Joan Walsh on the Party of the Crazy Fuck Racist Assholes

This F#$%ing Decade

The hypocrisy of Salon's political dominatrix, Joan Walsh

The glee with which the GOP relies on Obama-hate to turn out its base shows the disturbing racial reality of 2014

She's good.

She's very good.

She writes this with an appearance of complete innocence, candor, and honesty, though it is abundantly obvious to everybody that the Democrats have long spent most of their efforts keeping up the engagement of their black base, at any price.

The Republican Party is relying on Obama-hate to turn out its 96-percent-white, middle-class-to-wealthy base, while the Democrats, still trying to be a multi-racial party in a multi-racial country, are trying to court voters of every race and class. 

It can be a tough sell.

I personally am 100% white, an elderly male soon to rely crucially, though not entirely, as my mother already does, on Social Security and Medicare for my continued well-being.

I voted twice for O and would again, partly because he is black and despite his annoying racist attitude toward whites.

And I will vote the straight Democratic ticket in November, no thanks to Joan; she makes my skin crawl as surely as Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter.

But she doesn't matter and neither do they.

The elites who dominate the Democrats remain, in opposition to the elites who dominate the Republicans, the lesser evil for the common man and the ordinary people of America, of any race, sex, religion, or ethnicity.

And so long as the Republican Party continues the complete slave of its anti-progressive ideology and elites while the Democrats remain relatively progressive, I can do no other.

Oh, let me share with you a gem, a lie from Joan so bland and egregious it made me laugh.

Lovers of false equivalence will say that Democrats work hard to turn out black voters, so why complain that the GOP is concentrating on whites? 

There’s really no comparison between the two strategies. 

Democrats rely on the fact that black voters overwhelmingly support the policies they promote, while Republicans still rely on white fear, if not white racism, as they promote a generalized Obama-phobia rather than specific counter-policies. 

Marxism goes pop to exculpate religion

Religious beliefs, like cultural beliefs, are shaped by the material circumstances that give rise to them

Wow. Old fashioned historical materialism alive and well at Salon.

So many of the "progressive" sites seem to have gone so deeply red, lately.

And he seems actually to be adopting ISIS as, down deep, revolutionaries - and so, of course, basically the good guys.

Joan Walsh runs this site, huh?

Such a respectable seeming lady.

No, Blake Zeff, actually, whoever that is.

Guardian joins Joan Walsh, plays race card on Ebola care, Texas blunder

Texas Ebola cases expose troubling contrasts and spark fears of race divide

Universal coverage is something Obamacare did not actually achieve.

There is no standing commitment from any level of government to reimburse hospital or care-giver costs for treating the indigent on a par with the insured, and so they don't.

What Medicaid actually covers varies state by state, and in some states it's pitiful.

Given that ordinarily no insurance covers experimental drugs, therapies, or treatments, it's an interesting question who will get ZMapp, if it becomes available again, and how it will be financed.

Ditto any experimental serums, vaccines, or drugs.

Ditto the transfusion therapy that seems to have some merit.

I suspect in law and in budgeting there is and will be money as needed for isolation and quarantine of the sick, as a public health measure to protect other people.

That's not the same as money to ensure all the afflicted, including the uninsured and the under-insured, get top flight treatment whose aims may range from palliative care to improving chances of survival.

If a vaccine becomes available, which rubric does it fall under?

Too, it's not prudent for a vaccine to be used unless the chance of getting the disease if you take the vaccine is less than the chance of getting it if you don't.

That is always true if it's a killed virus vaccine and in any degree effective.

Not so if it's a live virus vaccine.

If it's a live virus vaccine of modest effectiveness it might make sense for people living or working in West Africa to get it and no sense at all for people outside Africa, except perhaps some care givers.

And in that same case it would make good sense for the wealthier nations to supply the vaccine to the West Africans, to help eliminate the problem at the source.

The race card will be played against that strategy all the same by people who find it politically advantageous or emotionally satisfying.

If it's a highly effective, killed virus vaccine the temptation will be to give it to ourselves first, and then skimp on what is sent to Africa or elsewhere, the practical incentives for doing so reducing to altruism supplemented by concern about indirect economic loss here due to disaster in Africa.

In that case, the race card will be played with great fury if white people even indicate they are thinking of such a strategy, probably accompanied by violence encouraged, as usual, by the left.

Including The Guardian.

[Aside:

Will there be rationing, and will it incorporate the latest and most approved PC ideas of who has a worthwhile life and who does not, as well as who deserves care and who does not?

Can't help recalling that fellow who used to work for the administration who urged death at 75.

Hmm.

/Aside]

Wonder what Salon is like? Joan Walsh is the boss, I understand.

One of their lead stories right now.

The best movie masturbation scenes

This is not the planet I was born on.

Somebody switched while I was sleeping, I think.

Newly emboldened, or newly desperate, leftist tells it like it is

Opposing the minimum wage, overtime pay, even child labor laws, the GOP is trying to make it easier to exploit workers.

And that ain’t the half of it.

Joan Walsh discovers “The Right's Crusade to Repeal the 20th Century.”

Republicans no longer accept that it was government intervention in the economy, first in the Progressive era and then, more forcefully, after the Great Depression, that created the greatest economic boom and the biggest middle class in history.

The 40-hour work week.

The weekend.

Vacations.

Child labor laws.

The minimum wage.

Social Security.

Health and safety protection.

All of these represented government intervention on the side of working people, to balance the playing field with exploitive employers, and to carve out a realm of family and personal life that could be protected from ceaseless labor.

Progressive public policy essentially created childhood, as a time when kids who weren’t wealthy might be educated and protected from labor abuse.

These became bipartisan values, with some debating around the margins, through Richard Nixon’s administration.

But then a pro-business backlash put all of those gains back on the table. 

Republicans are now trying to repeal the 20th century.

Well, yeah.

I’ve never understood why Republicans believe rich people need more money to ensure they’ll work harder, but the non-rich don’t deserve such incentives.

From skyrocketing CEO pay to lower tax rates, the GOP defends putting more money in the hands of rich folks as a good thing.

Giving more money to working people, by contrast, only encourages slackers and moochers.

The president can’t wait for Republicans to join the 21st century while they’re busy repealing the 20th.

He’s right to do whatever he can to boost workers’ wages on his own.

A peek at her underwear? (Red diapers?)

Consider Joan Walsh's apology for Nelson Mandela’s role as a moderate in the peaceful take-down of South African Apartheid coming after her unmitigated praise for his commitment to armed conflict as "a revolutionary who believed in a radical redistribution of wealth, and a global warrior against poverty" (he was a communist and a terrorist).

Some truth to this, after all?

By the early 1970s, the openly defiant and revolutionary New Left had spent its political capital and was a dying movement.

But its adherents remained committed to the cause, altering their tactics so as to work within the system in a manner the New Left had previously chosen not to do.

These latter-day leftists incorporated the tactics of the infamous Saul Alinsky, seeking to change society by first infiltrating its major institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government – and then implementing policies from those positions of power.

Most notably, the ex-New Leftists found a home in the Democratic Party.

Or among the liberal pundit class, particularly in Blogland, including those who were too young or were, or are, fellow-travelers of the New Left.

(Yes, I know what "red diapers" actually means. So?)

(Wasn't that Gramsci, not Alinsky? "Cultural hegemony"?)

The death of Mandela and the nostalgic radicalism of the American left

Fight the Right-Washing of Nelson Mandela’s Legacy

Like many other liberals, Joan Walsh has seized the opportunity of Mandela's death to smear today's right with the racism and white supremacy of their ancestral heroes with a mix of charges fair and foul.

Great play in the media for these attacks, these past days.

But only the even more absurd and annoying Ann Coulter reminds us the Democrats opposed the Civil War and supported racist terrorism and American Apartheid for a century after, including such liberal heroes as Woodrow Wilson.

All because everyone believes that whites who have a problem with non-whites today are mostly Republicans, while the Democracy harbors in its bosom a veritable rainbow coalition of people - people holding megaphones, like Joan - who hate American whites or white people, globally, including many white liberals and feminists who make no bones about it and scream their venom at every opportunity.

Including this one.

A question for Ms Walsh.

At the time he was imprisoned, Nelson Mandela was in fact a terrorist and no one had more reason to believe in the democratic aims of the ANC than in those of Uncle Ho, though things turned out otherwise not least because though Ho won his war Mandela sat in prison for thirty years.

The same Ho, that is, whose project was so recently and absurdly, er, whitewashed as democratic by a certain non-white Democrat in the White House, come to think of it.

[And the left never tires of accusing the right of a propaganda of whoppers.]

Joan implies but does not quite say she supported Mandela, back in the day.

And did she support Uncle Ho?

She may have done both.

As for Mandela, she celebrates his commitment to violent revolution as a radical leftist, though she will not call him the outright communist he was.

And, while carefully praising his refusal to renounce violence as a condition of his release, she excuses his post-prison acceptance of peaceful transition and democracy as best she can - clearly, in her view, it is this that requires an apology - "as the best strategy to achieve freedom and justice."

Her exact words.

He was a revolutionary who believed in a radical redistribution of wealth, and a global warrior against poverty, to the end. . . . But it’s equally important to remember the commitment to equality that let him endure prison, and adopt reconciliation as the best strategy to achieve freedom and justice.

Does it not seem that, like Dr. King and others of the left, when she says "freedom" and "justice" she means "equality" and "social justice" - and so again "equality"?

It seems inescapable she thinks "freedom" is something that might be won by a red revolutionary dictatorship.

Does she think Ho was a "freedom fighter," along with Mandela?

And what of Obama's recent whitewash of Ho Chi Minh that fit so well his friendship with Bill Ayers and his long relationship with Rev. Wright?

Scratch a liberal, find a fellow-traveler of the radical left, or worse, sometimes.

Isn't it almost comic, looking back, how Obama and his supporters were going to put behind us the political conflicts and allegiances of the boomer generation?