Another atrocity from the NYPD.
One clown down. Rick Perry has dropped out of the race. Mr Trump soaked up Perry voters, which is why Perry went after him. He’s also swiped the voters of the Canadian Senator Cruz.
Republicans are nihilists.
Mr Trump’s reality show is primarily destroying right-wing clowns like Perry (gone), Jindal (non-existent), Huckabee (reduced to trolling for a religiously deranged public official in Kentucky), Paul (reduced to booking 60 hours on the Senate floor to filibuster every and any bill in order to gain attention), Cruz (reduced to reclaiming Canadian citizenship), Santorum (barely frothing), Walker (non-existent), and the alleged moderate Christie (who couldn’t find a bridge to blockade now if his life depended on it).
Carly Fiorina’s tepid reply won’t diminish Mr Trump’s popularity in the Republican base, which loves his unapologetic misogyny. As far as Tea Party Republicans are concerned, the more “unpresidential” a candidate is, the better.
Mr Trump understands the #1 rule of American conservative fight club: never apologise.
Apparently, Kentucky’s Kim Davis will issue marriage licenses for same sex couples. Her jailing was just a publicity stunt to raise money for right-wing causes. I had looked forward to her crucifixion along with two common criminals. Hopes dashed.
Description of Mike Huckabee found online: “The hyperbole of a demagogue and the ethics of a grifter.”
Message to Bobby Jindal: one can’t pray the Second Amendment away.
The elder Senate Republicans have found Ted Cruz useful on occasion. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
I lost several pommes frites to marauding seagulls at Liam’s on Cape Cod’s Nauset Beach. They have been my sworn enemy ever since. No egrets.
Louisiana under Mr Jindal is a failed state. This qualifies him to be a Republican candidate for president.
He faces stiff competition for the right-wing Christian vote from Messrs Huckabee and Santorum.
The SCOTUS delivered a terrific blow to the Republican Tea Party.
In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.
The Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, published an Op-Ed in the New York Times proclaiming that he will oppose “gay marriage” by all means necessary. Mr Jindal gives away the purpose for his Op-Ed in this paragraph (emphasis added).
If we, as conservatives, are to succeed in advancing the cause of freedom and free enterprise, the business community must stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for religious liberty. The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two. Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half.
He is concerned with maintaining a (conservative) coalition. His purported defense of religious freedom and free enterprise is a political strategy, not a moral cause.
The “We” Mr Jindal addresses is not the “We” imagined in the phrase “E Pluribus Unum”; he addresses an apparently shrinking political coalition of conservatives who think exactly as he does. He finds it unfathomable that “left-wing ideologues” (translation: people who think the 14th Amendment means something) would be part of the “We” he addresses. Even other conservatives and members of the “business community” who opposed the Arkansas and Indiana laws as de jure discrimination risk being cast into the left-wing pit of grave evil if they do not conform to the beliefs of Mr Jindal’s coalition. In fact, the point of difference is this: the conservative voices and businesses leaders (recognizing that discrimination is bad for business) who spoke out against anti-LGBT bigotry are speaking to the “We” of E Pluribus Unum.
Mr Jindal unwittingly (or intentionally) excludes his vision of conservatism from this “We.” In so doing, he reveals himself as a political radical wrapped in the accoutrements of a conservative.
In an interview published in The Guardian, the author Toni Morrison describes her self-conception as a writer:
Most writers claim to abhor labels but Morrison has always welcomed the term “black writer”. “I’m writing for black people,” she says, “in the same way that Tolstoy was not writing for me, a 14-year-old coloured girl from Lorain, Ohio. I don’t have to apologise or consider myself limited because I don’t [write about white people] – which is not absolutely true, there are lots of white people in my books. The point is not having the white critic sit on your shoulder and approve it” – she refers to the writer James Baldwin talking about “a little white man deep inside of all of us”. Did she exorcise hers? “Well I never really had it. I just never did.”
She is claiming a right to self-limitation, no matter how essentialist. How does she know what Tolstoy was thinking?
The characterisation of Tolstoy is a matter of projection on the part of Ms Morrison. What she implies is that Tolstoy was only writing to Russians (the literate ones). One can extend the logic of this claim further: Shakespeare wrote only for the English (Londoners in the main), Flaubert wrote only for the French (but probably only Parisians), Baudelaire wrote only for prostitutes (again, probably only Parisian ones), Joyce wrote only for … god knows who, etc. ad nauseum. There’s no empirical evidence that supports this sort of speculation about literary intentions.
In literary-critical terms, Morrison’s perspective stands opposed to modernism; moreover, it is a 1960s-inspired racialist realism that prioritises the author’s experience and that of her “imagined community” (Benedict Anderson) as opposed to the vérité humaine of nineteenth-century realism (which some of her writing clearly violates) . Rather than treating literary works as open books, available to be appropriated by all, Ms Morrison takes a position on literary works that comports well with the publishing marketplace: slap the label of a genre on it (YA, crime, science fiction, romance), and it will sell.
What do these strangers — Mr Jindal and Ms Morrison — share in common? An allergic response to the idea of the universal, of the porousness of socio-historically imposed boundaries, of the fluidity of imagined communities, of the polyphonic character of the self. The “left-wing ideologue” and the “white critic” function as convenient bogeys to motivate the insistence on essential identity, whether conceived in politico-religious or racialist and/or ethnic terms. They are necessary fictions for the defense of a world that no longer exists. Perhaps it never existed apart from acts of political and imaginative will.
There are “no-go zones” for rational people in
Louisiana the Republican Party.
In the wake of the SOTU address, the Republican Party will move further to the right, which is just what the POTUS wants. Those who are paranoid and driven by blind emotion are easily manipulated.
TLC is nothing without the pyromanic Left Eye.
This is good news for hipsters in the unlikely event they find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
This is England: Magna Carta, Agincourt, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, Churchill, Page 3.