24 Comments
User's avatar
Dani Martin's avatar

Now that neo-Marxism has failed, they're reviving plain, old economic Marxism. If only their hero wasn't the boujiest of the bourgeoisie.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

Like most of the ignorant peons who comment here, you wouldn't know Marxism if it came up and tried to organize a union in your kindergarten.

Expand full comment
Dani Martin's avatar

What kind of despicable person are you to be such a jerk to complete strangers? And btw, I would know it because I am a recovered Marxist who studied it extensively in college. But whatever. Just go back to insulting people from behind a screen like a coward.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

OK recovering Marxist.

Do tell what "old economic Marxism" is being revived.

I'd hate to call an informed commenter an ignorant peon but I will hold off rescinding that comment until I see some vague familiarity with Marxism.

And just so you know, I'd happily insult you to your face if you started spouting this sort of garbage in person.

Expand full comment
Ibbiat's avatar

Your guys's reaction to the Law & Order episode is typical of people who haven't watched much L&O in the past.

You see an episode that has one or two elements that have been "ripped from the headlines," you assume that the show is more-or-less supposed to be a dramatic reenactment of actual events, and then get annoyed when it isn't.

But that has never been the deal with L&O. The deal has always been that they take a high-level aspect of a news story and use that as a jumping-off point to create something that's 99% fictional and unrelated to anything that actually happened.

I understand the instinct to compare the episode to actual events but that's not what's going on.

Expand full comment
John Meyers's avatar

Walter—you are so wedded to your version of the Luigi story that you seem unwilling to entertain anything to the contrary.  You’re a novelist—surely you understand that different, even contradictory narratives can co-exist.  You have great imagination, but you’ve got a bit too much ego in this one. 

Let me mention one facet only: when I first heard of the assassination I (and others) felt a surge of defiant triumph. Is it because I like people being killed in cold blood? Not especially; but as a psychiatrist I have a great deal more experience with the healthcare “industry” than you and have witnessed over my career the degradation of my profession and of medical care in the US. I have—personally and professionally—been kicked around by all the players, one of whom is the health “insurance” business (its not really insurance, is it….) Yes, the ACA put the demise on turbodrive, but the rot long predated it. This response did not split along political lines, by the way.

If my son asks me whether its a good idea to buy $1000 in Lotto tickets, my considered answer is No. Its designed to turn buyers into losers, on average. But if he does anyways, and wins the jackpot, I don’t begrudge him his winnings. Nor would I change my recommendation to not buy Lotto tickets in the future. Similarly, if two people asked me if they should rob some banks and shoot their way across the country, my recommendation is no. But if they do it anyways, I just might cheer them on. Go, Bonnie and Clyde, go.

I was disappointed that you and Matt discuss the Law and Order episode with Maura Tierney without once mentioning how sexy she is.  I’ll do it for you.  Man, is Maura Tierney sexy.  She used to be in a sitcom, Newsradio, alongside an unknown Joe Rogan.

Matt: you have, again, started to go on about free speech issues without knowing the facts.  I don’t fault you for not knowing the facts, but I do fault you for going on air, with a paying audience, and not knowing the facts.  It undercuts your credibility more than you know.  You need to know when you don’t know something, and say so.   It matters very much what the context of the Espionage Act is/was, the history of the Alien and Sedition Act, and so forth.  Walter has backed away a bit from his earlier, strident “first amendment absolutism”, realizing that context matters.  You remain an absolutist because you don’t know the context.

Finally, Matt you wondered why the Democrats haven’t found a “populist, left of center” position to work from. I think it may be that Trump commands that position—setting aside party affiliation for a moment, Trump and his supporters are left in philosophy, not right. Left has moved to the right, and the old right has moved to the left. (I think the real division is between neocons/globalists and libertarian/nationalists, and when we try to use the old categories it doesn’t work).

Expand full comment
Carlos Marighella's avatar

Good discussion, guys. I don't watch the current version of "Law & Order," but I do enjoy watching the reruns with Jerry Orbach. My favorite episodes involved mob cases, especially the one with the mobster who was faking dementia to avoid prosecution.

Walter, I'm dabbling in Marxism these days. Maybe you could give me some advice on how to be a good Marxist?

Expand full comment
Icaros to the Fifth World's avatar

Love you guys - it is so refreshing... liberating... to hear a bona fide real conversation. Very disappointed in Bernie, yep. Never thought I'd see the day. My willing suspension of disbelief is gone, too - but it's good to be aware. And you have me laughing and laughing. Thank you... let the weird times roll!

Expand full comment
ken saucke's avatar

I don't get how you 're focused on the pathetic dems. you've made the point, we all get it. The renditions of and disregard of the bill of rights by POTUS matters a lot more than Maddow. no more low hanging fruit please.

Expand full comment
Keith Davis's avatar

You guys are the best thing on, right now. Things are wacky. Who better than to rail about it than two wacky guys like you and Walter? To a bunch of wacky cats and kitties like us….

Expand full comment
JFM's avatar

Techno-feudalism wrapped in Marxist ideals…

Expand full comment
Norbert Garvey's avatar

To the average US household, AOC & Bernie are both members of the elite. Millionaires are less rare than billionaires, but most people do not have a million bucks, how did they get theirs?

Expand full comment
David G's avatar

I dont think AOC is anywhere close to being a millionaire. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Expand full comment
Javier Gonzalez's avatar

My theory is its an operation that by design has a protagonist that does NOT unified support. Give working class a diving hero rather than they find a uniting one

Expand full comment
Teresa MacPhail's avatar

Need a scoreboard of disceptions!!

Expand full comment
William Dean Thurmond's avatar

Actually, the original L&O DA was Michael Moriarty.

Expand full comment
Marcia's avatar

Bernie is one of the largest recipients from pharma money

Expand full comment
George's avatar

I am predicting a surge in the number of male babies named Luigi in the second half of 2025 and into 2026

Expand full comment
Keith Davis's avatar

I know you’re a busy man, but check out my stack if you get a minute.

Expand full comment