1. Even a fairly astute, good op-ed left-lib social critic like Neil Gabler employs the phenomenally lazy soc-crit phrase “not for nothing” as a moldy milquetoast lead-in for some forgettable point about entertainment in his Life: The Movie. Around the Joe Six-pack crowd, the phrase is pronounced “not for nuttin,” and it is equally specious. “Not for nothing,” to a social nihilist, is vacuity squared – a concept or idea or observation is either something, or it is nothing. It can be all shades and manner of something, all the way down to being stupid and ignorant, but the reader will always be the judge of whether a typed message of intellectual superiority is either something, or nothing. Don’t use the ridiculous phrase as a lead-in: just say your piece, however fatuous or minuscule or redolent of stale notebooks it may be, and see what the world does with it.
2. People may like you, even just a little, in the beginning, as a trained-monkey act, and they might get your views to 99, but then a major problem sets in: they’ve already seen the trained-monkey act, they know what the trained monkey does, and it is not joltingly fresh anymore. They get tired of the trained monkey doing its act, which might have had a hint of freshness in the beginning, and so they move onto to another clicking portal to new, brand-fresh trained-monkey acts. Then the old, tired trained-monkey spasmodically does its pathetic attempt at a revived act, importuning the vast consumer audience with new thrills and chills, but no one wants to invigorate an act that has been adjudged faulty, oft-putting, un-jolting. There’s no one there to watch the once-grinning trained-monkey. What do you want it to do?
3. Paul Street refers to himself as
the present Marxist writer (one of Obama’s earliest and most consistent critics)
as if this is some sort of merit badge. You do not get to apply this non-existent badge to yourself – that’s against Boy Scout rules. Street was not present at the crib when Barack was born, and he was no full-throttled nihilist about the con artist – and who is he to say that he is somehow “consistent”? An idiot saying the same gibberish over and over is “consistent” – does that make him or her right, correct, worthy of having a Eagle Scout merit badge for decrying placed on his lapel?