beloved chungoose

i keep meaning to write a letter to the editor encouraging democrats to vote in primaries for candidates who are *actually proud to be democrats* and not the ones (like our big statewides this year) who mortgage the long-term health of the party by running as "not that kind of democrat"

absolutely insane to me how allegedly smart people thinking about politics can convince themselves that "publicize as much actual existing wrongdoing by your opponents as possible" somehow weakens your hand for the next cycle "you can never trust these people again" is a good (AND TRUE!) message

i was going to say democrats need to learn to be hypocrites, but that's not quite right they need to get comfortable being accused of hypocrisy. and that's actually just one example of the ultimate prize: recognizing bad faith and responding appropriately

"where was this energy when republicans were looting and pillaging the u.s. treasury? why is it only when democrats want to do something constructive that 'how will you pay for it?' becomes a concern for you?"

i was going to say democrats need to learn to be hypocrites, but that's not quite right they need to get comfortable being accused of hypocrisy. and that's actually just one example of the ultimate prize: recognizing bad faith and responding appropriately

the next dem trifecta should authorize a wwii-sized rollout of clean energy, including an entirely rebuilt grid to be completed before the next presidential election and when anyone comes crying about the trillions you're adding to the deficit, you tell them to suck shit

i was going to say democrats need to learn to be hypocrites, but that's not quite right they need to get comfortable being accused of hypocrisy. and that's actually just one example of the ultimate prize: recognizing bad faith and responding appropriately

i actually don't know that i had ever heard this shit-weasel talk before. tell me you are totally unconcerned about anyone besides yourself without telling me he's not remorseful. he's not somber. this is not the selling of hard realities and tradeoffs. he's gleeful at being a naughty little imp

EXT.: a black suv with a loudspeaker repeatedly blaring "we don't ride bicycles in iowa" nearly hits several cyclists before rushing head-on at a pair of children biking across the street. cut to black the moment before the impact

on-screen text and voiceover: "If you own a bike, Joe Mitchell can't see you." "If he can't see you, how can he represent you?" "Joe Mitchell. Dangerous for your children. Dangerous for Iowa."

it's wild to me that the ability to say "explain it to me like i'm a child" is actually a superpower in the world of journalism because so many in the field just parrot whatever they're told lest they seem unsophisticated for not understanding i have zero shame in saying i don't get what this means

given how often republicans engage in projection -- either to preemptively muddy the waters around something they're doing or because they assume everyone is as corrupt as they are -- statements like this should serve as batsignals for places to start digging

i don't know that i've ever read a good account of how bad-faith actors exploit the physical conventions of journalism when your brain sees that screenshot, it knows the big text is the thesis and the smaller text is a supporting argument... but what does "mother of five" have to do with anything?

what does squeezing five separate humans out of your clownhole say about your parenting ability? zero, actually but hardly anyone will stop to question it because it's in the "supporting evidence" slot. "she's reliable, she's a mother of five!" is what that subhed wants you to think

i don't know that i've ever read a good account of how bad-faith actors exploit the physical conventions of journalism when your brain sees that screenshot, it knows the big text is the thesis and the smaller text is a supporting argument... but what does "mother of five" have to do with anything?