Position Briefs

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

10 Liberals or Liberal Groups I don't like.

LOL. Yeah, you read it right. First I give credit to all of the CONSERVATIVE posters over at MMFA, and now I'm bashing liberals?!

Nah, not really... But I am defining where my limits are. The thing is that no political ideology in and of itself is a virtue. There is nothing inherently bad about trending conservative or inherently good about trending liberal. And I would be a hypocrite if I were to bash the Right and the Conservatives and the Republicans for using their ideology to justify their position, or essentially thinking that being conservtaive MAKES one or one's positions right, if I weren't willing to call out some liberals. Or... put differently if I'm going to say that it's not the ideology but rather the extremes that we're seeing lately, then I've got to determine where I draw the line on our side. At what point does liberal extremism become dysfuntional?

So here my list of liberals, or at a minumum people or groups that the conservatives associate with liberals, that I REALLY DON'T LIKE!

10. P.E.T.A.(Vegans, Militant Vegitarians, etc…)

Let me say right of the bat that I have no problem with the idea that causing animals unecessary harm is wrong. I’m a dog lover myself, and hearing about cruelty to dogs (Michael Vick, etc...) often makes me more angry than hearing about all the horrible stuff humans do to one another. The reason I don't like these people is that they take this basically good idea and take it WAAAY too far. The minute you tell me that I am bad because I eat meat, or wear leather – the minute you start telling ME about how I should live MY life - you have adopted the worst behavior of religion.

If YOU don’t want to eat meat FOR WHATEVER REASON (you think it’s unhealthy, immoral, bad luck… Whatever! I don't care!) I promise you I will never ridicule that belief, and will never try to talk you to into doing otherwise. I WILL RESPECT YOUR BELIEFS. But the minute you try to push it on me, you are going to get the same SMACK-DOWN that I give to anyone trying to shove religion down my throat. I like steak. I like pork. I like Chicken, Fish, Duck, Lamb, Goat, Snake, Pheasant, Deer, Boar, and Ostrich. And if we’re going to cook steaks, the very idea that we should THROW AWAY THE SKIN, as opposed to making leather out of it is UTTERLY INSANE!!! (Didn’t you people learn anything form the American Indians?!)

Now… Fur? I’ll agree with you. It’s ugly, gaudy, and if we aren’t willing to eat it (I’ve never eaten Fox, Racoon or Mink, and I’m guessing I won’t anytime soon) we probably shouldn’t be wearing it. That being said, (and I realize that I'm going beyond strictly PETA here...)THROWING PAINT ON PEOPLE’S COATS IS UTTERLY INSANE, AND YOU SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR IT AS WELL AS PAY DAMAGES! First of all – if it’s a really good synthetic you may not be able to tell. Second of all, THE ANIMAL IS ALREADY DEAD!!! If you want to prevent the killing, do what LAW ABIDING liberals do: Protest the manufactures, organize boycotts and lobby congress to pass stricter laws!

Now granted, a lot of the behaviors I'm describing here are not officially PETA actions. I get that. I'm lumping in some rather beligerant individuals into this one along with them. And the naked protests? Yeah, I totally dig that! And yes, I realize that they DO, in fact "Protest the manufactures, organize boycotts and lobby congress to pass stricter laws." But that sums up why I feel they've gone off the deep end, and have ended up urting their cause: By worrying about minute stuff, or by dabbling in the extreme - and trying to turn the entire world into herbivores is extreme - they lose a lot of credability that could be used to meanigfully address serious problems, like Dogfighting, Ear Cropping/Tail Docking, Pet Adoption... or many of the very issues they're trying to focus on. The "shock and awe" stuff makes for good posters and PSA's, but it's poison for a politician.

(And seriously: If you expected to belive that we shouldn't eat HONEY, because it EXPLOITS THE BEES?! You're fucking insane!)

9. Gay Pride Parades

I'm sure this one surprises most people, as I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals, am an ardent supporter of equal rights, including gay marriage, and for the anti-discrimination laws protecting them. So this is NOT about the idea that people should march, or be public about their political demands. Not at all. It's not about the idea of having a parade...

My beef is with the half-naked, leather studded, S&M, Villaige People looking whack-jobs that seem to make up the majority of the marchers in the gay pride parades these days, particularly in big cities. (New York, San Fran, etc...) By making yourself into a public spectacle of the very stereotype that the Religious Right wants mainstream America to perceive the gay communtiy as, you destroy all the progress made by the other 99.999% of the homosexual community that is otherwise indistinguishable from everybody else. By dressing up like a bunch of weirdoes you help the religious right portray the entire gay community as a bunch of weirdoes. Now: I still happen to think that weirdoes deserve equal rights. But, sadly, the majority of Americans do not. I don’t care if you want to wear that stuff, doing whatever with whomever (limited to consenting adults, of course) but when it’s on such a public, in-your-face display for political purposes it makes any real political progress that much harder.

And besides: these people are NOT representative of the gay community! I've been friends with and have worked with MANY homosexuals in my life and NONE OF THEM EVER HAD PEACOCK FEATHERS STICKING OUT OF THEIR ASS! It’s great theatre, but it’s helping the Right make the argument to mainstream America that homosexuals are “the other” and thus don’t deserve the same rights and protections as 'normal americans.'

You want to march? Please do. Carry your rainbow flags, and your ♀/♂ signs, chant your slogans… You know: Do what EVERYBODY does when they protest or march. All I ask is the you dress the way that you would normally dress... to go to work, or the movies or the market. Millions of people in your own community are suffering because you want to march looking like an lavish Las Vegas Drag Act!!!

Again: By going to far, you harm a very important cause!

8. Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton

I got in deep trouble with a poster named "Barry Bonds" on MMFA for arguing this one!

Let me say this right up front: There IS still racism in this country. It's been out in force since 1/20/09. But, just as President Obama said, we need to get beyond the idea that EVERYTHING is about race. President Obama gets it. These clowns do not. The pre-1960's brand of Institutional racism is GONE. Being racist these days is considered a BAD THING. So... WE’VE MADE PROGRESS!!! A LOT! Kids being raised today are being brought up in the most diverse classrooms anywhere in the world at anytime in human history. My (white-christian) son’s two best friends in school last year were Ahmed (arab-muslim) and Sohaum (Indian-hindu). You think these guys have even a fraction of the racism in them that even my generation did? And as it was we had but a fraction of that of our parents… Who had but a fraction of that of their parents… So while there IS still racism, the problem has evolved. And yet these guys act like people are still getting fire-hoses and attack dogs turned on them.

When I hear either of these men speak, I can't help but wonder what the hell they would DO with themselves if racism truly DID disappear. Seriously, what woud they DO?! IMHO, they have made a living and a life off of this problem, and I seriously don't think they really want it to truly go away! They achieved too much fame and fortune fighting it! Personally? I think if they could wave a magic wand and either (1) make us all the same color or (2) Elighten us all, so that we can all understand and appreciate our mutual differences, I truly believe that either of them would instead (3) Snap that wand over their knee.

No progress on racial issues will be made with these two involved.

7. Greenpeace

Man is causing global warming. That’s a fact. Look it up. Species are disappearing at an alarming rate, due to our actions and we should stop it. Deforrestaion? Big problem. Habitat destruction? Yep, that too. Whaling… yeah, that should be banned immediately. No-brainer that one. As should using shark-fins without eating the rest of the shark.

That being said, the outrageous actions taken by Greenpeace and other, even more extreme, eco-terrorist groups end up dragging down the image of the seious, law-abiding, academic, scientists that study climate change and other ecological issues. Your efforts are counter-productive. My advice for you is the same as that for PETA: Organize Boycotts, stage protests and LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT(S)! That's the only way any prgress can be made on these problems. A bunch of guys floating in the antartic ocean on a raft? Looks like piracy to me. Open fire.

6. Michael Moore

I won't call him the "Rush Limbaugh of the left" - that's as disingenuous as describing MSNBC as "just the liberal verison of Fox" - but I honestly can't think of a BETTER way to describe him. He starts with good ideas and then goes WAAAAAY off the deep end with them. During the Auto-Bailout talks, he’s actually suggested nationalizing the auto industry! Communism anyone? He does make some interesting films, that ask some really important questions. But I don’t think he has any more idea than Rush Limbaugh does what it really takes to run a country, or an economy, or a company.

The thing is... 10-20 minutes into any one of his movies, I'm thinkninng, "GOOD POINT! Go get 'em, Mikey!" The problem is that by 90-110 minutes, I'm so numb from propaganda overload that I can't wait to hit the Conservtive blogs to get their refutation of it! It's overkill! And what's more - he's pretty famous at this point for deceptively cropping his interview clips and deceptively editing his films. And while he can make his point anyway he wants... by doing things this way, he actually WEAKENS the whole argument! If you ask a question, LET ME HEAR THE WHOLE ANSWER! And if the answer refutes your argument, use some time to debunk ot thoroughly! By obviously cutting it short, and then not dealing with it, I'm left with the impression that you wouldn;t have been able to respond to his point! I had the same complaint about Bill Maher in Religilous, so you could include him in this one as well. I use Moore because he's more well know, but all this applies to Maher as well.

Moore is great at getting liberals upset about issues and conservtaives upset about Michael Moore, and liberals in general but again: IMHO, it's counter productive politically.

5. Partisan Political Celebrity Commentary (Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Matt Damon, etc…)

Mister Robbins? Shawshank Redepmtion was one of the greatest movies ever made. But your lot did NOTHING to help John Kerry's ’04 campaign. I’ve never met a single person that voted ‘Kerry’ because Susan Sarandon told them to. But there's probably no shortage of people who voted ‘Bush’ in 2004, just because Susan Sarandon told them to vote for John Kerry.

Celebrities, please understand: I have no problem with you getting involved in social causes. In fact, it’s my belief that every celebrity should lend their voice and support to a cause they believe in. Your celebrity can do a LOT of good to raise money for medical research, or bring attention to an issue that’s not getting enough attention. But when you become so politically vocal on matters of partisan policy, during the election cycle, you do great harm to your own candidate. The only reason you didn’t sink Obama was that he didn’t need your help to win. I don’t think you cost John Kerry the election in ’04 – he had an uphill climb as it was, and (I think) ran a milquetoast campaign – but I seriosuly don’t think you helped any.

4. Product Liability Industry

It’s not that I think that companies that knowingly put out unsafe products, or pollute the environment or are guilty of gross negligence shouldn't pay up. They should. And we need lawyers to make them. No problems there. And, BTW, we don’t need tort reform. That’s a bunch of nonsense spewed by right-wing industry-whores to confuse people who don’t really understand the law, or what 'tort' even means. BUT – I have a serious problem with the INDUSTRY that has grown up around product liability.

The biggest problem is that SCIENCE holds almost no sway in the court room. You see… a lawer doen’t have to PROOVE, SCIENTIFICALLY that a given product caused a given problem. Occasionally they get it right (Tobacco’s link to cancer.) But they’re never let lack of evidence get in the way of a “good case.” Silicone Breast Implants? Perfectly safe. Vaccines? DON’T CAUSE AUTISM (the court’s have finally gotten that right, but it really never should have even been heard because the anti-vaccine crowd didn’t have a scrap of valid evidence!) And the list of companies that have been successfully sued, because some lawyer confused 12 relatively uneducated jurors with a bunch of hooey and junk science, and been forced to pay out MILLIONS, costing jobs and sometimes sinking the company, only later to have scienctist finally determine that the product wasn’t causing any problems at all... is a lengthy one. Frivolous lawsuits will NEVER stand up to scientific reasoning. Unfortunately court rooms are largely allergic to science.

3. Cindy Sheehan

I'm against the Iraq War. Was from the beginning. Never supported it. Closest I came was for about 20 minutes following Colin Powell's UN speech, and even then WAR still didn't seem like the right option, especailly the way we were gooing about it. So why is Cindy Sheehan on this list? Well... as hard as it was to seperate out all the Right Wing's lies and distortions about her (and MMFA was very helpful with that) I was still left with the impression that, after awhile, it was really about about publicity. Hey: Maybe I'm worng. But it seems to me that she had her chance, had her 15 minutes, it passed and she just didn't want to let it go. It not her fault that Fox slandered her as much as they did - and there;s no love lost between me and Fox - but she was setting herself up as the spokeperson for the anti-war movement, and she just wasn't the right person for that job. Again, like so many others, I feel she ended up doing more harm than good to a very important cause.

2. Rod Blagojevick, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick, James Trafficant etc…

Not really liberals per se, but... Corrupt Democrats give liberals a bad name. These guys should be ousted form the party, and blacklisted from politics, legal practice and media commentary. There is no place in any issue for a disgraced politician. And BTW – I’ll give Bill Clinton a pass, even though I never voted for the man: He cheated on his wife, he DID NOT abuse his office! His impeachment was a shameful power-grab by the Republicans and it forever lowered the standard of what is an impeachable offense to something the ALMOST EVERY POLITICAN could meet. You do not overthrow an elected government over a blow-job. To think otherwise is to be a moron! But these clowns? They hurt the Deomcratic party and the Liberal movement more that than any republican or conservtive ever could. Even if there are 10 crooked republicans for evey crooked democrat, corruption is something I'd gladly let THEM have a monopoly on!

1. Alan Colmes

Number ONE?! YES. Number ONE. The spineless, ineffectual sellout who gave percieved credability to Hannity and Colmes all those years, yet never ONCE really nailed Sean Hannity in a debate on ANY ISSUE! That HAD to be in his contract - let Sean win - because beating Sean Hannity in a debate is about as difficult as putting on a hat! Whether his nightly wuss-routine was due to genetics or 30 pieces of silver matters little to me. Hannity makes conservatives look bad. So does Beck, Savage, O'Rielly, Limabugh... But Alan Comles made LIBERALS look bad. And I cannot forgive him for that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now... If anyone out there feels I'm way off the mark here, or that I'm just buying into all the Right Wing media propaganda? PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'm not the kind who can't admit he's mistaken. But like I said - If I'm going to bash conservatives for thinking that extremisim in their ideology is a virtue, then I've got to make an intellectually honest attempt to draw the line somewhere on our side. So there you go.

(Bracing for liberal backlash) Now LET ME HAVE IT! LOL.

8 comments:

  1. Welcome back, Eddie, I was a little worried. Nice job on PC, over on MMFA, today.

    No problems, 10-8.

    With your Green-piece (sorry, can never resist horrible puns), I do have a bone to pick. "Eco-terrorist" is a right-wing label, probably invented by the Luntzster himself. To use it, as would using any of their loaded term like "pro-life," would be to cede the frame of the argument to them. Perhaps we should have a discussion as to the meaning of the word terrorist, especially as it seems so important to the right that we all use it when referring to Dr. Hasan.

    Have to agree with you on Tim Robbins and Susan. George Clooney I think, has it right. When he saw that he was becoming a lightning rod he backed out of the spotlight. I believe I heard him quoted as telling a politician he supported, "I'll do everything I can to help behind the scenes, but if I stand next to you, I hurt you."
    The guy clearly knows the way power works, as not all of us on the left (or the right) do.

    As for Cindy Sheehan, neither of us, thank whatever is out there, can imagine her pain and grief. I've helped parents bury their children twice, and have to hold my own memories of the experience at arm's length. She gets a pass from me, as Glenn Beck will get a bop on the beezer if I ever get the chance to make him pay for his attack on the Jersey Girls.

    BTW, the name Sheehan, ironicallyenough, means "peaceful" in Gaelic.

    Agreed on Alan Colmes, but it seems to me that you're criticizing him for being what we liberals admire: a person who respects ideas and civil debate. On the other hand, you attack Michael Moore for taking a page out of the highly successful right-wing playbook and stoking the emotions. Perhaps we could graft Alan onto Michael and grow a new variety of liberal spokesman. We could call it...uh...Olbermann!

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL. Olbermann. My fav. But a cross between Alam Colmes and Michael Moore? I'm not sure if he'd be insulted by that or take it with pride. :)

    Actually there is an irony here with even including COLMES, because everyone else on the list is there because they go TOO FAR. Colmes, IMHO, didn't go FAR ENOUGH. So, in truth, he really doesn't belong on THIS LIST, since I was trying to show where the limits of SANITY were, not call out people for being too diplomatic. Criticising him for not "being liberal enough," so to speak, is exactly what I was calling out the Right for! So yeah... bad choice on my part, but he STILL pissed me off more than Hannity did. LOL

    As for Cindy Sheehan the PERSON? Obviously she's a very sympathetic figure, and I wouldn't trade places with her for anything. No parent should ever have to bury their child. You're absolutely right, there. But Cindy Sheehan the ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST, I still think harmed the cause and appeared to be miling her son's death. Now... Maybe that just the way the RW media portayed her? Sure, that's pos. Also... That could just have been HER WAY of coping. And I wouldn't be one to begrudge her that either. So to include her, I really do have to seperate the ACTIVIST form the PERSON, the PUBLIC her from the PRIVATE her.

    As for eco-terrorism... yeah, that IS a RW frame. I guess I fell into their trap there. (See? I'm NOT perfect! What d'ya know?! LOL) Maybe I'll take up how I define terrorism, since everyone does seem to have there own definition. It's definitely a tough one. Hassan, for example, was obviously a nutter, but he's a pretty pathetic case to try and politicize. The Right latching onto him shows that they'll latch onto anyone and anything.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with most of the reasoning given for this list. I think the problem is deeply engrained in humans though. It's easier for people to let things look black and white than to perceive shades of gray. Which is exactly how irrational ideas become rationalized to even the most well intended person.
    Ignorance may not be bliss, but it certainly does blind.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to agree with every assessment. Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I find people like Cindy Sheehan and groups like PETA more personally offensive, since they do distort reality in order to make their points. I find people like Alan Colmes and celebrity lefties more politically offensive because they defend liberalism so poorly and do such terrible jobs in a debate. I can't understand why they come to gun fights with butter knives.

    Some of the worst examples of the latter were during the Kerry-Bush campaign, when some liberal would be dispatched by the Kerry campaign to debate against a SwiftBoat Vets supporter. The facts were out there, well known, and their rightwing talking points were well known too, but the SBV's guy would throw out something and the opponent wouldn't be ready with the statement that would prove the SBV's guy wrong! There was no reason to not be prepared, but they weren't. It was sickening to watch.

    Kerry's military record should have been a net positive for him, and he let his opponents turn it into a negative. He's got to go on any list I would make.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is amazing. Here I was thinking that I would get at least SOME rancid tomatoes thrown my way over this, ad so far it seems everyone's basically on the same page! LOL.

    Actually... it might just go to show exactly what I was talking about before: Liberals recognize when they go to far, and conservatives largely don't. We don't feel that ANY action taken by a liberal is justified just by his or her liberalism, while for conservtaives, there is no such thing as "too far" and extremism never seems to be a vice.

    Wow. Well, hey: I guess in the minds of conservatives, maybe we're all not "real liberals" Huh? LOL.

    DellDolly: I can't bring myself to really 'hate' Kerry, but he DID run a piss-poor campaign, especially with the whole "swift-boat" thing. As close as it was, he really could have won if he'd have come out swinging.

    And thanks so much to everyone for coming by and commenting. I'm on the road for thanksgiving, so likely won't be able to post more until I come back, but we'll see how it goes. (Hence my complete absense from MMFA this week as well.)

    Later on! :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Happy Thanksgiving, Eddie and all.

    No doubt about it, Kerry was not an inspiring candidate, but I do believe he got the greatest number of votes ever to that time for a Democratic candidate, and came closer to beating the incumbent than any previous challenger not aided by a third party candidate.

    Ohio? I have my doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thumbs up for 10,9,8,4,2,1... not so sure about the rest. As for Moore... as you implied, one can't equate hyperbole with hate. He is not posing as a "fair and balanced" source so if he annoys the Right, more power to him. If his "documentaries" weren't so provocative, they would not do as well at the box-office.

    ReplyDelete