Shit house? Oh, well, that’s different.
7 Likes
Actually you will often find a shithole in a shithouse. Together they make – an outhouse!
1 Like
Whichever Faust I take: the medieval, the Goethean, the one of Mann - I simply cannot think that any of Mephistopheles incarnations would approve of the Art of the Deal. Especially the Goethean one wouldn’t. They got style even in crudeness. They got poetry.
All we got is reality. There is no plan, no power guiding and holding us, no poetic power even in defeat. The human condition is devoid of any good or bad external influences…
… and thus, we haven’t deserved or even called on us this situation of a racist, populists president. The art of the deal with it will be - sorry, is - to mitigate the damage in a post-modern, unromantic fashion, I think.
That means, for me, that it is irrelevant what was said. What’s going to be the law, that’s the point. And in all the buzz about this, I lost track of what is happening to that law. Outrage, ok, but what about that middle part?
1 Like
Hey mindfu - it’s incredulous (irony). I’m not a Trump supporter or even American (think he should have stepped down ages ago for his treatment of women, sexual abuses, etc. at the start of his term or before inauguration). However I’m not exactly sure where the offence lies on this issue. I’ve - admittedly - only seen headlines and read this single boingboing post. But are people offended that “sh-thouse/sh-thole” countries might exists? or that immigration should/could discriminate?
As someone who lives in a “sh-thouse” country (albeit non-african - i’m only familiar with pretty awesome African states in all honesty) I can definitely attest to the existence of very corrupt, dangerous, backward countries (think corrupt politicians, judicial disappearances, imprisonment of opposition politicians, violent racial divisions, religious disharmony, economic stagnation, human trafficking, etc. etc.) that probably deserve the moniker “sh-twhatever”.
Or is it that immigration policy should/could discriminate against individuals and their ideology or station in life. If you don’t think this happens you have probably never immigrated anywhere recently. I have immigrated to two nations, one western that would not accept me due to my lack of education and lack of money (I was 18 at the time), but I was let in after a direct appeal to the minister of immigration (upon compassionate grounds). The second has still not allowed me to obtain identification papers, residency (and consequently banking rights), and will not allow individuals of my religious background or nationality to naturalise despite meeting all immigration requirements (sad but true). If you don’t think every nation on the face of planet earth already heavily discriminates against “sh-thouse” countries or otherwise, you probably have never been to the immigration dept - in all kindness. In addition, post 9/11 policy amongst western nations (at - I imagine - the behest of the US) has made travel/immigration around the globe orders of magnitude more difficult in the last decade and a half (which really has nothing to do with current politics). I really think you need to recognise that Trump’s (-gag-) statements already reflect current immigration policy before offence sets in.
Is it because the president of the US was too flippant, or is this is just hating on Trump because he’s a sh-thouse (no problem with either)?
I’d pay big bucks to see this.
So, so far it looks like the current administration’s strategy is to turn the swamp into a cesspool. Nice going.
1 Like
I heard it as “suit wool” countries. I guess they make fabric?
Good questions. From my perspective (US citizen, die-hard democrat, immigration realist), of course there are terrible countries. That’s not really the question.
The first question is, is there room for dignity in a President any more? Should they behave better than this? Many Republicans long for a President who is rude and sounds stupid. It reinforces their desperate need for self-regard, so precarious since having a black president made them feel that their social position, maybe low, but at least above blacks, was threatened.
The second question is about immigration - what is the best policy for the US, and what does “good for the US” even mean? Traditionally, immigration has been objectively good for the country in terms of overall wealth, but caused changes in the culture, which many folk regard with horror. Many would rather have a rigid culture that they are comfortable with and be poorer (see Brexit), rather than have a more dynamic economy but have culture be in flux (see the French controversy over kebab shops “replacing” cafes and bistros).
Sure there’s room for it. Obama was in most settings extremely dignified. It was a great strategy for the leader of a rapacious, murderous empire, because it helped the empire’s “decent” citizens overlook his many at best undignified actions, e.g.,
Should presidents behave better than this, you ask? Yes, of course they should. And Americans should start paying as much attention to what their leaders do as they do to what they say, however “dignified” or not their leaders seem.
2 Likes
If we’re judging a president by how many bombs they drop, that’s a very slim metric.
I would guess you know what e.g. means? And further, that a lot of other perfidy goes along with those dropped bombs?
1 Like
Hm. Perfidy bombs. That sounds particularly bad. But seriously, is there a table somewhere about presidents vs bombs dropped? I’d like to see it. Otherwise, it’s just another case of the left eating itself.
Only to those who have fallen prey to the illusion that Obama as president was any more than ostensibly on “the left.”
1 Like
They just said it on NPR, with a warning. It was entertaining, but then I also remembered the context, and I had a sad.
1 Like
You would guess correctly.
And by the way the parties are aligned in 2018, and the policies he championed, Obama was most definitely a progressive president.
It’s because it’s a blanket statement about countries where black people live. it’s the assumption that all African and African diasporic majority nations are backwards dictatorships, full of corruption. And he contrasted it with a Northern European that’s known for its whiteness. It’s a blatantly racist statement because it lumps all Africans into one category and fully ignores the historical reasons that some African countries have serious economic, social, and political problems - legacies of colonialism, isolationism for a successful slave revolt in the case of Haiti, and neo-colonialism in the form of neo-liberal economic policies of austerity tied with corporate raiding of raw materials.
That’s a major part of the problem - that he’s baldly stating his administration’s racist policy (not that it’s unique in American history, but that it’s so blatant). It’s the historical context that makes it so upsetting more than the word itself. And yes, immigration policies are almost always aimed at keeping some people out and others being allowed in, the “right” people. Borders, passports, and security theater are all a continuation of technologies of control from the 19th century, where people were beginning to move as freely as capital. The free movement of people has always been problematic, so there have always been attempts to control it and make people go where they are deemed “necessary” for the functioning of the economic system - not where is best for them.
And I believe Dick Durben when he says it was shithole. Out of all the people who commented on this, he was the only one who had a consistent story the entire time.
5 Likes
Try being another kind of liberal. This will get you started:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2003/12/im-fighting-liberal-you-know-ive.html
Liberal does not and has not meant weak until the conservatives said it did. Was Martin Luther King weak? Bobby Kennedy? Gene McCarthy? It was the liberals who remade this country and ended legal segregation and legal sexism. Not the conservatives, who wanted to hold on to the old ways.
It’s time to regain the sprit of FDR and Truman and the people around them. People who believed in the public good over private gain. It is time to stop apologizing for being a liberal and be proud to fight for your beliefs.
[…]
Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi satellite state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America’s defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.
It is time to stop looking for an accomodation with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?
5 Likes
Yes, I have little doubt that the empire got bigger, and thus “progressed.” I’m sure the Captains of Industry appreciate Emperor Obama’s efforts, and that they’ve been rewarding him accordingly. Is his going rate for 20-minute speech up to a million yet?
4 Likes
Ah, I see where this is going. Not interested, thank you. Not helping.
