DEÄTHMÜFFIN UPDATE: MAKE ONE MISTAKE, PAY FOR IT THE REST OF YR LIFE!

We’re back.

As fans might know, Banäna Deäthmüffins has been involved in a group project where we take isolated drum tracks and do things with them.

Which is why in this song, the part of Goo Deäthmüffin is played by Stewart Copeland. You may enjoy this.

As for the song, we’ve had people come up to us and say, “You know, people would take you guys more seriously if you did some serious songs instead of silly crap about kidney stones, psychotic dogs and banoffee pie.”

So we came up with this to prove them wrong.

( These are the lyrics )

Like this song? Why not down it and other fine lo-fi tracks from the official Banäna Deäthmüffins page on Soundcloud?

Also, be the first to like us on the Facebooks.

Yr never in the clear, boy,

This is dF

 

ELIZABETH WARREN IS THE NEW HILLARY CLINTON (POSSIBLY)

Guest tl;dr commentary from Team Def Political Shenanigans Sifter Lucky Bensonhurst

As some of you may know, Elizabeth Warren has made a name for herself among progressives mainly by sticking to the progressive line against the 1% and Wall Street and Republicans in general. Put another way, if Daily Kos is for it, there’s a Facebook meme quoting Warren echoing support for that issue (tax the rich, hang Wall Street, make college tuition free, etc).

Now with the fuss over the omnibus bill – which 32 Democrats voted for – Warren is in the headlines again, and with the mid-terms over, a lot of progressives are thinking, “Why are we backing Hillary when we could have a REAL liberal in the White House?”

It’s the latest indication that we’ve reached a point in American politics where the hardcore base on both sides are sick of all this compromise bullshit and are convinced the solution is to kick out the RINOs and DINOs and bring their respective parties back to the hardline ideologies that define them.

Only they don’t think of themselves as hardline or extreme. From their POV, they’re the most reasonable people in the room. Which is why Robert Reich is so annoyed that media pundits are comparing Elizabeth Warren to Ted Cruz.

Observe:

The media are equating Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren, saying they're both on the extremes of their parties, and will make it harder for Democrats and Republicans to compromise. That kind of equivalence is beyond absurd. Cruz wants to drag this country backward; Warren wants to push it forward. And if compromise means the halfway point between these two views, the nation doesn't move. It languishes. What do you think?

What do I think? I think that’s really bad, blinkered logic that invites ideological dictatorship. That’s what I think.

In the first place, Reich objects to the comparison only because he considers Warren’s views to be fair, balanced, reasonably mainstream and in step with core American values, and thinks Ted is 100% batshit. Which may be true. But I think the comparison is fair in that both Cruz and Warren represent firm, polarized ideologies. How crazy one is vs the other is a separate argument. But they both embody the core idealism on their respective sides of the aisle. Okay.

However, my real issue problem with Reich’s post is that last point: “… if compromise means the halfway point between these two views, the nation doesn't move. It languishes.”

That’s not really true. If it was, America would still be stuck in the 19th century somewhere. Compromise is an essential ingredient of a two-party democratic system. Yes, everyone postures during election time and spouts the party line, etc, and of course, every party wants to be the one driving the bus. But when it comes to actually legislating, Congress is – or was, until recently – in the deal-making business more often than not. The only way to get everything you want is to control all three branches of government – and even then, it’s good business to give the opposition something. Otherwise, yr essentially a one-party dictatorship (albeit a temporary one with a smoother transition process). That’s the whole point of democracy of course – seize power for as long as you can – but it’s no way to run a country, even if it only lasts until the next election cycle.

In any case, we already know the results of a “no compromise” stance. Look at Congress right now. The GOP has resolutely opposed Obama and the Democratic Party on almost every major piece of legislation on ideological grounds. We’ve seen this “no compromise” model in action since 2010, and we’ve seen what gets done: pretty much nothing. And that’s with just one side refusing to compromise. If the Demos follow Reich’s “never compromise” advice, the result won’t be any different. Progress might be slower under a compromise model, but it’s practically nonexistent under the opposite.

This is also why I’m not really convinced Warren will be president in 2016 (aside from the fact that she’s currently not interested in the job, or so she says).

Ideologues will always appeal to the base, and that can be enough to get you into the House or even the Senate. But you need more than your base to win the White House. Yr ideas have to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. That’s just math.

Moreover, no matter what party the POTUS comes from, he/she has to lead all of America, not just their side of the aisle. It’s not meant to be a bully pulpit (although some presidents have certainly used it as such). Democracy isn’t meant to be Mob Rules. Winning the White House (or Congress, for that matter) means you get to lead the conversation and set the agenda. It doesn't mean you get to have everything yr way based on yr political ideology and fuck anyone who doesn’t like it.

That’s how the Tea Party works. That’s how the current GOP leadership is acting now. And that seems to be what people like Robert Reich are proposing Democrats do – ditch the sellouts and put the “real” liberals in charge so we can govern by ideology and never compromise. For the good of America, of course.

Fuck that, Jim. Personally, I don’t want a government run by uncompromising ideologues obsessed with keeping the other party out of power for as long as possible. (I live next door to China, where they do that already. The fact that America allows multiple parties to actually exist is a minor detail to me.)

Don’t get me wrong – I fully understand the desire to have a political party with a strong sense of identity and core values that set it apart. And I’m not saying politicians should compromise on everything. Obviously some issues are not up for debate.

The problem is that ideologues generally assume that every issue is a no-compromise issue, usually because they’ve conned themselves into believing the Opposition is a dangerous pack of criminal, atavistic thugs. Which is why I don’t really want one of them running the country.

Does this mean I think Elizabeth Warren would be a bad POTUS? Not really. I’m just saying I don’t fancy her chances for winning unless she moves closer to the center and demonstrates an ability to appeal to voters outside the ones who read Daily Kos and Addicting Info as though they’re objective journalism.

Put another way, the better her chances get, the more her current supporters are going to start labeling her as just another DINO – just like they've done with Obama.

L. Bensonhurst