It isn't that Ted is a Marxist that makes him unreadable. It's not his blatant distaste for the US or for the concept of natural law, individual rights and responsibility. It isn't even that his columns have been the same, week after week, for at least the two years I've tried to read them.
In the end, it's that he is both ignorant (not stupid, thats different. But ignorant.) and so intolerant that he's become a bastion of hate.
How can one spend so much time wallowing in hate?
Even the one hick town rag I see his column in (online) should have ONE professional somewhere on staff who should realize that this "column" by this "writer" is a desperate plea for help.
It's amazing that a commentator who criticizes the expanse of the welfare state can be dubbed a bigot. But leftist wannabe's like Ted can express open, overt and often even violent rhetoric targeted at whites and males (and God forbid, people who are both) and earn such praise.
Reminds me of first year college students at left leaning colleges (like mine) when they take acid for the first time and their minds "open up" to the drivel spewed by 60s relics professors who still hate the fact that the world doesn't grovel at their tenured feet and beg them to show us out of the wicked mire of freedom and self-reliance.
Ted asserts that Obama has already agreed to make concessions and that only he has been willing to compromise. Fact: As of July 27, the president has not presented even a single plan, proposed bill or a roadmap, and his willingness to "dismantle" Social Security and Medicare appears on not one single document, nor has he even presented any baseline ideas of how the govt. might do that.
Secondly, Ted writes"Read your Keynes: governments are supposed to spend their way out of downturns, and pay down debt during upswings." Should we also read Mein Kampf to determine the best policies for leadership? Keynesian economics has failed in every single occasion in history it has been adopted. The best lab test-like environment was postwar Germany because economically it was wiped virtually clean at the time. The Allies placed in charge of Germany's economy a group similar to those in the White House today. Keynesians, no real world experience, entirely academic and generally in favor of the left-wing fascism popular in academic American circles then and now. Their top-heavy, government-controlled implementation was a spectacular failure that produced a far worse German economy than the one that had promoted the rise of the Nazis. The Germans had to utterly reject and expel the high-brow Allied Keynesians, push to actual free market economics before the German economy recovered. Japan's "Lost Decade" is another example of what happens when a nation attempts to spend its way out of a recession. This is easy history to research as is the failure of Keynesian economic policy all over the world.
On the other hand, an example of this economic philosophy working doesn't exist.
So Ted listened to an NPR story about mold in empty houses. Astounding that it took an NPR story for someone to realize mold is an issue in empty homes, as its common knowledge to most people. And then, without so much as citing another source, morphs the mold story into yet another rant against capitalism and against anyone who has achieved more success than Ted has? Along the way he explains the entire housing crisis and how it was all about evil bankers. Not government that mandated banks provide absurd loans. And certainly, certainly not the poor people who bought a quarter-million dollar home on a 25k a year income. They're just victims, you see.
What's next? How the Casey Anthony is an extension of evil capitalism. Come on, Ted, you can do it.
I completely agree in entirely equal rights for LGBT persons.
However, asserting that "Sexual expression should never result in a scandal" reveals just how vacuous the Left has become on cultural issues, how deconstruction continues to take its toll on society. If it can never be scandalous for, say, an elected official or company executive to engage in group sex with six cheerleaders who are not his wife -- then why would one also advocate for gay marriage? Marriage then has no meaning because any sense of ethical or moral association with marriage has been stripped away and it becomes entirely a matter of paperwork to ensure maximum benefits. Of course, maximum "benefits" pretty much characterizes the self indulgent realism of modern progressivism anyway I suppose.
I know this is anathema to the Left, but being a person of good character is not a weakness. Likewise the scary fact that none of Ted's wacky lefty friends think there was "anything" remotely questionable about sending dick pics to strange teenage girls across the country is more revealing about the nihilist nature of the diseased cells eating away at Western Civilization and helping summon the coming new monarchy of the elites.
Equal rights is a moral issue. Sneering at the entire concept of "morality" is self-defeating. When more and more Christians do welcome gay rights, it will be because the essence of their faith commands tolerance and brotherly love. It's a shame that committed reactionary deconstructionists like Ted and his ilk, are only interested in advancing the cause as a way to express their hatred and condescension toward any and all people who believe in a power higher than politics.
So, in other words, Americans' basements are going to be emptied out on October 6th, as their usual occupants spend their part-time Whole Food clerk salaries to schlepp to Washington to protest with the essential message that they want the government to take stuff away from those working on that October day to give to those at the protest on the 6th.
The first time I can remember ever agreeing with Ted. Who would think that a constitutional libertarian could find common ground with Ted, a prototypical Marxist?
Two parties has been a problem. I think, though, that the Obama administration might be redefining the system. We've had horrible presidents of each party in the past. But we have never before had a president committed to actually and openly ending the fundamental principles upon which both parties had previously based their policy perspectives.The result may well be a party realignment such as what happened following the Democrats failure to stop the Civil Rights Movement. Those traditional Democrats who still believe in individual freedom, economic liberty and the wisdom of an identifiable national border seem likely to end up in league with the establishment Republicans and Moderates. Meanwhile the internationalist Marxist types following the Obama model, will create a very different wing. The Tea Party types -- who are essentially traditional economic conservatives and Reagan Democrats -- find themselves in yet another segment. Whether somehow this structure empowers a two-party system remains to be seen. A charismatic leader seems capable of establishing a third party, barring interference from the media (which would very likely savage any realignment that didn't benefit the Marxist wing), and change could come.
Coalition governments and elections scheduled on performance would be an improvement. Imagine a vote of no-confidence in Bush when there were no WMDs in Iraq? Imagine a similar vote on Obama after packaging a "stimulus" package that just coincidentally gave almost a trillion dollars to his special interest groups and campaign donors.
Seems to me a multi-party system would be a definite improvement.
Or, as a member of the Israeli government told me years ago: "Democracy? The one thing we have too much of!"
Fact check. "Neither party really wants to balance the federal budget because it can only be done by bringing home the troops, shrinking the Pentagon by 90 percent, ending corporate welfare, and soaking the rich."
Ted, realizing that an isolationist, totalitarian worker's paradise is your ultimate -- albeit laughably demented -- objective, how can you consider yourself even remotely honest with statements like this?
This is the "only" way? Government is prevented, by the hand of some deity, from cutting any government expenditures except the Pentagon? No other cuts can be made? The Pentagon and its --what, 10 percent of the national budget -- is the reason for D.C.'s budget struggles? Really?
Wars are the only waste that the federal government has? Even allowing for your Marxist fantasy that the US is evil and that a military isn't needed, how can you possibly assert that as divine fact if you even have a cursory knowledge of elementary math.
Realizing that your career is built on appealing to the self-loathing many ignorant Americans have and which expresses itself in the form of today's globalist progressive neo-Marxism, it is still hard to fathom why you can't stick to facts and opinions to pursue your goal. When you confuse the two, or lie about which is which, you aren't even a provocateur anymore. You just become irrelevant.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Posted by: ProfMike
9 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Fear of a Right Planet
In the end, it's that he is both ignorant (not stupid, thats different. But ignorant.) and so intolerant that he's become a bastion of hate.
How can one spend so much time wallowing in hate?
Even the one hick town rag I see his column in (online) should have ONE professional somewhere on staff who should realize that this "column" by this "writer" is a desperate plea for help.
Re: What's the Matter with Obama?
Apparently, yes. And don't forget "arrogant."
Re: American Select
Reminds me of first year college students at left leaning colleges (like mine) when they take acid for the first time and their minds "open up" to the drivel spewed by 60s relics professors who still hate the fact that the world doesn't grovel at their tenured feet and beg them to show us out of the wicked mire of freedom and self-reliance.
Re: The GOP Bets on Bad Judgment
Ted asserts that Obama has already agreed to make concessions and that only he has been willing to compromise. Fact: As of July 27, the president has not presented even a single plan, proposed bill or a roadmap, and his willingness to "dismantle" Social Security and Medicare appears on not one single document, nor has he even presented any baseline ideas of how the govt. might do that.
Secondly, Ted writes"Read your Keynes: governments are supposed to spend their way out of downturns, and pay down debt during upswings." Should we also read Mein Kampf to determine the best policies for leadership? Keynesian economics has failed in every single occasion in history it has been adopted. The best lab test-like environment was postwar Germany because economically it was wiped virtually clean at the time. The Allies placed in charge of Germany's economy a group similar to those in the White House today. Keynesians, no real world experience, entirely academic and generally in favor of the left-wing fascism popular in academic American circles then and now. Their top-heavy, government-controlled implementation was a spectacular failure that produced a far worse German economy than the one that had promoted the rise of the Nazis. The Germans had to utterly reject and expel the high-brow Allied Keynesians, push to actual free market economics before the German economy recovered. Japan's "Lost Decade" is another example of what happens when a nation attempts to spend its way out of a recession. This is easy history to research as is the failure of Keynesian economic policy all over the world.
On the other hand, an example of this economic philosophy working doesn't exist.
Re: Toxic Assets
What's next? How the Casey Anthony is an extension of evil capitalism. Come on, Ted, you can do it.
Re: Sexual Freedom: the Next Frontier
However, asserting that "Sexual expression should never result in a scandal" reveals just how vacuous the Left has become on cultural issues, how deconstruction continues to take its toll on society. If it can never be scandalous for, say, an elected official or company executive to engage in group sex with six cheerleaders who are not his wife -- then why would one also advocate for gay marriage? Marriage then has no meaning because any sense of ethical or moral association with marriage has been stripped away and it becomes entirely a matter of paperwork to ensure maximum benefits. Of course, maximum "benefits" pretty much characterizes the self indulgent realism of modern progressivism anyway I suppose.
I know this is anathema to the Left, but being a person of good character is not a weakness. Likewise the scary fact that none of Ted's wacky lefty friends think there was "anything" remotely questionable about sending dick pics to strange teenage girls across the country is more revealing about the nihilist nature of the diseased cells eating away at Western Civilization and helping summon the coming new monarchy of the elites.
Equal rights is a moral issue. Sneering at the entire concept of "morality" is self-defeating. When more and more Christians do welcome gay rights, it will be because the essence of their faith commands tolerance and brotherly love. It's a shame that committed reactionary deconstructionists like Ted and his ilk, are only interested in advancing the cause as a way to express their hatred and condescension toward any and all people who believe in a power higher than politics.
Re: Squaring Off
Jeez, how many words did it take to clarify that?
Re: The Evil of Two Lessers
Two parties has been a problem. I think, though, that the Obama administration might be redefining the system. We've had horrible presidents of each party in the past. But we have never before had a president committed to actually and openly ending the fundamental principles upon which both parties had previously based their policy perspectives.The result may well be a party realignment such as what happened following the Democrats failure to stop the Civil Rights Movement. Those traditional Democrats who still believe in individual freedom, economic liberty and the wisdom of an identifiable national border seem likely to end up in league with the establishment Republicans and Moderates. Meanwhile the internationalist Marxist types following the Obama model, will create a very different wing. The Tea Party types -- who are essentially traditional economic conservatives and Reagan Democrats -- find themselves in yet another segment. Whether somehow this structure empowers a two-party system remains to be seen. A charismatic leader seems capable of establishing a third party, barring interference from the media (which would very likely savage any realignment that didn't benefit the Marxist wing), and change could come.
Coalition governments and elections scheduled on performance would be an improvement. Imagine a vote of no-confidence in Bush when there were no WMDs in Iraq? Imagine a similar vote on Obama after packaging a "stimulus" package that just coincidentally gave almost a trillion dollars to his special interest groups and campaign donors.
Seems to me a multi-party system would be a definite improvement.
Or, as a member of the Israeli government told me years ago: "Democracy? The one thing we have too much of!"
Re: Thrifty Families and Other Lies
"Neither party really wants to balance the federal budget because it can only be done by bringing home the troops, shrinking the Pentagon by 90 percent, ending corporate welfare, and soaking the rich."
Ted, realizing that an isolationist, totalitarian worker's paradise is your ultimate -- albeit laughably demented -- objective, how can you consider yourself even remotely honest with statements like this?
This is the "only" way? Government is prevented, by the hand of some deity, from cutting any government expenditures except the Pentagon? No other cuts can be made? The Pentagon and its --what, 10 percent of the national budget -- is the reason for D.C.'s budget struggles? Really?
Wars are the only waste that the federal government has? Even allowing for your Marxist fantasy that the US is evil and that a military isn't needed, how can you possibly assert that as divine fact if you even have a cursory knowledge of elementary math.
Realizing that your career is built on appealing to the self-loathing many ignorant Americans have and which expresses itself in the form of today's globalist progressive neo-Marxism, it is still hard to fathom why you can't stick to facts and opinions to pursue your goal. When you confuse the two, or lie about which is which, you aren't even a provocateur anymore. You just become irrelevant.