Thursday Night Links

Steve Gilliard links to a Green Party nut who wants the Republicans to win elections. I can understand not caring about certain races, but wanting a Republican wingnut – not even a Chafee – to win? Steve also talks a little about how out of touch with reality the Greens are.

All these fuckers, from Nader on down, imagine themselves great, selfless leaders. I’ve met 19 year olds who were more selfless, better leaders than they could ever be. They don’t have the ability to deal in the real world. They dream, and they plot and they don’t have any realistic plan to do anything. What has been the biggest green issue this decade? Single payer health insurance? Fairly funding education? Weekend elections? You know, issues which people might actually rally around. Nope. Instant Runoff Voting. That was the issue these people thought would mobilize the masses.

First, IRV is a bad voting system. Second, Steve is of course right: the first thing a party needs to do is to sell its agenda to the public. Having a more sensible voting system than plurality will help a third party gain power, but unless it shows the people that it should gain power, it makes no sense. The Greens’ emphasis on IRV is therefore as repugnant as the Democrats’ repeated assertions that the most important thing in the world is for the Democrats to win elections.

Lindsay takes on the onslaught of conservatives who deny the Lancet’s numbers on the flimsiest of excuses. The funniest has to be Instapundit’s, which combines a WW2 comparison with false numbers, the argument from incredulity, and the usual complaint that it’s election time so there ought to be a moratorium on inconvenient facts.

Timothy Shortell wrote an article for The Advocate about the conservative attack on the academia. Most of his article is personal, concerning a politically motivated attack on him after he was elected chair of Brooklyn College’s sociology department. But he does a tremendous job at connecting the personal to the political, his own anecdote to the observation that

The pundits and bloggers of the right are targeting anyone who dares dissent. Professional hysterics such as David Horowitz see much profit in a campaign against the academy, an institution that remains mostly independent of neo-con hegemony.

The anti-academy forces have a plan: faculty autonomy is to be eliminated just as journalistic autonomy has been.

He also praises me in another post of his, using language that makes it look like he’s never heard of Lindsay, even though she’s on his blogroll.

The puritan brigade is trying to Random Bird Jill for saying that she’s a fun feminist. Designated attack dog Molly rants,

Fun feminism, apparently, is feminism without all that pesky “the personal is the political” stuff attached. It’s “choice feminism” re-framed as a brilliant and new idea that just happens to coincide with going along with the patriarchy.

The radical attacks on the concept of choice aren’t out of the ordinary. What makes the radfem attack on choice feminism special is that the term choice feminism is double-booked. In its narrow sense, it refers to a conservative movement that pretends to be feminist and is represented by the Independent Women’s Forum; the term “choice” refers to that movement’s opposition to various governmental programs like maternity leave and daycare on the grounds that having children is a choice. It’s that sense that got the term bad rap.

But just like libertarians try hijacking the word “freedom” in order to capitalize on its positive connotations, so do radical feminists try hijacking the term “choice feminism.” To people like Molly, the problem isn’t that childbearing is seen as a choice; it’s that women have a choice of engaging in radical-unapproved personal practices. The idea that women should get more choices isn’t choice feminism – it’s feminism, plain and simple; it was consensus in the feminist roundtable at Yearly Kos, and it seems to be consensus on the feminist blogosphere, minus a small puritan segment.

Katie (who I must hat-tip here) puts it best:

This isn’t some competition to see who can be the harriest and ‘most stereotypical’ feminist. This is a fight for equality, and for the recognition of woman’s rights. We’re not in this as individuals shaving, or not shaving… we’re in this as a collective. A group of people with a focus of bringing equality and empowerment to women.

Finally, via Appletree, I’ve found that the Pope is Catholic:

In some of the deadliest fighting in recent weeks, Israeli ground troops raided a village in the Gaza Strip and the air force carried out strikes today that killed 8 Palestinians and wounded about 20, according to Palestinian medical workers.

At least four militants from Hamas were among the dead, but a teenage boy and a young girl were also killed, the medical workers said.

One Response to Thursday Night Links

  1. SLC says:

    Re Appletree/Pope.

    Mr. Levy is getting somewhat subtle in his Israel bashing mode since he arrived in the US. He conveniently forgot to mention that the Hamas terrorists who were killed in the air strike were known to have been responsible for many of the Kassim rocket attacks being launched from the Gaza strip, many from the areas abandoned by Sharons’ foolish unilateral pullout last year. Apparently, the feeling on the Israel bashing left is that the State of Israel, as a sporting gesture, should allow the terrorists to indiscrimently fire off Kassims with no fear of retaliation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: