Agreed on the evils of Citizens' United, to some extent, but this year actually illustrates that it's not an absolute trump card, so to speak.
In fact, in the Republican primary, the vast majority of establishment wealth was arrayed against Trump, yet he won handily. In the Democratic primary, virtually ALL of the establishment wealth was arrayed against Bernie, yet he gave the anointed nominee a helluva run for her money. Yeah, he spent a lot of money, but almost all of it was from small donors.
This proves two things: 1) Vast sums of money do not automatically buy elections, and 2) People are completely fed up with the monied, self-serving political establishment--so fed up that they reach for anyone who sounds and seems different, be it a buffoonish narcissistic ignoramus on the right, or a rumpled old-school socialist on the left.
I think the point is that you should numb your nuts.
I don't begrudge your choice, Mari--each to her own voting strategy, in this grand democratic experiment, and so on--but please don't fool yourself. If Billary Clinton fails to win this election, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Bernie Sanders or anyone voting Green. She will fail on her own merits, or lack thereof.
If she fails to defeat one of the most ignorant, absurd, untruthful, embarrassing, unqualified, and downright dangerous presidential candidates in history--unbelievable as it may seem, but it could very well happen--it would be because she has utterly squandered her credibility. For many years she has been nothing more than a garden-variety politician who happens to be married to a former president, tacking back and forth with the winds of change and changing her tune whenever it suited the moment. She has consistently and earnestly played to Republican themes while pretending to be a liberal, courted the wealthy and powerful while pretending to stand for the underprivileged, and betrayed her base and the principles of her supposedly liberal party in the process. That strategy was birthed by her husband and his DNC, to the ruin of the Democratic Party and progressive change, and she has embraced it enthusiastically.
People are totally fed up with it--so fed up that they're desperately grasping for a psychotic ignoramus just because he sounds different. If she cannot beat the psychotic ignoramus--and I mean soundly beat him, send him back to his Tower with his tiny tail between his legs--she does not deserve to be president. No amount of ill-conceived, third-party blaming can change that.
There is very little that is straightforward about our system of justice. It is corrupted and distorted by wealth, race, political power, political agendas, etc.
"Terrorism" is a fine case in point. The vast majority of "terrorism" cases brought in this country in the years since 9/11 have been trumped-up showcases, based on elaborate stings where young, stupid, gullible, even mentally ill people are suckered into doing something that gives the feds a reason to charge them with terrorism.
The whole thing is a sick joke, fabricated for the political purpose of fooling frightened, ignorant Americans into believing that 1) they are not safe and 2) government repression (at the expense of civil liberties) is the only thing that will keep them safe.
Douchey. Making Arizona Shitty Again.
You insinuated that the author was dishonest, or at the very least disingenuous, while at the same time electing not to disclose your own connection to the mining industry. I concur--that makes you an asshat.
Celebrating jaguars in Arizona doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with that profoundly stoopid copper mine proposal, but now that it's on the table, it bears pointing out that as soon as we bury that ridiculous Rosemont idea forever, it'll be one less threat to jaguars, and the people of Tucson who care about clean air, clean water, beautiful wildlife, scenic vistas, etc.
I, for one, pledge to continue working to defeat the Rosemont Mine proposal once and for all. There. Happy?
Totally agreed. It's a word that signifies virtually nothing, and in fact often masks true meaning, as is the case with so many neologisms in our soulless techno world. Far better to make a word choice that actually describes or qualifies (or even quantifies, at the very least) an impact; e.g., with the performer mentioned above, her performance was "small but powerful/moving/memorable/poignant/et al."
By using meaningless, dumb-downed words like "impactful", we're not just communicating poorly. We're essentially erasing those other far more evocative and elegant words from our lexicon and slowly but steadily eroding the beauty and power of our language, which is really sad.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation