It titillates your angry parts.
One of y’all sent me an email asking why I didn’t argue with Jeff Goldstein anymore. I replied that I just haven’t thought about him in a long time, but that maybe I should take a look around his site … which immediately reminded me exactly why I haven’t thought about him in a long time:
Those in the New Left have spent years entrenching themselves in the information dissemination and academic fields, as well as in the Democratic Party. Is it really so hard to believe that, having worked tirelessly and with cynical political purpose to take over those institutions, they might actually have a plan for how they’d hoped to use their positioning, should they ever achieve a perfect storm of power? That is, that people like Bill Ayers or a host of other Obama mentors who were born of that revolutionary leftist mindset and never renounced it, would have strategies and blueprints for the kind of “fundamental transformation” of the US they have spent their adult lives promoting and then, they hoping, ruling over?
Jeff wants to know whether it’s difficult to imagine that the forces of the New Left currently occupying the White House are following through on a plan devised in the 1960s that’s designed to fundamentally transform America into a country the revolutionary arm of the Left can rule in perpetuity. Except he doesn’t really want to know that — he already assumes it to be true. His rhetorical question is aimed not at his present audience, but at some future conservative one that’s lived under the iron heel of a tyrannical Leftist regime for countless decades. “Bill Ayers” rings like “Judas” in the ears of that audience and “Obama” has because so synonymous with his actions that carpenters carry “an Obama and some nails” to work everyday.
So why don’t I argue with Jeff anymore? Because he’s writing conservative pornography for people who won’t ever exist. If they’re not obliged to read it, I don’t see why I should be.
Does he still come to sites that mock him to argue with them?
The master of the “Address my post, Libs!” theory of arguing?
I don’t think so. We’re part of the machine, the unpaid interns of the Coming Socialism or something similar. It’s pointless to talk to us.
Those in the New Left have spent years entrenching themselves in the information dissemination and academic fields, as well as in the Democratic Party. Is it really so hard to believe that, having worked tirelessly and with cynical political purpose to take over those institutions, they might actually have a plan for how they’d hoped to use their positioning, should they ever achieve a perfect storm of power?
If you mentally get the theme to Battlestar Gallactica playing in your head while you are reading this, it helps. However, to really pull it off, you would need to envision Bill Ayers as Caprica Six.
So who is Dean Stockwell playing? Tom Hayden or Abbie Hoffman?
So who is Dean Stockwell playing? Tom Hayden or Abbie Hoffman?
Not enough anger and self-hatred in those two. I think Cavil is clearly the equivalent of Roy Cohn.
When will Saul Alinsky burst out of his techno-coffin filled with goo?
Actually, I think that this is a far more appropriate image.
From Wikipedia:
1960.
I am 47 years old.
In three weeks I will be the father of a teenager.
I wake up in the morning with aches and pains.
I wake up in the middle of the night to pee.
Professional athletes 10 years younger than I am are written off as ancient and decrepit.
The term New Left was popularized in the United States four years before I was born.
Does Jeff Goldstein REALLY have to go THAT far back to find an argument that he maybe, possibly, if you squint right, didn’t conclusively lose?
I see your point, however, it is hard to debate someone who is that married to paranoid delusions
To call those delusions paranoid is to overstate their coherence.
He’s still kind of bitter about being a failed academic and being forced into a life of starring in a series homoerotic wrasslin’ videos.
O tempora o mores!
But seriously, nobody pays any attention to him anymore because he’s kind of a pathetic case.
“But seriously, nobody pays any attention to him anymore because he’s kind of a pathetic case.”
Which really says something considering the other clowns in the clown car
The wrestling bits remain funny. Not intentionally or anything, but funny.
I can’t get past the part where he starts talking about hooking.
I am utterly shocked that in a democratic society, there will be people who will organize politically to change the direction of that society in accordance with their values and preferred policies.
Unless those people happen to be radical conservatives, in which case, they are the true patriotic supporters of the Constitution as it exists only in my overly fevered imagination.
Not getting out of the boat, but is the general idea here that Obama’s governing as a technocratic, center-right squish (from a “New Left” perspective) throughout his first term is all part of his Cunning Plan to lull us into a false sense of security so that he can win a second term and finally fulfill his (and Bill’s) dream of turning the US into a larger version of North Korea?
Well, according to the batshit fascist running the NRA, all signs point to yes.
(LaPierre just gave a spittle-flecked speech claiming that Obama’s lack of even the slightest apparent interest in gun regulation is all camoflage for his second term, when of course he’s going to come for all your firearms.)
I’d never heard of this guy, so as if I have nothing better to do, I went to his website and read a few of his short stories. They’re overwritten and precious, packed with awkward metaphors. Here’s a notable sample:
Wow. That is truly offal.
David, it’s nice that we can come together to agree on something.
Curdled vowels are liquids able to be funneled with…”coarse” other liquids? What? And that’s the good bit! (Except for the last line which which is what I’m trying desperately to do after reading the prior line.)
And ewww.
Heh. I write fiction so I hesitated before posting, thinking I wouldn’t want some dude on a blog pulling out my worst bit, but then I read more of his stuff and discovered that it’s pretty representative.
Plus he seems like a douche.
I’d let my curdled vote be funneled with coarse considerations into a mist (it’s a MIST of CURDLED LIQUID?! does the man eat no cheese?) of liquid serious consideration for Ron Paul before reading any more.
Worst spit take ever.
You’re trying to think of nothing–imagine what poor Rachel is thinking, assuming she isn’t already in a shallow grave, that is.
I’m really really really not thinking of anyone touching anything anywhere. I can only imagine that Rachel and her nipples longed for the shallow grave cause the touching was how the son was.
(Really, burnt AND brown? So the “burnt” wasn’t giving the color but the actual state? EWWWWWWWW. And they roll stiffly? Do they have arthritis..I’M THINKING OF NOOOOTTTTTTHIIIIIIING!!!)
Every sentence is a Bulwer-Lytton prize finalist.
I admit that I’m pretty tempted to see what Jeff Goldstein, constitutional scholar thinks about the argument that the free exercise clause gives individuals an unlimited right to be excused from general laws…
You left out the part about Goldstein being an angry moron and drunk.
That has to leave a mark. I’m with the Na-gah-get off the boat crowd on this one. Although I have some dissonance with the Ayers reference in a graf where he spells out “Democratic Party.” Did he not get the memo?
That would violate his Prime Directive: Never use a shorter word where a longer one is available.
Say what you will about Jeff Goldstein, you have to admit that he’s a uniter and not a divider.
We all unite in agreement that he’s a loon.
Too soon to tell. We need joe from lowell to post here in agreement with mizner before we can really anoint Goldstein a uniter.
I’m very glad I introduced you to his bad eminence all those years ago.
God, the Internet was so young, then.
(As was I. Whither my youth?)