Whiskey Fire

Nino Dead

So Antonin Scalia is dead, and fuck him, that ancient unpleasant angry-assed bigot.

And there's this:

So...

GOP TO BLACK VOTERS: THE BLACK PRESIDENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO NAME THE REPLACEMENT FOR A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHO VOTED TO MAKE IT LEGAL TO SUPPRESS THE BLACK VOTE.

I predict massive black voter turnout this year, whoever gets the Dem nomination.

 

I Got Bulldog Skin

Here is some ripe poop from the WaPo. Headline:

Conspiracy theories aren’t just for conservatives

It's gonna suck... subhed:

Who doesn’t love a good conspiracy theory? Liberals, that’s who.

It's gonna suck so very hard. Here are quotes. They are dumb.

Take Princeton economist Paul Krugman who ominously warns that:

Unlike the crazy conspiracy theories of the left—which do exist, but are supported only by a tiny fringe—the crazy conspiracy theories of the right are supported by important people: powerful politicians, television personalities with large audiences.

Krugman makes a fair point: in moderation conspiracy theories may show healthy skepticism, but in excess they can erode the trust needed for states to fulfill their basic functions and warp the respect for evidence necessary for sound decision making.

Yet Krugman is mostly wrong that nuttiness is found mainly among conservatives, and his misperception actually reveals a great deal about U.S. politics.

The "Krugman makes a fair point" line is bizarre, because it has no relation to Krugman's actual point, which has nothing to do with "moderation" as regards "conspiracy theories."

Krugman's point, which is rather self-evident, is that only one major US political party, and the social and cultural institutions that cradle it, is energetically opposed to a very specific branch of scientific inquiry: climate science. (Embarrassments as regards evolution are here also rife.) Is there a parallel as regards the leadership of the Democratic Party, its leaders, its "important people," its "powerful politicians," its "television personalities with large audiences" in relation to a specific branch of scientific inquiry, to what "powerful GOP politicians" have to say about climate change if they want to get elected to office and stay there?

No. There is fucking not.

The authors of this abominable article are smug little shits, very pleased with themselves that they are not icky like Krugman, who has chosen a side, the beastly little man. "Nuttiness"? All people who have a particular point of view are prone to "nuttiness"?

People of all political persuasions believe their views are objectively right and others hold positions that are arbitrary and asinine. Daniel Kahan finds that partisan commitments make people look for evidence to justify their conclusions. Even when, say, liberals come up with a correct answer, it may not have been because of their high esteem for evidence. They just got lucky. The implication is that people use data like drunks use lampposts: more for support than illumination. Columnist Ezra Klein concurs with Kahan, although he points out the large numbers of Republicans who refuse to accept climate science and wonders whether there is a liberal equivalent to climate change denial.

Oho, Daniel Kahan has "found" things out, by my stars and left shiny testicle.

Go ahead -- click that "they just got lucky" link up there. Read the following text. Enjoy Daniel Kahan coming across like a twerp and dickhead. And not addressing the point that of the two major political parties, only the one towards the left has a political and social leadership not hostile to scientific analysis. And beyond that... Christ, even Young Ezra figured this out. 

So let's look at the idiotic social science in the WaPo article.

So are all Americans created equal when it comes to fearing collusion and conspiracies? Our recent research suggests that they are. As part of a 2012 national survey, we asked respondents about the likelihood of voter fraud as an explanation if their preferred presidential candidate did not win. Fifty percent of Republicans said it would be very or somewhat likely, compared to 44 percent of Democrats. This contradicts claims by Jonathan Chait that Republicans believe in electoral conspiracy theories far more than Democrats do.

This is breathtakingly stupid. Only one party has decided to go out of its way to pretend that "voter fraud" is a serious issue, and has thus decided to press for strict "Voter ID laws." And given these conspiratorial pressures... damn fucking straight the GOP is systematically launching an attempt to suppress the voting rights of students, blacks, and the poor. Denying that is, in fact, irrational, Indeed: it is FUCKING irrational.

But here is the punchline.

In our survey, we also measured respondents’ underlying propensity to believe in conspiracy theories — that is, the general mindset that leads people to accept or reject conspiracy theories. We asked respondents whether they agreed with four statements:

• “Much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places,”
• “Even though we live in a democracy, a few people will always run things anyway,”
• “The people who really ‘run’ the country are not known to the voters.”
• “Big events like wars, the current recession, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people who are working in secret against the rest of us.”

... The upshot: near symmetry between left and right.

Yeah. Because all of those statements are pretty much accurate, and are accepted facts among grownups.

But then of course we ultimately get the reversion to the mean bullshit:

We have to wonder what would happen to liberals’ belief in climate science if the solution to climate change were freer markets and smaller government.

Yeah, you would sort of have to wonder that, because it's fucking wrong. As regards, like, the facts.

....

At the moment, the human beings in the world at whom I am most incensed are the "reason" and "Reason" and faux-reasonable peddlers of smug bullshit who are gleefully -- or, at best, mindlessly -- wailing out about how SCIENCE shows that people who believe in things are stupid, and therefore, they themselves are great and smart ha ha.

But from a cold, rational point of view, if you know jack shit about science, you should vote Democrat. Specifically because that is the rational decision.

Which is not to say there are not problems with the Democratic Party. There are. Serious ones. But again, you should only vote for a Republican if you believe in bullshit.

As regards science education in general, I hope everyone concerned in the preparation and publication of this Washington Post article is murdered by wolverines. Also there is far too much social science "research" like this that is glib horrible garbage and is just fucking not scholarship and that sucks.

Are You Unreadable II

Someone else on the Internet sees bad social science.

According to two sociologists, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, our moral culture recently underwent a seismic shift. Rather than upholding appropriate standards of honor and dignity, we now inflate trifling slights into allegations of victimization. Minor grievances of all sorts are showcased in cyberspace in an effort to garner sympathy and support. This “new species of social control,” they maintain, threatens an America where weakness suddenly rules....

Typically, Campbell and Manning’s evidence is anecdotal and relies on conflating substantively different forms of dissent. They lump together hunger strikes, hate crime hoaxes, protest suicides and microaggressions as comparable illustrations of this cultural turn. More importantly, microaggressions, trigger warnings and even the controversy over Woodrow Wilson’s legacy are not the ultimate target of this critique.

This Campbell and Manning paper is all sorts of dreadful. Details to follow, but if you want a taste now, here is something fun from the 14th footnote:

Gender studies scholar Hugo Schwyzer, in an essay critical of this phenomenon, complains that “too many of my students insist on writing essays that I can only describe as ‘narratives of suffering.’

Yeah, that would be this Hugo Schwyzer.

Comical, and minor, but symptomatic: this is a remarkably glib article.

Again, more to follow.

Spy Frame Mind

Mainstream Social Science has disproved the existence of microaggressions. Keep that in mind.

Are You Unreadable?

So let's go into that last post a bit, the one about my dislike for a particular social scientist, Haidt. I have a much larger critique in mind.  But let's begin with an examination of his breathless, uncritical cheerleading for an article that can only be described as having been published in an academic journal and therefore existing.

I am not a mainstream USA social scientist. Longtime readers -- and this blog was of course started in 1874 -- know that I'm an Irish Studies scholar, with a particular emphasis upon literary censorship from 1927-1967. So this isn't exactly my field. But it is some of yours, mes amis -- so I axe you, most sincerely:

Is this shit really mainstream American social science?

I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in just the past few years. In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.

Indizzle. In American history, the turn of the 18th century to the 19th marked a profound transformation of honor culture to dignity culture. Evidence abounds. According to a transcript of a conversation between one Georgia slave to another in 1801:

Slave 1: Hey, I think we just jumped from an honor culture to a dignity culture.

Slave 2: Fuck yeah!

Slave 1: Good news about that no more dueling shit.

Slave 2: Absolutely! Dueling is clearly the most salient feature of American culture during this particular historical epoch.

Slave 1: These moral issues are so easy to demarcate! What a boon to future sociologists!

Slave 2: We can only pray that this shit helps to elucidate the behavior of American undergraduates two centuries hence.

Slave 1: If at any point in the 21st century any of our descendants get into any sort of scrapes involving busted chifforobes, they will be able to go straight to the courts or administrative bodies, because nothing will scream Jim Crow more than "culture of dignity."

Slave 2: Fuck.

Fast forwarding to the future:

Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim. This is why we have seen the recent explosion of concerns about microaggressions, combined with demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces, that Greg Lukianoff and I wrote about in The Coddling of the American Mind.

This thesis is extremely persuasive, accepting, arguendo, that history, rape, and racism ended in America sometime around, oh, 1963.

Getting annoyed now; I'll return to the evisceration later --

But is this article really publishable as good social science? It's utterly terrible at every level.

Dueling?

Fuck.

 

Saying

I've decided that I don't like this person.

 

Accidental Intelligence

I suppose it's a sign of, well, something, that wingnuts are just not pissing me off very much nowadays. I think this is because one could legitimately argue that as of late the most venerable and august Conservative Thinkers among us include Erick Erickson and Jonah Goldberg. That's not even me making a joke. The 2003 Right Blogosphere swallowed the GOP entire, and now it's farting out Trumps, or Cruzing out Trumps, and is now even too dumb and too gross to wipe up Santorum. 

Here is my favorite thing so far about the GOP primaries: whenever you get even vaguely intelligible policy proposals out of a GOP candidate, it is entirely an accident caused by the candidate not knowing or caring about the issue in question.

Take higher education, please. Marco Rubio, a human being about as useful and purposeful and delightful as a human tit cruelly bereft of a nipple, has articulated what passes for policy expertise in this area. What he wants is for the federal government to give money to shysters who want to rip off veterans and taxpayers.

But on the Trump Side we have a stray nutty-bananas bigot academic from a thoroughly harmless, decent, and now-humiliated tiny liberal arts college; this cramped Grima-soul is eager to plump for Trump:

The small private college in Iowa last week was distancing itself from Sam Clovis, a tenured professor of economics who is currently on leave so he can be national co-chair of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. After Clovis was quoted defending the Trump campaign's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, the link between Clovis and the college attracted attention.

A statement from the college said, "We find the view that a particular religion should be discriminated against to be repugnant to the values held at Morningside College. When he was on campus, Dr. Clovis was a staunch defender of the Constitution and a strong advocate for religious freedom. His recent comments appear to be at odds with his earlier views. We find his recent position to be outrageous and disappointing." (The college says it has one student who self-identifies as Muslim.)

There is a fantastic academic novel to be written here, maybe to be entitled Fuck You! I Own Many Casinos and Golf Courses, Lucky Jim, And Also Fucking Wonderful Yachts.

But this is the punchline: Clovis bravely defends Trump on the grounds that ethnic cleansing only means an ethnic knob polishing, but when it gets down to brass knuckles:

Trump is unlikely to join the campaign against accreditors, Clovis said. "I'm not sure tinkering with accreditation is where we want to go," he said, adding that his work at Morningside with its accreditor (the Higher Learning Commission) has left him thinking that the regional accreditors do important work.

Clovis is an idiot, but he is nevertheless an idiot with an actual job.

Trump's higher education policy proposals, as amorphous and silly as they are ever likely to be, are miles better than any of his GOP rivals. Sure, this is likely because he doesn't give a poo-plated golf-ball shit, the tacky dimwitted spookheaded inarticulate ill-kempt dishonorable pervert Wookie.

But Rubio is, with a straight face, making Deeply Serious Proposals to make it easier for crooks to rip off veterans and taxpayers.

Because he is Serious.

 

 

Speech Justice Warrior

So every time I try to get in, they drag me back out. Or something.

Anywah, here is some shit that pisses me off. Fucking Wendy Kaminer. This is some fatheaded shite.

One: Kaminer is deriving an immense amount of pleasure from publishing this in the WaPo.

Two: Kaminer offers a total bullshit canned history of campus protest.

Three: Kaminer went into a speech "debate" and deliberately threw a bomb.

Four: Kaminer is not a person who will remain on any campus anywhere and have to pick up any pieces.

Five: Kaminer is wanking.

Here's the point. Nobody ever actually bothers to try to understand what's actually going on in any contest about what is and what is not legitimate speech. Everyone just runs in hard and fast and tries to impose their own rues.

 

 

Freak Speech

So I've been away awhile. Much of this is due to my involvement with my institution's response to accreditation requirements. And if you annoy me, I'll tell you more about that.

Going forward, Whiskey Fire will be largely about speech issues, because these subjects interest me, and because the usual discourse about these issues is, as a rule, stupid. For example, let's paw through this garbage from the Atlantic. Here's the ominous overture:

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.

Oh fuck you.

To back up. One thing you must understand -- and if you can't grasp this point and you leave a comment to this post I will find you and pee on you -- is that pretty much everything that is written about "censorship" and "free speech" on the Internet, or the popular press, or indeed in academia, is not scholarship, but instead activism.

What do I mean? I mean that it is extremely rare to find anyone asking basic questions about controversies regarding speech controversies -- basic questions that very often should have included inquiries as to "who actually said what" and "what was actually said in response." Here's a goddamn rule: whenever you hear about a speech issue that gets you riled up, you probably know less than an eighth of the relevant facts. And if you spend a year or so trying to track down these facts? You know about three quarters about the dispute, if you're lucky.

So what you get when you read through the bullshit of assholes trying to PROVE THAT FREE SPEECH IS DOOOOOOMED AT COLLLEGE is a lot of noisy nothing --

Continuing with the morons from the Atlantic:

Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma.

For fuck's sake. There is no evidence at all offered that either of these terms have become "common campus parlance" that is not anecdotal.

And "Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue"...? You made that up. There are professors that use them. There are more that don't. The evidence that this is now what English profs do... is imaginary.

You can go through the entire stupid article and you will not find a single goddamn scrap of non-anecdotal evidence for any single one of the authors' sweeping claims. If instead you decide to take as a hypothesis the contention that "college students have always argued about group identity" and "this shit has happened in some way shape or form for centuries" YOU WOULD BE PROVED FUCKING RIGHT BY EVEN A FUCKING CURSORY REVIEW OF THE AVAILABLE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE HOLY SHIT.

The truth is that there is no such thing as "free speech." This is a fine ideal to pursue, and bless you for believing in it. What actually exists is a ferocious competition between specific groups to own and impose on others a monopoly over the right to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate speech.

Unless you understand this, from a scholarly perspective, you can't even begin to understand the stakes of any "free speech" battle. For instance:

Greg Lukianoff is a constitutional lawyer and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which defends free speech and academic freedom on campus, and has advocated for students and faculty involved in many of the incidents this article describes

Wanker.

 

Live Tonight! The CornShucking MotherLovers w/ special guest The MotherLoving CornShuckers!

by Ripley

This is a work in progress, bear with me. I have dogs and band stuff with which to deal. 

  

 Let us hope, with JESUS' MIGHTY MILLION DOLLAR HANDS upon us,that there will be more to come. 

Or we can all just suck it. Life is a mystery.

Mas: I never really had a hero, growing up (Dad stories, yada yada) but I did have a few idols. Steve Martin, to my young mind, was the funniest, most talented mofo around. Through the years, he's always been my comedy grounding, if that makes sense.

In 1989, this tall, cool hippie chick hit the scene and we stood united. United we stood?

 

 Speaking of which... 

 

Mas: I also found this.

 

 Even more mas: Look, we're all stuck in this godforsaken shitstain of a nation that Ronald Reagan left us with, and The Cheneys are back on the news, which means we're all gonna die horrible deaths. So we may as well go down tickling each others' underbits, yeah?

 

Rip - 

For What? Hazzard for Lead?

Yeah, it's pretty weird (that last paragraph is amazing). But maybe he's just concerned that next they come for Daisy's shorts.

Who Is the Boss of Cakes (Cake Boss)

The "Gay Wedding Cake Case" is a good bet to become the new "Hot McDonald's Coffee Case,"as regards common knowledge and blather.

To cut out all the bullshit, what this case boils down to, is "do you have a legal right to exempt yourself from the law by citing a religious exemption"?

Of course you fucking don't!

Or maybe you do; who the fuck knows. That it's down to Anthony Fucking Kennedy is fucking the worst joke ever.

OK Then

Anthony Kennedy did OK today, but he's still a shithead, and it's galling that this pompous fucknose gets to tell the rest of the country what's what legally.

I trust this is not a controversial assessment.

Since the affairs of men rest still uncertain/ Let’s reason with the worst that may befall

I suppose it is a sign of something like progress that nobody else but this blog is going to bother with Pat Buchanan's 2015 ideas about the Confederacy. But fuck him.

Buchanan notes that the loved ones of the victims forgave the murderer, and notes that this is Christian.

If there is a better recent example of what it means to be a Christian, I am unaware of it. Collier and the families of those slain showed a faithfulness to Christ's gospel of love and forgiveness that many are taught but few are strong enough to follow, especially at times like this.

Sure.

Of course, few are called, many are the butt of systematic oppression, but fair enough.

Here is the Fun Bit.

Their Christian witness testifies to a forgotten truth: If slavery was the worst thing that happened to black folks brought from Africa to America, Christianity was the best.

Wow.

Wow.

And then this lament:

Vilification of that battle flag and the Confederacy is part of the cultural revolution in America that flowered half a century ago. Among its goals was the demoralization of the American people by demonizing their past and poisoning their belief in their own history.

The world is turned upside down. The new dogma of the cultural Marxists: Columbus was a genocidal racist. Three of our Founding Fathers -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison -- were slaveowners. Andrew Jackson was an ethnic cleanser of Indians. The great Confederate generals -- Lee, Jackson, Forrest -- fought to preserve an evil institution. You have nothing to be proud of and much to be ashamed of if your ancestors fought for the South. And, oh yes, your battle flag is the moral equivalent of a Nazi swastika.

Uh, that's pretty much the world right-side up, motherfucker.

Heh. Pat Buchanan. Dumb old shitbooger.

Even Sadder Freaks of the Nation

Shorter Mark Krikorian:

I wants my white mens on my moneys!

I drink your trail of tears.

Sad Freaks of the Nation

Big Dead Dumb Breitbart.

Why Do Gunmen Target Churches And Schools, Not NRA Meetings?

Well, this last guy wanted specifically to shoot black people, so, uh, asked and answered.

Beyond that, I am going to be a teacher for the rest of my career, and fuck me if I'm ever gutless coward enough to walk into a classroom with a fucking gun. I wage civilization, motherfucker.

Dumb Song

One of the weirder features of your far-right electronic ideological cesspits that nobody actually reads is their "lifestyle" sections. The Federalist here serves up a hum-dinger:

Taylor Swift Flirts With The Feminist Dark Side

Great Snot!

In a time of global political chaos, surging domestic culture wars, and the baffling emergence of enough GOP presidential candidates to effectively recast every Wes Anderson film ever made, there is one enduring, rock-solid truth we all can count on: If you live in America, you cannot escape Taylor Swift.

This is not good writing; this is a confused person with no point to make gesturing towards cultural phenomena.

In the ensuing paragraphs we learn that Taylor Swift exists, Lena Dunham is a liar about how women get raped, that women who get raped are usually drunk, and because Taylor Swift makes money women never face egregious discrimination in the workplace.

My daughter is 10, and is very much in the Taylor Swift wheelhouse. If TS is singing about how my kid is going to have to put up with sexist bullshit, good. Because she will.

Of course my daughter also digs Neko Case.

 

 

We Are the Sons of Reagan Heil

Kurt Schlichter: even by Townhall standards, to endure him, you need a snotguard and a translation from the authentic 1930s German. Hark to the lilting, Horst Wassailing:

So, though no fault of your own, you are a young conservative male coming of age in a time when the deck is so heavily stacked against you that it’s like Michael Moore was leaning on it.

The "white" is silent. (Never mind the botched cards metaphor.)

Now, this is targeted to straight conservative males from 18-25 not because of the inherent cisnormative racism your TA told you about but because that’s who I was. Those who identify as “women” are welcome to take what they can from it. Those who are gay, well, my gaydar is so bad anyway that my exceedingly hot wife is constantly telling me, “Wait, you didn’t know XXXXX was gay? How did you not know XXXXX was gay?”

Kurt is eager to inform us that he is not gay and that while he finds gays disgusting, he remembers how Andrew Dice Clay told very comical jokes many decades ago and that was great fun.

For those of you who are quick on the uptake, the key takeaway from that last paragraph is that I have an “exceedingly hot wife.”

18 year olds sure do love to "keep it real" by having middle aged weirdos sidle up to them to brag about fucking.

You should do a tour if you are one of the 30% of Americans who can qualify for military service....

You will have earned something that is totally yours and can never be taken away – and you will live a life adventure that your contemporaries who are now second assistant to the guy who runs the Xerox machine can only dream of. Plus, chicks dig it. Trust me.

And you might not end up maimed from fighting in a war based on bullshit -- but no worries, the GOP will cut your benefits anyway. Wars are only fun for rich shits, because freedom. And there are no jobs waiting for you! You'll be lucky to be third Xerox attendant (and nobody 'Xeroxes' anymore, dated dad jokester!) -- and anyone who tells you "chicks dig it" is an ass. This country cares jack for veterans when it comes to cash on the barrel, as opposed to happy bullshit: go ask one from the current century.

The rest of Schlichter's "advice" boils down to how college and law school are now a total waste of time because there aren't any jobs anymore because of right wing economics, but that's OK because he came up in the 1980s and had the GI Bill and got to booze his way into a law degree and is now paid to write "humor" columns, all without ever having to be in a fucking actual shooting war or having to learn how not to come across as a total prick to any 21st -century real-life young person.

In conclusion, Schlichter tells young (the white is silent) men that the way to have a fulfilling heterosexual relationship is to always remember that what ultimately counts is a dick-swinging contest with other men in which women only matter like Monopoly money or some shit, as opposed to trying to find someone you like and who likes you back in the sense that you're two human beings who care for each other or somesuch LIBERAL BULLSHIT.

21st century wingnuttery has many pathologies, but perhaps the most astonishing -- and revealing -- is that these twits sincerely think that everyone loves them.

 

 

Ceep Cool with Koolidge

Real Life has intervened for a while so I have not of late been monitoring weirdo sites like Townhall Dotcom. Most of it is boring; all of it is crazy. There is very little new under the nut, but I was charmed to discover this stray goofball champeening, of all fucking personages, Calvin Fucking Coolidge.

And, of course, also Dennis Prager. Because why not.

Anyhow this Townhall someone does offer a very pithy explanation of how True Conservatives, deep down, comprehend concepts like democracy:

The electorate may redefine and change moral and legal constraints but conservatism does not.

My socialist point exactly.

Important Newsflash

Politico helpfully reminds us that anyone who supports Bernie Sanders is a disgusting hippie. Actual headline:

It's not your everyday Americans at Bernie Sanders' kickoff rally

Right.

Maybe they're not the "everyday Americans" of the sort that the weirdo fucking Duggars or the Duckfuckers are, but you know, fuck you, Politico!

And that is all I have to say about that.