Glen has a great post up on the laughably incompetent Koch brothers piece in the Weekly Standard, and I agree with every bit of it but this:
I’m not someone who sees the Koch Brothers as some sort of unique threat. I mostly regard them as little more than a symbol of the death of democratic values in the U.S. — the way in which the possession of vast financial resources is an absolute prerequisite to making any impact on the national political process, and conversely, how those without such resources are politically inconsequential and impotent (short of their fomenting serious social unrest). Every political movement needs demons lurking behind every problem — the more hidden and omnipotent the better — and the Koch Brothers now serve the same function for the Left as George Soros long served for the Right: the bogeymen who motivate the loyalists and on whom everything bad, including political losses, can be blamed.
A couple of things. First, this reads like the “both sides do it” nonsense that Glenn should realize has corrupted so much of our national debate. The fundamental difference between the two is the Koch brothers spend huge sums of cash to help enrich themselves, and then they throw a token few dollars for “libertarian” principles. Soros, on the other hand, spends millions of dollars on programs that help all Americans.
That is a fundamental difference.
MikeJ
The few token dollars the Kochs throw at the libertarians are also part of enriching them(the Kochs). Libertarians in no way make the country better unless you’re rich and want to fuck the poor.
Yutsano
I saw what you did there.
And of course Glenn is gonna get his “both sides do it” swipe in there. How better to portray yourself as truly outside the structure and therefore capable of declaring a pox on both houses? It’s almost reflexive with him.
Allan
Good post, and excellent observation.
The difference between the left and the right is that we may both use Alinsky techniques, but when the left picks a target, then freezes, personalizes and polarizes them as a villain, s/he is actually, measurably and demonstratively, a villain.
Donald
I don’t think Glenn was equating Soros with Koch–he was criticizing the tendency many Americans have of putting all the blame on particular individuals when the problem is much larger. He’s right, isn’t he? I mean, if the Koch brothers didn’t exist, does anyone imagine that the country wouldn’t still be run by and for the benefit of rich people?
Robby
I’m with Donald here. The Koch brothers are really just symptoms. The same is true of Soros to a certain extint, even if I do agree with his causes. Neither Soros nor the Koch brothers should have as much influence as they do, but we live in a society dominated solely by the rich and so they do.
Bo
I read this point differently. Glenn seems to be saying that both sides have and need their bogeymen, not that the bogeymen are equivallent.
James E Powell
If the Democrats want to make any gains in the 2012 congressional election, they have to make income inequality a major part of their appeal. If they do not, if they forgo the economic populist argument that is right there waiting to be used, the populist vibe will belong to the ethnically and culturally charged right wing.
James E Powell
You are correct, for sure. But it is much easier to explain and persuade with identifiable villains who personify the problem.
John - A Motley Moose
This focus on the Kochs lets the other ultra-rich glibterian assholes, like the Coors family, slide under the radar. Leona Helmsley wasn’t an isolated case. She just happened to have a big mouth.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Donald:
Well-said.
sherifffruitfly
You have to keep in mind that Greenwald is a “true progressive” a zealot of the DemocratsAreJustLikeRepublicans religion.
Everything he says will be filtered through that lens.
John Cole
@Donald: You are right- I did misread that.
geg6
The Koches and all of their ilk should be hunted down and eliminated like the rabid dogs of society that they are. Instead, the Weekly Standard gave them a tongue bath and a megaphone to whine about how vilified they are, which, IMHO, does not go far enough in painting them as the sociopaths they are. Glenn is only wrong in not seeing the danger they pose to this nation.
And he is only playing to his audience with his both sides do it bullshit. It’s the same crap Jon Stewart says, but for some reason too many BJers hate Glenn with the heat of a thousand suns but will defend Stewart as some sort of patron saint of truth, justice, and the American way. Personally, anyone who says both sides do it automatically has no real credibility with me on whatever issue is being discussed as it’s such a lazy and intellectually bankrupt way of thinking.
It’s much the same feeling I have about people in the last thread celebrating mealy mouthed garbage like stating views forcibly, and even harshly, is beyond the pale and that we should all just embrace “civility,” like some of the pearl clutching commenters at TNC’s place who make that place so painful to read (which I do, enduring the pain of so much sanctimony, because there are minority of really smart and knowledgable people there).
This country is almost fucked beyond redemption. One party tries harder to help people than the other. Our corporate overlords are venal ratfuckers. Our media are nothing but propaganda tools for the worst people on earth. And I’m not supposed to take note of this or, if I do I’m supposed to be polite about it? Again, fuck that. I’m ready to go all Madame Defarge on the whole bunch, GOPers, Galtians, and Emily Posters alike.
FlipYrWhig
One thing that contributed to the “death of democratic values” in contemporary political culture was the Citizens United decision. Which Glenn Greenwald supported.
Omnes Omnibus
@geg6:Do you knit?
agrippa
“Both sides do it”
is easily refuted:
Every crime stands on its’ own.
4jkb4ia
OK John, this filters into what I just wrote about Jamie Dimon in the other thread. You can have it both ways. You can spend your money for lobbying and enriching yourself and also use it for political speech because you believe abstractly in helping everybody. That is the danger of relying on the rich as a class to bankroll a political party. The perspective on everybody winning will be very skewed.
/desperate not to derail thread by going after the one I/P sentence in the post
Villago Delenda Est
The only way that the promise of “liberty for all” can be achieved is through the egalitarianism that David Koch loathes. It cannot happen through “libertarianism”, which in economic terms is just a redress of feudalism.
Oh, and what do I see on the page? A “Profit with Kramer!” ad. Everything that is wrong with this country has to do with the mindless Ferengi idiocy of short term monetary profit exulted above every other possible value. It will cause the extinction of humanity if it is not stopped.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
Why, yes. Yes, I do. Haven’t for a long time, but perhaps it’s time to pull out the needles and start again.
MandT
Yeah, all the above. But, when can we burn them out? My pitchfork is getting rusty and the villagers have short attention spans.
Yutsano
@geg6: I would find it fascinating if you and Mnemosyne collaborated on a knitting creation. Maybe some sort of blanket espousing the virtues of the labor union movement in this country. Or a sweater.
Cacti
Isn’t “both sides do it” pretty much his entire schtick?
Villago Delenda Est
@Yutsano:
I’m thinking along the lines of Madame Defarge keeping busy while observing the arrival of tumbrels, myself.
Bob Loblaw
@Robby:
Yes they should, unless you believe in a confiscatory regime. Or a regime in which people cannot take compensation for petitioning and lobbying the government.
But otherwise you have to concede that wealth will tend towards concentration. It’s not entropic. And concentrated wealth will necessarily be used to invest in ways of further concentrating more wealth.
@FlipYrWhig:
Ostensibly because he thinks the problem should be fixed through improved civilian education, rather than denying private interests the right to spend their money in a way that isn’t directly and immediately harmful to any person’s interests.
That’s a legitimate, principled position to take. Unfortunately, applied libertarianism tends towards favoring the already powered.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: Scarves are nice.
geg6
@Yutsano:
LOL! I was thinking of some sort of tasteful cashmere hangman’s noose for when the proles finally wake up and decide who the real dangers to this country really are. That way, the Koch brothers and all their friiends will feel comfortable when we finally string their asses up. Don’t want their necks getting itchy while their waiting for the bottom to drop out, so to speak.
Church Lady
What program has George Soros bankrolled that benefits all Americans?
Yutsano
@Villago Delenda Est: There is no holding back geg6 when her mind is made up. I done learned that a long time ago. Lurve her to death for it too.
@geg6: I also feel it worth mentioning that one of my co-workers would worship the ground you walk on just by virtue of where you’re employed. This fact is witnessed by the HUGE Penn State flag hanging in his cube. You might like him, he’s a former Marine who has fully embraced his inner hippie to no end. He flirts with me too. Bastard.
Omnes Omnibus
@geg6: I believe that one of the privileges of being a peer of the realm in Britain is that one is entitled to a silk rope at one’s hanging.
geg6
Goddam iPhone won’t let me edit. It should be “they’re” not “their”.
cathyx
@Cacti: Maybe you could read Greenwald’s post which doesn’t say anything about both sides doing it, that’s not even his point. And John admitted as much in his #12 comment. And since I do read Glenn Greenwald, I know he doesn’t have a “both sides do it” schtick.
Roger Moore
@FlipYrWhig:
Sorry, but Citizens United was just one more in a long string of victories for the rich and powerful. Wealthy assholes like the Kochs have had an excessive influence on our government for as long as it’s existed. If it weren’t for Citizens United, rich people would- and could- just have to find a different way of controlling our political discourse.
Lolis
@James E Powell:
Right, but the problem is Democrats are so “diverse” that they don’t have a unified platform to do this. For example, if Obama started putting more emphasis on income inequality Democrats would be out there first to condemn/disavow/run away from his words. Plus if he runs on it, then is unable to pass anything because Congress is owned by corporations he would be fighting his own party. That is a lot easier said than done.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
There’s another one of those damn entitlements that are bankrupting the nation, right there!
Cacti
@cathyx:
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Omnes Omnibus
@Church Lady: The Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative as apart of a series of donations aimed drug policy reform for one.
Ruckus
@Villago Delenda Est:
Everything that is wrong with this country has to do with the mindless Ferengi idiocy of short term monetary profit exulted above every other possible value. It will cause the extinction of humanity if it is not stopped.
Absofuckinglutly
The MustBeAssholes mindset to rape, plunder and pillage for tomorrow we may be gone mindset has to change or it will be/is the death of this country.
ETA to correct crappy typing.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: @geg6: BTW I lurve how you two came to a similar conclusion without even trying. My work is done here.
(well not really, but there are chicken tacos waiting for me out there in the big world, so I shall be back anon.)
Superluminar
Hasn’t GG worked for the Koch-funded CATO institute before? I’m not saying this could be remotely relevent or anything…
FlipYrWhig
@cathyx: He certainly has a new-boss, same-as-the-old-boss shtick. Maybe that’s not “both sides do it” but instead “there’s only one side.”
geg6
@cathyx: Funny, I read him, too, and have always found him to be a HUGE both sides do it do it kinda guy. HUGE.
@Yutsano: WE ARE PENN STATE!
Roger Moore
@Bob Loblaw:
And the problem with that point of view is that the right kind of political spending is indistinguishable from bribery. So unless he’s willing to accept legalized bribery, he should be willing to accept some kind of limit on political spending.
FlipYrWhig
@Bob Loblaw: Fair enough. I agree with you that there’s a disjunction between professing a belief in “democratic values” on the one hand and professing a belief in unrestricted campaign contributions on the other. It’s two discordant views of liberty clashing.
salacious crumb
I think this quote is revealing as well. We Americans now carry ignorance as a badge of honor, and knowledge acquisition as a sign of elitism…one can only go so far in blaming the Koch brothers and Tea Baggers for the country’s woes. But the if the citizenry took time to actually really delve into the issues and understand it, maybe these Koch brothers wouldn’t be braying as much. Yes, we have a media and political system that has failed us, but when we even refuse to hear the benefits of a newly passed health care designed to save our fat asses and are hell bent on calling it Obamacare, can you really blame Koch brothers for taking advantage of the situation? Our political system is more worried about which president average Joe can have a beer with as opposed which president is busting his chops to save this country from damnation. I didnt hear angry protests like we saw in Wisconsin when the Republicans got their way with the tax cut for rich, even after they threatened to shut down the govt. even citizenry doesnt give a shit, not much Obama can do.
in the words of Mr.Zelinski from Tommy Boy
Bob Loblaw
@Superluminar:
You can just come out and say it. You don’t have to be coy about it. It’s a legitimate question.
This board is just weird about Greenwald. It’s like he’s some unique space alien that doesn’t resemble other journalists in any way.
Omnes Omnibus
@salacious crumb:
Yes, just because someone is passed out drunk in the park does not make it right to steal his wallet.
salacious crumb
@Omnes Omnibus: of course its wrong, but people do steal and thats the world we live in..thats human nature…but we can save our wallet by being informed and vigilant..sorry the world’s not all sunshine and rainbows my friend
Omnes Omnibus
@salacious crumb: You asked if we could blame the for taking advantage; I said yes. We can also blame others, including ourselves, but the Kochs aren’t innocents who are just taking the world as they found it. Further, I never claimed the world is sunshine and rainbows, so you can blow that out your ass. Cheers.
b-psycho
I get the strong feeling that the people who keep bringing up “Citizens United” as if it’s a huge black mark against Greenwald don’t give a shit beyond the group in question being a bunch of right-wingers. How in the hell can explicitly banning certain types of ads prior to an election, regardless of the content of the ads in question, not contradict the 1st amendment?
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
Today’s observation – old money inheritors like the Kochs, Ahmansons and Hunts have an entitlement mentality that is beyond the pale. New money robber barons tend to be more likely to be moer appreciative of those who brung them there (think Gates and Jobs).
Ironically,the old time robber barons got there through misuse of government and regulatory capture.
salacious crumb
@Omnes Omnibus: how many Americans even know of the Koch brothers? I would be surprised if it went beyond 5%. so what is your proposal? that we sit on our ass and cry because the Koch brothers are meanies? what is your proposal to stop them, mr. i-get-offended-very-quickly?
Omnes Omnibus
@b-psycho: Simple answer is: Corporations are not people and the speech rights of corporations are more limited than those of people.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
Another thing. This is, at its core, about perpetual regulatory capture. think Rick Scott.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@John Cole: That response is among the reasons this is a fabulous place to read and contribute. FP folks interact, explain/refine positions when asked to do so, and acknowledge errors when pointed out. It was an easy mistake to make, as both sides is such a popular (though idiotic and often false) theme.
FlipYrWhig
@b-psycho: The law regulates many kinds of speech, for instance misleading claims in commercials. IANAL but there are plenty of precedents for the idea of restricting certain kinds of speech, especially paid-for and broadcast speech.
But in general Greenwald is someone who cares at least as much about the ethics perceptible _in_ certain laws and policies (for instance, detainee treatment) as about the letter of those laws, so it’s IMHO surprising that he can decry the loss of democratic values and then simultaneously uphold the letter of a law that is blatantly opposed to democratic values, whereas when it comes to Manning or the “assassination order” against that American guy in Yemen, the letter of the law might suggest that both are acceptable, but he wants to fight a different fight about underlying values.
Anyway, I brought it up because it indicates that “democratic values” are something he has responded to in a variety of ways.
Omnes Omnibus
@salacious crumb: I say that it is appropriate to blame the Kochs for what they are doing, and now you twist it into my saying we should just sit and cry? I never said that. What should be done? What we are doing in Wisconsin is a start. Educating people. Voting. Working to counter people like the Kochs. How about that?
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@b-psycho: As Omnes has already noted, corporations are not individuals, and thus do not have First Amendment rights (or 2d, 5th, 6th or 14th, for that matter).
b-psycho
@Omnes Omnibus: If the point is that the grant of power known as corporate status combined with unlimited speech is a problem, I agree.
So let’s get rid of the corporate status.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
I am having a problem putting my hands on a copy of Inside Job. Wallyworld has it in the inventory computer but not the shelf and every copy has disappeared from my local red boxes. I checked four of them.
Funny that.
Batocchio
I agree with this assessment – Greenwald’s post is good overall, but he downpedals the Kochs and plays a bit into the “both sides do it” crap – but that’s not uncommon for him. The Kochs are symptomatic, yes, but they are also a very real threat, some of the most aggressive plutocrats/neo-feudalists out there, and they fund many of the right-wing think tanks and astroturf organizations in the country. Greenwald himself has written for the Cato Institute, which was founded and is funded by the Kochs. He probably should have mentioned that, although I’d say he does excellent work overall and this particular piece is very critical, hardly a Reason suck-up.
Chyron HR
@Bob Loblaw:
Remember, when internationally recognized journalist Glenn Greenwald uses his podium to personally criticize people on this blog (which he has done on multiple occasions), it’s because we’re “weird”.
When people on this blog discuss the things that internationally recognized journalist Glenn Greenwald writes… it’s because we’re “weird”.
Funny that.
FlipYrWhig
@Chyron HR: Let’s consolidate all recent threads: Greenwald for the NYT Bob Herbert slot!
Omnes Omnibus
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I would also say that, to the extent that a corporation does have any rights, those rights are derivative of the people who are shareholders and therefore cannot exceed those of the people.
@b-psycho: I would not go as far as eliminating corporate status, but I would eliminate the concept of corporate personhood except in the situations for which I believe concept was meant, such as a corporation’s ability to sue or be sued on its own behalf.
BobS
@FlipYrWhig: You might try actually reading what Greenwald wrote about Citizens United. He was ambivalent about the decision and pretty nuanced with his support.
Bob Loblaw
@FlipYrWhig:
Being a libertarian necessarily means you find the state more potentially threatening to liberty than the corporation. So that’s where the differences begin and end. I guess because the state has more “permanence” to it or whatever, and can’t be beaten in the marketplace of ideas and information, only overthrown by force if things get out of hand.
Villago Delenda Est
One of the problems is that the legal system enforces the notion that corporations exist for only one reason: to make money. The Founders had different notions about why corporations should be around…to accomplish, collectively, a public good that an individual could not marshal the resources to do so.
Now corporations are about profit, and profit alone. That’s the disconnect in the social contract that needs to be addressed, but don’t expect crypto-fascists like Scalia and Roberts to see things that way.
Yutsano
@FlipYrWhig:
Are you TRYING to make this blog blow up?
@Omnes Omnibus: A corporation only exists and has any rights by virtue of the government granting it a charter to enjoin said rights. The problem with corporations getting unlimited money into politics is they gain an undue influence on what that charter can and cannot do. I personally think the enforcement of the charter rules needs to be stepped up. A corporation can’t exist if the governing body decides no longer to recognize it no?
Hart Williams
In some ways it’s a great article, but as someone who’s been blogging for — literally — years on the stealth machine that’s produced the Wisconsin debacle, dozens (if not hundreds) of creepy ballot initiatives and done untold damage to the political landscape, Greenwald’s dismissive “Oh, they’re just a boogeyman” bullshit reeks of the hubris of the pompously ignorant.
Too many journalists (or whatever the hell Greenwald is) sniff that anything they don’t understand is beneath notice (e.g. nuclear reactors, f’r instance), and that’s just what Glenny does here.
Sadly, it gives cover to Koch-suckers everywhere, and THAT is an act of journalistic malfeasance that I am not reflexively inclined to give a “pass” to.
What you just saw in the “tea party” putsch is what they’ve been trying to gin up for years, and goddam it, it’s NOT beneath notice, nor is it NOT a clear and present danger to our Republic.
Wake up and smell the jackboots, Glennykins.
Else, start composing your own version of “first they came for …”
salacious crumb
@Omnes Omnibus: ok
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: True, the issue, of course, is how. I guess we are going to have to bring back Progressive Era trustbusting and and all of that again. I am in favor, quite strongly so.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: The nice part is we still have a Sherman Anti-Trust act in place, so we don’t have to fight to get the underlying groundwork set up. I’m thinking when Warren’s commission finally gets off the ground (after a forced vacation for me but I digress) we may indeed start swinging more towards actually getting rights back into balance. It’s not going to happen overnight, and with the American love affair with the easy solution this will take focus and planning. And the Koch brothers and their ilk are already doing their scheming at the same time.
Bob Loblaw
@Chyron HR:
If you’re problem with him is he made fun of you or whatever, just say that. Stop being all coded about it.
I’m serious. This blog treats Greenwald like an inexplicable alien.
I just looked it up. Greenwald knows/worked for/worked with both the Kochs and George Soros. So he has personal entanglements which I assume compromise his objectivity.
It’s not controversial to say that about other journalists, but for some reason Greenwald is the ultra polarizing figure. He’s either a virginal icon, or he’s the fucking devil.
Instead of the truth which is he’s sometimes respectable, sometimes risible, sometimes brilliant, sometimes underhanded, sometimes manipulative, etc. He’s a fucking journalist, he does journalist type things.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob Loblaw: I tend to agree with much of what you are saying here, but I would characterize Greenwald more as a polemicist than a journalist.
Hart Williams
@ Bob Loblaw
Good catch, sir. Well played.
FlipYrWhig
@Bob Loblaw:
Agreed. That’s not a view I share, and I think it’s quite possible to uphold it rather too zealously, but it’s defensible.
A Conservative Teacher
The good thing is that you clearly know your facts from opinions. On one hand, you have your fact- that the Koch brothers are evil people- and on the other hand, you have your other fact- that Sorus is a good dude. It isn’t like that is just your personal opinion or anything, and thus worth nothing at all.
Why do people still read your thoughts? Your posts are shallow non-analysis that states opinions as if they are worth anything. It’s sad, really, that people keep coming here to read the stuff you churn out.
b-psycho
@Bob Loblaw:
What if you find the corporation to be an arm of the state, and vice versa?
JPL
John, Your comment Glen has a great post up is followed with a but… The but negates the great imo. Glen is a libertarian so why wouldn’t he say both sides do it.
Yutsano
@b-psycho:
Then we start looking for Il Duce.
Hart Williams
@A Conservative Teacher:
from your blog profile: “As a public high school teacher and an elected official, I’ve been on the front lines of communicating conservativism for many years.”
Does that include trolling?
geg6
@A Conservative Teacher:
At this particular moment in history, any dimwit calling him or herself “Conservative Teacher” should probably not be lecturing anyone else about shallow analyses. Jeebus, how stupid does one have to be?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Hart Williams:
So someone’s using as tax-payer subsidized pulpit to politically indoctrinate our youth? Well, I’m sure Bill O’Reilly’s cup-bearer, some intern from the Weekly Standard and that weird little O’Keefe person will be on this like stink on shit.
Svensker
@BobS:
Yes, but if you disagree with ONE thing that Greenwald writes, then it shows he should be a total outcast pariah and he is therefore a Both Sides Do It guy. Also he lives in Brazil. And sometimes he is snotty! As a result, you may ignore everything he says.
I don’t get the Glenn hate either. I agree with much of what he says. Sometimes I don’t. He is a bit thin skinned (no one around here has that problem!) and I can see why some peeps might find him irritating. So what? You want a bland blogosphere? He fights the good fight and I’m very glad we have him.
Hart Williams
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
With deceptively-edited video, no doubt.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
@Bob Loblaw:
If you read the comments to this thread but not Greenwald’s column you’d never know that he called the Koch brothers “self-pity[ing],” “self-absorbed and detached from reality,” “a symbol of the death of democratic values,” “True Believers,” “delusional and extreme,” “removed from reality,” “whiny,” “oozing.” I’d say they got the Full Greenwald, but then I read the column. Silly me.
Ajay
Exactly. I was disappointed when John Stewart did it and now Glen. There is nothing wrong in having some figure which leads or helps a cause. If this cause is meant to help only the a select few, especially at the expense of remaining, its by definition going against the masses.
Soros being a bogeyman helps the teatards but they would take anything to be manipulated.
FlipYrWhig
@Svensker: Greenwald isn’t exactly a model for how to handle opinions that differ from one’s own.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: @Yutsano: Well, that’s three of us. Now, if only we could get a bit more organized. Wait, what?
tomvox1
GG:
Fail.
BTW, where is the full disclosure from Greenwald that he has taken money from Koch organ Cato?
b-psycho
@Yutsano:
Fixed.
OzoneR
@Roger Moore:
One wholeheartedly endorsed by St. Glenn of Copacabana
OzoneR
@BobS:
Yeah, nothing like being ambivalent about a fucking Supreme Court decision that gave corporations unlimited access to political candidates and then later bitch relentlessly corporate influence in government. Sorry, but Glenn doesn’t get to be “ambivalent” about Citizens United and then get treated seriously when he starts complaining about its effects.
ksmiami
Speaking from my own wierd place, I think the only way to get us back on track is to reinstate 50% tax rates for the top 1%. I will hate it, from a personal standpoint, but it has to be done and then the money needs to be spent on infrastructure and a healthy society full stop. And people who say otherwise don’t know what a real revolution looks like…
A strong middle class IS the buffer that keeps rich people from becoming horse chow, but it may be too late.
New Yorker
Reading Greenwald’s article, I’m reminded of the delusions of grandeur of Hosni Mubarak. The Koch brothers aren’t all that different from him. I just hope we eventually get this country un-fucked to the point where it doesn’t come down to a violent revolution in the streets.
Chris
“The jocks beat me up every day. And the nerdy kid insulted me once two years ago! See, BOTH SIDES DO IT!”
300baud
He is not saying “both sides do it”, which would imply moral equivalence. He is saying, a la House, “people are idiots.”
He’s right about that. People like having a specific enemy. The Kochs did not become suddenly dangerous; they just suddenly became the focus. They are also not uniquely problematic; there are a lot of rich assholes energetically fighting for the interests of rich assholes.
Eventually, people who prefer a personal face on their problems will tire of the Koch brothers, as they have tired of previous villains, and somebody else will be seen as the big problem.
Which is fine. Better that people rage at someone than be complacent in the face of the ongoing outrages. But that doesn’t change the fact that people are acting like a band of chimps who have discovered a snake.