mushinnoshin

Roderick Long introduces us to a Caucasian Wingnut.

No, really.

Drink Beer. Save the World.

(via Freedom Democrats)

I got a message that someone named ‘Leslie Carbone” was following me on twitter. Having no idea who this is, I clicked through to her web page. I scattershot clicked on a link, which took me to a National Review article, which she apparently wrote. I won’t give her filth the dignity of a link, but here’s a nugget:

After years of haranguing the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to place young boys in danger of sexual abuse, the liberal intelligentsia is now condemning the Catholic Church leadership for doing exactly that … For months, the Catholic Church has come under criticism for continuing to permit pedophilic priests access to young boys.

Because, of course, homosexuals and pedophiles are totally the same thing. Well, at least they are according to the 1979 propaganda piece (which took less than 30 seconds for Google to reveal as widely discredited) that she uses to support her “thesis”. Damn intelligentsia, how dare they confuse us by insisting that different words mean different things!

And whaddaya know? She’s a Ron Paul supporter.

I bet she has all sorts of canned speeches about individualism, which she’ll happily spin out one side of her mouth while the other side collectivizes everyone she thinks has cooties.

UPDATE: Shucks, she’s not following me anymore, I guess I offended her. Sorry, I really hate being a condescending ass, I just don’t really know what to do with bigots except to treat *them* like less than human second class citizens, in the hopes that maybe being forced to walk a mile in the other sides’ shoes will eventually help them get it.

I got a spam this morning from one of the Christianist outfits pimping Huckabee. Before getting into the meat of trying to double talk around explaining how a CATO F-rated governor is really a fiscal conservative, they trotted out this little gem:

and as Churchill said “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”

What’s the matter? Rather look like an idiot than let the knuckledraggers know you’re actually (badly mis-) quoting a Democrat?

I wonder what Churchill would actually have to say about it? Maybe that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on?

Paula Poundstone with an English lesson for the Senators:

I do so love her.

I’ve never quite known how to take Vince Vaughn. I think the thing is, I’ve liked most of his movies, but haven’t much liked him. Seeing him tonight in Wedding Crashers, I think it’s more complex than that — I like him as the jackass you hate, so long as there’s an Owen Wilson representing decent humans. Or something like that.

Did I mention that I think I found my drink? Really, what could be more perfect for me than Mad Monk? I think that Rasputin fellow and I might have a good conversation or two.

[drunken ranting snipped]

Anyone want to go see Dirty Rotten Scoundrels tomorrow (Sunday) night?

I’ve got a two-for-one email coupon for tomorrow night’s 6:30 performance, if anyone wants to go halves on it.

Damnit. Somehow I let myself spend the morning watching Gravel clips on YouTube. Who was I kidding? I can’t resist the urge to stand up with a revolutionary underdog, it’s just in my nature.

Some of the unofficial grassroots clips are pretty good too. For example, here’s one that illustrates the media manipulation of the process. Seems a bit foil-hat, does it? Well, just look at the final order:

Clinton 22:13
Obama 20:16
Edwards 13:44
Richardson 12:36
Biden 9:32
Dodd 9:21
Kucinich 8:29
Gravel 5:09

Do you really think it just happens that the list perfectly mirrors the shakeout of the race so far? I mean jeez, they even nailed Biden barely edging out Dodd. At the very least there’s a clear feedback loop — even if one argues that allotted time is based on prior polling, and discounts the notion that the media actively conspires to shape the race, certainly it’s clear that they reinforce the status quo and strip the debates of the ability to serve a real purpose. The very fact that we can’t draw a clear line between giving the people what they want and telling them what they want is a fundamental problem that utterly corrupts our democratic process, whether it’s intentional or not.

Meanwhile,
Chomsky’s on board, and Nader defends Gravel’s right to debate.

I think Richardson did me a favor dropping out. I’m much more suited to supporting cantankerous gadflies anyways.

I wonder, might there be potential for a third party run with the Greens? Actually, if the Libertarian Party wants to convince me they haven’t been forever lost to paleoconservative bigotry — and irrelevance — Gravel just might be the perfect candidate for the Green/Libertarian fusion that always gets discussed but never happens. Of course that would require they stop fellating their favorite homophobic, xenophobic, anti-evolution, anti-choice, now-maybe-also-racist Republican, and I don’t see that happening.

It seems my candidate threw in the towel. Sigh. I think it may actually have been my fault. I’m just destined to always root for the one that should win but doesn’t. What can I say, it’s lonely in the 98th percentile.

Well perhaps all is not lost. He’s certainly by far the best choice for veep, or he’d also make an excellent Secretary of State. Hell those are probably the only two jobs besides President that he hasn’t already held. Actually I had a good snicker earlier, I read someone say he needs Senate experience. Because, certainly, his experience as a CEO, Governor, Secretary of Energy, UN Ambassador, and Congressman can’t begin to compare to all the experience that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have with … sitting in a room arguing with other Senators (failing to get anything done).

Anyway my best guess is that if Clinton takes the prize, Richardson will be veep. If Obama gets the nod, Richardson becomes Secretary of State. Hell, maybe he’ll have more chance to do good in that role anyway.

Meanwhile, where does that leave me? Well now my official favorite still in the race is Gravel. Of those the powers that be will allow likely to win, I suppose I go with Obama.

But I think if I decide to put any more money, time, or effort towards a campaign this season, I’m going with Wiggum –

“When we’re mad we’ll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants.”

See? he’s still better than the Republicans.

Over at Lesley’s pace I took another candidate selector quiz, with pretty close results, especially near the top. My current list would only be a little different; I’ll drop those who got out after Iowa, and I do have to arrange the middle and bottom a bit more, but here ya go:

So –

1. Why Richardson over Gravel? Experience, leadership, electability. I like Gravel a lot, but ideologically he’s only a little better than Richardson, while Bill brings much more to the table. Gravel’s more of a kook like me, and I probably wouldn’t be my top choice either.
2. Why Paul over the rest of the Democrats? Well, foreign policy (there’s much more to anti-interventionism and correcting the mistakes of the last 70 years than just getting out of Iraq), civil liberties (the dems talk the talk, but voting for the Patriot act, etc. is not walking the walk), and ending the War on Drugs make for reasons enough. Yes, he has despicable positions on abortion, immigration, gay rights, etc. Believe me it turns my stomach, and if there was a better 4th place choice available, I’d take it. I still have some hope that the Libertarian Party might let me put Steve Kubby into that spot.
3. Why Obama over Clinton & Edwards? I mean really, on policy, they’re all about the same. Well, I do have some faith that he might be a little better on civil rights. Again with all three it’s largely a rhetoric vs. reality problem. At the very least I can say that Obama doesn’t yet have quite the same track record of triangulation and/or outright failure, if only because he hasn’t been around long enough. But mostly, it’s about this. Now, my jaded, cynical, curmudgeonly self doesn’t really buy the idea that Obama himself is any great agent of change, but what I do love is that he is inspiring others. Or to put it another way — the myth of Jebediah Springfield has value too, and a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

Oh, and, why Thompson over the rest of the Republicans? Well I’m just thinking laziness might work to our advantage. Maybe he won’t get around to really screwing things up. I kid… actually I’m still not a great fan of the populist economics of most Democrats. I support moderate steps and safety nets, but not the whole agenda; I criticize conservatives for failing to recognize the problems, and liberals for proposing the wrong solutions, which may or may not be better than no solutions. So if it wasn’t for the war & related civil liberties issues, I’d possibly rank Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain over Clinton & Edwards. But we have what we have.