Posted on 03/19/2007 6:19:42 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
I put "Carnegie Mellon" in quotes when referring to the NUttie professor of the previous DUmmie FUnnies EDITION because no matter what searches I have done directly from the Carnegie Mellon University site, I have yet to come up with the name of one Michael Rectenwald despite his claim to work there. Perhaps my search skills need to be improved but as of yet I have come up with nothing. Leaving that aside, this NUttie professor has now come up some rather tortured explanations, as a result of the publicity this blog has given him, as a rationale for wanting to imprison millions of Republicans and to outlaw the GOP. The first tortured explanation was given over at the DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND by a Sock Puppet who claims to be an assistant to Rectenwald although I strongly suspect it is Rectenwald himself. This Sock Puppet, rec_report, claims that the two points about imprisoning and outlawing Republicans was, heh-heh, just tongue-in-cheek satire meant to "push the rhetorical boundaries." Then the Rectenwald Sock-Puppet gets even more hilarious with this:
"Of course this is an ironic statement--meant to illustrate the depths of our dilemma, not a practical plan for action. He means to push the rhetorical boundaries in ways that Repukes have done in order to make otherwise extreme statements to appear mainstream.
"It's meant to be funny and it's meant to allow less extreme statements to be made to appear more centrist by virtue of having pushed the rhetorical boundaries--like the Repukes have done to us."
Yeah, riiiiight! See, he was joking all along only we were too clueless to figure it out. Rectenwald (according to his Sock Puppet) just made extreme statements on purpose just to make his other NUttie statements sound almost normal. Oh, and btw, can he now be back on track for his tenure since he was only kidding?
Too bad for Rectenwald's Sock Puppet that he also claims he wasn't kidding with ANOTHER tortured EXPLANATION that he gives on his political website. And for a supposed literature professor, Rectenwald sure has a tough time explaining himself since it is hard to figure out just what he is saying as a rationale. The best explanation I can come up with is, "I didn't really mean what I said except that I really did mean it." So let us now watch the NUttie professor desperately try to put himself back on the tenure track in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, enjoying the spectacle watching a professorial pretzel twist itself, is in the [brackets]:
10-Point Plan to Rebuild the US after Bush's Destruction: Redux and Explanation
[10-Point Plan to Rebuild the US after Bush's Destruction: Regurgitate and Re-Explanation.]
In my previous Rec Report, entitled, "10-Point Plan for Rebuilding the United States after Bush's Destruction" (for which I have received much flak and a fair number of death threats from militant right-wingers--which in itself more than vindicates much of what I wrote), I made the following two points that seem to have roused the most ire from rabid Republicans, some of whom suggested, not unsurprisingly, that my remarks constitute a contradiction.
[This is the latest leftist ploy. Make the claim that you received death threats and that makes every NUttie thing you said okay.]
9. Consider the possibility that the Republican ideology contravenes the Constitution because its policies and beliefs endanger the well-being of the people. Consider making the Republican Party illegal.
10. Start a party that opposes the Democratic Party from the left of the Democratic Party and makes the Republican Party a detestable relic of the past akin to the slave-holding Confederates.
[You conveniently left off Point 5 about arresting most Republicans.]
The first of these points has been the source of no inconsiderable anger and gnashing of teeth amongst our 'friends' in the Republican Party. Just how can I claim that the ideology of the Republican Party contravenes the Constitution? Then, how can I go on, in an apparent contradiction, to suggest that the Republican Party be made illegal? Doesn't that restrict the First Amendment rights of some citizens, especially those who would espouse Republican views?
[You may begin twisting yourself into a pretzel with an incredibly tortured explanation...NOW!]
My answer is this; As Herbert Marcuse argued brilliantly in his critique of "Repressive Tolerance" in Critique of Pure Tolerance, the "liberal" (in the older, classical sense of liberalism, under which contemporary conservative political parties also fall), bourgeois notion of pure tolerance is impossible. Pure tolerance allows for the tolerance of some views that simply stand in total contradiction of the most immediate rights of others-in particular, their right to exist. Given that some speech is motivated by and has been responsible for the deaths of others for no apparent reason other than the wills of those who would kill these others, some ideologies cannot be tolerated. ("Speech," I argue, should not be differentiated from "action." "Speech," whether written or spoken, is a physical act that causes molecules to move. To speak is to act.) The beliefs of Nazis that Jews are vermin and do not deserve to exist is a belief that, if expressed, can lead to the deaths of Jews, as in Nazi Germany. Similarly, the speech of the KKK can and has led to the deaths and torture of Blacks in America, and should not be allowed. To allow the putative "right" of some to express such views that result in the annihilation of others, is a contradiction in itself. As such, such "rights" are false rights.
[Herbert Marcuse was the Marxist professor who gave the New Left philosophical license to act like idiots in the 60s but I guess you have extended that into our time. Okay, now that you have compared the Republicans with Nazis and the KKK, you may now give another tortured explanation of how you didn't really mean what you just said...NOW!]
But I seem to be implying that the Republican Party should be likened to the Nazis and the KKK. This is tiring, isn't it? The comparison is old-hat and overwrought and not one that I want to make. I would liken them not along any other lines than that all three are dangerous to the survival of numerous peoples. Other than that, they are no more alike each other than fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are alike.
[Yeah, how silly of us to think you just compared Republicans to Nazis and the KKK when that is just exactly what you did. Yawn! This is so tiring. Too bad we peons just can't comprehend the complex workings of a superior NUttie Professor mind. Oh, and nice touch with comparing fundamentalist Christians with radical Islam without seeming to do so.]
The Republican Party avows and holds positions that are anathema to the lives of millions, if not billions. The Republican Party, officially or unofficially, declaims the reality of Global Warming. The Republican Party disavows the science of Global Warming because its corporate sponsors in the oil and automotive industries are powerful forces within the party. These latter hire apologists to produce counter-, junk science to stand in opposition to credible science-to the detriment of our species' survival. They are bent on denial at all costs and must be removed from power, because their power imperils human life on the planet.
[Posted the NUttie Professor in the middle of record cold weather in the Northeast.]
Secondly, the Republican Party, at least in its current neoconservative configuration, is hell-bent on War. The basic principle seems to be to incite whatever ideological opposition there is against the US into militaristic confrontation. Such an approach is anathema to the interests not only of the US citizens, but of the world's population. The situation in Iraq is a prime example, but the current confrontational mode with Iran is also apiece with this posture. Rather than "fighting terrorism," the Republican Party is mass-producing it, as numerous studies have made clear. Rather than negotiation with those who differ with them ideologically and politically, they try to stir them into taking some action that will then justify a military attack. The Republican Party is doing more for terrorism than all of the Al Qaida and other radical Islamic propaganda combined. One may speculate on whether or not the Republican Party, tied so intimately in economic collusion with the military industrial complex, actually wants permanent, military-promoting war at all costs, or not. Regardless, that appears to be the effect.
[So in the middle of a tortured explanation about how he really isn't a loon, the NUttie professor quickly relapses back to his normal Moonbat mode.]
As for other points in the 10-point plan, as some have pointed out, they couldn't be implemented simply by an election or even impeachment. This list was always only more of a 'wish list' than a list of real imminent possibilities. But I ask, wouldn't the world be a lot better off with Bush, Cheney and his major administration contributors out of office? Would it be better with Bush and Cheney utterly discredited by serving prison time? Their jail time would help because it would discredit future fanatics of their kind from gaining ascendancy in American politics, ever again.
[I'm not sure what the NUttie professor means at the beginning of this but it sounds like, "I'm not making NUttie proposals for real, I'm only WISHING for those NUttie proposals to become a reality.]
Of course, we couldn't just revoke the judicial appointments of Bush-but the question is, shouldn't we? After all, Bush was never elected-not the first time and not the second. And, his judicial appointments have the potential for setting back the civil and social rights of millions of Americans, all for the ideological play and religious fervor of a few. The real fact of the matter is that control of reproduction belongs with those whose bodies will be responsible for reproduction. And, talking about contradictions! Here's a party that, without apology or an apparent second thought, would kill tens of thousands of innocent walking-and-talking (brown-skinned) children and adults, all the while claiming to be "pro-life." The only life they seem to acknowledge is the embryonic life of white people-the status of which is surely less certain than that of living and breathing full-fledged individuals of the human race, whom they kill all the time.
[Thanx for just revoking any possibly you might have had for getting tenure. Your hilarious attempt at an explanation actually turned out to be WORSE that your original NUttie statements. Feel free to explain your explanation again in the future. The DUmmie FUnnies is always looking for fresh comedy material.]
Let me know if you want on the DUmmie FUnnies PING List.
PING!
Top 5!!!
5?!!
Mise en place for the chef!
I don't know if he is a phony. His web pages with the CM link looks legit but when I actually go to the Carnegie Mellon site and do a search on his name I get NOTHING. I searched the faculty diretory, the general directory, and even the Robotics Institute directly. Nothing.
The guy warms up by violating Godwin's Law?
Wow!! How come they never understand that Republicans can "push the rhetorical boundaries", too. For instance, do they ever cut Ann, or Rush, a break on this issue?
However, this page says he is no longer at the Robotics Institute at CMU.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Michael+Rectenwald&btnG=Google+Search
Office Phone: 412-268-5922 returns from a CMU "carnegie Mellon University " website.
It sounds like he USED to work at CMU but not longer does so. However, he is making out like he is still there. To me that sounds like FRAUD.
Type the following into Google:
Rectenwald "carnegie mellon"And you'll get plenty of hits, including press releases about courses he's taught (most of which are the typical left-wing indoctrination type of thing).
That google result might be out of date. A lot of web pages stay up with dated material. Although he might have a CMU web page, that might have been from the past. All I can tell you when I do a search (and I did several) DIRECTLY from CMU, nothing turns up with "Rectenwald."
Actually, it looks like he just switched to working with a different department. I think you're barking up the wrong tree in believing that the guy's a fraud. Frankly, this guy is pretty tame for a college professor these days.
What you get from Google is DATED material. A lot of web pages stay up long after people working at CMU are no longer there. All I'm saying is try to do a search on Michael Rectenwald DIRECTLY from the CMU site. Try it. If you can find his name there then you are a better searcher than i am. I also clicked on "R" in the faculty and also the general CMU directory. Also nothing.
Maybe Rectenwald is now at a different CMU department but when I did a search DIRCECTLY from CMU I came up with NOTHING no matter where I searched from that site.
One of the hits refers to him as a post-doc, which means he might not show up as staff, since he's not a full or adjunct professor.
Okay. Let's get this clear. I am saying that Rectenwald probably USED to work at CMU but I can find NO evidence that he is CURRENTLY there. If you can find evidence that he is STILL at CMU then post here.
The most recent I have seen is from last year (June 2006).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.