Another One Bites The Dust
Jesse Helms was a mean little ignorant prick and thankfully he is worm food at last. He was the poster-child for stupid pride and bigotry and it is interesting to watch the media slip on their extra-sensitive condoms in their measured "memorium" of the hateful troll. He took close-minded, intolerant redneck and turned it into a trademark for the (mostly) Southern masses, celebrating the anti-intellectualism that brought us Reagan and GW Bush and sending this country into it's present historical tailspin. He epitomized the petty, abusive, bully and demigogue as he whored for Big Tobacco, rallied the extremist religious fundamentalists against AIDs research funding and licked the ass of every brutal dictator he could find. The perfect symbol of all thats wrong with America, I hope a moment of clarity on his deathbed brought him untolerable anguish. Every North Carolinian who ever voted for him should be required to go work a year on an Indian reservation or do hospice work for AIDs victims.
posted by troutsky @ 6:59 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
"Media slip on extra-sensitive condoms." What an image! I love this post. The anger is warranted and well said.
Well said!
He died too late for it to matter much.
Come on now, let's not piss on the graves of the dead.
I've been busy as of late, but I see I'm needed to keep you in line, if just a wee bit.
I expect a similar epitaph when Robert Byrd bites the dust.
fuck Robert Byrd and Jesse Helms. And Ted Kennedy for that matter. They can all rot in hell.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I remember a wonderful back cover of Mad Magazine from around 1968. It had a nice Cold War quote:
"If there is a nuclear war and only one couple is left alive on earth, I want that couple to be Americans"
Beneath the text was a picture of a Black Panther with a machine gun and bandeleros of ammunition. Next to him, in an enormous wicker chair, was a delicate, blonde southern belle.
I think it was Jesse Helms, but maybe it was Strom...
Wiser, I admit to letting my anger get the best of me, but it felt good. Byrd is a much better man, though not the saint the pundits try to portray.
and I was bit harsh on Kennedy. the guy has done better than most in the Senate.
I have a near hatred for politicians.
Graeme:
I consider myself an ultra-liberal: in 1980 I was a self-styled radical. I looked at Carter and Reagan and saw no difference. I didn't vote.
That was one of the worst judgements I have ever made. A Carter term would have been better than a Reagan term, or certainly much less bad. I have always regretted it. (Not that my vote would have mattered...)
Historical perspective, always! People now are down on Obama because he is not the left-liberal they want. Well, hold your nose and vote! Politics is about the possible - most of the time. Clintonites and leftists who are griping that they will sit out this election will be might angry if McCain is prez and starts bombing Iran and granting tax favors to his wife's friends.
Everyone hates politicians, everyone is waiting for the hero on a white horse to save them and redeem politics...
lichanos,
Everyone hates politicians, everyone is waiting for the hero on a white horse to save them and redeem politics...
So why then would you want to reinscribe this pathetic human behavior by voting? Wouldn't it be more logical to return to your self-styled radicalness of the 1970s, work on your analysis and realize that--as you admit yourself--the problem is the political system? From here you could engage in a struggle to change the submissive, subservient, passive behavior of your fellow humans. Do you believe in education? Why wouldn't you want to help educate people of their own capacity for self-rule, self-selection, self-management supported by cooperative and collective action? In this way, we wouldn't pathetically surrender to bullshit "inevitabilities" that say "this is just the way it has to be, so let's plug our noses and play the game..."
Chomsky on Prez. Carter:
"Carter [...] did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked."
"Q: You have written and spoken about Carter's move to send arms to Indonesia to help them slaughter the natives of East Timor. This runs counter to the prevailing image of Carter as a decent peace-seeking man. Was he just a hypocrite? Was this something that happened without his full awareness of the consequences of what he was doing? Was it tacked onto other legislation?
A: This was a Carter initiative. Not only did they radically increase the flow of aid to Indonesia, but Walter Mondale, who was then vice president, flew to Jakarta in 1978. That was the period of the worst atrocities, which were well known incidentally, I mean the press wasn't reporting them, but there were plenty of other sources. Surely US intelligence knew all about it. Mondale went to Jakarta. He was terribly impressed by how wonderful it was. He telegraphed back to Washington that they ought to send them more jet planes. Carter couldn't do that because of congressional legislation that prevented direct military aid to human rights violators, so they arranged with Israel to ship American jets to Indonesia. That was all White House initiatives...His motivations are straightforward. Indonesia's a very rich country, huge resources which were open to exploitation by foreign corporations."
Idealism is the new pragmatism...because we it isn't practical anymore to accept things the way they are. In fact, it's idealistic to assume we can keep living the way we are. We need to get practical and intervene at the root (radical) causes of the problems we face! Moderate politics are anti-politics, liberals are sophisticated, articulate defenders of the status quo (they believe in Obama and changes in shopping habits), while radicals on the other hand, are practical in their approach to staving off disaster! In other words, anti-capitalism is becoming a conservative value!
Most importantly, I am pissing on the grave of Jesse-Fucking-Helms with glee. Fuck Jesse Helms that racist fuck! Fuck Jesse Helms and his vicious policies against the Cuban people! Fuck Jesse Helms and his treatment of victims of AIDS!
Dave, not celebrate death, let alone certain deaths? One shouldn't have celebrated Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Pinochet's, Hussein's, Reagan's, Franco's, Mussolini's, Thatcher's (when she goes), Bushes' (they couldn't come soon enough), Kissinger's (he needs to stand trial and then be executed before he dies like Thatcher), Nixon's, et. al.?
well said Che Bob. I have a few friends in the UK that are going to down a pint with me (at least in spirit) when Thatcher finally goes.
Ché:
I am pissing on the grave of Jesse-Fucking-Helms with glee.
No argument there...
I won't defend Carter. He was confused and very conservative, too ready to succumb to the demands of cynical Realpolitik. I only said he would have been better than Reagonzo, certainly regarding the Supreme Court.
Sometimes I think of REP/DEMs as standing on the same spot but facing in different directions. I always support DEMS because the might be dragged a teeny bit in the right (correct) direction.
the problem is the political system...
The problem is ALWAYS the system. It was in the USSR too. In Cuba, everywhere. That's the human condition. Saying we have to change the system is like saying that 1+1=2. The question is, how to do it?
...liberals are sophisticated, articulate defenders of the status quo (they believe in Obama and changes in shopping habits)
Yeah, good point. That is their weakness. No argument here either.
...change the submissive, subservient, passive behavior of your fellow humans.
Here you touch on the nub of my discomfort with much of the radical critique. This point of view is common to left and right extremists. Both have contempt for the "masses." The left because they love them, the right because they feel they must be led - that's destiny. Throughout much of left wing cultural and political commentary there is a running argument that "the people" are dumb, brainwashed, inert, and passively respond to the dictates of the super-organized, totally monolithic, conspiratorial ruling clique. I think it's more complex, mostly because I have more respect for the "average Joe's" decision making process. Though I may deplore the voting patterns of the public - why would anyone making less than $100,000 vote for a Republican? - I must recognize that politics, life, and society, is not a purely rational thing. People want to believe, hope, and belong, and will do so for bad reasons with bad people. (Look at teenager's behavior.) Furthermore, "most people" have a justified suspicion and cynicism about intellectuals, radicals, politicians, and the economic elite that leads them to the not-so-wrong conclusion, "we will be screwed, no matter what..."
I'm not saying this approach is sensible, but it has to be appreciated and dealt with. Beyond that, I think that a study of history would show that progress, such as it is, has been made by movements that are not radical in nature, with rare exceptions. I believe that rebellion is sometimes necessary, but revolutions have a dismal history. Lenin loved to talk about educating the masses - so did Joe Stalin.
This comment has been removed by the author.
lichanos,
Look, both Jefferson and Lenin understood the need to transition people through revolution. Both Zizek and Laclau wrote about it as well. However, I am with Jefferson not Zizek that the period of transition needs to use the means of self-rule in order to achieve self-rule.
Your implication that education for the masses is necessarily coercive allows you to sit it out and trust that humans ultimately know what's best and so progress will eventually come. But what does your own life look like? Not unlike mine I'm sure. So moderation becomes a privilege.
One can be both radical and ethical.
Hé,Ché:
...both Jefferson and Lenin understood the need to transition people through revolution...
I'm glad YOU made that comparison. The more I learn of Jefferson, the less I like him, and for the same reasons I don't like Lenin.
Your implication that education for the masses is necessarily coercive allows you to sit it out...
I am a great believer in the value of education, especially a liberal education. Too bad that sort is so little valued these days. It doesn't necessarily lead to money. My point was not that education is coercive. I'm not sure why you think that's what I meant. I think radicals of all types tend to think, "If only THEY would learn the TRUE nature of society, they would act...and of course WE have that truth and can teach them, if ONLY they would listen to US (...instead of watching TV)!"
By the way - don't jump to conclusions about people you don't know. You have no idea whether I am "sitting it out," or what I do with my time...
...So moderation becomes a privilege.
Amen. It IS a privilege. And I AM privileged in so many ways. Perhaps you are too. I think of that every day. But that doesn't mean that desperation will lead to good results either.
I am a great believer in the value of education, especially a liberal education. Too bad that sort is so little valued these days...I think radicals of all types tend to think, "If only THEY would learn the TRUE nature of society, they would act...and of course WE have that truth and can teach them, if ONLY they would listen to US (...instead of watching TV)!"
lichanos, Can you not hear the deep double standards in your thinking? You think a liberal edcuation is appropriate, but a radical one not so? So you are decided what kind of education is okay? You believe your critique to be right but we are not afforded the same latitude? Liberal education for the masses? Is yours more benign? Less affected? More hands-off? More "neutral"?
You think what you think about "all types of radicals," and I think what I think about all kinds of uncommitted mediocre liberals. You reinscribe the status quo and I work to radically alter it. As an educator I'm doing it!
Hé,Ché:
Liberal education: That was a bit of a joke, a jab, an ironic allusion. Not liberal in the political sense, but in the western historical pedagogical sense. A bit too esoteric, I guess, since you missed the joke but gulped the bait. (I'm sure you'd rather not go back to what preceded the notion of liberal education...)
Taking a page from the current cover of that bizarre and ridiculous magazine 'O' ("You are an EXCEPTIONAL woman!") I must object: I am not a mediocre liberal! I am an EXCEPTIONAL liberal!
Good luck on your program. I wish you success. Howz it goin' so far? Also, what do you do when your students don't like your point of view?
It's probably to late for me to jump in but... This is a fascinating difference in historical perspective ( or perhaps linguistic?). Lichanos' version that "progress" does not come about through radical movements makes certain assumptions as does my own narrative that justice can only be achieved when it starts from a radically critical analysis. My assumption is that the democratic revolution is a radical departure from the historical ststus quo and that only by extending that revolution to the economic sphere can justice be achieved.
Lichanos perhaps takes a longer view and sees this as incremental steps extending far into the future, beginning way in the past.
"As an educator I'm doing it!"
You're not an educator, you're a propagandist and a child molester. You have no business mind-fucking other people's kids with your "radical" BS. You are one sick fuck.
American exceptionalism is a radical idea. So is the idea of a state. Those were pushed on me as the norm when I went to school. My teachers were sick fucks.
Thanks for your (as usual) insightful comment , anon.You added much to the discussion.
"American exceptionalism is a radical idea. So is the idea of a state. Those ideas were pushed on me. My teachers were sick fucks."
Obviously Graeme must have been taught by Che Bob.
Lets see internationalism is a radical idea that has produced repeated acts of class genocide. We
could also add that Anarchists have never produced so much as a Twinkie.
The notion of commie dolts recreating man to fit their fundamentalist death cult is the radical idea. Years of communism did not change people into Soviets, Yugoslavians or transmogrify Tibetians into Chinese.
Che Bob
Graeme and Ren's favorite Nazi has declared Noam Chomsky a "Zionist"
so you might want to reconsider quoting him in the future. How one
agitates for Palestine and Holocaust deniers and becomes a Zionist still remains a mystery?
I prefer my communists to be like Che Bob. Communists should never cry like Retrorade Eye. They must be campy and authoritarian "off to the gulag capatalist dogs". A good communist foil should also have some passing knowlesdge of history
beyond what is found in Cheech and Chong films or in Der Sturmer unlike Graeme.
Now repeat the slogans of the day.
WHO NEEDS GOD WHEN WE HAVE CHE SPONGE BOB.
CHE BOB IS GREATER THAN SPONGE BOB
CHE BOB IS THE MAXIMUM SPONGE LEADER OF THE UNWASHED MASSES
ALL HAIL CHE BOB
WE SHALL REVOLT AGAINST REALITY AND COMMON SENSE
Commies need to embrace your natural campiness/cartoonish quslities like Che Bob.
When the preschool set revolts where will Che Bob lead them? Renegade Eye led them in a mass cry in and that produced nothing.
Have any of you seriously considered how hateful and stupid
you appear? Gloating over recently dead people is a sign of low class. I may not like Ted Kennedy but I will not resort to this level of low class hatred and imbecility.
My hatred is reserved for the fundamentalist followers of class genocide and reality impaired imbeciles/Anarchists. Even then I do not gloat over the death of people I consider evil.
Post a Comment
<< Home