The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
2. But I'll still never root for them commie bastard Detroit Red Wings.

I'm more concerned re. Ty's admission he worked for the National Lawyer's Guild. Who promoted Slothrop? I think the people of Lawtalkers deserve to know who made this man. with admitted ties to communist front groups, a moderator?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Bob


My last comment on McCarthy, I promise.

No, keep it up. Seriously. I'm not as up to date on McCarthy stuff, and don't have the time to do research to rebut Spanky's counter-intuitive assertion that no, actually, now that I think about it, McCarthy probably was an American hero.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No, keep it up. Seriously. I'm not as up to date on McCarthy stuff, and don't have the time to do research to rebut Spanky's counter-intuitive assertion that no, actually, now that I think about it, McCarthy probably was an American hero.

You should read the Nizer book and the Coulter book. In that order. They're not that long, and they're both entertaining, in a weird sort of way, and there is really no contradiction between them. Just coverage of different facets, all of which you should have if you want to know about this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
You should read the Nizer book and the Coulter book. In that order. They're not that long, and they're both entertaining, in a weird sort of way, and there is really no contradiction between them. Just coverage of different facets, all of which you should have if you want to know about this.

I may well do that. Soon as I can figure out which of Amazon, the local Border's, or the local library I'm most comfortable having the knowledge that I would possess anything written by Coulter.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I may well do that. Soon as I can figure out which of Amazon, the local Border's, or the local library I'm most comfortable having the knowledge that I would possess anything written by Coulter.

Half-Priced Books. Pay cash.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I may well do that. Soon as I can figure out which of Amazon, the local Border's, or the local library I'm most comfortable having the knowledge that I would possess anything written by Coulter.

Remember, that if you go to the library, the G will KNOW what you are reading.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I may well do that. Soon as I can figure out which of Amazon, the local Border's, or the local library I'm most comfortable having the knowledge that I would possess anything written by Coulter.

When we start denouncing the people who have supported Kerry, and you face losing your job, home, and iPods, you'll thank me as you whip out your Coulter book and prove you're clean.

Come the Revolution . . .

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
You should read the Nizer book and the Coulter book. In that order. They're not that long, and they're both entertaining, in a weird sort of way, and there is really no contradiction between them. Just coverage of different facets, all of which you should have if you want to know about this.

I'd suggest that William F. Buckley's "McCarthy and His Enemies" is probably a more intellectually honest defense of Tail-Gunner Joe that Ann Coulter's book, but whatever.

Nizer's book is more about what a wonderful trial lawyer he was than about McCarthyism per se. The Faulk case is simply one of several cases Nizer talks about, and the Faulk case was really about what might be called "private sector" McCarthyism. The only connection to McCarthy himself is that Roy Cohn took over as the lawyer for AWARE (a group that screened actors on behalf of producers and sponsors for any political taint) in the middle of the case.

I understand that there are some more recent books out on McCarthy that are good, and which take into account the Venona materials. I can't think of any particular title now, but I think that the Atlantic Monthly (?) may have mentioned some of them when they reviewed Coulter's book.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Nizer's book is more about what a wonderful trial lawyer he was than about McCarthyism per se.

Oops. Then I'm thinking of another book entirely.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was under the impression that people were wrongly accussed of being communists during the McCarthy era. As a student I was told that it was similar to the Salem Witch trials because people were wrongfullly accused and lives were ruined. The people in Salem were not witches and the people accused by McCarthy were not communists.

It is now my understanding that no one was wrongfully accused. It was simply exposed as to who were members of the communist party.

If someone was falsly accused of being a communist or former communist and was ostracized then that would be wrong. But it is now my understanding that did not happen.

If someone had been a member of the communist party but stated that they had made a mistake but were still ostracized that would be wrong. It also my understanding this did not happen.

But if someone had been or currently was a member, and they refused to say that was a mistake, and they couldn't find work in Hollywood. That is a good thing. Or if someone refused to critisize the communist party and couldn't get a job in Hollywood, what is wrong with that?

Did McCarthy finger anyone that wasn't a communist?

Did anyone read this post of mine? I am at a loss here. Ann Coulter made a claim that McCarthy didn't falsly accuse anyone and no one has been able to contradict that. That blows me away.

Fisher was brought up but it turns out that all McCarthy did was point out that he was a member of the Lawyers Guild and that the Lawyers Guild was labelled the legal arm of the communist party by the Attorney General. He didn't just donate to the group but was a member for a long time. He just stated facts didn't he? McCarthy didn't have him jailed or anything, he just stated the facts.

If McCarthy stated facts that what the hell did he do wrong?

If all McCarthy did was investigate and bring facts to light what the hell did he do wrong?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would anyone on this board care if the US Congresss did an investigation into Neo-Nazis and other racist parties in the United States?

What about an investigation as to whether members of Neo-Nazi groups were working in the United States government?

What if they held hearings and interviewed the leaders about their activities?

If a lawyer defending ones of these Neo - Nazis was shown to be member of a Neo-Nazi party would people consider digging up such information as "smear tactics"?

And what if it turned out that some Hollywood writers, directors and producers may have been members of or were currently members of Neo-Nazi parties?

Would anyone have a problem with Congress investigating that?

If there was a suspicion considering whether a Hollywood writer producer or director was either a current or former member of a neo-nazi party and they refused to answer whether they were a current or former member of a Neo Nazi organization would anyone care if the studios decided not to hire them?

Would it be out of line for a studio to ask before they hire someone that they state that they are not, nor have ever been a member of a Neo Nazi group, and if they had been to disavow that membership?

Really. Who would have a problem with that?

I got no answer to this. Why not? And how is the above example any different than what happened to the communists during the 1950s.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did anyone read this post of mine? I am at a loss here. Ann Coulter made a claim that McCarthy didn't falsly accuse anyone and no one has been able to contradict that. That blows me away.

Fisher was brought up but it turns out that all McCarthy did was point out that he was a member of the Lawyers Guild and that the Lawyers Guild was labelled the legal arm of the communist party by the Attorney General. He didn't just donate to the group but was a member for a long time. He just stated facts didn't he? McCarthy didn't have him jailed or anything, he just stated the facts.

If McCarthy stated facts that what the hell did he do wrong?

If all McCarthy did was investigate and bring facts to light what the hell did he do wrong?

2. I'm sure Ty will have a blog cite to argue with you though.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, I recall that.

No (Republican) and no (Texan). That's why I listed them. Seriously, you should read the Nizer book (I just finished it -- saw it in a used bookstore on vacation, and since I am always looking for slick trial lawyer techniques to assist me in denying compensation to the injured, I grabbed it). I'd be happy to send it to you.

But let's assume that you run a law firm in 1955. You find out that one of your 45 year old partners contributed to a fund set up for the legal fees of the Scottsboro Boys when he was in law school in the 1930s. It turns out that the fund was administered by the CPUSA (who liked to make propaganda points against the capitalists by using lynchings and the like to make a point). Does he get fired? Or the bookkeeper who, in the depths of the Great Depression, thought that communism might work?

These are the type of people that lost their jobs, spouses, etc. during this time. People who had made the mistake of signing the wrong petition, attending the wrong rally, or working for Henry Wallace. It wasn't like most of them were ever communists, and that the ones who were actually in the party were still involved after the war.

As I stated before, if someone said that they had made a mistake, and didn't support the communist party then it would be wrong if they got fired. Do you have an actual example of this?

But it seems to me the only people that got nailed were people that refused to critisize the communist party. Here is a party that is being financed by the Soviet Union and is trying to overthrow the US government.

Now if people were still getting fired and other bad things were happening to them because they unknowingly donated to a group they did not know was communist and pointed out it was a mistake. That would suck. But so far no one has shown me this has happened.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I stated before, if someone said that they had made a mistake, and didn't support the communist party then it would be wrong if they got fired. Do you have an actual example of this?

JOHN HENRY FAULK!!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
I got no answer to this. Why not? And how is the above example any different than what happened to the communists during the 1950s.

The basic problem was that, as Hank said, some (not all, not even most, but some) of the people snagged were truly the clueless, "oh look at me, it's fashionable to be communist" types - the shallow ones who were able to look beyond the millions of deaths and think (wrong word, probably) of that system as being trendy and cute and avant-garde. Which is why so many Hollywood types went for it, I suppose.

McCarthy rightly took no pity on the knowledgable participants, but he also took none on the idiots. He purposefully built a crescendo of frantic public fear that was unjustified in its immediacy, and used that fear effectively enough so that the simple "he's a member of the Guild" said much more to the public - "he's a pedophile!" would have been a gentler accusation.

He also did a lot of his investigating work right there, in the public room, and there was a lot of collateral damage that came out in the process that had nothing to do with what he was looking for. He may have been correct in picking his targets, but he was an asshole.