Shorter Armando

(4 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Progressives should vote for Clinton because she will in no way be viewed as a progressive/liberal, therefore she cannot suck the oxygen out of the progressives’ air in the way Obama did  (for eight precious years), while betraying those he pretended to represent.  Thusly, by voting for Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton in 2016, an obvious anti-progressive war monger, progressives can freely grow like shadowed mushrooms on the rotting log of neoliberal wealth-pumping via wars and debt-disciplined austerity for the peripheral poors, including vast regions of the United States.

That’s what I read.

Fourteen years  plus after the Event Horizon I (Bush v. Gore), and nearly six years after Event Horizon II (Lehman),  never mind the multiple event horizon markers along the way, Armando is still imagining “long-term strategies” for progressives.  Awesome.  In its blank stupidity, imho, given the fact that if the economy doesn’t get you (global debt now 40% above 2008 levels), climate will (CO2 levels at 143% of Pleistocene, and rapidly climbing into positive feedback territory).

Obviously, you could look back in time to re-define Event Horizon I, such as, US peak oil in 1971, or “human agriculture” 12,000 yonks past.  But turning Hillary into a pro-progressive argument is something only a bone-headed lawyer or academic could do at this late date.  

Am I surprised by this level of argument?  Huh.   I s’pose not really after everything I’ve seen.  However, my disdain for people routinely ignoring reality is solid as a rock.  It’s like they should make a new place on the periodic table for pure, solid, elemental disdain.  It would be amongst the metals, I think.  I’d have to ask Translator Doc to be sure.

Warmest Regards.

10 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. He refrains from substantive comment on reality, while constantly goal-seeking.  Hardly the hemlock-drinking Socrates of the blogs (I too tend to avoid the hemlock).

    As is the case for many politicians, my emotional side likes him up front, until I process him thoroughly intellectually, whereafter my secondary emotions have to work double-time to displace the original emotional image, which is never entirely discarded, but is rather overlain with subsequent images of weaker segundogeniture. There is solid psychology and neuroscience behind that personal observation, dating back to at least E.R. Guthrie, and continuing to this day to, e.g., Mark Bouton.  The science is solid into the very bowels of excitatory and inhibitory conditioning.  Even Rescorla admitted you can’t have inhibition without excitation first.

    Point is, it can be hard not to like Armando, until you think about it, and even then it can be a struggle.  Look at the Obama people.  Look at the Clinton people.  Once they plant an emotional flag in your territory, you’re in an uphill struggle to find level ground, whether that flag was emotionally positive or negative.  Finding level ground inside yourself is quite hard.

  2. What is she going to do about:

    -overpopulation

    -finite resources

    -economic growth

    -climate change

    For starters.  In the midst of the sixth mass extinction event, every other question pales in comparison.  One cannot be credible without addressing these questions.  Without addressing these, you might as well ask how Ross Perot is “gonna clean out the barn!”  And HillBill has no intention of cleaning out the barn.  One can pretty much not even breathe around the methane stench of BillHill.  It’s like pure ammonia.  Even opening the cap of that bottle sends visible wafts upward that your nostrils will immediately recognize they should never have contacted in the first place.  That’s molecular grade shit, and you keep your nose well away from it.  If you value your olfactory devices.  

  3. if we could “compost” HillBill for pure nitrogen…that would be a smoking-hot pile. Imagine what could be grown from that shit-heap.  You could probably sell the compost itself as dime-bags.

  4. Translator is dead.

    Good that he still inspires people.

    This is not a criticism.

  5. It is not a reflection on you.  There may be no one in blogtopia who mourns his absence (or Ria’s for that matter) more deeply than I.  I can hardly bear to write about it since I’m convinced it represents a failure on my part to to be…

    Well, something.

    Something that could have changed things.

    The patient shows a response to the traumatizing event involved fear, horror or a sense of helplessness. In both scenarios, Holden was unable to step in and help both of the young victims. Holden had no control over his brother’s disease and could not have done anything to stop James Castle’s suicide. His inability to interfere has evoked feelings of helplessness. His desire to assist people similar to the victims is expressed through his desire to be the “catcher in the rye”. Holden confesses to his sister, Phoebe, “Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around -nobody big, I mean - except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do,I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff - I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them…”. Holden feels that if he is “the catcher” he can save people from the victimization diseases and bullies put on weaker individuals. It frustrates Holden to know that he cannot defend others. Specifically, he wants to protect the young and innocent, which is who he was before the traumatic events occurred in his life. Holden tells the readers, “I hate fist fights. I don’t mind getting hit so much- although I’m not crazy about it, naturally-but what scares me the most in a fist fight is the guy’s face. I can’t stand looking at the other guy’s face, is my trouble”. The “yellowness” Holden refers to is his fear to fight back against the people he feels are responsible for harming weaker individuals. He wants to stand up against the bullies and defend others, and it upsets him that he is afraid to.

    Sorry for this peek into my soul.  Please, please, please keep contributing.  I have to blow my nose now.

    • BobbyK on April 1, 2014 at 7:06 am

    Reed left off. And not just because it’s hard as hell to visually see where the block quotes are over at orange. Seemed to me they were making the same point. Not sure I like it.



    The inevitability of Clinton II.

    imho- Maybe she is. Maybe she isn’t. Depends on the competition.

    One thing I won’t do is be taken for granted. I will vote Nader or Green Party or something else if Hillary is not the best on the issues I care about. My vote is just as important as a soccer/security mom’s is.

    If she loses a close one, and folks start hippie bashing again, well fuck them.

    When the country nominates shitty candidates, they get shitty leadership. Stupid is as stupid does.

    Nader didn’t lose Florida for the Dems.

    Gore and the Supremes did.

    • BobbyK on April 1, 2014 at 7:21 am

    I expect she would be pretty much the same as her husband. Pro trade deals, pro Wall Street, pro privatisation, timid social progress, 3rd way neoconlib.

    If I were an optimist, I’d kid myself into believing she would be like Bush II and have an obsession with being consequential. That she’d not waste 1st term worrying about getting elected to a 2nd. Not waste a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a house majority. And fight the good fight for the Left.

    But I’m not. She probably will be like Bush the 2nd, in all the ways I don’t want her to be.

Comments have been disabled.