Bullshit explained – Page 3 – If there is something

SF Board of Re-Education sees mural and wants to paint it black

The third installment in our series, A World Awash in Bullshit.

It seems like only a few years ago when many conservatives objected to what they called “revisionist history”. This was the practice by some scholars to portray historical figures and events “warts and all”. Many objected to a depiction of the founding fathers as anything less than god-like figures soaring above the fruited plain on the backs of giant bald eagles, or relations with indigenous people as anything other than mutually beneficial free trade and congenial Thanksgiving dinners.

My how times have changed. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to paint down a mural series of George Washington painted in 1936 by Victor Arnautoff, a Russian-American artist. Commissioned by Roosevelt’s WPA, the mural depicted Washington as a slave owner and architect of military campaigns against the indigenous people of America. In other words, it told the uncomfortable truth at a time when most depictions of the father of our country exhibited a towering, heroic figure nobly crossing the Delaware. Unfortunately, this progressive minded group of San Francisco educators and artists find history too offensive to the delicate sensibilities of today’s students and members of the community, and want to see it erased all together.

Strange because the history of destroying art for ideological purposes is not pretty. The groups and movements that go around erasing history and culture they find offensive are not ones with which rational individuals would want to associate themselves. In the last century, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and German National Socialists all engaged in widespread art destruction for ideological reasons. In more recent years, the Taliban and ISIS have destroyed countless religious and cultural artifacts. I guess you can’t argue that there isn’t plenty of historical precedent behind the actions of the SF BOE.

Supporters of the plan argue that the mural “traumatizes students” because it “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression.” That it “glorifies” none of these but instead draws attention to the ugly history of America’s founding has been well established by the artist, critics and historians. That the school board would level such a dishonest interpretation at the work to justify destroying it says that some public educators in our country exist in a state of willful self-delusion. How can we expect our children to learn the skills of critical thinking when they’re being instructed by educators for which political ideology is primary and rationality and reason must bow to it? Of course, maybe that’s the idea – critical thinking, independent reasoning, and skepticism aren’t valued by some educators.

SF school board members had the opportunity to preserve the work and simply cover it with a curtain, but instead chose to destroy it, citing their actions as “reparations”. As recently as 2010, the then principal of the school expressed pride in the murals and happiness at they’re being preserved. Apparently we’ve come a long way since the bad old days of 2010. Moral sensitivities have evolved exponentially and the pure of heart are now deciding that not only must we shield the timid souls of today from “dangerous” art, but future generations must also not be allowed to make up their own minds or formulate their own ideas about America’s problematic past.

Vox spends walkout suppressing free speech, burning content and torching YouTube

Vox journalists went into their walkout Thursday riding and endorphin induced euphoria, stemming from their successful campaign to reduce the amount of free speech millions of Americans enjoy. How better to celebrate their victory than with a content burning bonfire and a strategy session to build on the momentum gained from their latest successful endeavor to suppress free expression?

As the bonfire blazed, Vox journalists patted themselves on the back and felt even more emboldened to demand higher than market wages of Vox management for their successful efforts at internet censorship. After all, censoring YouTube doesn’t just benefit Vox writers, it has the potential to enhance the company’s bottom line as well.

Vox journalists could barely contain their elation from seeing content creator after content creator on the YouTube platform go up in flames from the fire they had lit. Among the victims were history teachers and academic videos, as well as the work of prominent journalists that sought to educate about hate, not promote it.

Unrepentant and sensing they had their opponents bloodied but not beaten, Vox journalists penned “An open letter to YouTube’s CEO” where they demanded the platform update it’s standards to censor even more speech:

“Without a serious change to YouTube’s interpretation of its standards, Crowder is free to continue to make videos where he hurls slurs at journalists and creators, who will then keep getting hit with the same sort of harassment, invective, and dangerous leaking of personal information that Carlos has continued to experience from Crowder’s fans.”

Apparently, Vox’s bonfire brainstorming session worked, as they hit upon resurrecting the old argument of blaming the content creators for the actions of the consumers of said content. A stroke of brilliance on the part of Vox journalists, the tactic was once successfully deployed when John Hinckley blamed Jodie Foster and the movie Taxi Driver for his assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. (Warning: Vox Millennials, don’t try watching Taxi Driver at home alone, it will trigger the shit out of you.) More importantly, Vox has successfully rallied much of the mainstream media to join it’s effort to torch independent journalists, educators, and content creators.

As the fires subside and the Vox Adpocalypse gives way to a new dawning Voxtopia, the media company has positioned itself nicely to be one of the “authoritative sources” YouTube will now begin directing its traffic toward. Having successfully punched down on the independent voices of both the marginalised and non-marginalised alike, the required reading of white liberal elites, Vox, can now resume it’s authoritative role as explainer of news and protector of the historically marginalised, who are now free to just shut up and listen.

Media flew too close to Bullshit Mountain…again

The distress call went out back in March when a tough talking, street fighting litigator from Los Angeles, the unlikely hero of the resistance media, found himself cross-examining a pair of handcuffs. Thousands of media stories and pundit prognostications that had previously soared on the wings of this champion of the resistance, suddenly crashed and burned in the dense jungles of Bullshit Mountain. The distress call went unheeded, though. The stories of bravery and heroism in the face of a maniacal king, the tales of a young prince with a law degree defending the besmirched honor of more than one fair maiden, and the adventures of a crusader for truth and justice lay forgotten, swallowed up by the canopy of dense excrement that envelopes Bullshit Mountain.

At the entrance to every cable news studio, there must exist a scanner of some sort, lined with precision quantum magnets, that can detect the remnants of stories that crashed on Bullshit Mountain and extract them from the brains of the show’s hosts and commentators. Like something out of a Philip K. Dick novel, the Spotless Mind 3000 erases a reality they’ve spent months cultivating and promoting, and allows the commentator to move seamlessly onto another topic without acknowledging their culpability in crafting a stunning work of monumental bullshit. What else could explain this sort of nonchalance in the face of what should be a realization that the previous several months of the journalist’s professional life has been a complete waste?

It’s creepy the way they shift gears. How do you watch a narrative you’ve been spinning for months be reduced to ashes and not think to yourself, man, I really suck at my job? For many toiling in the real world, to have failed so miserably would have produced an existential reckoning accompanied by months of depression, and most likely loss of one’s occupation. Granted, when the Mueller Report dropped, some cable news hosts and commentators were either visibly shaken, or mad as hell and unable to take it anymore. (Mueller really should have given them a trigger warning.) However, after having their minds sanitized, many in the resistance media and its broadcast affiliates, CNN and MSNBC, without a moment of self-reflection, moved on from conspiracy and began to focus tremendous brain power on obstruction.

Here is one journalist ruminating admiringly about the then resistance hero back in July of 2018. No need to reveal the journalist’s identity. Let’s just say he’s a very prominent writer for an outfit with a name that starts with a V and ends with an X. “Alternatively, if you’re a smart, young, hard-working lawyer with progressive political convictions, and you also like money going out and winning large verdicts against rich companies that broke the rules, this line of work suggests itself as one of the most ethical ways to get rich.” So our resistance hero, prior to being charged with attempted extortion, bank and wire fraud, and stealing money from his clients, was engaged in one of the most ethical ways to get rich. Really?

Perhaps no one in the media could have known back in July of 2018 that Captain Resistance was nothing less than an honorable crusader for truth, justice, and the American way. But, most likely, they didn’t want to know. Because this was the guy who was going to take down Trump and possibly steal his job. Once again, scores of media hacks bought into a wildly improbable narrative and proceeded to recklessly guide it to it’s inevitable conclusion: that of a steaming forgotten heap, smoldering on the slopes of Bullshit Mountain.

Vox writer triggered by Bret Easton Ellis’s White

Millennials can be a hard bunch to impress, and Vox writer, Constance Grady, is not going to be impressed by much acclaimed and occasionally maligned author Bret Easton Ellis. When Ellis asserts in his book that Millennials often display an inability to view things in their context, he hadn’t accounted for Constance Grady, who last summer wrote a piece for Vox using the movie Sixteen Candles to provide “important context for the Brett Kavanaugh accusations.” When Grady is looking for some background on eighties rape culture, she knows to go straight to the source for everything eighties: John Hughes movies.

White, according to Vox’s rating system, receives only one V out of a possible five. Expressed as Roman numerals that would be I/V Vs. I guess if you hit a home run with the Vox crew, you score a V/V Vs. That Vox is a sort of Millenial Home Companion, the low rating is not surprising as this book is highly critical of the demographic group. True to Millennial form, Grady has to get the obligatory “racist” and “misogynist” accusations out of the way before the review even begins.

White is not a book about politics. Ellis expresses few political views in the book beyond stating that he didn’t vote for Trump or Clinton. It is a book that contrasts the American culture the author grew up in with our current one. Ellis bemoans the reality that our current culture is so obsessed with politics, at least among the entertainment and media elites on the coasts, and Ellis takes dead aim at the anti-Trump hysteria gripping much of the nation.

In the second paragraph of her review, Grady highlights an Ellis exchange in a New Yorker interview by Isaac Chotiner as a ‘gotcha moment’. It doesn’t need to be quoted here. The whole interview is an embarrassment… for Chotiner. Outrage cranked up to eleven, Chotiner drops all pretense of professionalism and runs down the list of Trump’s most deplorable moments, trying to get Ellis to admit that Trump is the worst scoundrel history has ever manufactured, but fails to get Ellis’s outrage to register above a three. The behavior of the interviewer only serves to illustrate Ellis’s point that many on the left lose all rationality when it comes to talking about Trump.

Grady admonishes Ellis for writing a book about politics when he claims to find politics ridiculous. Curiously, however, several paragraphs later, she claims as a fact “that there is no such thing as non-political art”. According to this line of reasoning, the simple act of a writer putting pen to paper is political. In Grady’s world, how can Ellis write anything that isn’t political?

Ellis’s complaint is that he can’t go out for dinner or drinks without his companions bringing up how Trump stole the election or that he’s a stooge of the Russians; and even in Ellis’s own home, his Millennial partner, distraught over a Trump presidency, has shut himself in, relapsed into addiction and essentially put his life on hold. Ellis’s lament is not political, it’s an argument against permitting politics to rule one’s life and sap all the enjoyment out of it. It is a call to take a deep breath, calm the fuck down, and preserve your sanity. Predictably, Grady’s comeback is to hit the outrage switch by reminding everyone of the “children who are being kept in cages”. This is the inevitable retort whenever anyone calls for rationality, or a more restrained response to Trump’s provocations. Why do Grady and Chotiner think that the appropriate response to Ellis’s criticism of years of anxious liberal hand-wringing over Trump is to try to elicit more of it by rehashing all the outrage inducing talking points? Have they ever considered that maybe Trump is playing them, or that maybe it gives his supporters a boner to watch the so-called liberal elites lose their shit?

Ultimately, Grady concludes that White is simply boring. The Millennial Grady is not impressed with stories of what it’s like to become a famous, best-selling novelist at the age of 23, shortly after graduating college. Stories of cocaine snorting and running with celebrities dull her to death, and she can’t engage with the author’s thoughts on movies or life growing up in the seventies. In other words, she can’t empathize with the experiences of a white, gay middle-aged man. Big surprise.

Millennials like Grady think they’re inventing civilization after generations of human struggle through a primitive dark ages. In her Sixteen Candles piece, she asserts, “In the 1980s, “rape” meant an attack from a stranger in a dark alley, not something that acquaintances did to each other at house parties where everyone knows each other.” This statement is absurd, untrue and reveals an appalling ignorance of the culture she’s attempting to write about, leaving little wonder why she can’t engage with a writer like Ellis. But that’s okay. If you’re ignorant and incurious, just make shit up. Vox will print it anyway.

MAGA hats under attack

The following is the second installment in our A World Awash in Bullshit series. I didn’t publish the first installment because the subject is such a powder keg of explosive bullshit that it’s not worth the trouble of posting.

From the “live but don’t let other people live, but instead fuck with them hard” file, comes a recent spate of attacks involving MAGA hat wearers. No, it isn’t MAGA hatters run amuck, perpetrating hate crimes and leaving behind a trail of murder and mayhem. It’s folks going about their daily lives wearing MAGA gear and getting harassed and assaulted by so-called tolerant, anti-racism, anti-hate individuals for whom the first amendment apparently means, “freedom of speech, just watch what you say.”

Most recently, a Mexican-American woman was attacked in a California post office for wearing a MAGA hat. The perpetrator, a woke white woman, taught this brown lady a lesson in racism by hurling insults at her and smacking her around. We know this because the MAGA hat lady got it all on video.

This incident is just one of a number of attacks that have taken place just in the last few months. In Massachusetts, a woman was arrested in February for battery and disorderly conduct after harassing a man and grabbing his MAGA hat. In Oklahoma, a high school boy is confronted by another high schooler who takes his MAGA hat and his Trump 2020 sign and throws them on the floor. This incident took place in the high school hall and was captured by cell phone video. In New Jersey, a 19 year old male threw an 81 year old man to the ground for the offense of wearing a MAGA hat. The teenager faces assault and harassment charges.

Wearing MAGA hats while shopping resulted in one Kentucky couple being given the finger and having a .40 caliber Glock stuck in their face. The perpetrator allegedly threatened, “It’s a good day for you to die.” He’s been charged with first-degree wanton endangerment. Even a sword wielding MAGA hatter who slashed another man’s hand in San Francisco was provoked when the man knocked his MAGA hat to the ground. As he drew his sword, the MAGA hatter was heard to mutter, “You have besmirched my honor, rogue. Now you shall have a taste of my steel,” – not really.

These are just the incidents where charges were filed and/or the attacks were caught on video, and all happened within the last two months. There are many other reported episodes of harassment. Try googling “MAGA hat attack”. Almost every result involves a MAGA hat wearer coming under harassment and assault by someone who’s going to teach them why Trump is so terrible.

Of course the feather in the MAGA cap event that preceded the ones described above involved a group of MAGA hat wearing teenage boys from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky. One member of this group became the target of widespread media hostility and public antagonism from the left for allegedly smirking at a Native American. We now know the narrative the media originally spun was almost entirely false and that it was the MAGA teens who were the victims of racial and homophobic insults. But what if the media’s original accusations had turned out to be accurate? Would the MAGA hatted teens really have deserved the media and public pile-on they received from folks on the left? Is it really okay to dox and advocate violence against a smirking teen who’s wearing a MAGA hat, or to call for their lives to be ruined? Isn’t a high school kid, of all people, deserving of a break for an ill-advised smirk? I mean, he didn’t physically assault the man or even verbally assault him. Where is this MAGA hat derangement coming from? Personally, I can’t help but cringe every time I encounter someone wearing it. But there is simply no equivalence between the MAGA hat and a KKK hood or a swastika, so this is a call for people on the left to quit acting like a bunch of frightened lunatics when you see it.

At this point, I wanted to launch into an impassioned plea for a more “live and let live” attitude by folks on the left. I was going to hearken back to days gone by when the left was the place where tolerance and free thought found a welcoming home. Where freedom of speech was sacred and people weren’t so convinced of their rightness and the other guy’s wrongness, or at least we could respect each other’s ideological differences.

But then, like a song you can’t get out of your head, my thoughts were invaded by the shrill voices of scores of SJWs, LWIs, and woke activists shouting at me that I’m wrong. Well they must be right, I thought, because they’re so damn loud and irritating. It’s a new day, there’s too much at stake. “There is no other side.” When you’re right, you know you’re right and the other guy probably knows in his heart he’s wrong. So it’s not the time for “live and let live” anymore. It is the time for doubling down. It’s the time for total outrage and getting up in each other’s shit. Don’t just knock that MAGA hat off that guy’s head, defecate on it while it’s on the ground. That will probably convince them of their wrongness, and they’ll probably thank you for it. “Dude, I didn’t realize I’d become such a white supremacist asshole. Thanks for shitting in my hat and waking me up.” And maybe he’ll turn around and shit in some other person’s MAGA hat and, in that manner, everyone will come together and all racism and inequality will be eradicated. And next time some heteronormative jerk starts saying something you don’t agree with, maybe you can just stick your fingers in your ears and yell “la, la, la, la, la, la” over and over until they stop talking. You can even do it as a group at your university when they invite a bad person to speak who you don’t want to listen to.

Oh wait, you already do that. My bad.

Slate writer plays three dimensional intersectional chess with Pete Buttigieg and the 2020 Democratic field

Better get out your intersectional scorecard. In her Slate piece entitled, “Is Pete Buttigieg Just Another White Male Candidate, or Does His Gayness Count as Diversity?” Christina Cauterucci is handicapping the 2020 democratic presidential field. For the voter playing at home, it can be a little difficult to rank the highly diverse field of candidates according to their identity-specific worldview. All of them generally fall on a scale that stretches from “run-of-the-mill white guy” at one end to “oppression olympics gold medalist” at the other. If you were tempted to place Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay Democratic Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, anywhere on the spectrum above run-of-the-mill white guy, think again. According to Cauterucci, “in a primary for the overwhelmingly pro-gay Democratic Party, Buttigieg can be more accurately lumped in with his white male peers than with anyone else.”

Got that, folks scoring at home. Mayor Pete gets no oppression points for being gay. Cauterucci explains why in her piece, and it essentially boils down to he’s not gay enough. His white maleness pretty much delineates all of his gayness. Cauterucci writes, “Buttigieg isn’t just gay–he’s also white, male, upper-class, Midwestern, married, Ivy League-educated, and a man of faith. These other elements of Buttigieg’s identity all contribute to the image voters are being asked to evaluate, and they’ve each shaped Buttigieg’s life just as much as–if not more than–his sexuality.”

So the problem with Mayor Pete, as Cauterucci makes abundantly clear, is that he allows all these other aspects of his character, which she associates with white maleness, intermingle with his gayness. If Mayor Pete just ran on his sexuality, then he could possibly break free of the run-of-the-mill white guy pack. Here’s a measure of how gay he needs to be according to Cauterucci: “Most people who are aware of his candidacy probably know he’s gay, but his every appearance doesn’t activate the ‘hey, that’s that homosexual gentleman’ response in the average brain.’”

What the hell? I hear Mayor Pete is quite an accomplished piano player as well. Does that mean he has to run around acting like Liberace or Little Richard to elicit the “‘hey, that’s that homosexual gentleman’” response? Not to mention that, “Hey, isn’t he that homosexual gentleman?” sounds a lot like something my long deceased grandfather might have said.

Well, I guess you’ve got to credit Cauterucci for her honesty. At least she’s coming out and saying she’s judging prospective presidential candidates first and foremost by their immutable, identity oriented characteristics. If I’m following correctly, she’s asserting that at all times Buttigieg must be out there putting his gay self front and center, and his failure to do so makes him just another straight white guy. In the world of three dimensional intersectional chess, content of your character be damned. Color of your skin, gender and sexuality are the criteria for which one is judged.

Thankfully, most Americans are more sensible than Cauterucci and her Slate colleagues. In a recent Quinnipiac University National Poll, Mayor Pete ranked in an improbable tie with Elizabeth Warren and only a few points behind Kamala Harris. Also in that poll, 84 percent of voters said race is not an important factor, including 75 percent among black voters. Additionally, 84 percent said gender is not an important factor, including 83 percent among women. One can only conclude that publications like Slate and writers like Cauterucci aren’t paying much attention to these polls, or they’re purposely writing for a small fringe minority as they aggressively push their identitarian agenda. Perhaps this disconnect with the political mainstream accounts for why so many online news outlets like Slate find themselves laying off journalists and struggling to attract readers.

Robot apocalypse skeptic, Ezra Klein, unconcerned about Midwest job losses

On the subject of the looming Robot Apocalypse, Ezra Klein sounds a lot like a climate change skeptic. But the threat of working Americans losing their jobs to automation is much more real and present than the oceans overtaking Miami and New York. In an August 2018 Ezra Klein Show podcast, guest Andrew Yang, a Democratic candidate for president, lays out a pretty convincing case for why Americans should take very seriously the prospect of massive job losses due to automation.

“The reason why Donald Trump won the election of 2016 is that we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, the swing states he needed to win, between 2000 and 2015, and it’s about to get much, much worse because we’re about to triple down on the most common jobs in the US economy: Administrative and clerical work, call center workers, food service workers, truck drivers and transportation, and manufacturing. Those five job categories comprise about half of American workers.”

Ezra Klein singles out the assertion that the midwest, and more broadly, areas of the country other than the coasts, have been the hardest hit by changes to the economy. This is a sticking point for Klein so he “puts a pin” in this part of the conversation so he can “push back” on it later. You have to wonder why, with all that Yang is pointing out here, that this is a problem for Klein. He asserts that people on the coasts are hurting as well, and just can’t bring himself to concede that the industrial midwest is particularly vulnerable and perhaps went for Trump in response.

Yang continues to deliver the bad news: “It takes no great leaps of the imagination to see how this is going to play out over the next handful of years. Google recently demonstrated software that can do the job of an average call center worker, and there are still two and a half million call center workers in the United States making $14 an hour….Ten percent of workers work in retail and 30% of malls are going to close in the next ten years….If robot trucks hit the highways in the next five to ten years, what’s going to happen to the three and a half million truck drivers and the five million workers that work in truck stops, motels and diners in small towns around America that rely on a truck stopping periodically. These are the changes we can see coming that are completely predictable.”

The important thing to remember is that Yang is talking about a process that is currently ongoing. He is not staring into a crystal ball. He is citing historical data, as well as economic and industry data that projects for the future. He points out that companies are making massive investments in these new technologies. These companies aren’t gambling on the future, they’re building it. Ezra Klein, however, seems unconvinced.

“I am a skeptic of this vision of the economy. The robots are coming for our jobs thesis…does not seem to be showing up in our economic data…Am I seeing something in the unemployment numbers, something in the productivity numbers, something somewhere in the economic sentiment numbers, something where I can say, ‘hey I feel this but I’m not seeing it. Everybody seems to feel this is true but we’re not seeing it.”

Here’s where Klein sounds like a climate change skeptic. He’s arguing that because the catastrophe is not yet showing up in the numbers, he doubts that it will ever take place. He’s like President Trump tweeting about a cold winter day and saying, “so much for global warming.”

Yang’s shown him that the job losses are already occurring. Many large traditional retail chains are dead or on life support. Nobody argues that American manufacturing hasn’t been devastated by automation for going on 50 years now. Many of these displaced workers have opted out of the workforce or gone on disability. As Yang says, “Almost half the displaced manufacturing workers in Michigan and Indiana left the workforce and never worked again, and about a quarter of them filed for disability and never worked again.” Yang further points out that 1 in 5 males of prime working age were unemployed over the past year. And don’t try to bring the opioid crisis into the conversation, because Klein refuses to acknowledge economic insecurity plays a role in that tragedy.

Klein argues, without evidence, that the transformation of the economy will occur over a large time scale, as if this assertion by itself undercuts Yang’s facts and projections. “One thing I see in this argument is a jump between something is going to happen over time and something is about to happen all at once.” Klein points out that the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial based economy didn’t produce economic calamity. Fair enough, and we can only hope the same happens in this case. Perhaps our robot masters will find ways to make the humans useful, but as of right now, no one can predict where the next round of jobs will come from. What is predictable, though, are massive job losses.

As the conversation winds down, Klein returns to that pin he stuck in the discussion on the topic of midwestern states feeling the brunt of automation. “I worry that we’ve got in this narrative that everything’s great on the coasts and there’s something going terribly wrong in the center, and it just kind of flattens this very lumpy story of progress in our country way too much, and also creates a narrative of resentment that, on the one hand, isn’t helpful but, on the other, is a bit untrue. A lot of people suffer in California.”

The listener might be inclined to laugh at the hypocrisy and contradictions contained in this statement if Klein himself, hearing the cascade of bullshit pouring out of his mouth, hadn’t already beat the listener to it. During the conversation, as Klein repeatedly sings the virtues of the current economy, he eventually stops himself, chuckles, and apologizes because it sounds like he’s gushing over the Trump economy.

Regarding the unhelpful narrative of resentment, Vox Media’s bread and butter is crafting and maintaining narratives of resentment. Over the past two years, few groups have been more resented and more maligned by the elite media than the midwestern Trump voter. Klein and his crew would have everyone believe these voters were motivated by racism when they, rightly or wrongly, went for the guy who promised to bring their jobs back. While no doubt some are all about building the wall, it’s been shown time and again that many of these voters supported Bernie in the primary, and not hearing what they needed to hear from HRC, swung for Trump. It would be nice to take back Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 2020, maybe even pick up Ohio. But if liberal elites like Klein are unwilling to recognize people in those states that are hurting, we could be in for four more years of the unspeakable.