Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Flickr
Friendfeed
Last.fm
LinkedIn
MySpace
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Twitter
Vimeo
YouTube
What I’ve Been Up To Lately
- Remember kids, Twitter Torah experiment at 2:30PM EST: Collaborative discussion on Parshat Balak. Get in on it at #balak. 1 day ago
- RT @spagnoloacht Video of my Creative Commons Salon presentation on the Jewish Digital Narratives platform http://blip.tv/file/2305108/ 1 day ago
- Yes Men pull out of Jerusalem Film Fest http://su.pr/1uJUsU 1 day ago
- More updates...
The smearing of Daniel Sieradski
[Update] Click here to read why Michael Goldfarb is being dishonest about Ron Paul’s flirtations with antisemitism.
Andrew Sullivan has blogged a reader’s response to my Ron Paul piece:
Ron Paul supports dismantling the Fed (in theory) because he believes fiat currency is bad monetary policy, and inflationary central banking is destructive to the long term sustainability of the middle class and economic prosperity. White supremacists want to dismantle the Fed because they believe international banking institutions are controlled by a secretive cabal of Zionist Jews who want to control the world, and being anti-Semitic, they think this is a terrible development. A rational mind can clearly see why Ron Paul would garner the support of white supremacists and neo-Nazis for reasons wholly unrelated to what Ron Paul actually stands for. It is a simple case of conspiracy-minded “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This holds true for virtually any “fringe” group expressing discomforting support for Ron Paul (9/11 Truthers, neo-Confederates etc) the common ground all of these disparate groups, along with a great many “normal” Americans, share with Ron Paul is “Anti-Establishmentarianism”. The Establishmentarians don’t know what to make of this abrupt groundswell, and so they predictably lash out with smears designed to keep Ron Paul and his ideas/philosophy at the margins of the national discourse.
Here’s why this is total bullshit:
- I am as anti-establishment as they come. Go troll through my blog archives if you don’t believe me, or take a look at what the real Jewish fascists think of me. Shit, I was arrested three times protesting the Iraq War — before it was popular to do so. Here: Check me out blogging America: From Freedom to Fascism.
- I strongly considered supporting Paul as a candidate up until the Don Black incident and sought to interview him so as to give him the opportunity to state his case to the Jewish community. I gave the guy a month to respond before throwing up my arms and asking “what the fuck.”
- I say mostly the same thing as this author in my Paul piece: “Congressman Paul’s willingness to stand up to the neocons has also had the [implied unintended] effect of making Paul a popular candidate among those from whom Presidential candidates would typically not desire support: Bona fide antisemites.” [...] “Congressman Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of his extremist supporters, unless he publicly acquiesces to those views.”
- Paul’s campaign, when questioned by Reason magazine, said that if neo-Nazis want to give money to his campaign, so be it: “If people who hold views that the candidate doesn’t agree with, and they give to us, that’s their loss.” And yet they also told JTA, “Ron Paul has beliefs that resonate with people. He empowers an individual’s right to free association. A lot of people like that.” Ergo: Ron Paul’s campaign is proud that his beliefs resonate with neo-Nazis and he has no qualms taking their money or having them freely associate with him.
- Libertarians have no business associating with Nazis, or allowing Nazis to associate with them. The two ideologies are ultimately opposed towards one another, even if they share a handful of common interests.
- Even Sullivan, in an email exchange between us, said, “i would send back the check and he will too, i’d wager.” He has yet to respond to the Reason article, cited above, which I sent him. And although I explained myself and my political orientation to Sullivan in our email exchange,
and despite the fact that Ron Kampeas wrote him saying “I wanted to clarify that I wrongly faulted Dan Sieradski in this,”he is still misrepresenting me on his blog, by making me out to be a hysterical Jew with a hard-on for Paul. - And bro, don’t even put me in view of the Giuliani camp, let alone within it. Who do you think tipped off Wonkette to Giuliani’s Catholic priest problem?
Thus to accuse me of willingly seeking to smear Paul because I am either a liberal partisan or a pro-Israel nut is a total crock, and all this illustrates to me is what a hack Sullivan is, and how morally bankrupt Paul’s most vociferous supporters are. You people wouldn’t know nuance if it bit you on the ass.
As I wrote to Sullivan, I have no problem with small government. I have a problem with Ron Paul.
[Update] Kampeas retracts; Yglesias forces Sullivan to backpedal, clear my name.
“Where have I ever said that I want this Don Black to have more money?”
I am trying not to violate Mobius’ directive, but I simply have to comment again on the amazing intellectual dishonesty of this question.
The issue under discussion is whether the Paul campaign should return a campaign contribution from Don Black.
The campaign currently has the money. Don Black doesn’t. You think the contribution should be returned. That would involve the campaign taking some money that they currently have and giving it to Don Black. That means you want Don Black to have more money.
So the answer to your question is “In your first post.”
These are really very simple concepts.
i’m sorry fluffy, but i’ve been ignoring you because that’s the most asinine excuse for keeping the money ever. ron paul is not keeping the money to deprive a racist from his loot. he’s keeping the money because he doesn’t want to alienate the racist from his constituency. how’s this: if ron paul doesn’t want to be seen as consorting with racists, he should send don black’s money to the naacp — along with a letter apologizing for the racists hijacking his campaign.
[...] Update from Daniel. You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0 [...]
Fluffy, your “really simple” concepts are based on nothing but improper discourse by outruling an important aspect as it’s inconvenient to your line of reasoning / indifference and claiming I had stated things I’d never ever even insinuated. The “amazing intellectual dishonesty” is that you try to accuse me of indirect support of Don Black due to a lack of mental abilities. I think the contribution should not have been accepted to begin with. _That_ is a really simple concept. And yes, over here we expect politicians’ assistants to investigate where donations stem from. Afterall, we do not consider it insane that our political representatives should also represent our moral values.
Your “Ergo: Ron Paul’s campaign is proud that his beliefs resonate with neo-Nazis and he has no qualms taking their money or having them freely associate with him” is so deceptive it’s almost as laughable as your “I am as anti-establishment as they come” examples. Blogged for the Russo movie? You’re a modern-day Guy Fawkes.
We Ron Paul supporters are a highly intelligent bunch, so it doesn’t take long for us to recognize your Standard Weekly shillery. If you look back at Ron Paul’s congressional record, it’s clear that his ultimate goal is freedom for Americans. When you left out part of the quote from the JTA article, (”He does not believe in foreign aid going to any nation, but that does not have anything to do with individual groups”) your intention to smear him was clear. You have no credibility, Bub, give it up.
I don’t see how returning a contribution = wanting someone to have more money. How about some intellectual honesty, eh?
Now do you wanna make out or something, or would you rather finish that jelly donut first?
Ray, still looking to get shtupped?
BTW, I do wonder why people apparently confuse indifference towards world affairs with political libertarianism.
Mobius and Sarah, if you want to play the guilt by association game, I can play it too.
By lining up against Ron Paul in this way, you have thrown in your lot with:
Glenn Beck
Bill O’Reilly
Bill Kristol
George W Bush
The Podhoretz family of racist authoritarians
Jonah Goldberg and the racist authoritarians at the Corner
The racist authoritarians at Little Green Footballs
Sean Hannity
I will jump over to your side of the argument and demand that Paul give away Don Black’s donation [not return it] when the Giuliani campaign fires the Podhoretz’ and denounces all of the reprobates on my list.
If that doesn’t happen, I can’t say that I agree with the logic of your demand that the money be given to the NAACP, Mobius. You seem to be agreeing that it makes no sense to give the money back to Black, and you want the money given to an organization that opposes white supremacy. The problem with that logic is that the money is already in the possession of an organization that opposes white supremacy, and that makes forwarding the funds to the NAACP a superfluous and meaningless gesture.
“I think the contribution should not have been accepted to begin with.”
This is just silly, even by the standards of the rest of your commentary.
The Paul campaign accepts credit card donations at its website. Anyone with a credit card can browse to the website and donate. You’re acting like Paul drove to Black’s house and accepted a big oversized cardboard check while photographers immortalized the moment.
The donation was one of thousands received via an automated process. There are hundreds of people named “Don Black” all over the United States. Are you seriously proposing some sort of “donor watch list” where campaigns can play Junior Homeland Security Officer and block donations from people with suspicious names?
There is absolutely no basis for Mobius’ statement that the campaign is not returning the donation because they just love Don Black as their best boyfriend. I think it’s much more likely that A) they believe their public statement that it’s Black’s loss and B) they don’t want to encourage slimebags like the guys at the Weekly Standard and the National Review to try to do background checks on the nearly 50,000 people who have donated to the campaign to date. There is no upside to the campaign for playing along here. It’s actually a little offensive that the people demanding the loudest that they play along are the conservative fishwrappers that shout the loudest in favor of fascism, torture, and wars of conquest. Forgive me if I find the accusation of fascism from persons such as this to be absurd and darkly amusing.
Seriously, has anyone actually read what Mobius wrote? I’m guessing you did, but your backs are up against the wall defending an indefensible act that shows how silly libretarianism is. No one has yet offered a cogent defense of the Paul campaign’s decision to keep the money (and instead throw out smoke screens…well, Hillary is worse, Rudy is worse–umm, duh—or throw out silly personal attacks). But, really, I can’t say I am surprised precisely because it is an indefensible act.
That said, there is something kind of fun about hearing Dan refered to as being part of the Israel lobby and such. I mean, it must really be powerful if he has been swallowed up by it…
Fluffy, sorry to spoil your illusion, but credit card payments (or donations for that matter) can be refunded / returned, which takes less than a minute of work. And there is a semantic difference between “commentary” and “comment”.
Neither Dan nor I have claimed that all other politicians but Paul abide by the moral standards we’d expect of politicians, but excusing one illegitimate action by another is a seriously low level of reasoning.
Sarah, is that a trick question or are you looking to have a “world affair”?
In other news, I’m looking to build a straw man that will be ready for halloween.
A trick question as in attempt to lighten the atmosphere. IMHO affairs aren’t worth it as they cause more pain than gain.
So what about that straw man?
Was a play on your words from a few comments ago.
I dont speak german, could you translate this for me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBCD34F0PYc
Certainly.
That guy poses as a male hoochie on TV, but the behind-the-scenes portrait of him aimed to show his real “intellectual” *cough, cough* self.
He refers to himself as ‘Mr. Cool Ice’ and eventually designed the tattoo with the help of a T-shirt print store sales clerk. He does state that he’d put a lot of thought into it as tattoos stay with you for the rest of your life, thus they should represent what you are.
Then there’s some lengthy explanation on how he loves sex, but has never cheated on any woman he was in a relationship with, but he also states that he’s got no intentions to get married.
Then you get the guided tour around his apartment, which he keeps meticulously clean. He uses a deodorant for women.
In the end he talks about his gym exercize.
You rock.
Anytime.
“Mobius wrote:
and fluffyif you launch into one more insult laden ad hominem attack, your comments will no longer be welcome here. i’m all for free speech, but i’m also for civility and constructive behavior. if you cannot make your point without throwing about insults, you can take your comments elsewhere.”
Whats this …a new rule you are practicing?