You know…if the FOX News Channel (aka Fixed Noise or FUX Snooze), didn’t exist, some crazy satirist would have to invent it, mostly for its loopy commentators.

You would think that they would have learned from Bill O’Reilly about the dangers of allowing right-wingnutters the microphone…but no, they keep giving us new forms of humor.

This latest round is courtesy of Ann Coulter, who managed to slip in this nice whopper in the process of defending those who want to fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of defending slavery and White supremacy…..errrrrrrrr, White Southern heritage. It came from Friday’s edition of FUX’s Hannity and Colmes (hat tip to NewsHounds.com and the Unfiltered News Network forum):

The only person in the group who even tried to understand and communicate the African American perspective was Alan Colmes. Colmes read a statement by an African American named Kevin Alexander Gray, former head of the ACLU in South Carolina, saying the Confederate flag represents “slavery, racial oppression and a deep-seated belief in the rightness of the Confederacy.”

“That’s preposterous,” Coulter slurred. How would she know? Because her recent purchase of a home in Palm Beach, Florida now makes her a southerner? Maybe some of her best friends are black Confederates.

Colmes, noting that many people share Gray’s view, asked, “If so many people find (the Confederate flag) to be so offensive, why hold that up and wave it in the face of people who are so offended by what that represents to them?”

Coulter, the new expert in north/south and race relations, insisted “Because that ISN’T what it stands for.”

“That’s what it does stand for, not to you, Ann, but to many other people, that’s exactly what it stands for,” Colmes said.

In a condescending (and somewhat slurry) tone, she said, “OK, but it’s historically preposterous. It is ridiculous. The majority of military bases in this country are named after Confederate officers, Eisenhower, Nimitz. Ummmmm, the list of southerners in our military is legion. That is what it stands for.”

Pretty good comeback, except for one small problem, Annie: It’s BULLCRAP.

First off, there are NO military bases in this country named after either Ike or Nimitz….there are, however nuclear subs and battleships named after them.  Perhaps Coultergeist got her venues mixed up??

Secondly, both Dwight Eisenhower (1885. Missouri)  and Chester Nimitz (1890, Texas) were born well after 1865, when the Confederacy was destroyed through defeat in the Civil War, and last time I checked my history, neither one of them  believed in reincarnation.  That was more George S. Patton’s gig…and he preferred his reincarnations in Roman garb.

Now, it is true that Nimitz was well known for his racism (his philosophy as the head of the Pacific Fleet in WWII mostly consisted of the saying “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs”; and Ike prior to breaking the South’s heart by bringing Federal troops to Little Rock to uphold the Brown decision on desegregation, did show some public sympathies to the South.  But that falls just a bit short of what Annie was trying to suggest, I’d think.

And besides…the fact that there are a lot of Southerners in the Armed Forces has not much to do with defending the flying of the Stars and Bars, now doesn’t it???

But then again, Annie isn’t quite known for letting the truth get in the way, now isn’t she.

Between her and Liberal Fascist Slayer J. Jonah Goldberg, there should be enough raw material to keep the sewage plant known as FUX News busy for the election season….and that doesn’t even include BillO.

Tags: Ann Coulter, Fixed Noise, wingnuttery

It’s one thing when Renegade Evolution lays down the truth in print at her blog.

It’s another thing altogether when she puts it to video.

Go there now, watch, listen, and learn.

Oh…and  Steve Gower:  You seriously suck.

Tags: Renegade Evolution; video blogging

I could link you to so many articles about the inane and absolutely nutty arguments some make in opposition to  respecting sex workers.

But since visuals do such a better job; and Renegade Evolution has done the definitive visual of the usual memes thrown out at sex workers and their activists; I will simply repost her latest effort.

Behold, behold…the mighty Henchwoman unleashed:

[Click on the thumbnail for a larger image.]

Considering what Amber Rhea is going through right about now with her own anti-sex work bullcrap dwama (see here and here), I’m guessing that Ren might have to generate about 50 of those bingo cards by month’s end.

Oh….and please feel free to show some love and roll some pennies for Sex 2.0, so that they can find a home for their unconference.  I’m adding a donation button here soon, in the meantime, you can go here to donate.

Tags: Renegade Evolution, running snark, sex work

Dr. Gloria Brame — full time sex therapist, world-class practicing pro-domme, and all-around sex-positive badasssss lady — takes the win going away today for this epic blast at some prime stupidity from the Concerned Women of America spokes-dimwit Wendy Wright on the supposed agenda of those wanting comprehensive sex ed in schools.

First, the excretory quote from Wright, as spoken to a FOX News Channel program (the “they” in this case refers to opponents of Wright’s favored “abstinence-only”/ no sex outside of pregnancy within marriage as ‘God’ approved” policy):

“In fact, they want to encourage [kids to choose to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions, so you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.”

Oh, yeah…Mrs. Wright, you’ve found them out….never mind that using condoms and being educated about safer sex are sure fire ways to PREVENT STDs AND unwanted pregnancies leading to abortions…and that very few pro-comprehensive sex ed folk actually make money from performing abortions….at least, not all that faith-based money that your side is hauling in hand over foot.

Oh, and Wright added this about the basic fact that 15 states havc found abstinence-based sex education to be so ineffective in reducing unwanted pregnancy and teenage birth that they are even refusing federal funding thrown their way for such programs in favor of more comprehensive and pro-active approaches:

“Well, there seems to be an effort to have a monopoly on government funding only going to comprehensive sex ed programs, and probably because, if there’s competition, the competition shows the sex ed program are ineffective and, in fact, quite harmful,” Miss Wright noted, completely ignoring the fact that the preponderance of scientific studies reveals just the opposite.

In any case, this proved too much for Doc Glory, who posted this righteous response at her blog, Gloria’s Oversexed Mind:

The only thing worse than the fact that ignorance like this exists is the fact that ignorance like this is given a public platform to voice its ignorance on television time and again. Almost every talking-head show out there has, at one time or another, allowed these perfectly brain-dead know-nothings to blabber out falsehoods and bizarre fictions. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that these women don’t even come up with their own concerns to be concerned about: the same deep pockets that fund other right-wing lies have manufactured all its political rhetoric and filled up its media war-chest.

[...]

Look, I’m all about the free speech. You want to host hate-mongers on your tv show, go right ahead. It’s America. But for God’s sake don’t pitch these people against moderates on the other side. The hell with those high-minded, literate, polite people who defend Planned Parenthood. If you’re going to allow right-wing nut-jobs to ooze their poisonous Fundamentalist ideologies all over the screen, then at least have the balls to bring in some left-wing libertine atheists to dispute them. Someone who’ll stand up and say that the age of consent should be lowered nation-wide, that fucking is both an art AND a craft, and that teenagers should be encouraged to develop the skills necessary to be good sex partners to their future spouses. Someone who’ll say, hey, experimentation is normal! Sex is fun! Repression is the enemy! People who think “Fuck you” is just another friendly way to say “Have a nice day!”

Seriously, the only way we’ll ever stop future generation of idiots like Wendy Wright from being born is ADEQUATE BIRTH CONTROL!

Money graph emphasis added by me.

Problem is, that would require certain FUX Noise personalities to out themselves…….right, BillO???

Here’s a hearty “A-men and a-women” to ‘ya, Doc Glory….way to call them out.

Tags: Teh Sex Wars; sex education; Puritan assholery; Teh Stu

OK…so I will have to eat just a little crow on Dennis Perrin:  he just posted a follow up to his not-so-little rant  on liberals hating on Ron Paul while gushing on the record of liberal-favored politicians like the Clintons. Accordingly, he clears the record that he really doesn’t like Paul as much as some (including moi) might have implied:

Let me take a moment from stocking my basement with gold bars and automatic weapons to say for the record that I don’t support Paul’s campaign, and have no plans to vote for him, nor would I under existing conditions. I thought I’d made this plain in my original post when I confessed to having many differences with Paul’s politics. Clearly, this didn’t get across. So, I’ll say it again: I have numerous problems with Ron Paul, and do not support his campaign.

Capice? Terrific.

The two points I was trying to express were: 1) liberal attacks on Paul’s alleged racism, especially the New Republic’s hit piece, have more to do with Paul’s anti-imperial politics than with upholding Dr. King’s dream; and 2) when it comes to statist abuses, I would side more with libertarians like Paul (though not exclusively Paul) than with most Dems, Hillary and Obama included. Of course, Paul is imperfect on the civil liberties front. His stances on immigration and abortion rights alone should make one wary. And his laissez-faire approach to economics would hand more power to corporations, given the present system. Thus, I don’t view Paul as some kind of answer. Indeed, if the guy were ever elected to high office, I suspect that he’d either be weighed down by political/economic reality, which would negate most if not all of his plans, or he would crash ahead regardless, sending the system into chaos and shock. But this is all speculation. Ron Paul is not going to be president.

Well, maybe not, Dennis….especially since the very  antiwar/anti-imperialist sentiment that attracts him to many antiwar progressives fed up with the Clintonistas would be the main factor disqualifying him for the nomination in a Republican Party dominated by the likes of Kristol, McCain and Huckabee.  But if that is indeed the case, then why the need for all the pyrotechnics against liberals and Leftists who point out his abysmal record and reputation??

There are those lefties who do support Paul’s campaign, seemingly undisturbed by his numerous faults. In some ways, pro-Paul lefties are essentially Leninist in their approach, looking to heighten the contradictions of the system, perhaps knowing that in the contemporary U.S., a radical from the right would gain more grassroots traction than one from what passes for the left. Others are so sick of the war that they’ll back anyone who openly opposes imperialism, no matter where it originates. Given that the leading Dems, all rhetoric aside, embrace the war state, and that Paul’s profile is higher and stated position much sharper than any other antiwar candidate, his campaign is attracting a lot of positive attention. Again, this is why TNR attacked him with what it had. Were Paul in Mike Gravel territory, he wouldn’t inspire the same venom. He’d be ignored or laughed away.

Now…I’d seriously challenge the notion that there aren’t candidates on the Left that could attract the same amount of attention without pandering as much to the xenophobic and racist Right as Paul has (you know…like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader or….I don’t know, why not give Cynthia McKinney a chance to mount her campaign??).  And I’m sure that the folks at TNR would find some way to bash them with the same intensity as they do Ron Paul for his apostasy (it’s not as if they haven’t already attempted so).

But again…I still don’t think that that’s a legitimate reason to overlook the reactionary aspects of Paul’s campaign.  Attack TNR for their motives all you want, and a lot of DP’s words are indeed true about the perfidy of the Clintons….but that’s no excuse to whitewash bigotry.

But, good on Dennis for clearing up his stance a bit, and I can feel free to take him off the (s)hit list for now.

Tags: Dennis Perrin, faux-progressivism, leftist asshattery, Ron Paul, slight retraction

Let’s now conclude the thoughts, now, can we???

When we last left here, we were dissecting Dennis Perrin’s attempt to heap scorn upon certain liberals for having the offense of criticizing Ron Paul for being an enabler of crude racism and xenophobia and homophobia.

Now, we see Perrin turn to the subject of paranoia, and his suspicions that the likes of Paul and the fringe Right might actually have something there:

Racism isn’t Paul’s only sin. According to Kirchik, those newsletters exhibited acute paranoia:

[Quote from Kirchik's article] “[S]pecifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and ’90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed ‘Ten Militia Commandments,’ describing ‘the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty’ as ‘one of the most encouraging developments in America.’ It warned militia members that they were ‘possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance’ and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama–among them, ‘You can’t kill a Hydra by cutting off its head,’ ‘Keep the group size down,’ ‘Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,’ ‘Leave no clues,’ ‘Avoid the phone as much as possible,’ and ‘Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.‘” [Kirchick]

[Perrin's response] Yikes. Scary stuff. Sane people know that there is no American surveillance state — or there wasn’t one during the hallowed Clinton era, when all that crazy militia activity was taking place. According to liberal history, police state measures (torture, too) only occur during Republican presidencies, the past seven years being the most recent example. For Paul’s newsletter to say otherwise is simple lunacy.

Oh, but this is really fascinating….so, does that mean that Dennis believes that the Murrah Federal Building bombing really was justified revenge for the acts of “liberals”??  I mean, the fact that the Branch Davidians actually did kill real life BATF agents and did carry illegal firearms; that there actually were Militiamen who assisted White supremacists who actively sought to “pacify” Black and Brown communities; that Operation Rescue really did attempt to bomb reproductive clinics and physically block women from getting basic pregnancy services…..all of that was just not true, but liberal myths designed to allow Bubba and Janet Reno to smother such “populist movements” with the full arm of the State???

And what’s to say that Ron Paul wouldn’t allow for certain local fascists to assume their own police powers and do whatever they may to “protect” their own??? Sorry, but I no more trust the Minutemen or the Posse Comitatus to defend my turf than I would Homeland Security…especially when they recruit from the same class of people.

———————————-

What all this is getting at is simply that while it is certainly true that some liberals do have some blind spots when it comes to defending whatever claptrap their establishment leaders and the Democratic Party throws at them; it is still right-wing populism thinly disguised as  “Libertarianism” that is the basic threat that undermines legitimate Leftist unity and attempts to divide and conquer for the benefit of the dominant ruling class. At a time when it is vital for legitimate Leftists to form real and effective bounds with people of color and social movements which are as important in confronting reactionary cultural and social movements as much as class and economics; the last possible thing we can use is to sell out such groups merely for temporary palliatives.  Hating on “liberals” for enabling the likes of Bill Clinton and other do-nothing Democrats is no excuse for hitching the Left to what is otherwise a fundamentally right-wing platform; Dennis Perrin really should know better than that.

Tags: Ron Paul; right-wing populism; Dennis Perrin; leftist m

You know what…..I’m beginning to really dislike the way that some putative Leftists are allowing their obsessions with hating on “liberals” get to them….especially when it comes to defending putative right-wing populists.

I just read Dennis Perrin’s latest ( “A Pauling”) post in his blog, which attempts a defense of supporting right-wing libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul from recent attacks (especially the now notorious article from the New Republic website by James Kirchik) on his allowing crass racist and xenophobic boilerplate in his political newsletters back in the 1990s….mostly by bashing on the supposed “liberals” and their alleged unrequited love for Bill Clinton, whom Perrin suspects caused far worse things (such as the Branch Davidian compound massacre, executing Ricky Ray Rector, bombing innocent civilians at home and abroad) than Paul ever would do.

For those who may not know, Perrin is one who, like me, has little love with the Democratic Party and with most establishment liberals who tend to support the line of “Only the Democrats can beat out the bad, evil Republicans, and those who don’t agree are simply foolish sectarians or Republican agents.” He is currently in the process of developing a book which is scheduled to be released later this year which would serve as his own expose of the Democrats and of “liberals” in general as traitors to the general progressive cause and enablers of war, imperialism, murder, graft, and all other things unworthy of true progressive governance.

All fine and good and well by moi, who has similar issues with the Dims, too.

Problem is, all that hate for liberals rolled up in DP’s body tends to slash out indiscriminately in this post, leaving behind some important and relevant facts behind genuine and legitimate opposition to Paul amongst the principled Left….and some of the legitimate points in that original New Republic article that so seared him.

A few highlights (or lowlights, depending on your opinion) of what Perrin wrought, and why I consider each of them to be utter bollocks.

At issue is Ron Paul’s supposed racism and queer-phobia, reflected in newsletters that bore his name. Paul has distanced himself from the newsletters, saying that others penned the toxic rhetoric, without his direct knowledge or approval. Maybe Paul’s telling the truth. Maybe he’s not. Maybe he really does despise those of darker hue and same-sexers. Maybe he’s like the worst racist you’ve ever seen. Maybe he eats black children for breakfast.

Maybe so or maybe not….but that is so beyond the real point. The fact remains that “toxic rhetoric” did appear on his time and his dime, under his byline and under his tacit and explicit approval until he was called out on it only this year…..and his supposed “denials” don’t rest too confident with me, either, since they all talk only about “Well, I can’t censor anyone who writes my newsletter all the time, can I??? Riiiiiight, Dr. Paul; let Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage or Annie Coulter or any other regular Far Right fishhack get away with anyone attempting to ghostwrite their words into their media and see if that excuse would fly.

The point here is not that Paul is directly a racist; but that he regularly tolerates and feeds off of the worst form of authentic racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and other cultural reactionaries, and still attempts to sell himself as a regular, if a bit more eccentric, conservative libertarian Republican…who happens to be opposed to military adventures, defense spending, the Patriot Act, and excessive government. The latter points are what have so seduced some White antiwar liberals and Leftists like Perrin and Joshua Frank into becoming Paul’s virtual pimps on the Left; never mind his proven right-wing record on other issues.

But why let that get in the way of a good riff on the evol liberals??? Thusly, DP continues:

Whatever Paul actually believes about minorities and queers is not the real concern here. What bothers liberals, TNR’s James Kirchik among them, is that Paul is the only presidential candidate who is seriously running against the state. This includes anti-imperialism and calls to end the Drug War. Given that Hillary and Obama are nowhere near this mindset — quite the opposite — means that anyone who is must be a bad person. If those newsletters didn’t exist, hit men like Kirchik and the libloggers who support him would find something else to smear Paul with. Because, at bottom, they oppose any dismantling of the war state (recall Kos’ shitting all over Kucinich). They simply want their preferred candidates to run the machine instead.

Oh, yeah, right…..like there have never been candidates before who opposed the war, or who spoke out directly against the Drug War and the Bi-Partisan Imperium (Oh, wait, there was this guy named Mike Gravel and that Kucinich guy, and what about that former ex-congresswoman now running for the Green Party ticket for President….oh, damn, she doesn’t even count since she’s not as “now” as Paul?? (At least, not yet.) Oh, well, gotta move on…), and none of them ever got the wrath of TNR (even after they’d lobbed off the influence of Peretz) or of the Kossacks and FDL and Glenn Greenwald and Talking Points and Media Matters, either…..right???? And we all know that all liberals are so one-diminisional and always pray to the holy sun of Bubba Clinton and Saint Hillary each and every day…..sure, they do.

At least, they have to so that they can fit so tightly into Perrin’s nicely constructed straw person to be lit up in righteous “leftist” rage…so that we can all climb onto the Ron Paul Libertarian LOVE-ulution and get America right and just.

Too bad that Perrin tends to gloss over the part of the article where Kirchik describes with flourish the roots of Paul’s brand of “right-wing libertarianism”…..the Ludwig von Mises Foundation, where apparantly true Libertarianism also means never having to say your sorry….especially if you say it with a Stars and Bars flying over your head and the song “Dixie” in you heart (from the original, via the former Bitch | Lab over at Wear Clean Draws):

To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a “distinguished counselor.” The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated–its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx- born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”–but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro- Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”

That would be the same Lew Rockwell, gangstas, who frequents right-wing antiwar sites like Antiwar.com with tales of black helocopters and evil Zionist conspiracies looming from Bilderburger conferences, and resets of how Mossad and the elitists made up al-Queada and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to force virgin America into becoming evil imperialists and stooges for the Vast Zionist Conspiracy called the State of Israel.

But, who really gives a rat’s ass about Rockwell….for Dennis Perrin, it all about those dirty liberals, and those rotten-ass, fucking Clintons and their smearing Paul with their own shit. Further down the rant we go:

For TNR, there’s another angle to its anti-Paul attack: Israel. Paul wants to end U.S. military aid to Israel, and is critical of Israeli aggression (he’s also critical of Hezbollah and Hamas, but that doesn’t count). This simply won’t do for Democrats and many liberals, who either support Israeli violence and occupation, or are at best mum on the topic. When Israeli fighter jets were pounding Lebanon in 2006, it took weeks for leading libloggers to type the slightest negative word, which for them was “disproportionate.” It was okay to bury Lebanese in rubble, just so long as it wasn’t too much rubble. By opposing this and other uses of American tax dollars to kill and maim Arabs, Ron Paul shows that he’s probably anti-Semitic as well.

The funny thing about TNR attacking Paul for being racist is that TNR has published plenty of racist musings itself. Martin Peretz alone contributed much of this, his belief that the “primitive” Palestinians are genetically and culturally incapable of achieving peace (for which no one is to blame, added Peretz in a tender moment) merely one of many racist screeds that TNR had no problem pushing. Then there was former editor Andrew Sullivan inviting Charles Murray to explain at length his “Bell Curve” theory in TNR’s pages, a decision that Sullivan defended by writing, “The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief.” Of course not. Ron Paul, on the other hand . . .

I might be mistaken, but so far as I know, Ron Paul has not left the campaign trail to oversee the killing of a black man. Liberal hero Bill Clinton did in 1992, flying back to Arkansas from New Hampshire to witness Rickey Ray Rector take the lethal needle. (Since Clinton was our first black president, did that constitute black-on-black violence?) Clinton also expanded the police and prison state, in which a large number of African-Americans are trapped, and shredded the safety net for the poor, among whom reside many African-Americans. Does this make Bill Clinton a racist? Hush yo’ mouf!

Now, you can agree with all that I just posted, and still say that all the evils of Bubba Clinton’s reign as President and his successful job of destroying liberalism for all mankind does not justify even remotely supporting a right-wing Republican “libertarian” with all such baggage as Paul carries like a second skin. For starters, say what you want about Bubba, but he did happen to carry around 90-95% of the Black vote…..and you don’t get that, even in spite of pulling his Sister Souljah/Ricky Ray Rector act to get elected; by being such a deep racist. No, Dennis, it did not make him a racist…just a classist who pandered on occasion to racism to get by. As compared to Dubya and his GOP minions, who made executing Black men a running spectator sport, and who openly court White bigots with passion rather than with secret code words???

And as I wrote before, DP might have missed the part where the TNR website has totally distanced themselves from the brutality of Peretz and Sullivan and the pimping of race war….but who’s counting here??

And I’m sure that the progressive Jews who do manage to oppose the Eratz Israeli/Likud policy towards the Occupied Territories and Palestinians in general will certainly welcome Perrin’s grand drive-by stink bomb, too…as if Ron Paul gave a flying fuck about Arabs or Palestinians or the Lebanese, either.

Besides, much of what Ron Paul says about the Middle East is a carbon copy of Pat Buchanan’s stump speeches….and I wouldn’t think that Dennis would be pimping Patty’s or Bay’s platform as “progressive”, now wouldn’t he???

[This will have to be a two-parter, since I'm running a bit late now. This tale will conclude, I promise...]

Tags: Dennis Perrin, faux-progressivism, leftist asshattery, Ron Paul

You know that the Democratic primaries are officially on when the celebrities start whupping up on each other for their endorsements.

Case in point: the following tirade unleashed by Roseanne Barr (yeah, she did ditch that hick Tom Arnold and is back to using her original name) towards Oprah Winfrey for the latter’s spirited activism for fellow Illinoian Senator Barack Obama.  Needless to say, Roseanne’s opinion of both Oprah and Obama is…..shall we say, a bit underwhelmed.

This actually came from RawStory.com; the original rant was posted to Roseanne’s home blog Roseanne’s World; but that site has been shut down due to “improper CPU usage”…….fortunately, RS made a cut-and-paste and stored it before it went down.

Roseanne must have turned her spellchecker off or she was mightily pissed off; all mispellings are preserved as they appeared in the original.

barak  obamais an empty suit selling “hope” in lieu of Truth. Oprah Winfrey helped to elect Arnold Swartzenegger. I have no doubt that she voted her purse by doing this, as she is a large land owner in California, and that ilk fears Dems because they do not want to pay their “fair share” of Cali tax. Oprah has given us Swartzenegger and Dr. Phil. If that was not offensive enough to decent thinking people, now she brings us Obama. He has no ideas, no plan and nothing to add other than the cynical pacification of the masses with bedtime stories about hope, while calling Unions “special interest groups” that need to be done away with.

Obama votes with Bush constantly funding this terrible endless war. Oprah, you play the race card and the gender card too.

You are a closeted republican and chose Barak Obama because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, hollywood and dieting!

When Americans find out that Obama backs right wing corporate racist anti worker bullshit, they will not vote for him, and the victory will go to the most racist right wing republican ever…. Mccain, who is a fascist! That the culinary service workers in vegas have promised barak their vote,( he is anti union in his votes) over edwards, who is a pro-union man, just proves how stupid americans are and how they can be tricked so easily by the color of a person’s skin…exactly what MLK hated!

Obama doesn’t even back reproductive rights for any woman! It is historical that Oprah Winfrey, beloved of women, chooses a flashy man with small credentials over a seasoned woman politician with 35 years of experience…and sells that to the female demographic who look to her for inspiration!  

WOW…..I don’t know if that’s an direct endorsement of Hillary (though she does give Edwards a shout-out) or simply a full-blast at Obama; but that’s pretty strong to call out Barack as a “closet Republican” and “anti-union”. (Given his recent voting record, it might actually be pretty close to the truth…but still a bit strong.)

But it’s the malaprops that get me…..”historical” for “hysterical”??? McCain, “the most racist, right-wing [R]epublican ever” and a “fascist”???? (He’s certainly reactionary enough, but….what, like Huckabee’s a freakin’ populist, Roseanne????)

Oh, and this one really floors me:

 ”When Americans find out that Obama backs right wing corporate racist anti worker bullshit, they will not vote for him…..”

Like what, Roseanne…NAFTA and GATT???  You do know that Hillary voted for both, right??  (Actually, so did Edwards, although I will give him plenty credit for at least attempting to repudiate that vote by actually standing for some real working-class issues.)

And, Rosie, dear….exactly which “stupid americans” are you talking about who would be fooled by “the color of a person’s skin” to vote for Obama, ehhhh?? Gotta be careful on that one.

Just on that note alone, here’s hoping that Edwards sweeps his home state and gives the MSM indegestion all over again.

And as for progressive Black voters in South Carolina who are as fed up with this nonsense as I am…..there is an alternative.  Write her in, if neccessary.

Tags: 2008 election, Oprah Winfrey, Roseanne Barr, Smackdown!!!

I would think that it would take at least until the end of the month before some pundit would pull off such a stunning feat of verbal stupidity….but what Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball just lobbed at Hillary Clinton on the morn after her grand “surprise victory” in New Hamphire (funny, it seemed no surprise to me, since she had all the establishment support and Bubba at her side) crossed the line that even this Leftist who despises Hillary (for being a warmongering, corporatist, conservative Democrat, not for being a woman), had to stand up and note.

The quote, from Joe Scarborough’s Morning Joe (via Think Progress):

Matthews: I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around. […]

That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened.

Yeah, right, Tweety….never mind that she has been elected twice by overwhelming majorities by women and men who thought that she was pretty damn worthy of her job as Senator.

Here’s a memo, Mr. Matthews: Stop looking down Hillary’s dress and up her skirt; she’s still a married woman.

Oh, and one other thing: SYAD and STFU, and let Keith Olbermann carry MSNBC for…..like, ever. This isn’t The McLaughlin Group anymore.

UPDATE: The Think Progress page also includes a elongated clip of Tweety going off on Hillary…a must see.

Tags: Chris Matthews, Hillary Clinton, MSNBC

This nonsense has been nagging at me for the past month or so…..how the hell is it that so many liberals and Leftists who are otherwise smart and astute would even turn their support towards Republican candidate Ron Paul as the “anti-war” candidate???

It’s not just the fact that Paul is still a registered Republican, who’s only difference from the GOP establishment is his watered down 1930’s isolationism (a la Robert Taft).

It’s not even the fact that he has simply NO chance to get nominated under the Republican banner (last time I checked, the fundamentalist base was locked by Mike Huckabee, and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were duking it out for the GOP establishment).

All that pales, however, to the basic fact that Paul has…shall we say….a very checkered past; a past that happens to include some of the most virulent racism and sexism and homophobia.

The New Republic website just came out with an article by James Kirchick in which he combs through the pages of Ron Paul’s newsletters from the past 20 or so years.  Needless to say, it paints a pretty nasty picture of a man who either (1) openly allows the most bigoted and racist sentiments on his bylines, or (2) doesn’t care enough to read his clippings for imflammatory material. 

The whole article is worth reading…but here’s a sampling:

To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a “distinguished counselor.” The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated–its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”–but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”

 Lew Rockwell, incidentally, is well known as one of the more outspoken “conspiricy theorists” out there, who talks openly about “black helocopters” and the “Bilderburger” conspiracies to implement “one world socialism”.  Yeah, pretty damn progressive.

And oh, it gets so much worse from there…..witness this excerpt in which Paul through his “newsletter” sounds off on the 1992 “riots” which followed the acquital of the cops who beat Rodney King:

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

Uh-huh. Then, I guess that the cops who beat up King are actually heros acting in self-defense???

Oh, and just to show that Paul’s groupies don’t just cast their gaze towards Black folk; there is an equal hatred towards GLBT’s:

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer–who advocated quarantining people with AIDS–praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, “Bring Back the Closet!” Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, “Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false. Paul’s newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague–also based upon the casual-transmission thesis–and defended “parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.” Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,” adding: “[T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

Remember…this is the kind of “libertarianism” that has so seduced far too many liberal and even Leftist intellectuals to even consider supporting him….merely because he happens to be the only consistent opponent to the Iraq war. (Never mind that there are far more progressive antiwar opponents and more principled Leftists out there…..like, for instance, Cynthia McKinney???) 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day…..but that doesn’t mean we ignore the other 98% of the time when it is very, very WRONG.

Let me spell it out for you Clones: Ron Paul is a right-wing reactionary crank bigot masquarading as an anti-war candidate.  He  has no credibility and no legitimacy as a true anti-interventionist, and his acceptance of the rankest bigotry should immediately disqualify him even the hint of being a true progressive. Those who are so seduced by his anti-war rants to back his campaign are at best mindless fools…..and at worst, knowing enablers of fascism. Don’t even waste your time or money for him…..hold out for a real progressive. (Hell, I’d vote for Hilliary before I ever pull the trigger for Ron Paul…and you know how much I despise Dimocrats.)

————————————  

UPDATE:  Apparantly, I’m not the only one who’s getting tired of the Ron Paul cheerleading from certain elements of the Left. Quoteh Elizabeth Schulte via Dissident Voice, posted today:

The formula of supporting a candidate with antiwar views, no matter how right wing they are on other issues, is disastrous for anyone who wants to rebuild the left.

Consider this quote from another one-time presidential candidate: “We stand with Cindy Sheehan and the memory of her son which should spur all truly patriotic Americans to demand an end to this war for Israel, this war against America, the Iraq War.”

The author of those lines is neo-Nazi David Duke.

Goff may believe that Paul’s antiwar platform is the primary point of his campaign, but Paul and his supporters are pushing the complete package.

In Iowa, for example, as the caucuses approached, Paul used his Internet-raised millions to fill the TV airwaves with a xenophobic ad about “protecting” U.S. borders. It begins with images of people swimming across the Rio Grande and warns in a menacing voiceover, “Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services.”

Paul’s promise: “Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations.”

For his supporters on the left, this bigotry is excused by claiming that Paul has found a way to win the support of “hard-working folks” who the leftist “elite” have ignored. But the unstated assumption here is that the “hard-working folks” are white, and the only antiwar candidate they’d support has to be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and “passively racist.”

For one thing, this is a condescending — not to mention, completely wrong — stereotype of working-class white people.

But more importantly, “hard-working folks” are also immigrants, Blacks, Latinos, Arabs and Muslims. They are gays and lesbians (Paul voted to bar gays from adopting children). They are women who depend on their right to legal abortion under Roe v. Wade, which Paul has called “the worst of all rulings” and said should be overturned.

If the point of supporting Paul is to make the antiwar voice in the U.S. stronger, then you have to ask how diverse groups of people will be drawn to any movement against the war associated with a candidate who heaps abuse on some of them.

[...]

Opposing right-wing ideas that make any movement weaker isn’t “sectarian.” It’s basic solidarity. The proudest moments in the history of the U.S. left are bound up with struggles to defend the principles of solidarity, by any means necessary. It’s a sign of the disorientation of the left today that such ideas can be looked upon so cynically.

This isn’t, as Goff and Frank suggest, an argument for having a checklist of political requirements for someone to be involved in the antiwar movement. If Paul wants to bring a blimp to the next antiwar protest, I don’t really care.

But it is an argument for rejecting a candidate who doesn’t believe in what you believe in. We say it about the Democrats — and we should it all the more loudly about a reactionary like Ron Paul, even if he does oppose the war.

Besides, we already have a genuine progressive anti-war candidate in the running already…..perhaps we might try supporting her instead?? 

———————-

UPDATE #2: And right on cue, here comes one of the Paul groupies to prove my point exactly.  Posted as a comment to Elizabeth Shulte’s article:

It would seem that Elizabeth Shulte is the one who is out of tune with what America wants and not Ron Paul. As an educator I can tell you that a great many of us would like to see the national Dept. of Education abolished. Education should be a local thing. To a one most teachers abhore the “No child left behind” which is hogtieing school systems nationwide. Few Americans are against “Immigrant rights”, but a vast majority of American citizens are vehemently opposed to granting undeserved “rights” to Illegal Aliens who scoff at our laws. A majority of Americans are also opposed to “Gay marriage”. Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion having devoted his life to delivering babies, ie. bringing lives into this world. However, he said that is something that should be relegated to the states. How can Ron Paul be considered a ‘reactionary” when all he asks for is to respect our Constitution. I am thankful that those who think like Miss Shulte are a tiny minority of non-thinkers in our nation. It is time for the majority to be heard. 
[lorena redbrook said on January 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am #]

Yup…that sure sounds like a progressive I’d vote for.  Uhhhh….not.

Tags: faux liberalism, Ron Paul