Apparently Mao Zedong is the philosopher of choice for some conservatives as well as some liberals

Locally, it was Hube who ran with the story of Obama advisor Anita Dunn praising the wisdom of Mao Zedong as one of her favorite political philosophers:

Fox News is evil incarnate (IOW, they're an "arm" of the GOP) -- so says White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. But one of the greatest mass murderers of all-time [Mao]? Dunn thinks he's just terrific.

Given that Hube often cites Newsbusters, I suspect he will be less than pleased [because he tries very hard to be intellectually consistent] to find this somewhat parallel instance of apparent Mao worship on that very prominent conservative media-watch website commenting on how to cure America's drug problems:

First, drug addiction needs to be viewed as a choice, not an illness. Mao Zedong, the former leader of China, cured 20 million opium addicts over just one weekend by announcing that anyone still addicted would be shot on Monday.

Yes, I realize that there is a large degree of difference between a website and a presidential advisor.

But it is really pretty difficult to lambast the other side with a straight face for citing one of the greatest mass murderers of all time when folks who share your own perspective are doing the same thing.

Comments

Hube said…

Indeed, Steve. Great catch. The invocation of Mao in that instance, 'tho serving to make an overall point, was just plain silly.

October 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM

RHKINC said…

Because person 1 gets news from source 1 the statements of person 1 should be ignored? This is only your attempt to take away from the reality of Dunn's statements and the issue at hand: why are so many of the current administration admirers of so many anti-freedom leaders of history?

October 18, 2009 at 9:08 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog