Saturday, October 02, 2004

On Hollywood Center-Rightists and Civil Liberties Myopia

By Glorious Revolutionary Federation

Read full article...

Posted 10/02 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Per usual, more heavy-handed ‘declarations’ issued from this self-important ‘hard’ group from the ‘safe confines’ of Columbia…

    While maybe a partisan, comparatively ‘soft’ event, I actually don’t think Patti Smith fits the bill as being ‘lily-white’ (nor Lou Reed or Mos Def for that matter) and I supect some of these people where THERE, doing there thing in the 1990s as well...thus bit of an oversimplified cheap shot imo…

    Posted by CK from  on  10/02  at  11:51 PM

  2. Dear “CK,”

    You ignore the substance of the piece and the many examples it provides and instead can offer up little but a conversation on the degree of Lou Reed and Patti Smith’s whiteness.

    Is this the best ABBers have got?

    Posted by Federation of Fortune 500 Killers from  on  10/03  at  12:04 AM

  3. I’m not ingnoring the ‘substance’ of your article...which essentially says you that Hollywood ‘liberals’ are soft and are only capable of seeing/protesting incursions by republican regimes...and they do so from a position of comfort and privelege. I don’t have a problem with saying this at all...it’s of course for the most part true.

    But I think you do take the unnecessary step of painting with too broad a stroke which results in some rather unfair ‘lumping’ (as if attending a ACLU benefit automatically makes you a democratic party shill, or a liberal bomber) and tend imbue all you articles (which are many times right on the money content wise) with a self-righteous ‘Im-am-more-radical-than-you’ purity and almost self congradulatory level of veritrol.

    I think while skewering the elite of the ‘soft’ left (most often deservedly) that you have chosen to frame it within these vanguard-esque pronoucements is offputting and a mistake. You can either take that as a valid critisizm, or not.

    Sorry you automatically assume that because I’m arguing with you on some points, I must be an ABBer.

    Posted by CK from  on  10/03  at  12:43 AM

  4. I think CK, a definite non-ABBer from my vantage point, is offering the Federation a compliment for its great ability to cut through the crap of many liberal and leftist actions and its ability to offer worthwhile and hard-hitting criticism.

    With a keen eye similar to GRFF500K’s, CK writes about the Federation’s “I am more radical than you” purity and “self-congratulatory” polemics. I think it has always been the goal of Federation Theoreticians and Theoretician-Consultants, in their bid for a glorious revolution, to mix light-hearted self-references with no-holds barred attacks on leftists who are getting bogged down in diversionary actions. CK is probably a potential ally of the Federation and someone who the Federation should think about engaging as a Theoretician-Consultant.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  10/03  at  06:44 AM

  5. My understanding is that the ACLU didn’t defend Bruce when he was alive. Ironic, I would say.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  10/03  at  07:55 PM

  6. This is correct.  Bruce made a lot of jokes about that.

    Posted by Federation of Fortune 500 Killers from  on  10/03  at  09:31 PM

  7. The ACLU has stood up and fought many of the issues mentioned in this article—disparate sentencing policies, the prison industrial complex, racial profiling, and much, much more. The ACLU has been there when many others haven’t. It’s a *good* thing that celebrities are willing to help the ACLU do the fundraising it must do to wage these battles.

    Bongo

    Posted by Bongoface from  on  10/06  at  06:24 PM

  8. The ACLU stops short at defending leftists, including the lawyers for brown-skinned “combattant” suspects. The ACLU scoops up complaints about the system after the fact (ala New York antiwar activists fucked with by cops,) but never BEFORE (i.e. being pro-active, like other left civil liberties groups.) The ACLU is also very much a top-down organization, and like most liberal groups has a lot of crimes to answer for… The ACLU kicked out all people who were even close to communist in the 50s (including social democrats, Trots, anarchists, anyone anti-capitalist.) The ACLU also stood up for corporations on the issue of advertising as free speech.

    The Centre for Constitutional Rights and the Lawyers Guild is where money and support should go, not the gatekeeper ACLU.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  10/08  at  02:26 PM
    9. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Only Thing We Have to Fear...

    Previous entry: Disrupting America’s Fateful Non-Debate on the Roots of Terror

    [ads]

    Support Press Action