|
Got
Wingnuts on Your Christmas List? 15 Fabulous Gifts for Freepers
By Maureen
Farrell
With
Christmas approaching, you’re probably already dreading the annual
holiday hunt. Chances are, you’ve got plenty of conservatives on your
list, and just as likely, they’re people you admire yet respectfully
disagree with. But you may also have a couple hard-nosed ideologues to
consider. What do you get the Freeper who thinks he knows everything?
Ignorance
is bliss, as they say, but in many cases, intervention is necessary.
Granted, your Wingnut may balk and his or her head may spin ‘round and
‘round like that little girl in The Exorcist, but a temporary
case of Linda Blairitis is a small price to pay for peace on Earth and
good will towards men, isn’t it?
That's why
books make perfect presents – provided your favorite Freeper isn’t
tragically overwhelmed by assaults to his rigidly fragile belief system
(The book, Rating the Presidents, for example, ranks Ronald Reagan
lower than Bill Clinton in “character and integrity,” which could send
any Wingnut into a catatonic stupor). And so, you may want to find books
that gently counter your loved one’s numbskull notions and then
nonchalantly bookmark the pages and highlight the paragraphs which most
accurately apply, like so:
1) For the
"Love It or Leave Its" on Your List:
Lies and
the Lying Lies Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Look At The Right,
Al Franken, page 24:
"If
you listen to a lot of conservatives, they’ll tell you that the
difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and
liberals hate America. That we 'blame America first'. . .
They don’t
get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way.
You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy.
Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy
does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love
means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad
and helping the loved one grow."
2) For
Those Still Obsessed with Bill Clinton’s Penis:
Dude,
Where's My Country?, Michael Moore, pages 20-21:
“This is
mind boggling. Here you have two dozen bin Ladens on American soil, Mr.
Bush, and you come up with some lame excuse that you were worried abut ‘their
safety.’ Might it have been possible that at least one of the
twenty-four bin Ladens would have possibly known something? Or maybe one
of them could have been ‘convinced’ to help track Osama down?
Nope. None
of that. So while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could
prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S.
history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!
Of course
the bin Ladens have been your business associates. Why wouldn’t you do a
little favor for some of the old family friends? But, to use the Clinton
analogy again, imagine, in the hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill
Clinton suddenly started worrying about the ‘safety’ of the McVeigh
family up in Buffalo – and then arranged for a free trip out of the
country. What would you and the Republicans have said about that?
Suddenly, a stain on a blue dress wouldn’t have been the top priority
for a witch hunt, would it?”
3) For
Wingnuts Who Prattle on about Bush’s Decency:
What
Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias And The News, Eric Alterman,
pages 172-173:
“While
Bush claims publicly to ‘do everything I can to defend the power of
private property and private property rights,’ he and his partners in
the Texas Rangers arranged for Texas authorities to expropriate private
land investors to build their new baseball stadium. When some owners
resisted, or balked at the low process being offered, their land was
condemned and expropriated by force of law. This occurred on 270 acres of
land, even though only about seventeen acres were needed for the ballpark.
The rest was used by Bush and Co. for commercial development and has
provided the basis of Bush’s personal fortune.”
4) For
Those Who Believe "They Hate Us for Our Freedoms":
All the
Shah's Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Terror In The Middle East,
Stephen Kinzer, page ix:
“One day
I attended a book party for an older Iranian woman who had written her
memoirs. . . After she finished speaking, I couldn’t resist the
temptation to ask a question. ‘You mentioned Mossadegh,’ I said. ‘What
do you remember, or what can you tell us, about the coup against him?’
She immediately became agitated and animated.
‘Why did
you Americans do that terrible thing?’ she cried out. ‘We always loved
America. To us, America was the great country, the perfect country, the
country that helped us while others were exploiting us. But after that
moment, no one in Iran ever trusted the United States again. I can tell
you for sure that if you had not done that thing, you would never have had
that problem of hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your
trouble started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?’”
5) For
Dorks Who Misread Bush’s Post-9/11 Popularity:
Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, Gore Vidal, page
20:
“Simultaneously,
Bush’s approval rating soared, but then, traditionally, in war, the
president is totemic like the flag. When Kennedy got his highest rating
after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs, he observed, characteristically, ‘It
would seem that the worse you fu*k up in this job the more popular you
get.’”
6) For
Anyone Underestimating the "Con" in Neocon:
Weapons
of Mass Deception: The Uses Of Propaganda In Bush’s War On Iraq,
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 48-49:
“In
testimony before Congress on February 25, 1998, Paul Wolfowitz urged
Congress to authorize the [Iraqi Liberation Act] as a way of getting rid
of Saddam without using U.S. ground troops. ‘Help the Iraqi people
remove him from power,’ Wolfowitz said. He added, ‘However – and I
think this is very important -- the estimate that it would take a major
invasion with U.S. ground forced seriously overestimates Saddam Hussein.’
At the
time, these words were meant to reassure members of Congress. The idea of
a U.S.-engineered ‘regime change’ was still considered radical and
dangerous, and Wolfowitz wanted to make it clear that he was not asking
them to sign on to the even more dangerous idea of drawing America into an
outright war. Five years later, however, the inauguration of George W.
Bush and the post-9/11 war on terrorism would put Wolfowitz and other
neoconservatives back in the driver’s seat of U.S foreign policy. Nine
days after the September 11 attacks, PNAC [the Project for a New American
Century] sent an open letter to President Bush, calling not only for the
destruction of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, but also to extend
the war to Iraq, and take measures against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the
Palestinian Authority.”
7) For
Poetry-Lovers:
Pieces
of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld,
compiled and edited by Hart Seely, page 77:
You saw
what happened in Afghanistan:
The people
went out in the streets,
And they
were joyous
And they
had balloons
And they
played music
And they
welcomed the U.S.
Because
everyone knows
The United
States doesn’t want to occupy Iraq.
8) For
Dunderheads Who Still Think the 2000 Election Was Legit:
The
Clinton Wars, Sidney Blumenthal, pages 769 -770
“On June
8, 2001, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, after extensive hearings,
approved a report on ‘Election Practices in Florida During the 200
Campaign’. . . The report stated:
‘The
Commission’s finding make one thing clear: widespread voter
disenfranchisement -- not the dead-heat contest – was the extraordinary
feature in the Florida election. . . The disenfranchisement of Florida’s
voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters. . .
After
carefully and fully examining all the evidence, the Commission found a
strong basis for concluding that violations of Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act (VRA) occurred in Florida. . . The state’s highest officials
responsible for ensuring efficiency, uniformity, and fairness in the
election failed to fulfill their responsibilities and were subsequently
unwilling to take responsibility. . .’
No one
knows how many black voters were improperly scrubbed from the rolls or how
many ballots marked with clear intent were not counted. But certainly
there were more than enough of those ballots to have elected Gore if they
had been.”
9) For
Anyone Who Ever Sent You a "Clinton Body Count" List:
Blinded
by the Right: The Conscience Of An Ex-Conservative, David Brock, page
331
“As
George Bush took office, I wondered if everything I had seen on the right
in the ‘90s was just a prelude for what was about to happen. As Bush’s
government was assembled, with Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni handling the
flow of resumes from the Heritage Foundation over to the White House
personnel office, many of the key players made up a rogues’ gallery from
my past. As I scanned a column in the Washington Post each morning where
the new Bush appointees’ names were announced, it was glaringly apparent
that this is what the Clinton wars had been all along. The Federalist
Society of right-wing lawyers who had been the heart of the anti-Clinton
conspiracy turned out to be a virtual Bush government in exile; the new
administration’s policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, slashing
environmental protections, and rolling back civil rights bore the Society’s
stamp, as did many of Bush’s nominees to the federal bench.”
10) For
Those Who Consider FOX News "Fair and Balanced":
The
Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century, Paul Krugman,
pages 288-289
“Surveys
show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11
hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved
in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And
since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is
obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are cowards.
Europeans,
who don't see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why
Iraq — rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda — has
become the focus of U.S. policy. That’s why many of them question
American motives. . .They don’t see opposition to an Iraq War as
cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying
Bush administration.
There are
two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One
is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them
to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of
both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other
is that some U.S. media outlets — operating in an environment in which
anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of
being unpatriotic — have taken it as their assignment to sell the war,
not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for
war into question.
So which is
it? I've reported, you decide.”
11) For
Wingnuts Who Think Liberals Are Weenies:
Big
Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts The Truth,
Joe Conason,
page 66
“[T]he
startling fact is that liberal Democratic politicians are at least as
likely to have done military service as their Republican opponents and
critics. Among the U.S. senators in the 107th Congress, the percentage of
veterans was slightly higher among Democrats than among Republicans (if
service in the Vietnam-era National Guard is excluded). That sort of
statistic wouldn’t matter so much if not for the right’s continuing
indulgence in venomous attacks on the patriotism of liberals and
Democrats.”
12) For
Anyone Who Unconditionally Trusts the Pentagon:
Body
of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency,
James Bamford, page 82
“According
to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, The
Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most
corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of
anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret bloody war of terrorism
against their own country in order to trick the American public into
supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Codenamed
Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the
Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for
innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refuges
fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism
to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami and elsewhere. People would be
framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked.”
13) For
Anyone Who Unconditionally Trusts the Bushes:
Sleeping
with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul For Saudi Crude,
Robert Baer, pages 48, 51
“Call it
poetic coincidence. But right as the Carlyle Group was getting into its
annual investor conference at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel on
September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon,
only two and a half miles to the south. . . At the meeting were the group’s
senior counsel, James Baker, secretary of state in the Bush I
administration; then Carlyle chairman Frank Carlucci, Ronald Reagan’s
last secretary of defense and national security advisor before that; and
Shafiq bin Laden, representing the Bin Laden Group -- one of the world’s
largest construction companies – but far more famous today as Osama bin
Laden’s brother. The gathering was the perfect metaphor for Washington’s
strange affair with Saudi Arabia. . .
Carlye’s
most famous advisor is George Herbert Walker Bush, the forty-first
president of the United States. . . Indeed, even as his son was
campaigning for the presidency in 2000, papa Bush flew to a posh desert
compound outside Riyadh to discuss Saudi-U.S. business relationships with
Crown Prince ‘Abdallah. Carlyle insists that Bush was not carrying the
investment firm’s portfolio on the trip, but it could not have escaped
the notice of his superwealthy hosts that G.H.W. Bush is a trusted and
highly valued Carlyle senior advisor – with a son making a run at the
White House.”
14) For
Semi-Sentient Female Freepers:
Secrets
of the Tomb: Skull And Bones, The Ivy League, And the Hidden Paths of
Power, Alexandra Robbins, pages 157-158:
“The
plaintiffs claimed that admitting women [into Skull and Bones] would lead
to ‘date rape’ in the ‘medium-term future’ and that before women
could be admitted to the society, a change in society bylaws was
necessary. Bones held a second vote on October 24. More than 425 members
came to the tomb and hundreds more voted by proxy; the votes tallied 368
to 320 in favor that women should be elected to the society. The women
were initiated on Sunday, October 27. Senators David Boren and John Kerry
later disclosed that they voted for the admittance of women. George Bush
and George W. Bush have never confessed how they voted, though George W.
might have provided a clue when he told PBS producer Lynn Novick, a woman
who graduated from Yale in 1983, that ‘Yale went downhill since they
admitted women.’”
15) For
Blowhards Who Pontificate About JFK and ‘Nam:
Secrets:
A Memoir of Vietnam And The Pentagon Papers, by
Daniel Ellsberg
pages
195-196:
“But what
wasn’t clear to me was how Kennedy could have been so prescient in 1961,
or where he would have gotten such a strong personal commitment, as to
draw an absolute line against American ground combat in Vietnam. Bobby had
not said that his brother had already decided in 1961 to withdraw from
Vietnam; he had simply told me that JFK preferred to and intended to do
that rather than to send ground troops. . . .I asked, a little impudently,
‘What made him so smart?’. . .
‘Because
we were there!’ He slammed the desktop again. His face contorted in
anger and pain. ‘We were there, in 1951. We saw what was happening to
the French. We saw it. My brother was determined, determined, never to let
that happen to us.’”
|