for no one” is the least uninteresting part o’ this blurb & could be an entertaining topic for a book if done with self-effacing humor & without the bathos-inducing melodrama that this blurb is so far exhibiting.
The blurb continues:
Because there’s something wrong with Martha. There has been since a little bomb went off in her brain, at seventeen, leaving her changed in a way no doctor or drug could fix then and no one, even now, can explain—why can say she is so often sad, cruel to everyone she loves, why she finds it harder to be alive than other people.
This paragraph just insults the reader’s intelligence, pretending that hardly anyone has e’er heard o’ this concept o’ “depression” before. So far it seems like 1 o’ the 47 words o’ the previous review was right: “egomania”. This blurb tries to pass off our protagonist as the world’s only sufferer from depression, e’en tho that is far from the truth. Usually books ’bout depression are written for others with depression in a way o’ creating resonance & understanding, making them not feel ’lone; but this blurb’s use o’ alien diction to depict depression as this 1-o’-a-kind mutation o’ the protagonist does the opposite: as someone who does have depression, it turns me off, & it feels mo’ like an exotic exhibitionist performance put on to thrill people who don’t have depression — which is a gross, dehumanizing thing to do. I can’t tell, since the previous review was so vague, but maybe this was also what Donaghue meant by “condescending”: it certainly feels condescending to people with depression.
With Patrick gone, the only place Martha has left to go is her childhood home, to live with her chaotic parents, to survive without Ingrid, the sister who made their growing-up bearable, who said she would never give up on Martha, and who finally has.
Speaking o’ vague language: ¿what does it mean for Martha’s parents to be “chaotic”? ¿Is that a euphemism for “abusive”? Also, I certainly hope this Ingrid person literally abandoned Martha & didn’t “abandon” her in a metaphorical way by dying, since the protagonist would look like a selfish asshole for complaining ’bout how she suffered for someone else’s death.
It feels like the end but maybe, by going back, Martha will get to start again. Maybe there is a different story to be written, if Martha can work out where to begin.
“It feels like the end but maybe”’s missing comma is a legit grammatical error in an official blurb for a mass-published book.
I’m sure many o’ the hot-shot commercial publisher types I’ve read from would say that this is a well-written blurb, but I disagree. Then ’gain, I think their perspective is that the obnoxiously intelligence-insulting way this blurb is written is “attention-grabbing” to the masses o’ idiots in the same way jingling keys would be, whereas as someone who doesn’t find jingling keys particularly fascinating, I find it, well, obnoxiously intelligence-insulting, so this is probably why I wouldn’t make a good publisher, since my instinct is to criticize the masses for being idiots, which isn’t liable to make the masses o’ idiots want to buy my stuff, whereas the effective way to fleece them is to pat them on the back for their idiocy & indulge them.
But we haven’t gotten to the bottom o’ the swamp yet: that would be the editorial reviews.
“Sorrow and Bliss is a brilliantly faceted and extremely funny book about depression that engulfed me in the way I’m always hoping to be engulfed by novels. While I was reading it, I was making a list of all the people I wanted to send it to, until I realized that I wanted to send it to everyone I know.” — Ann Patchett
Drinking game: take a drink e’ery time we see “brilliant” or [insert adverb] funny. Enjoy that coma from alcohol poisoning.
But this review doesn’t just spew clichés, but also mangles them: ¿what does “brilliantly faceted” mean? Nobody uses that phrase. The phrase is “multifaceted”, not just “faceted”. “Faceted” by itself doesn’t mean anything in this context, & it isn’t made any mo’ meaningful by the addendum o’ an empty superlative before it.
We also have laughably exaggerated metaphors, making it sound like the reviewer has an online fetish for being “engulfed” by literature.
The most shocking thing is that this blurb was written by a real writer & the daughter o’ 1 o’ the most imaginative writers who had a very distinct voice to his writing. I guess you can’t inherit literary genius. My only hope is that Ann crapped this out in a minute for whate’er quick buck they were offering.
“Completely brilliant, I loved it. I think every girl and woman should read it.” — Gillian Anderson
This reviewer judges this book to be “completely brilliant”, as opposed to those which are merely partially brilliant. Then we get a comma splice, & after that redundant padding: Gillian doesn’t just think e’ery woman should read it, but also e’ery girl. ¿Why stop there? Maybe e’ery female, lady, gal, lass, miss, madame, femme, & any other synonym you could find should read it, too.
“An incredibly funny and devastating debut. . . . enlivened, often, by a madcap energy. Yet it still manages to be sensitive and heartfelt, and to offer a nuanced portrayal of what it means to try to make amends and change, even when that involves ‘start[ing] again from nothing.’” — The Guardian
It says something bad when a newspaper as shoddy as The Guardian provides 1 o’ the least inane review o’ the pack. There’s still plenty o’ trite, empty phrases ( “madcap energy” ) & empty, repetitive superlatives ( “sensitive & heartfelt” ), & the reviewer fails to describe this book in a way that distinguishes it from millions of other books, that could also be described as “funny & devastating”, or the many books that vaguely involve “try[ing] to make amends & change, even when that involves ‘start[ing] again from nothing’.
“Exploring the multifaceted hardships of mental illness and the frustrating inaccuracy of diagnoses, medications, and treatments, Sorrow and Bliss is darkly comic and deeply heartfelt . . . Martha’s voice is acerbic, witty, and raw.” — Booklist (starred review)
This is the closest a review came to having anything resembling a specific example from the book to make it stand out from any other book, the conflict o’ struggling with “inaccurate” diagnoses & medications — tho this does make me rethink my earlier interpretation o’ our 1st reviewer’s criticism o’ “anti-science” & makes me wonder if, quite the opposite, he was criticizing this book for exhibiting depression-skepticism or skepticism toward the efficacy o’ antidepressants ( I don’t feel bad for the misinterpretation, since, as I said, he refused to give a concrete example to back up their vague criticism o’ “anti-science” ).
“Meg Mason’s unflagging comic impulses drive this novel about the havoc a woman’s mental illness wreaks on her marriage.” — Shelf Awareness (starred review)
A common vice o’ reviews, specially editorial reviews, which are far too short to give useful information, is trading meaningful critique based on examples o’ the text with empty but poetic ( & that poetry is mo’ William McGonagall than Kobayashi Issa ) diction. If this reviewer wrote “This book ’bout a woman’s depression ruining their marriage is funny” ’twould say ’bout the same thing, but they try to hide such an empty conclusion with laughably o’erwrought purple prose as if they were describing Conan the Barbarian wrestling the ermine-orbed serpent or Moses parting the red sea with his rod aloft: this book isn’t just funny; its writer’s “unflagging comic impulses drive this novel” like a school bus.
“Brutal, tender, funny, this novel—a portrait of love in all of its many incarnations—came alive for me from the very first page. I saw myself here. I saw the people I love. I am changed by this book.” — Mary Beth Keane, New York Times bestselling author of Ask Again, Yes
’Nother common design pattern for automated review generation: “[adjective], [adjective], [adjective]…]. & if that wasn’t ’nough, we end 1 o’ the tritest, most ridiculous exaggerated praise e’er: claiming that the work “changed” the reviewer. Unfortunately, these works ne’er change these reviewers into people with any form o’ imagination or critical skills o’ analysis.
I mean, I love Donkey Kong Country’s music, too, but I can’t remember any philosophical epiphanies or major life decisions I’ve come to that were inspired by the bubbling melodies o’ “Hot Head Bop”.
“A truly comic novel about love and the despair of depression. It’s a rare and beautiful thing when an author can break your heart with humor; it’s also the quality I admire most in a writer.” — Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney, New York Times bestselling author of The Nest and Good Company
This novel is truly comic, as opposed to those fake comedic posers. This review is notable in that it makes a point specific ’nough to be outright wrong: tragicomedy is, in fact, not rare @ all, but goes all the way back to e’en The Bible, & probably earlier ancient literature, too.
“A quiet and achingly beautiful love story. . . . LOVED it. Masterfully written. And powerful.” — Elin Hilderbrand
More o’erwrought prose. I hate it when a book is so beautiful it gives me aches. To wrap up our bathos, we have the high superlative “masterfully written” followed by the much weaker “also, ’twas powerful, too”. “This book is genius & also pretty darn swell”.
“Sorrow and Bliss is hilarious, haunting, and utterly captivating. Meg Mason has created a heroine as prickly as Bernadette in Where’d You Go, Bernadette. Her humor is as arch and wise as the best work of Joan Didion and Rachel Cusk, yet completely original. What a thrilling new voice!” — Amanda Eyre Ward, New York Times bestselling author of The Jetsetters
The other cliché to add to our bingo card is comparing a work to ’nother work — tho I love how this reviewer twists 1 o’ her comparisons by addending, “yet completely original”. Yes, this completely original work that can only be described by saying it’s like other works. I’m also not sure what “arch” humor is & have a sneaking suspicion that this reviewer doesn’t know, either.
“Funny and tragic.” — Jojo Moyes
Give Jojo credit: this says what all the other reviews say in just 3 words.
“I really loved Meg Mason’s SORROW AND BLISS, which is sometimes very sad and often very funny and ultimately hopeful.” — Linda Holmes, New York Times bestselling author of Evvie Drake Starts Over, via Twitter
OK, to be fair, this 1 adds “& hopeful”, too.
“So dark, so funny, so true. You will see your sad, struggling, triumphant self in this deeply affecting novel. What a debut.” — Laura Zigman, author of Separation Anxiety
Calling a book “deeply affecting” is like describing my chair as “strongly sittable”: it may be true, but doesn’t mean much.
“A gorgeous, heart-rending book.” — Flynn Berry, New York Times bestselling author of Northern Spy
¡YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, SORROW AND BLISS!
“SORROW AND BLISS is brilliant. A comic gem that will also break your heart.” — Julia Claiborne Johnson, author of Be Frank With Me and Better Luck Next Time
I’m surprised it took this long to encounter a review describing the work as a gem or some kind o’ jewelry.
“Evocative and hopeful.” — Book Riot, “5 Contemporary Literary Fiction Books That Are Game-Changers”
Generic & meaningless. That’s a great way to describe a book that is purportedly a “game-changer”. Nobody’s e’er written a book that’s evocative or hopeful till Meg Mason invented the concepts o’ evocation & hope in 2021.
“Sorrow and Bliss is a thing of beauty. Astute observations on marriage, motherhood, family, and mental illness are threaded through a story that is by turns devastating and restorative. Every sentence rings true. I will be telling everyone I love to read this book.” — Sara Collins, Costa First Novel Award-winning author of The Confessions of Frannie Langton
¿Why do you abuse the people you love?
“Sharp yet humane, and jaw-droppingly funny, this is the kind of novel you will want to press into the hands of everyone you know. Mason has an extraordinary talent for dialogue and character, and her understanding of how much poignancy a reader can take is profound. A masterclass on family, damage and the bonds of love: as soon as I finished it, I started again.” — Jessie Burton, New York Times bestselling author of The Miniaturist
“Spicy, yet sour, & nose-pickingly readable, this is the kind o’ review you will want to shove into the mouth o’ e’eryone you know. Jessie has a spectacular skill for adverbs & using commas, & her understanding o’ how much zestiness a reader can take is insightful. A Raid: Shadow Legends on drama, diction, & the love triangle o’ adjectives: as soon as I ate it, I ate it ’gain.” — J. J. W. Mezun,The Mezunian bestrepelling author o’ A Year o’ Yuppie Inanity with Mozilla’s Pocket ( An Unpublished Classic ).
“Patrick Melrose meets Fleabag. Brilliant.” — Clare Chambers, author of Small Pleasures
¡Irrelevancy, your honor!
“Examines with pitiless clarity the impact of the narrator’s mental illness on her closest relationships. . . . Mason brings the reader into a deep understanding of Martha’s experience without either condescending to her or letting her off too easily. . . . An astute depiction of life on the psychic edge.” — Kirkus Reviews
They’re not surprising, but these god damn adjectives still get me. You can’t just have regular ol’ clarity: it has to be the “pitiless” kind, like it’s a stronger palette swap in the latter half o’ Dragon Quest. Since we’ve established that the blurb a’least thinks Martha is the only person in the universe with this exotic mutation as-yet unnamed & undiscovered by all the brightest scientists, I’m doubtful o’ the “without either condescending” part. & since Martha apparently complains ’bout how agonizing it is to live in a gated community that they just can’t bear to leave, ’less Martha is given the guillotine by the proletariat by the end o’ the book, I think the author probably does let her off too easily.
“The book is a triumph. A brutal, hilarious, compassionate triumph.” — Alison Bell, cocreator and star of The Letdown
¿Was this review written by Lionel Fanthorpe? “This review is repetitive. A repetitive repetition that repeats & repeats & says the same thing they say ’gain & ’gain & doesn’t say anything else but that which has been said before & nothing mo’ but what was said before”.
“This is a romance, true, but a real one. It’s modern love up against the confusing, sad aches of mental illness, with all its highs, lows, humour and misery. Comparisons to Sally Rooney will be made, but Mason’s writing is less self-conscious than Rooney’s, and perhaps more mature. Her character work is outstanding, and poignant—the hairline fractures, contradictions and nuances of the middle-class family dynamic are painstakingly rendered with moving familiarity and black humour, resulting in a combination as devastating and sharply witty as Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s Fleabag.” — Bookseller+Publisher
I’m glad that the reviewer alerted me that this book is a “real” romance, as opposed to all those fake romances that are truly ’bout martian conquerors. I always hate it when I buy a book with some sexy shirtless man on the cover & it’s just blasting cyberpneumatic cannons @ the Xythnians from Kyklocks. ¿How will my cyberpneumatic cannon shoot off then?
& they let you know that this is a modern love, involving mental illness, which didn’t exist before 2021. ¿Virginia Woolf? ¡Ne’er heard o’ her!
Despite all this, this is 1 o’ the mo’ in-depth — a’least as in-depth as any o’ these Hallmark card reviews get — reviews. Note how it makes a comparison to ’nother writer, but qualifies it by noting specific differences ( which is mo’ meaningful than just saying “but also completely original”, which is just straight-up contradictory ). Granted, it’d be better if the claims o’ being “less self-conscious” & “more mature” were qualified with examples & elaboration, since we’re still taking the reviewer on their word & they’re still relying heavily on vague superlatives. & the rest also devolves into a list o’ superlatives, with the hint that it this book s’posedly goes into greater depth into the complications o’ middle-class families than some unnamed general standard being the closest to what we might call actually giving meaningful information. Still, based on our now subterranean standards this is up on the higher tiers.
“Improbably charming . . . will have you chortling and reading lines aloud.” — People
( Laughs ). E’en the reviewers are vague: we don’t e’en get a specific person cited for this review, but some vague “people”.This gives a new perspective to the phrase “¡The people have spoken!”.
I like how “People” starts by laying out their expectations that this book would be shitty, setting up the gravel-level standards this book apparently surpassed. Presumably, these low standards were based on reading the blurb.
This review carries out the impressive feat o’ being both vague & clearly wrong: it libels me by claiming that I will “chortle” — ’cause our failed poet reviewer can’t use a basic word like “laugh” — & read lines ’loud, which I would ne’er do for e’en the funniest book, simply ’cause reading lines ’loud while laughing noisily in public is something only a peak douche bag would do, & reading lines ’loud & laughing to yourself while ’lone is something e’en a deranged lunatic like me would consider too bedlamite.
Below these reviews my eye caught the author bio, &, well…
Meg Mason is a journalist whose career began at the Financial Times and the Times of London. Her work has since appeared in Vogue, Elle, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Sunday Times (UK), and the New Yorker’s Daily Shouts. Born in New Zealand, she now lives in Sydney, Australia, with her husband and two daughters. [emphasis mine]
So we can confirm that Sorrow & Bliss: A Work o’ Literature Comprising Abstract Latin Letters that Combine to Form Abstract Concepts Physically Bound in the Form o’ a Codex is an author self-insert book so transparent that the author couldn’t e’en be arsed to change the name o’ the magazine they worked for to 1 o’ its carbon-copy competitors.
Bonus: Mo’ Bad Reviews
Our 1st reviewer, Steve Donaghue, also wrote a list o’ worst 2021 nonfiction books, & it starts pretty funny:
10 The Chief’s Chief by Mark Meadows (All Seasons Press) – On January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection to attack the US Capitol, overthrow the US government, and install himself as an unelected dictator. Mark Meadows publicly endorsed this attempted coup. Shame on All Seasons Press for giving him a book contract.
Kind o’ low-hanging fruit for a worst-book choice, — specially since the rightwing grift machine pumps out these doorstops e’ery year — but I can’t disagree, & it’s only #10. ¿What’s next?
9 The Tyranny of Big Tech by Josh Hawley (Regnery Publishing) On January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection to attack the US Capitol, overthrow the US government, and install himself as an unelected dictator. Josh Hawley publicly endorsed this attempted coup. Shame on Regnery Publishing for giving him a book contract.
I mean, I can’t disagree…
Unfortunately, Donaghue gives ’way the game when he makes a mistake copy-pasting the review for the Peter Navarro book & using for the Jim Jordan book, as he blames Peter Navarro ’gain. Or maybe he just really hates Peter Navarro & decides he wants to blame him a 2nd time just to be sure.
Some o’ the other items are weirder, tho…
6 The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent by Ben Shapiro (Broadside Books) – Very smart and very lazy Ben Shapiro takes a legitimate social issue – the rise of the authoritarian Left – and lavishes pan-shallow unoriginal platitudes on them while cloaking the whole mess in the fascists talking points of the very monsters who consider him a useful idiot.
1 o’ the great thing ’bout using these vague superlatives or invectives is that I have to play guessing games regarding what the person is trying to e’en say. Now, from Ben Shapiro that’s no surprise, since like most fascists he deliberately communicates in shibboleths to disguise bigotry as profound, complex thought. But Donaghue, who portrays himself as vaguely antifascist & spent half his reviews criticizing what many fascists considered to be a feather in their cap, seems to have different goals. One may expect him to be o’ the Enlightened Centrist™ tribe who feels the need to balance out their outrage @ a Republican attempt to outright o’erthrow the US government by manufacturing an imaginary leftist equivalent. Perhaps he portrays the “Black Lives Matter” riots as the equivalent, despite the fact that these riots presented no threat to the US government beyond being an international embarrassment — & if that’s the case, then we’d have to consider nearly e’ery American who vacations to other countries as an equal evil to the Trump Putsch. ¿But, anyway, would e’en an Enlightened Centrist™ consider Shapiro to be “very smart and very lazy”? I’m hoping Donaghue takes his brilliant “rap isn’t music ’cause my daddy told me it isn’t” & the way he embarrassed himself in front o’ a BBC conservative by being too crazy e’en for him — which adds him to the list o’ Americans who are an international embarrassment — as examples o’ him just being too lazy to unleash that intelligence that he’s keeping very well hidden.
It’s not that I’m in denial that there exists an authoritarian left; but when I think o’ “authoritarian left”, I think o’ Leninists, & I don’t see any big Leninist movement on the verge o’ seizing the US capitol & setting up the American Neobolshevik Communist Party as the dictatorship o’ the proletariat, no matter how many jokes ’bout guillotines I make. As we’ve established here before, we can’t e’en get Biden to do something as symbolic as raising his fist & shouting, “¡Down with the bourgeoisie!”, while still doing their bidding, no matter how funny ’twould be. Maybe Donaghue took some downers & fell asleep while watching a Russian Civil War documentary just after US news & mixed them up in his mind. It happens to me sometimes, too. But given some o’ the other things he’s written, I get the sneaking suspicion his idea o’ “authoritarian left” is just some irrelevant few randos on Twitter calling him a racist ’cause he refused to capitalize the B in “black people” — which is to say that he is “too-online” & needs to stop spending so much time on Twitter & mistaking the idiots on it as relevant to greater society.
Complaining ’bout the “rise” o’ the authoritarian left also really undermines Donaghue’s attacks gainst Trump as a fascist — a clear rightwing authoritarian. ¿Is it reasonable for him to be alarmed that the left should become authoritarian as a counterbalance to the right’s growing authoritarianism, or is Donaghue 1 o’ the many delusional Americans who thinks reality spawns from dreams & wishes & not power & that sternly protesting people willing to use violence & underhanded tactics will magically make these tyrant-wannabes no longer a threat? After all, when fascism rose as a threat in Europe, the allied powers acted in many ways that almost anyone would consider “authoritarian” — far worse than a few randos calling other randos racist for not spelling “latinos” “l@t!n%”, like any progressive L33tspeaker should. ¿Would not Donaghue consider FDR, who interned Japanese Americans & heavily censored newspapers, radio, & e’en letters, an example o’ the “authoritarian left”? ¿Would he say the same ’bout Winston Churchill, who also censored media while the UK was fighting fascists? Also, ¿didn’t Donaghue outright call for publishers to refuse to publish works by Trump supporters? ¿Isn’t that censorship, & thus “authoritarianism” — a far greater form o’ authoritarianism than calling other people bad names, which, in fact, is not authoritarianism, but merely using one’s freedom-o’-speech rights to express their opinion of others? It seems reasonable that in an America where violence gainst minorities is on the rise that jokes ’bout black people go from being harmless edgy comedy to a means to recruiting mo’ fascists, & that it’s a reasonable reaction by the left to feel added urgency to employ whate’er means don’t full-on violate freedom o’ speech, or e’en defacto suppression o’ speech thru economic means, to try & stifle & undermine this tactic, which, ultimately, is for the goal o’ subverting e’en the pseudodemocracy that the US has. But I guess it’s mo’ important that Donaghue ne’er has to fear being called a racist, which is literally lethal to white people, than it is for white people to endure the slightest inconvenience to prevent fascism from coming to power. Expressing one’s disdain for fascism is all one needs to do to make it topple @ its foundation in the fantasyland o’ people who live purely in the world o’ books & not political reality.
But it gets worse…
5 Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm by Robin DiAngelo (Beacon Press) – I wouldn’t have thought it possible that the author of White Fragility could write a book more virulently racist in just one lifetime, but this noxious volume – in which she makes clear that all white people are racist genetically, regardless of upbringing, education, or outlook (Klan members will find such claims familiar-sounding, only in a slightly different context) – does the trick.
In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo explained how racism is a system into which all white people are socialized and challenged the belief that racism is a simple matter of good people versus bad. [emphasis mine]
Dr. DiAngelo — who is a white person, & so can shit-talk crackers just as much as I can, just like black people can use the N-word — nowhere blames genetics for racism, but white people’s social conditioning. This makes sense when you consider that Dr. DiAngelo is a sociologist, not a biologist. Mo’ importantly, she distinguishes it from the bitter hatred o’, say, a Klansman, as a different kind o’ racism caused by an unintentional harm caused by ignorance. It is Donaghue who decides to be triggered by being called a well-meaning accidental racist, as if this “offense” is anywhere close to the kind o’ spiteful, actually threatening speech that hardcore racist white people spew ( ¿does DiAngelo recommend harassing white people with depression & urging them to kill themselves in her book, which is what white supremacist groups like Stormfront actually did to people after Trump won the election? ), & rather than do what a smart person with any dignity would do & just shrug it off & say, “¿What are you gonna do?”, he stupidly gives in to the bait & reacts in the most extreme, idiotic way possible, literally reacting to the accusation o’ being racist with the schoolyard comeback, “¡No, you are! ¡In fact, you’re such a superultramega racist that you’re just like those Klansmen who murdered & intimidated black people for decades… ’cept, you know, you haven’t actually murdered anyone or intimated anyone or have done anything but make a few white people feel a li’l queasy”. It shows an amazing lack o’ self-awareness that a white person would unironically attack without e’en the slightest sense o’ humor a book called “White Fragility”. “¡Can you believe these bullies called me a whiny bitch!”, he whinily bitched. I would venture to argue that the idiocy that Donaghue portrays here is mo’ racist gainst white people like me since it does far mo’ damage to our reputation than some guilt-fetishing honkey, whose worst crime is actually probably annoying black people with her constant Jesus-like faux-humility, as if constant apologies & longwinded treatises on made-up jargon acronyms like BIPOC help black people with real problems, like being shot by white supremacist police or poverty — albeit, none o’ which are on the same level o’ enormity as people on Twitter calling Donaghue mean words.
Donaghue could’ve gotten sympathy by merely calling this book dumb & useless; but portraying it as an extreme form o’ racism comparable to Klan lynchings is a ridiculous form o’ both-sidesism that helps the very fascists he pretends to be fighting gainst. Trying to conflate minor misdemeanors gainst white people as equal to the worst acts o’ racist terror gainst black people is the precise tactic that fascists use to justify white supremacist terror as “defense” gainst “the authoritarian left”.
Anyway, this review o’ reviews has gone on way too long. Get the fuck out o’ my house so I can take my pants off.
So it’s settled: Democrats keep the senate ( thank you Masto for saving me from waiting till December to confirm this point ) & Republicans take the house. I’m not sure why people are making a big deal ’bout this: I remember for most o’ summer people were predicting this same outcome, save maybe that Republicans would’ve had a much mo’ formidable win till a bunch o’ troll Republican polls came round & 538 for no logical reason @ all let their trolling pollute their polls. Or maybe that’s not what happened. ¿Who cares? Polls are a waste o’ time.
Moreo’er, I’m not sure why Democrats are hopped up on so much copium ’bout the official fascist party doing less well than expected. Many have compared these midterms to the 2002 midterms wherein Republicans beat historical precedence & kept the house & regained the senate despite having a newly-elected president 2 years earlier, the only time such a thing happened other than in 1934 with FDR, which many credit to 9/11 “bringing the country together”. “Ne’er forget” Americans seemed to have forgotten so soon that we had a 20’s version in 2021 with 1/6, ’cept the difference is that whereas Democrats had nothing to do with 9/11, Republicans had much to do with 1/6. If anything, one should expect that Democrats should have succeeded better this year than Republicans did in 2002, but I guess inflation is mo’ important than protecting e’en the flimsy ’scuse for democracy the US has. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: Americans who are willing to trade democracy for the sake o’ cheaper prices deserve & will get neither.
I should add that while moderate liberals like to emphasize the effect the Dobbs judgment had on the midterms, they don’t acknowledge that the Democrats’ weak loss means that there is no chance that Democrats will be able to pass a bill legalizing abortion — which means that the end result is still a loss for liberals.
So, yes, if one is delusional & believes that nothing has changed, Democrats’ weak loss should seem astounding & a good sign for the future, given that nothing changes. But those paying attention & knowing ’bout the mechanisms Republicans are setting in place should be able to see that howe’er li’l Democrats lost the current battle, they already lost the longterm war. & while Democrats may not have lost by that much, democracy has definitely lost.
But I’m not so sure: as established, Republicans only care ’bout winning, not ideological purity, &, having such a lack o’ independent thought ( as evidenced by all the Washington State Republicans being clones o’ each other & the fact that Republicans just spew the same unfunny dadjoke memes where’er they are ), so they’ll probably just vote for whoe’er the Republican candidate is, regardless o’ who it is, e’en if not Trump.
¡Ne’ertheless! Regardless o’ the actual consequences o’ this election, Republicans are anusaching ’bout it, & thus it is our satirical duty to dunk on them. That’s right, this year we’re not going to waste our time looking in @ Daily Kos… ¿who else did I look in @? ¿The Nation? ¿r/politics? Democracy Now’s ’bove vulgar racehorse shenanigans & Counterpunch should just have ’nother copypaste article ’bout how e’ery election is just a victory for capitalism. Anyway, we’re not interested in seeing these freaks jerk themselves off o’er this minor win. We want to see some moaning & groaning. Thus, I must dig deep into the sewers that is rightwing media.
’Course we can’t go an election without a li’l conspiracy theorying:
THEY DID IT AGAIN! Two massive unexplained ballot drops gave Gretchen Whitmer the lead in Michigan – They ran a ‘Drop and Roll’ in Michigan pic.twitter.com/VIxjQVYgdh
¡Gasp! ¡Look @ those tall lines! ¿What does it mean? ’Course, anyone halfway literate in graphs — which, tragically, doesn’t include Republicans — will clearly see that Whitmer had the lead long before those circled parts & that the jumps applied to both candidates, so they’re nugatory, anyway.
Anyway, this person, who claims to be “[j]ust an average Joe who loves God, America, Airplanes and Racing”, but apparently doesn’t love reality, had this special scientific insight:
Straight lines are ALWAYS man made. They do not occur in nature, and they NEVER occur normally in reliable data results. If you do see a straight line its a red flag and a sign of human intervention.
Officials in Arizona told CNBC today that they are “prepared to work through Thanksgiving and possibly Christmas as well.” That means results by New Year’s in a race that was held in early November. That seems late. How late is it? Well, by comparison, the results of the 1862 midterm elections, which were tabulated by candlelight without machines or even electricity in the middle of a raging civil war, were clear before the end of the week. That was the entire country. Arizona is a single state, which, by the way, is a fraction of the size of Florida, which, as you may have noticed, counted its votes in less than a day—so did Brazil, an entire country.
1st, considering states are counting votes simultaneously, there’s no difference ’tween the entire country counting votes vs. 1 state; 2nd, votes are still being counted by hand; 3rd, the US has mo’ than 10 times as many people as then; 4th, elections were corrupt & run by boss machines back then, so it’s laughable to use the notorious 1800s as an example o’ good elections. ¿Would he rather have elections like the 1876 election, where it was decided by backdoor agreements?
That seems embarrassing, if not like a full-blown emergency. Counting the votes isn’t some added extra you get from government if they have a surplus, like fighting climate change or bringing equity. Counting the votes is a core function of government, along with law enforcement, maintaining the roads and keeping the border secure.
Since the new government doesn’t form till January, I’m not sure why taking an extra week is a problem, nor how it indicates any suspicious activity. If anything, it indicates higher standards. Handling voting for an entire country o’ 300 million in just 1 day is the stupidest idea in the world & is bound to lead to errors. If Democrats wanted to steal the election, ¿why would they bother prolonging things? ¿What good does that do? Like, we already have well-established examples o’ ballot stuffing in the country from the aforementioned 1800s boss machines & the mid 1900s, & they didn’t involve election delays ’cause the perpetrators were smart ’nough to realize that you can stuff ballots in just 1 day & that looking suspicious for no extra benefits is a dumb idea.
Efficient elections are the reason you pay taxes, but Arizona doesn’t seem to have them.
It most certainly is not why I pay taxes.
Don’t ask, commands CNN. If you’ve got questions about this or any other election, no unauthorized questions. Instead, watch CNN or if you don’t have cable, simply trust your local officials.
I’m not sure who Fox News is eluding to that I should trust. I’m totally sure Fox News are advocating for anarchism, since there’s absolutely no one I can trust, & therefore valid elections are impossible now. It’s not as if we have organizations that o’ersee these elections & that there’s too many people in these organizations to keep a tight lip on the conspiracy. Keep in mind, e’ery terrible thing the US does gets leaked thanks to organizations like WikiLeaks, but this vote steal is as tight as any government scheme e’er produced — well, outside o’ Bush doing 9/11, ’course.
Speaking o’ Bush, ¿is his Proust-loving speechwriter writing Carlson’s script? “If you’ve got questions about this or any other election, no unauthorized questions” is right up there with “you won’t get fooled again”.
They’re doing their jobs. They’re doing it right. Really CNN? Can we get a little more reporting on that? How right are they doing it?
Yes, I expect exact mathematical figures on the objective unit o’ rightness & the precise % o’ rightness. If it’s not ’bove 80%, which electionologists have measured to be the minimum level o’ rightness to reach the natural rate o’ rightness, then it’s not right ’nough & Trump instantly becomes president, as per the constitution.
¿Was CNN really constantly badgering their drooling watchers, “The elections are going fine. We swear no conspiracies are going on”? ¿Do they also host weekly segments informing their brilliant viewers that JFK’s assassination was not, in fact, an inside job? “We’re going to have to rate that Biden is an alien trying to steal your blood with his fluoridated water is a ‘Pants on Fire’ debunked fact”.
It’s pretty funny, but we digress.
I mean, it’s only funny if you’re an idiot & find basic civic mechanisms confusing.
Then there’s the most amusingly stupid explanation of all: bad candidates were the problem. That’s all over Twitter. All the Twitter pundits are telling you now the candidates were subpar and that was the problem. Candidate quality matters. Well, of course, strictly speaking, that is true. The quality of a candidate does matter, but really, how much does it matter? Well, let’s see. Joe Biden got elected president two years ago from his basement. John Fetterman became a U.S. senator last night. Does anyone think John Fetterman was a quality candidate? Is that why he won, because they had quality candidates on the left? Do the voters of Pennsylvania really want a brain damaged candidate who’s never had a real job? Did they think he was more impressive than the guy who spent his career doing heart transplants? Probably not.
I take back what I said ’bout the scriptwriting thing: there’s no way a literate human wrote this babbling. ¿How the hell can someone sound so befuddled while robotically repeating the same memes as e’ery other conservative clone? “¿Do people really not want to support a party who calls stroke victims ‘brain damaged’ just ’cause that party is full o’ repulsive toxic waste in flesh form? That can’t be right — must be ballot-stuffing”.
OK, I can’t stand reading this anymo’. ¿Has Living Bowtie always been this incoherent? It’s amazing that “brain-damaged” Fettuccineman sounded mo’ articulate during his fracking question than Bowtie has thru this whole article. ¿Who the hell can tolerate watching this e’ery day?
’Cause you get mo’ clicks by endlessly repeating yourself, he continued this shtick in a microfiction that seemed like ’twas AI-generated titled, “Democracy is a faith-based system… but who could believe in this?”. Democracy is not faith-based; legitimate democracies involve o’ersight from independent, international organizations like the UN. The fact that an American would say something so stupid shows how Americans know nothing ’bout democracy, which is why they have their idiotic electoral college & senate system & have made their system so that the legislative branch, the most important branch, is the most dysfunctional, while the supreme court, the least democratic branch which is just appointed for life, is the most powerful. ¿Guess which side is adamantly gainst independent o’ersight o’er US elections? So, ’gain, the big question: ¿who are Americans s’posed to trust when it comes to elections? The obvious unstated answer Fox News wants is that Republicans get complete control & can declare elections howe’er they fit like Putin. Those are the only 3 options, since Carlson acknowledges that he doesn’t believe a bipartisan solution is possible: Republicans control the election system, Democrats control the election system, or they’re o’erseen by objective, independent outside sources like e’ery other democracy.
When you look at these things like abortion, it’s popular. And you can thank the Jewish media for that. Abortion is popular, sodomy is popular, being gay is popular, being a feminist is popular, sex out of wedlock is popular, contraceptives — it’s all popular. That’s not to say it’s good. That’s not to say I like that. Popular means that people support it, which they do. It sucks, and it is what it is, but that’s why we need a dictatorship. That’s unironically why we need to get rid of all that. We need to take control of the media or take control of the government and force the people to believe what we believe or force them to play by our rules and reshape the society.
r/conservative, who spent most o’ the past 6 years stanning for Trump, have now turned round & are blaming him for their loss, since as anyone who has e’er met conservatives know, they hate personal responsibility for their own failures & will literally rewrite history in their head & pretend they always hated Eurasia & loved Eastasia.
Modern Voltaire, hoardpepes, who hoarded all the pepes, so you know he’s wise, has this rebuttal:
I agree with hoardpepes: I have no reason to care ’bout founding American values or rights like slavery & the right o’ the supreme court to nullify anything any o’ the other branches do by mere whim & have no reason not to prefer free shit. Maybe if Republicans started offering free shit ’stead o’ garbage like shit that people in the 1700s — who had no taste — like people would like them for once.
But while many are blaming Trump, The Federalist has someone else to blame: ¡time to ditch Mitch McConnell!. The entire basis o’ the criticism is that McConnel didn’t follow Newt’s patented “let shit burn” policy & didn’t refuse to raise the debt limit, which The Federalist themselves acknowledge probably would’ve just led Manchin & Sinema to agree to a Filibuster change to prevent a shutdown & didn’t stick to his principles ( as if McConnell e’er had principles ) & didn’t stick to his threat to sabotage the chip bill, which nobody took seriously, since the businesses that pay Republicans like McConnel benefited from the bill. If anything, Republicans who like to complain ’bout China taking our jerbs & the precariousness o’ Taiwan should be embarrassed they hadn’t passed the chips bill themselves under Trump. As it turns out, McConnell is only gangster when he has a senate majority ’hind him. ¿Who’d have thought?
A Democrat Party that props up an elderly man with obvious signs of mental decay to run as the party’s presidential candidate cares only about power. And voters casting their ballots for the same man, or the even more cognitively challenged Democrat candidate who just won the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat, see only one thing: the “D” next to the candidate’s name.
I love how e’en in the article trying to whine ’bout how e’eryone else slanders them as being shitheads the writer couldn’t avoid being a shithead & mocking someone for having a stroke. The secret to why people voted for a man who had a stroke that left them with temporary mental weakness rather than a TV-show host who is just naturally stupid is that they have this thing called “empathy”, a foreign concept to Republicans who would rather whine ’bout their, & only their, problems, as if they matter. If you have to whine ’bout how nobody likes you, that just gives people mo’ reason to dislike you.
The establishment press likewise plays for team Democrat, and conservatives won’t change that even if they nominate the most milquetoast moderate candidate willing to don a scarlet R.
Theoretically, since Republicans haven’t done that.
Enter stage right, 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The 2012 presidential contest also showed that the Democrat Party, its loyal members, politicians on the left side of the aisle, and the press don’t really care about a candidate’s demeanor either. Then-vice presidential candidate Joe Biden’s clownish behavior during his debate with his Republican counterpart, Paul Ryan, went ignored in the main, and the media continue to overlook Biden’s bullying behavior.
¿Why are we still talking ’bout 2022? I’m sorry Jr. Paul “I Don’t E’en Realize Rage Against the Machine Are Leftists” Ryan got fucking slayed by Biden harder than Eminem slayed MGK, but if you can’t handle a debate, stay out o’ the rap battle. That’s not bullying, that’s doing your job.
[Ignore paragraph o’ Big Hunter’s Emails]
Younger conservatives who didn’t live through the Reagan presidency can be excused for thinking Democrats are open to the right kind of Republican. But for those old enough to remember the ’80s, “come on, man.”
As the r/conservative forum & the recent voting results showed, younger conservatives are a mo’ endangered species than mountain gorillas.
The left trashed Ronald Reagan until Democrats needed to destroy George W. Bush, at which time the Gipper became the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever to serve as a Republican.
( Laughs ). This kind o’ pathetic hero-worship is sad. ¿Could you imagine a leftist calling Obama “the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever”? ¿Which side is antigovernment ’gain?
And now Bush has been remade the consummate statesman. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
No, Bush is still reviled e’en by conservatives as a war criminal who tanked the US economy.
So going back to the 1st paragraph:
Donald Trump is neither a kingmaker nor the palace’s HR director charged with hiring the next court jester. He didn’t make the Republican Party, and he didn’t destroy her fortunes.
This is wrong. Thanks to shambles Bush left the Republican party in, Trump was necessary. After all, his only competition were Jeb Bush & Ted Cruz, candidates that nobody liked. Most conservatives predicted Clinton would win long before the conservative primary finished. It was only when Trump made his surprise win that the Republican party bounced back.
’Course, a large part o’ that bounce back is ignoring history, so it’s no surprise that The Federalist is trying to ignore history, since it’s the only way to make the Republican party look good after Trump broke what he resurrected.
Democrats have since refurbished this strategy by preemptively branding any potential Republican opponent the spawn of the current evil-incarnate titleholder. We saw this with Democrat and media attacks on Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, which began while Trump still resided in the White House and long before DeSantis rode the only true red wave to victory on Tuesday.
Yes, they preemptively attacked DeSantis for no reason whatsoe’er, who had no connection to Trump. That’s why Trump endorsed him in 2018, after all. & it’s not like Democrats attack DeSantis for things he does, like that Disney fiasco or Martha’s Vineyard fiasco.
Conservatives need to vacate their state of denial and accept that the Democrat Party and its politicians, voters, and paramours in the press will attack and reject any Republican put forward. And so will faux Republicans; in fact, that is how you can recognize them.
Awesome, then we’re in agreement on something.
They will push false scandals, misrepresent positions, peddle narratives to the disadvantage of Republicans, brand negative news about Democrats as disinformation, demonize the person and his (or her) voters — and they will never like us or vote with, or for, us.
Note that nowhere in this article has The Federalist provided any evidence o’ any “false” scandals. In fact, this entire article lacks any evidence @ all that is not incestuous links to themselves, which lead to mo’ sourceless thinkpieces, nothing e’en coming close to resembling sources. The only exception is a link to The Week, which they argued gainst as “incorrect”, but don’t go into details for why it’s “incorrect”. This writer would get an F @ my high school for their utter incapability o’ backing up their claims. They literally think they can say “nope, this is wrong ’cause I say so” & that it matters. No wonder nobody takes you guys seriously.
So support your candidate of choice, but realize that come 2024, to the polarized Democrats and their media mouthpieces, the Republican presidential nominee will be either Trump or Trump 2.0.
Cool, their solution is to sit round & pout & do nothing.
If they really wanted to make Democrats look bad, all they have to do is write, “Look @ how pathetic we are & Democrats still lose to use half the time. Imagine how pathetic that makes them”.
Nothing Newsmax said ’bout the election is interesting, but they do whore out their own documentary for 1/6, where they whiteknight the people involved in the attempted insurrection & complain ’bout their mistreatment, which, if true, is the tastiest karma considering the mistreatment Republicans wrought gainst middle-easterners in Guantanamo Bay, a prison that Republicans like to pretend doesn’t exist.
Real crimes were committed by protesters on Jan. 6. Yet, in the aftermath, the political party in power weaponized the Department of Justice, FBI, and other agencies — leading to unprecedented civil-rights violations of U.S. citizens who engaged in those protests.
¿How ignorant or dishonest do you have to be to call 100 or so people being mistreated “unprecedented civil-rights violations of U.S. citizens”? ¿Have they ne’er heard ’bout black people? “Like, yeah, all those lynchings were bad & all, but they’re nothing compared to a few white people not being able to clip their nails”. The only thing that makes this “unprecedented” is that it’s white conservatives being fucked for once; Republicans are fine when black people are mistreated all the time or Vietnam protesters or
I thought ’bout diving into the cesspool Truth Social, but they want my email & phone #, & fuck that. This may ’splain better than the midterms why their shares are falling fast.
Meanwhile, we have this perfect example for why nobody should take Twitter pundits ( or any pundits ) seriously when they make grand armchair theories ’bout what will win elections ( which makes one wonder why they’re giving this amazing advice ’way for free on Twitter & not charging millions for this priceless advice ):
For the record, I actually know the 1 true trick that works for winning elections, which is to promise to have the government subsidize free Taco Bell e’ery Friday to e’ery American citizen ( when elected blame conflicted legislature for the failure to pass the Taco Bell bill ); show up as a wrestler on WWF, the World Wildlife Fund; stand up gainst half-assed remakes o’ classic video games; & spend e’ery presidential speech talking ’bout what small penises & vaginas e’ery other politician has. I am awaiting my Pulitzer now.
Finally, the New York Post gives us the news we always wanted to hear: “Florida Man Makes Announcement”:
Think Murdochs are done with Trump? This morning's Foxnews website: lead story DeSantis (not Poland)–Trump's announcement is 3 levels down–underneath Fetterman and Madoff, next to the Gender Unicorn! pic.twitter.com/gjdgOKvF8T
But to those who worry that Trump may be too ol’ to run, being the same age as Biden, who was frequently lambasted for his age, when he became president, Fox News has you covered: “People age @ different rates”. So Fox News thinks Trump is a time-traveler. That’s nothing out o’ the ordinary for them.
Anyway, that’s all I can tolerate o’ this nuclear waste. Hopefully that will be all for any political content for… hopefully till November 2023, but I don’t think The Atlantic will be able to wait that long to release a stupid article defending water poisoning or paedophilia or something.
Whether the Democrats manage to eke out a hopelessly debilitated slight majority unable to pass anything ’cause 1 Democrat doesn’t like it or leave a slight Republican majority that will spend the next 2 years trolling Democrats & also not getting anything done, we can all agree that we have a victory for photography from The Rolling Stone:
I don’t know if they just take video & pick out the best clips or if they’re just that good @ getting the perfectly awkward photos, but chef’s kiss, either way.
& he has good reason to cheer ( I think that face he’s making might be cheering ): by his own count — since these are certainly not the #s anyone else sees in our mortal realm — he received 219 all-caps “WINS”, which are quadruple the value o’ lowercase “wins” & 175% the value o’ titlecase “Wins” & only 16 titlecase “Losses”:
This gives me the great opportunity to do what I neglected to do in 2020:
Apparently Boebert didn’t lose quite yet, & may end up winning, which means that all the news stories I read were full o’ lies. You can tell how shocked I am.
I have to say, beyond the pure joy o’ seeing conservatives angry, which, admittedly, is worth cheering ’nough, I don’t know why Democrats are so excited. It looks like Republicans may still take both the house & the senate, & the claims that the Republicans failing to do well during a year like 2022, when there should be a wave, & thus this means they’ll do e’en worse in 2024, shows a remarkable lack o’ self-awareness: if 2022 can be a ne’er-seen-that-before-greetings-from-Germany-kick-cancer’s-butt election year, ¿why can’t 2024? After all, e’eryone expected Democrats to cream Republicans in 2016 & they failed miserably. I don’t see how the outcome o’ this election means shit for 2024, other than mo’ Democrat governors & mo’ Democrats in state legislatures means electoral advantages for Democrats in future elections.
Boebert has been wrong ’bout many things, but she’s right here — we are calling them losers.
While it’s still round, I’m just going to put this here, which, 538, to their honesty, still keeps up, so we can laugh @ them if they’re wrong. Or, if they turn out correct after all, laugh @ the armchair theorists who constantly whine ’bout polls. Either way, we get to dunk on people.
But regardless o’ how relatively well Democrats do this year, we can still say a’least that New York Centrist Democrats known for pragmatism are utter failures. Considering this is the same wonderful state that gave us Trump, Rudi Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, or hell, e’en Hillary Clinton, since she deserves half the blame for the disaster that was 2016, I can’t say I’m surprised that they would find mo’ terrible politicos with which to self-own themselves.