Posted on 03/19/2007 6:19:42 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
I put "Carnegie Mellon" in quotes when referring to the NUttie professor of the previous DUmmie FUnnies EDITION because no matter what searches I have done directly from the Carnegie Mellon University site, I have yet to come up with the name of one Michael Rectenwald despite his claim to work there. Perhaps my search skills need to be improved but as of yet I have come up with nothing. Leaving that aside, this NUttie professor has now come up some rather tortured explanations, as a result of the publicity this blog has given him, as a rationale for wanting to imprison millions of Republicans and to outlaw the GOP. The first tortured explanation was given over at the DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND by a Sock Puppet who claims to be an assistant to Rectenwald although I strongly suspect it is Rectenwald himself. This Sock Puppet, rec_report, claims that the two points about imprisoning and outlawing Republicans was, heh-heh, just tongue-in-cheek satire meant to "push the rhetorical boundaries." Then the Rectenwald Sock-Puppet gets even more hilarious with this:
"Of course this is an ironic statement--meant to illustrate the depths of our dilemma, not a practical plan for action. He means to push the rhetorical boundaries in ways that Repukes have done in order to make otherwise extreme statements to appear mainstream.
"It's meant to be funny and it's meant to allow less extreme statements to be made to appear more centrist by virtue of having pushed the rhetorical boundaries--like the Repukes have done to us."
Yeah, riiiiight! See, he was joking all along only we were too clueless to figure it out. Rectenwald (according to his Sock Puppet) just made extreme statements on purpose just to make his other NUttie statements sound almost normal. Oh, and btw, can he now be back on track for his tenure since he was only kidding?
Too bad for Rectenwald's Sock Puppet that he also claims he wasn't kidding with ANOTHER tortured EXPLANATION that he gives on his political website. And for a supposed literature professor, Rectenwald sure has a tough time explaining himself since it is hard to figure out just what he is saying as a rationale. The best explanation I can come up with is, "I didn't really mean what I said except that I really did mean it." So let us now watch the NUttie professor desperately try to put himself back on the tenure track in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, enjoying the spectacle watching a professorial pretzel twist itself, is in the [brackets]:
10-Point Plan to Rebuild the US after Bush's Destruction: Redux and Explanation
[10-Point Plan to Rebuild the US after Bush's Destruction: Regurgitate and Re-Explanation.]
In my previous Rec Report, entitled, "10-Point Plan for Rebuilding the United States after Bush's Destruction" (for which I have received much flak and a fair number of death threats from militant right-wingers--which in itself more than vindicates much of what I wrote), I made the following two points that seem to have roused the most ire from rabid Republicans, some of whom suggested, not unsurprisingly, that my remarks constitute a contradiction.
[This is the latest leftist ploy. Make the claim that you received death threats and that makes every NUttie thing you said okay.]
9. Consider the possibility that the Republican ideology contravenes the Constitution because its policies and beliefs endanger the well-being of the people. Consider making the Republican Party illegal.
10. Start a party that opposes the Democratic Party from the left of the Democratic Party and makes the Republican Party a detestable relic of the past akin to the slave-holding Confederates.
[You conveniently left off Point 5 about arresting most Republicans.]
The first of these points has been the source of no inconsiderable anger and gnashing of teeth amongst our 'friends' in the Republican Party. Just how can I claim that the ideology of the Republican Party contravenes the Constitution? Then, how can I go on, in an apparent contradiction, to suggest that the Republican Party be made illegal? Doesn't that restrict the First Amendment rights of some citizens, especially those who would espouse Republican views?
[You may begin twisting yourself into a pretzel with an incredibly tortured explanation...NOW!]
My answer is this; As Herbert Marcuse argued brilliantly in his critique of "Repressive Tolerance" in Critique of Pure Tolerance, the "liberal" (in the older, classical sense of liberalism, under which contemporary conservative political parties also fall), bourgeois notion of pure tolerance is impossible. Pure tolerance allows for the tolerance of some views that simply stand in total contradiction of the most immediate rights of others-in particular, their right to exist. Given that some speech is motivated by and has been responsible for the deaths of others for no apparent reason other than the wills of those who would kill these others, some ideologies cannot be tolerated. ("Speech," I argue, should not be differentiated from "action." "Speech," whether written or spoken, is a physical act that causes molecules to move. To speak is to act.) The beliefs of Nazis that Jews are vermin and do not deserve to exist is a belief that, if expressed, can lead to the deaths of Jews, as in Nazi Germany. Similarly, the speech of the KKK can and has led to the deaths and torture of Blacks in America, and should not be allowed. To allow the putative "right" of some to express such views that result in the annihilation of others, is a contradiction in itself. As such, such "rights" are false rights.
[Herbert Marcuse was the Marxist professor who gave the New Left philosophical license to act like idiots in the 60s but I guess you have extended that into our time. Okay, now that you have compared the Republicans with Nazis and the KKK, you may now give another tortured explanation of how you didn't really mean what you just said...NOW!]
But I seem to be implying that the Republican Party should be likened to the Nazis and the KKK. This is tiring, isn't it? The comparison is old-hat and overwrought and not one that I want to make. I would liken them not along any other lines than that all three are dangerous to the survival of numerous peoples. Other than that, they are no more alike each other than fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are alike.
[Yeah, how silly of us to think you just compared Republicans to Nazis and the KKK when that is just exactly what you did. Yawn! This is so tiring. Too bad we peons just can't comprehend the complex workings of a superior NUttie Professor mind. Oh, and nice touch with comparing fundamentalist Christians with radical Islam without seeming to do so.]
The Republican Party avows and holds positions that are anathema to the lives of millions, if not billions. The Republican Party, officially or unofficially, declaims the reality of Global Warming. The Republican Party disavows the science of Global Warming because its corporate sponsors in the oil and automotive industries are powerful forces within the party. These latter hire apologists to produce counter-, junk science to stand in opposition to credible science-to the detriment of our species' survival. They are bent on denial at all costs and must be removed from power, because their power imperils human life on the planet.
[Posted the NUttie Professor in the middle of record cold weather in the Northeast.]
Secondly, the Republican Party, at least in its current neoconservative configuration, is hell-bent on War. The basic principle seems to be to incite whatever ideological opposition there is against the US into militaristic confrontation. Such an approach is anathema to the interests not only of the US citizens, but of the world's population. The situation in Iraq is a prime example, but the current confrontational mode with Iran is also apiece with this posture. Rather than "fighting terrorism," the Republican Party is mass-producing it, as numerous studies have made clear. Rather than negotiation with those who differ with them ideologically and politically, they try to stir them into taking some action that will then justify a military attack. The Republican Party is doing more for terrorism than all of the Al Qaida and other radical Islamic propaganda combined. One may speculate on whether or not the Republican Party, tied so intimately in economic collusion with the military industrial complex, actually wants permanent, military-promoting war at all costs, or not. Regardless, that appears to be the effect.
[So in the middle of a tortured explanation about how he really isn't a loon, the NUttie professor quickly relapses back to his normal Moonbat mode.]
As for other points in the 10-point plan, as some have pointed out, they couldn't be implemented simply by an election or even impeachment. This list was always only more of a 'wish list' than a list of real imminent possibilities. But I ask, wouldn't the world be a lot better off with Bush, Cheney and his major administration contributors out of office? Would it be better with Bush and Cheney utterly discredited by serving prison time? Their jail time would help because it would discredit future fanatics of their kind from gaining ascendancy in American politics, ever again.
[I'm not sure what the NUttie professor means at the beginning of this but it sounds like, "I'm not making NUttie proposals for real, I'm only WISHING for those NUttie proposals to become a reality.]
Of course, we couldn't just revoke the judicial appointments of Bush-but the question is, shouldn't we? After all, Bush was never elected-not the first time and not the second. And, his judicial appointments have the potential for setting back the civil and social rights of millions of Americans, all for the ideological play and religious fervor of a few. The real fact of the matter is that control of reproduction belongs with those whose bodies will be responsible for reproduction. And, talking about contradictions! Here's a party that, without apology or an apparent second thought, would kill tens of thousands of innocent walking-and-talking (brown-skinned) children and adults, all the while claiming to be "pro-life." The only life they seem to acknowledge is the embryonic life of white people-the status of which is surely less certain than that of living and breathing full-fledged individuals of the human race, whom they kill all the time.
[Thanx for just revoking any possibly you might have had for getting tenure. Your hilarious attempt at an explanation actually turned out to be WORSE that your original NUttie statements. Feel free to explain your explanation again in the future. The DUmmie FUnnies is always looking for fresh comedy material.]
"What I find to be the most hypocritical of their arguments is that WE are the militant ones. They are the ones wanting to line us all up and rid the country of us. They are the ones who think the Republican party and anyone whoever voted Republican should be locked up. They are the ones who want the destruction of fellow Americans even though they supposedly believe that all war is bad. I guess it means that all war is bad, unless you have to kill the denyers, then that is okay. Maybe it is a good thing that they are anti-gun. Otherwise, they might be dangerous and we might actually have something to worry about."
A good old Robert Heinlein (libertarian sci-fi writer if you aren't familiar) quote comes to mind here...
From "Time enough for Love"
"Those who refuse to support and defend the state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist shound not be defined as "murder' in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be "Using deadly weapons inside city limits" or "Creating a traffic hazard" or "Endangering bystanders," or other misdemeanor.
"However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct. An authentic buck pacifist has rarely been seen off Earth, and it is doubtful that nay have survived the trouble there...regrettable, as they had the biggest mouths and the smallest brains of any of the primates.
"The small mouthed variety of anarchist has spread through the galaxy...there is no need to protect them. But they often shoot back."
Today's left are pacifists, not anarchists. I wouldn't worry about them too much. The only thing we have to worry about from them is their beliefs becoming the predominant ideology of the US. But if that happens then the US is no longer worth saving anyway.
Try this one from the rant page: mike@legitgov.org
It works, he barks back.
I like that quote. It reminds me of the case in Las Vegas (?) a few years ago when a father shot the karate teacher who molested his son. The father got a suspended sentence for just that--unlawful discharge of a firearm and endangering the bystanders. Justice ended up being served--the father got punished for endangering the public and the karate teacher couldn't molest anyone ever again.
Good God. English 101? "Sociological, cultural, feminist, and other studies of science"? I think the reader might be forgiven if it isn't apparent what that mixture of political grievance and jargon-laden mumbo-jumbo has to do with the teaching of Freshman level English, much less the study of science. The key word here is "discourse" - a discourse on science may contain as precious little about science itself as this course does about the English language.
His citation of Marcuse on toleration is nearly 180 degrees from Marcuse's actual message in Repressive Tolerance, which was that repression itself, specifically repressive speech, is NOT to be tolerated lest it silence minority voices. I doubt if he ever read Marcuse, actually. A log of lefties who quote him haven't.
Nice try, but you need more spelling errors and profanity.
How much do you want to bet that this guy is gay?
I really didn't need to see that.
Tell it to the chef. He mentioned my tick.
Yo' chef. The mirapoix is blossoming...time for some gumbo!
I can do that. I don't even need an excuse.
'La bonne cuisine est la base du véritable bonheur.' - Auguste Escoffier
(Good food is the foundation of genuine happiness.)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Here's a party that, without apology or an apparent second thought, would kill tens of thousands of innocent walking-and-talking (brown-skinned) children and adults, all the while claiming to be "pro-life."
So do you want to tell 'em that Margaret Sanger was an unabashed racist or should I?
The Republican Party avows and holds positions that are anathema to the lives of millions, if not billions.
Hey, it's not our problem if "millions, if not billions" are communist/socialist/collectivist dictatorial clusterf**ks. Jeez, could someone prescribe this idiot some valium or get him a male escort or something?
But I seem to be implying that the Republican Party should be likened to the Nazis and the KKK. This is tiring, isn't it? The comparison is old-hat and overwrought and not one that I want to make
Mainly because the comparison is false. But, thank---uh, oh, gotta sneeze...*sneeze*Robert Byrd*sneeze*
No doubt this girly-man considers reasoned argument and facts "death threats."
"Molon Labe."
Dang straight!
Apparently the nutty professor was reading this DUFU:
http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_report_200307.html
That, sir, is freaking hilarious. Good find.
To Mr. Rectenwald, if you should be reading this: you have already told us entirely too much, Mr. "tenure track in the Carolina's". With the entire Freeper Pajama patrol at our command, we will find you with ease now. Your insolence is intolerable. We will destroy you with the patriot act and a flight to Gitmo where you will be put to death by orange glazed chicken. Muahahahahahaha. All hail the might Bush!
-Signed the liberal-arts educated Stag Man
I know about the NUttie Professor's latest treatise attack on the FR but I think I'll have to wait until morning to DUFU it. I just finished working over an hour on another article (soon to appear in the FR I hope) and the constant sipping of wine while I was writing is starting to catch up with me. Better to wait until the AM when I am properly caffeinated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.