Sunday, March 4

CPAC Underground

Now up on YouTube and Thinkprogress are excerpts of a video from The Nation's Max Blumenthal "CPAC 2007: The Unauthorized Tour" and on it you get to see exactly what the Right-Wing thinks and exactly where they're taking this country.

Much worse that Ann Coulter's Faggot remark about John Edwards - which by the way she has subsequently added to by claiming...

C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.

Nice, eh? Add to this some of the comments and remarks by Michelle Malkin, Dinesh D'souza, David Horowitz, Tom Tancredo and Grover Norquist captured by Blumenthal and you have a rich broth of conservative hatred and venom.

Yum...


Starting things off Blumenthal decides to ask "In Defense of Internment" author Michelle Malkin to sign a picture of Manzanar - since she apparently supports the policies employed during World War Ii and the modern internemt of Muslim Americans. (Which btw is already occuring!) <>Malkin's response?
Malkin: I'm not gonna sign that. And let me tell you something since you're filming this. I am all for honest intellectual debate. I had extensive exhanges with critics of my book. I issued an errata page.

Blumenthal: So you made a lot or errors in your book?

Malkin: I did. And I detest your attempt to try and smear my work without even reading it. Thank you very much, that's all the time I have.

At which point she stomped off and refused to sign anything else or answer any more questions. I guess it's a good thing for Mike Stark that he got to the Malkin table before Blumenthal.

Just so you don't have to give Malkin anymore hits by actually going to her site and reading her "extensive errata" - here it is for you in all it's intellectually honest glory.

page 8: Author/academic Greg Robinson points out that the Goleta shelling was not "the first foreign attack on the U.S. mainland since the War of 1812," as I asserted. (He points to Pancho Villa's incursion into New Mexico.) I should have said that it was the first attack on the U.S. mainland by a foreign country since the War of 1812.

Pacho Villa? Yeah ok.

..............................
page 85: Oahu is the third-largest Hawaiian island, not the largest.

Yeah, the largest Island would be one they call "The Big Island" aka "Hawaii". Looks like Malkin really shouldn't be going on that new Fox Show "Are you smartest than a 5th grader?" - because she's not. At least she could try watching Dog:The Bounty Hunter re-runs.

..............................
page 99: I wrote that "[h]istorians who compare the American relocation camps to Dachau and Bergen-Belsen will be hard-pressed to find a single European Jew who ... was given permission to leave ... a Nazi death camp." In fact, according to law professor Eric Muller, many Jews sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen in the 1930s were released.

Ohhh, Snap!

..............................
Greg Robinson is American, not Canadian.

Still having geography problems I see - did you know that Alaska is the largest U.S. State? Betcha didn't?

..............................
page 123: I wrote that Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga "surreptitiously shared confidential documents with" attorney Peter Irons. The words "surreptitiously" and "confidential" were erroneous and will be excised in future editions.

And this makes how much of difference to the cost of tea in china?

..............................
footnote 20 to Chapter 2 says "January 1941" when it should say "January 1942."

Not only map reading problems, but also calender reading problems - anyone see a pattern? Think maybe we should get some of those fifth graders to give Malkin some tutoring?

.............................
page 311, second photo caption: Bismarck is in North Dakota, not South Dakota.

Again with the MAP STUFF - somebody get put dial-a-geek on speed dial for this woman. At any rate, I - while openly admitting that I haven't read Malkin's book - can with some confidence state that this collection of errata really doesn't disuade anyone from the book primary purpose - which in case you've forgetten was -TO DEFEND THE INTERNMENT OF U.S. CITIZENS

But then perhaps I should be intellectually honest and let Malkin describe the book herself (again from her page - say thank you for the link avoidance)

If you want to read a book decrying the loss of personal freedom in wartime America, this is the wrong book. If you want to read a book about the history of institutional discrimination against minorities in America, you’re out of luck again. Bookstores, library shelves, and classrooms are already filled with pedantic tomes, legal analyses, and educational propaganda along these conventional lines.

In Defense of Internment provides a radical departure from the predominant literature of civil liberties absolutism. It offers a defense of the most reviled wartime policies in American history: the evacuation, relocation, and internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II (three separate actions which are commonly lumped under the umbrella term "internment"). My book is also a defense of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality profiling (widely differing measures that are commonly lumped under the umbrella term "racial profiling") now being taken or contemplated during today’s War on Terror.

Did Blumenthal really need to read this swill to get the jist of it? I think not. And how exactly does the fact that Malkin apparently can't read a map or a calender realy change the basic - and clearly stated intent - of her little justification for racial profiling and concentration/internment camps?

Moving on - Blumenthal then caught part of Tom Tancredo's stump speech.

Conservatives need a leader who believes in enforcing our immegration law, becasue the first part of illegal immigrant is Illegal.

[It creates] sort of an linguistic and cultural tower of babel. I think it is, or I guess you could just ask them if they think Miami is becoming a third-world country.

Yuk. yuk... That Tancredo is a scream isn't he?

Following the footage of Tancredo, Blumenthal interviewed a young latina member of the College Republicans.

Stephanie Ponce: Some of the stuff I heard today was.. I was shocked.. to hear Republicans talk about immigrants in such ways because, y'know, immigrants are becoming the majority in America. It's kind of hurtful...

Blumenthal: Have you ever considered that this is a "White-Man's Party"?

Ponce: Yeah.. sadly... sadly.

Yea, coming to your senses sometimes is a sad event.

But not everyone at CPAC agree with the Tancredo credo.

Grover Norquist:

The idea that being an immigrant basher was good politics should have been put to rest in '06. If the face of the Republican party is Tom Tancredo - it loses over the next 25 years.

All I can say to that is "Go Tom GO-- GO TOM GO!!"

Then again, sometimes you can cut a little too close to the nerve. Blumenthal speaking with Tancredo Supporters.

Neanderthal#1: One more passage of amnesty of a guest worker program and we are done for politically.

Blumenthal: Why?

#1: Because it'll never be possible again to control it.

Blumenthal: What about culturally?

#1: What?

Blumenthal: Culturally?

#1: Obviously it's a cultural problem.

Blumenthal: We need to preserve white culture.

#1: Oh no. Get out of here.

Neanderthal #2 with Buzz Cut: "White Culture"? - get the hell out of here with that shit.

Blumenthal: What about "Western Civilization?"

#2: No, not "White Culture". You want to say this is some racist chant for Tancredo - it's bullshit. It's not gonna happen, cuz it's not about race

Really?

Well according to the result of the human genome project from almost ten years ago, there is no such thing as "race" genetically. What we commonly refer to as racial differences are really just cultural differences between peoples from different climates. Genetically there are more difference between tall people and short people than there are between whites, blacks and browns.

"Trying to mix genetics with race is, to my mind, inappropriate; cannot be done," she says. "...,Race is something we do to each other; it has nothing to do with what our DNA does to us."

"Race" as we use it is a Culturally Convenient Construct we use to distinguish groups. So to say that it's "Cultural, but not Racial" simply doesn't make any sense.

But I have to say the real cake-taker in this entire video isn't Malkin or Coulter (whom Blumenthal asks "why she's been engaged so many times but never married?" -- in response to her Edwards comments), but ex-liberal David Horowitz.

David: What's wrong with you people are you Stupid? Is you're hatred for me such that you just regard everything I say in order to attack?

Blumenthal: What do you think it is?

David: I think the left is driven by envy, resentment and a ferocious hatred of anybody on the other side. That's because it's a religious movement [Don't tell "Godless" Author Ann Coulter that!] that believes the world can be redeemed, we can end world poverty, we can end racism , sexism and homophobia "If only those Damn Conservatives Would Die!" The Liberal in his heart is consumed with hate!

Takes you're breath away doesn't it? And you know what? That point of view seems eerily familiar. Ah yes, I remember now - I heard it from a bunch of conservatives who were claiming that America will continue to be fucked-up until all those f-ing berkenstock and tie-die wearing hippies finally die off.

America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.

Radicalized, the flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives. No matter what they rename themselves, however, their agenda hasn't changed.

So, Liberals are consumed with hate? Let me tell you something David, I'm not consumed with hate -- I'm consumed with pity - for you. And when that wears off I'm consumed with also tons of snark because you are one hi-lar-ious dude. Laugh a minute, I swear.

Are Conservatives the only thing standing in the way of what Dinesh D'Souzas describes as the lefts yearning for "Utopia" on earth? Hardly. We've still have our own internal issues to deal with. Forget what Conservatrives do or don't do - we're about as likely to usher in a new age of aquarius as we are to get a herd of cats to march in formation.

The difference is - at least we're trying to make things better. Conservatives are far more interested in making things better for themselves individually, while expoiting Racism, Homophobia and Sexism to get there. They believe that personal enrichment is only ultimate motivator. Coulter uses platforms like this as a chance to lob word bombs at each and every "liberal" she can find - to the hoots and approving hollers of the crowd (which is also captured on Blumenthal's video and should be much more of a concern that what she actually said). Malkin plays the victim when she's called out for supporting the institution of racism into our governmental policies, while Tancredo and his ilk recoil in mock outrage when someone points out the natural conclusion of thier own suggestions and Horowitz plays the poor put-upon conservative who is simply inundated with this "hatred" from the left because y'know - he's just knows were all stupid, right?

It's all a pose designed to increase their personal profiles and fortunes, it's all self-delusion, but in the long term benefits no one but themselves.

What do we hear from the Right Wing about the Walter Reed debacle?

Brit Hume: It's looks terrible for the Bush Administration. Which is the problem.

Yes, how things look is usually the problem for Republicans isn't it? That's because that's how they are.

And what do they have to say about the continued failure to cleanup the Gulf Coast following Hurrican Katrina? They blame the victims of course.

Newt Gingrich: How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane.

We don't need for all those damn conservaties to die... just for their repressive, bigoted, divisive, violent and greedy ideas to end up where they belong, tossed out of civilized society onto the scrap heap of history, just like Nazism and Socialism.

As far as I'm concerned the more these guys open their mouths and let people truly understand who they are and what they really believe - like a case of demented tourettes - the closer we come to that goal, inch by precious inch.

Vyan

No comments: