Tag Archives: amazon.com

Jesus fuck: Amazon.com plans black-separatist series called ‘Black America’

 

I found the (rather poor) graphic above posted with a 2010 blog piece on black separatism, but Amazon.com reportedly plans to put out an alternative-history series called “Black America,” in which black separatists create a new nation called “New Colonia” out of three former slave states. Black separatism is A-OK, but HBO’s “Confederate,” in which the Southern whites no doubt would be the villains, is not. This situation is not sustainable.

“I hope that these what-if-history-had-turned-out-differently television series don’t proliferate too profusely,” I wrote very recently of HBO’s plans for an alternative-history series called “Confederate,” adding, “but I don’t recall Amazon.com being called anti-Semitic for having resurrected Hitler [in its alternative-history series ‘The Man in the High Castle’], so I think it’s incredibly bullshit for the creators of ‘Game of Thrones’ to be called racist for planning to resurrect the South.”

I was, unfortunately, prescient. 

Slate.com reported yesterday that “now Amazon has revealed that it’s planning ‘Black America,’ a series created by Will Packer and ‘Boondocks’ cartoonist Aaron McGruder in which, as a form of reparations, black Americans have annexed three former slave states and founded a country of their own called New Colonia.”

Just: Wow.

Very apparently, Amazon is planning a series that glorifies black separatism when the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies black-separatist groups as hate groups along with white-separatist groups.

I mean, would Amazon, HBO, Netflix or any other mainstream entertainment corporation put out a series called “White America” about white separatists who had succeeded in gaining a portion of the nation for whites only? Methinks not, even if the whites in the series clearly were the uber-villains. It would be way too radioactive.

But in the current sociopolitical environment, black separatism apparently is A-OK.

Don’t get me wrong. Of course I get it that whites enslaved and then continued and still continue to oppress blacks, not vice-versa, at least at the institutional level (although sometimes it is vice-versa at the individual level, and I long have believed that one-on-one interactions are much more important than are groups, since we interact with others as individuals and not as entire fucking groups). And of course I get it that throughout U.S. history whites (as a group) always have had the numbers, the money, the power and the resources that blacks (as a group) have not, so that it hasn’t been a level playing field. And did I mention that whites enslaved blacks and not the other way around?

But while the early descriptions of HBO’s proto-embryonic “Confederate” give me the clear impression that the whites in “Confederate” will be the villains, Slate.com’s description of “Black America” sure sounds like a ringing endorsement of black separatism.

Slate.com further notes:

“Black America” was first announced in February, but Amazon kept the show’s details under wraps, saying only that it would be vaguely along the lines of “The Man in the High Castle.” But the controversy over “Confederate” has prompted the company to show their hand, undoubtedly because the premise of “Black America” sounds a lot like some of the things that critics behind the #NoConfederate campaign have suggested as possible alternatives.

The Deadline article focuses on the issue of reparations, saying “Black America” “may have a sense of wish-fulfillment” for, as Packer puts it, “black Americans who are suffering from the effects of slavery in various ways.” But the idea for the series verges on more intriguing terrain yet, suggesting how a U.S. devoid, or at least largely evacuated, of people of color might founder and fail, while the nation of New Colonia prospers. …

Wow. I could point to many nations in the real world that are run by blacks and not by whites that, to put it very mildly and charitably, don’t prosper, and then we could have the discussion as to how responsible whites (and white supremacism and white anti-black racism) still are for failed black nations and how much responsibility the black people in those failed nations should take for that failure, but I’m still blown away by the very idea of a black-separatist fantasy series being put out by any large, credible media company.

All of that said, as I have established, I am a strong supporter of the freedom of expression, and so no, unlike the self-serving, free-speech-hating, “safe-space”-loving assholes who already are protesting “Confederate” — no, actually, they’re not really “protesting” it as much as they’re trying to kill it before it even is born — I have no plan to join any public backlash against “Black America” that might materialize before it even airs (emphasis, of course, on “before it even airs”; we’ll see how I feel after it airs).

“Black America” sounds much worse to me than “Confederate,” but I don’t believe in prior censorship and I believe in the marketplace of ideas. Let Amazon do its thing and let the chips fall where they will. (I do a lot of business with Amazon and so I’d hate to have to boycott Amazon, so I’m hoping that if “Black America” actually materializes, it has cultural/social/artistic merit and isn’t essentially just a hate-whitey fest.)

And also as I have stated, I think that it’s fine for historically oppressed groups to have their own culture, their own novels, their own songs, their own television shows, their own movies, etc. As a gay man who always has been in a heterosexist dominant culture, I know how important it is for a subculture to have its own creations of artistic expression.

But separatism is something else.

The whole hate thing aside, how incredibly boring and soul-arresting it would be to be surrounded only by others who look, think and act just like you do. It sure might feel great at first, but then the soul rot would set in.

Yes, indeed, visit with the members of your own tribe regularly and often.

But then, at least on occasion and with some regularity, come back to the whole to share what you have to offer and to receive what others of other tribes have to offer.

The early description of “Black America” doesn’t seem to share that sentiment at all, and while I think that I can understand the appeal of black separatism to those blacks who have felt the grinding effects of white anti-black racism the most, I don’t see that black separatism ultimately is any better for them than white separatism is for whites or for the nation or for the world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Glenn Beck is NOT just like you (and other observations on the sorry state of the marketplace of ideas)

Wingnut kingpin Glenn Beck, who, despite the cover of his upcoming book (uh, does he actually write any of his books?), is worth tens of millions of dollars, wants you to believe that he’s just like you.

I like to check amazon.com’s top-100-selling books periodically to see how the marketplace of ideas is looking.

Unfortunately, it usually looks like the actual marketplace is looking.

I’m always dismayed to see the number of wingnut titles that make the top 100, and I wonder whether wingnuts really read these books or whether they just get a high from buying them.

At No. 18 on amazon.com as I type this sentence, for instance, is Dinesh Dikshit’s The Roots of Obama’s Rage. On the cover is a stern-looking Barack Obama lacking only horns and a Hitler ’stache. Obama is shaded red to show his rage:

Except that I can’t recall ever seeing Obama enraged. He always plays it as coolly as a cucumber. How would we even know that Obama is angry?

Indeed, Obama apparently has learned to avoid, at all costs, looking like an “angry” black man to the point that he shows about as much emotion as does a Vulcan. (White men, especially rich ones, are allowed to be angry, but a black man, even one living in the White House, isn’t; an angry black man is just violent, out of control, deranged, savage, animalistic, etc., you see.)

The Roots of Obama’s Rage is published by Regnery Press, which publishes only wingnutty dogshit, and on its page on amazon.com, Dikshit’s book is endorsed by Newt Gingrich, who reportedly finds it “stunning.”

I find it stunning, too — stunning that blatant crap like this actually sells.

But probably even worse that Dikshit’s shit is Glenn Beck’s upcoming load of horsecrap titled Broke.

Glenn is on the cover looking broke.

Poor guy.

He feels your pain.

Really.

Except that Wikipedia notes of Beck’s income:

In June 2009, estimators at Forbes calculated Beck’s earnings over the previous 12 months at $23 million, with 2009–2010 revenues on track to be higher. Although the majority of his revenue results from his radio show and books, his website’s 5 million unique visitors per month also provides at least $3 million annually, while his salary at Fox News is estimated at $2 million per year.

Additionally, Beck’s online magazine Fusion sells an array of Beck-themed merchandise, while his website offers a web subscription service called “Insider Extreme” where for $75 a year one gets access to behind-the-scenes footage and a fourth hour of his daily radio show. In April 2010, Forbes calculated Beck’s earnings for the previous year (March 2009 – March 2010) to be $32 million.

They say that money can’t buy happiness, but we should ask Glenn Beck how happy he feels.

Beck’s millions come from Joe-the-Plumber-like dipshits who believe that Beck is one of them. And that they, too, can become a millionaire. Except, of course, that 99.9-repeating percent of them never will. But they’ll buy Beck’s book on how to get rich — which will only make Beck richer.

And I’m sure that Beck’s book, which right now is only at #184 on amazon.com but surely will climb higher in the coming weeks, advises you to buy gold. (Wikipedia also notes of Beck’s income: “Goldline International also sponsors Beck’s radio show and was the exclusive sponsor of Beck’s 2009 comedy tour; their sponsorship has brought Beck criticism.”)

Then there’s The Coming Economic Armageddon: What Bible Prophecy Warns About the New Global Economy, now at No. 69 on amazon.com (because you’d trust a faith healer over a smarty-pants surgeon, right? So fuck those egg-headed economists!), and Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama, which is yet another Obama-hating book (right now at No. 89) with the premise that it’s downright fucking TYRANNY!!! if your stupid white male candidate loses the election but isn’t given the office anyway, as was the case with George W. Bush.

Speaking of the devil, not be outdone, George W. Bush has a book coming out next month, just in time for Christmas:

Called Decision Points, and already at No. 37 on amazon.com’s top 100 right now, I’m guessing from its title that it’s not a coloring book, as I’d have expected from Bush, but that it’s a connect-the-dots book.

But seriously, what don’t we already know about George W. “Decider in Chief” Bush and his Big Decisions?

We know that he decided to steal the 2000 presidential election with the help of his brother (then-Florida Guv Jeb), then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the wingnuts on the U.S. Supreme Court and some others, and that he decided to launch his illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War against the wishes of the United Nations Security Council and against world opinion for the war profits of Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and the other oily war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp.

And that he decided to ignore the August 2001 presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” and the August 2005 presidential daily briefing titled “Hurricane Katrina Determined to Strike in U.S.”

There: I just summed up the Bush II presidency for you. Save yourself some money and buy something that will make you smarter, not dumber, such as the latest by Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, actual economist Robert Reich or even Jon Stewart, whose comedy at least is intelligent.

Because ultimately, dipshittery is treason.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Envy is a blogger without a book deal

I started blogging back in the latter part of 2002 on Salon Blogs. It was a great time to start blogging; in the wake of the destruction wrought by the unelected Bush regime and in the midst of the regime’s impending launch of its bogus Vietraq War, the Internet and its newish “blogosphere” were buzzing with progressives who loved civic engagement (and e-catfights; more on that later…).

I immediately found blogging to be user-friendly — if you can word process, you can blog — and rather addictive. The idea that whenever something pisses me off or whenever there is just something that I want to say, I can post it on the Internet, where anyone in the world can read it — I still like that idea.

I probably would continue to blog no matter how small my audience. Blogging to me is what dancing is to a dancer or painting is to a painter.

Having an audience is great, especially when, like I do, you think that you’re a pretty fucking good writer. But, like any other artist who primarily does it for the love of it and not for the audience, I continue to blog even with a small audience.

But those bloggers who get book dealsarrrggggghhhhhh!

There is Dave Cullen, who, like I did, started out with Salon Blogs. Truthfully, I found Dave’s blog to be rather mediocre. He wrote about the “reality” television show “The Great Race” or whatever in the hell it was called, for fuck’s sake. After each episode, of which I never watched a single one, he’d feverishly let all of us know his every thought and impression of it. Barf bag, please! (If memory serves, Dave’s obsession with the show primarily was because one or more of its cast members he found to be a hottie. [I think it was that one cast member with the Nazi-sounding name… Third Reichen or something like that… Yeah, you know, I just can’t get past a Nazi-sounding name…])

When he wasn’t writing feverishly about his favorite reality TV show, Dave feverishly was writing about his favorite reality TV politician, Howard Dean. I, um, supported John Kerry from the very start, figuring that although Kerry wasn’t my ideological favorite of the Democratic bunch for the 2004 presidential nomination (that wild and wacky Dennis “Snowball’s Chance in Hell” Kucinich was), with his military background Kerry was much more likely to defeat BushCheneyCorp in 2004 than was peacenik Dean. (Unfortunately, 9/11 was still lingering in the national consciousness — endlessly stoked by the BushCheneyCorp, replete with its false color-coded terrorism risk alerts, of course — and I knew that the Repugnicans would make mincemeat of Dean.)

Thankfully, Dean imploded in the snows of Iowa in January 2004 and that was that. But Dave, who had even invaded Iowa with the throngs of other Deaniacs in their tacky bright orange caps, didn’t appreciate my gleeful blogging on Dean’s demise, and if memory serves, that is where it really devolved between Dave and me.    

Dave and I always had fought over Dean vs. Kerry, but after Dean’s demise after the scream heard ’round the world, Dave and I had such serious e-catfights via our blogs’ comments sections that we had to call it quits lest law enforcement officials get involved…

Anyway, if memory serves, I found Dave to be a mediocre writer with waaay too many typos and misspellings, but sometimes compelling, like car accident images on the Internet can be compelling; you know that you probably really shouldn’t look at the spectacle, but you just can’t help yourself. (I seem to remember that I especially enjoyed reading about Dave’s parallel implosion with Dean’s implosion on Dave’s blog. Dave wrote some rather surreal stuff about his Dean-related devastation, if memory serves.)

Anyway, so of course Dave later landed himself a book deal. His book Columbine (a subject that doesn’t interest me; Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” pretty much satisfied that itch for me) as I type this sentence is No. 3,007 on amazon.com, but the book, timed for the 10th anniversary of the suburban teenaged massacre of April 1999, was on amazon.com’s top-100 best-selling books list for at least a little while.

I hate you, Dave. You’re a mediocre writer but you got a book deal. I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.

No, OK, fine, congratulations, I don’t hate you, really I don’t, in fact, contgratulations, yeah, what-eeever. After all, I just linked to your book on amazon.com and I just might get you another sale or two or three. If I hated you that much would I have done that? No, I think not, Dave.

(If you want to argue about it, Dave, leave a comment on this post, bitch. It would be just like old times. I dare you!)

Even more successful than Dave (ha ha, Dave!) is former Salon blogger Julie Powell. I don’t know her at all — although I was aware of her blog when she and I were fellow Salon bloggers, I never read her blog because I’m not into cooking and her blog was about cooking — but I hate her perhaps even more than I hate Dave because not only did she get a book deal, but she got a fucking movie deal, too. Her book Julie & Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously is now a frigging movie tie-in paperback with Meryl Fucking Streep on the cover and is No. 54 on amazon.com’s top 100 best-seller list as I type this sentence.

I’m not linking to Powell’s book because once you have Meryl Streep on your resume, you just don’t need any more help, do you?

(Dave, if you get a movie deal, I’m going to find you, and maybe I will massacre you, Columbine-style, and I will use your flesh in one of Julie Powell’s Julia Child-inspired recipes. [Then maybe I could get a book deal…])

Anyway, Salon.com’s editor, Joan Walsh, makes this admission in a rubbing-it-in-my-face blog piece that she posted today about how some Salon bloggers went on to make it big: “The Salon Blogs program was worthy and innovative, but it didn’t get the attention it deserved —  most notably, from Salon.”

Exactly. We Salon bloggers plunked down our $40-a-year fee for our blogs with Salon’s promise that Salon would support us, even promote us, and Salon didn’t. Salon picked a few Salon bloggers, almost seemingly at random, to give some attention to, but the rest of us were ignored.

I guess that in order to have gotten my Salon blog noticed I would have had to have blown former Salon managing editor Scott Rosenberg, who then was in charge of Salon Blogs and whose own Salon blog was lackluster at best (if memory serves, he primarily wrote about technical computer crap, which even I, with my great writing talent, probably couldn’t make interesting — probably).

I did contact Rosenberg a few times to see if he’d promote my blog, but he steadfastly refused. Probably because his own blog sucked. And because he also was one of the Lemmings for Howard Dean and I was one of the few bloggers for Kerry. (OK, so maybe I was the only blogger for Kerry…)

I gleefully note that Rosenberg’s book on — w a i t   f o r   i t — blogging, which was released last month (I won’t help him by even giving you its title), as of right this moment is No. 9,530 on amazon.com.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Scott!

Oh, I don’t think that they’ll be making a movie out of your book!

So that’s at least two mediocre bloggers who got book deals, one of them with a book about blogging. 

Anyway, so yeah, as Joan Walsh admitted today, Salon abandoned its bloggers. At one point Salon stopped even mentioning the Salon blogs on Salon’s home page, and then at another point Salon stopped accepting new blogs, and now, at the end of this year, the blogging platform that Salon blogs utilize, Radio UserLand, is going kaput.

At the end of October I switched from Salon Blogs/Radio UserLand to WordPress. I am much, much, much happier with the WordPress blogging platform. Aside from being FREE, WordPress offers a lot more functionality that Radio UserLand ever did. (I can enumerate on one hand what Radio UserLand has that WordPress doesn’t, but I could enumerate on my pubes what WordPress has that Radio UserLand doesn’t.)

Anyway, so I’m happier on WordPress, and I rarely use “I” and “happy” in the same sentence.

But, unfortunately, my readership on WordPress isn’t any larger than it was on Salon Blogs.

And I still don’t have my book deal yet — but I think that I can come up with something for Meryl to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The big gay boycott that almost was

A friend of mine and I were instant messaging each other the other night when he informed me that amazon.com had stripped non-pornographic gay- and lesbian-themed books of their sales rankings and thus removed them from the website’s best-seller lists. Apparently, he informed me, amazon.com had reclassified gay- and lesbian-themed books as being “adult,” as in pornographic or at least not for minors.

I hopped on to amazon.com and checked the book that I’m in the middle of now — The Mayor of Castro Street, the late gay journalist Randy Shilts’ famous, definitely non-pornographic biography of gay-rights icon Harvey Milk.

My friend was correct; gone was the book’s sales ranking. However, I did not see on the webpage any indication that the book had been reclassified as being an “adult” book (not that I necessarily would have seen any indication of that, but I looked for it anyway).

The Mayor of Castro Street was just one of many gay-themed non-fiction and fiction titles that amazon.com apparently had blacklisted (pinklisted?), such as Annie Proulx’s Brokeback Mountain, James Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room and E.M. Forster’s Maurice .

These apparently pinklisted books not only lost their sales rankings and spots on amazon.com’s best-seller lists, but apparently were blocked from appearing in any search results on the website as well, according to the New York Times’ website.   

Talk of boycotting the suddenly homophobic amazon.com flooded the Internets. The news that amazon.com apparently had gone homophobic overnight, apparently thinking that no one would notice (at least not to the point that it would become a problem for the corporation), spread like wildfire.

After my friend informed me of the new controversy during our IM session the other night, I was willing to hold off for another day or two to see what amazon.com’s answer to the tide of complaints would be before I would join a boycott against amazon.com and encourage others to boycott amazon.com, too.

I held off on signing the online petition against amazon.com’s apparent new homophobic policy, and I also didn’t really want to blog on the topic until we’d fully heard what amazon.com’s side of the story was.

I don’t know if that was so much out of wise restraint or if it was more out of the fact that I really, really didn’t (and still don’t) want to have to boycott amazon.com (as I give amazon.com considerable business, including buying gifts for others), but that I will do so if necessary.

Amazon.com’s official story is that it all was just a “glitch.”

Maybe it was.

Maybe it wasn’t.

(The Mayor of Castro Street has its sales rank back, I see, but its rank is rather dismal…) 

What I have taken away from the amazon.com boycott that almost was, however, is the impressive rapidity with which the gay community can respond to a perceived threat against it, the rapidity with which information can travel within the gay community (OK, if you feel that there is no real gay community, there certainly is a very real gay “e-community”) and with which a real or perceived threat can be dealt with.

I don’t think that it was more than within 24 hours (48 hours, tops) that the news then spread that amazon.com had claimed a “glitch” and that the sales rankings (and also the searchability, apparently) had been restored.

Why am I not so certain that it was a “glitch” on amazon.com’s part?

Well, I very recently wrote about the plethora of wingnut titles on amazon.com’s top 100 best-selling books list.

Apparently the wingnuts, in desperation now that a “socialist” black man — gasp! — is president, are consoling themselves and each other through such wingnut manifestos as, well, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, which rather disconcertingly has been at No. 1 on amazon.com for some time now (and which I suppose we liberals might want to read in order to know what “arguments” the enemy is making, as nauseating to read such a book would be; maybe they can have a special Liberty and Tyranny edition for us liberals that includes a wire brush with which we can scrub ourselves after each time we open the book and read any of its words). 

Hey, I guess it’s good that the wingnuts are actually reading, even if they are reading books that are the modern-day equivalent of Mein Kampf. (Hey, wingnuts, let us egghead liberals know if you need any help with the big words!)

Anyway, my point is that with this apparent increase in wingnut dollars to amazon.com, I wouldn’t be at all surprised that amazon.com’s apparent short-lived e-jihad against gay men and lesbians in fact was no “glitch” at all, but came from anti-gay pressure from their wingnut customers. (You know, to “protect the children” and the like.)

The gay community (OK, e-community…) really came together on this one, even if it actually truly was “just a glitch” and thus even if it was just a drill.

The example of amazon.com will, I think, make other corporations think twice before going homophobic.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We liberals need to stop resting on our laurels and start slaying the vampires

 Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative ManifestoLiberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of MeaningGuilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America

These wingnutty titles, for which trees actually died, are typical of amazon.com’s top 100 best-selling books list right now.

So I was perusing amazon.com’s top 100 best-selling book titles just now, and among the top 100 are these lovely wingnutty titles:

  • Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
  • Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays (gee, the wingnuts just can’t get enough of that “tyranny” thing; funny, for some reason it wasn’t tyranny when Repugnican George W. Bush stole the White House in late 2000, but it’s “tyranny” when the majority of American voters actually do elect a Democratic — er, I mean, “Socialist” — president)
  • Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (this is by the same wingnut dipshit author of Liberty and Tyranny, so his argument probably is not that the Supreme Court destroyed the United States of America by having appointed G.W. Bush as president in late 2000)
  • A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media (of course, it was perfectly fine with the wingnuts when the mainstream media just rolled over and played dead when the Repugnican-dominated Supreme Court, not the majority of American voters, elected Bush in 2000, and it was perfectly fine with the wingnuts when the mainstream media were nothing but fucking cheerleaders for the unelected Bush regime’s bogus Vietraq War in early 2003 [“shock and awe” makes great television!])
  • Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (replete with a cute little picture of a smiley face with a Hitler ‘stache, comparing liberals to Adolf Hitler; nice!)
  • Atlas Shrugged (the dead Ayn Rand’s ancient wingnutty novel that apparently is like Dungeons & Dragons to conservative geeks; Rand also wrote a nonfiction tome lovingly titled The Virtue of Selfishness*)
  • The American Patriot’s Almanac: Daily Readings on America, by wingnut William Bennett (wingnuts almost always wrap their toxic ideology in such nice sheepskin as “patriotism” and “liberty”)
  • Ann Cunter’s latest drivel (does it even matter what the title of it is?)
  • Bill O’Reilly’s latest drivel (ditto)
  • In Praise of Stay-at-Home Moms, by wingnut dingbat “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger (hey, if a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mom, that’s fine by me, as I support a woman’s right to choose, but why do I have the sinking feeling that Schlessinger’s stance is that a woman should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?)

While it’s a virtual wingnut extravaganza on amazon.com’s top 100 best-selling books list, there is a dearth of liberal titles on the list, which makes me suspect that we libbies are resting on our laurels now that centrist Barack Obama is in the White House.

My fellow libbies, let me remind you that the wingnuts are like Freddy or Jason: They have a tendency to come back.

The ideological war continues; there is no hiatus just because we finally have an actually democratically elected president in the White House who is a Democrat.

Just like Team Bush hijacked the White House in late 2000, the wingnuts have hijacked such terms as “liberty,” “freedom” and “patriotism” — while calling their opponents (who would be us, the majority of Americans, who voted for Barack Obama in November 2008) “tyrants” and “fascists” and “traitors” and the like.

We need to put an end to this shit now — and not allow Freddy or Jason to return from the dead.

Speaking of the undead, I also noted that amazon.com’s top 100, curiously, is chock full o’ vampire titles.

Hmmm… Conservatism, vampirism… Same thing

We liberals need to get off of our laurels and finish the job of driving that stake through the heart of the vampire that is called conservatism.

(Maybe we can start with the queen of the damned wingnuts, Ann Cunter…)

*Library Journal says this of The Virtue of Selfishness:

…[A] good essayist with a flair for the dramatic turn of phrase, [Rand] wasted her obvious writing skills in an effort to support outlandish personal opinions cloaked in the guise of logic. An absolutist thinker, she devotes one whole essay to an effort to persuade us that we really should see things as black and white, with no shades of gray.

Born in Soviet Russia, Rand so despised socialism and collectivist thinking that she leapt to the furthest extreme possible to become the champion of unbridled capitalism, the rights of the individual at the expense of the community, and the diminution of all regulation by the state, with the exception of a judicial system and the control of crime.

Among the sadly dated ideas she conveys are the attitude that homosexuals are mutant symptoms of a sick society and the belief that anyone with an interest in internationalism is a “one world” proponent.

To use one of her own favored words, Rand’s political and social philosophy is critically “muddled.” … 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized