« Nice Campaign Here, Shame If Something Should Happen To It | Main | No Love For Wal-Mart? »

February 23, 2007

Stardust

Markos's brief against Dennis Kucinich is pretty awesome. My favorite, though, is this excerpt from one of Little D's speeches supporting his Department of Peace:

Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

I may have this wrong, but that last sentence suggests Kucinich is calling for Captain Planet. That's not a bad idea, though the funding may be tricky. Maybe he can sneak him in as an earmark?

February 23, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Kucinich is just broadening his fundraising base beyond its original ethnic west-side Cleveland boundaries. He's crazy like a fox that way.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 2:23:57 PM

He's not just broadening his base beyond Cleveland, he's broadening it beyond earth itself. Soon the spirit of galactic synergy herself will be donating the statutory maximum to Dennis' PAC.

Posted by: Sam L. | Feb 23, 2007 2:37:38 PM

I will say, though, that Kos is not being fair to Dennis with respect to his tenure as Cleveland's mayor. Dennis didn't put Cleveland into default over an unwillingness to compromise. Instead, he refused to be bullied into selling Cleveland's municipal electric system (now known as Cleveland Public Power) to the local electric utility (Cleveland Electric Illuminating, or CEI) as a condition of receiving renewed credit. It was a total political disaster for Dennis at the time, but a lot of Clevelanders are now very grateful for what he did. Including me.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 2:40:10 PM

Kos is being asinine. The only thing on that list that's a legitimate concern is Kucinich's tenure as mayor. Yes, he has no proven track record of electability; neither does Obama. Yes, he flip-flopped on abortion; so did Al Gore. Yes, he has wacky religious beliefs; so does every other religious person on the planet. What makes Kucinich a joke is that he is (1) funny-looking and (2) holds the unacceptably radical view that America shouldn't be at war with its neighbors and citizens. I'm betting most Americans who even recognize Kucinich's name can't identify his policies, though; they just know he's the one who looks like an elf, and that's enough.

Consider that Kos, a political commentator whose opinions are given no small amount of weight in the blogosphere, took more time to consider the candidacy of Mike Gravel - a man who wants to repeal federal income tax - than Kucinich. I'm not planning on voting for Kucinich for anything anytime soon, but it's a pretty fucked system that consistently dispenses with ideology in favor of well-moussed hair.

Posted by: Christmas | Feb 23, 2007 2:50:31 PM

Actually Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate THEN to the US Senate, the demonstrates an ability to move upward in electability.

Kos is spot on with his criticism. Kucinich might have good intentions but if that's all you've got when running for the most powerful position in the world than you should stay out if all you're doing is muddying the waters (pay attention Ralph Nader).

Posted by: Fred | Feb 23, 2007 3:02:17 PM

I am not entirely sold on all the cases that Kos puts out 9save for Kucinich's mayoral tenure).

Posted by: Karim | Feb 23, 2007 3:12:33 PM

I certainly hope everyone has seen this clip of our man Dennis from the AFSCME debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycFtOBKIXcg
Words fail me.

Posted by: Jake | Feb 23, 2007 3:17:47 PM

Even Kucinich's mayoral tenure is a subject of legitimate debate. Cleveland back then was A Mess, however you wanted to cut it, and it would have been a rough term for anyone. When it all comes down to it, Kucinich's tenure as mayor did no long term damage to Cleveland, and some of his most controversial stances (the Muny Light fight, for instance) very arguably were to Cleveland's long term benefit.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 3:18:14 PM

ALL-ONE!!! DILUTE! DILUTE! OK!

Posted by: rigel | Feb 23, 2007 3:25:32 PM

Nice Dr. Bronner ref, rigel.

For more info on Kucinich's history as mayor of Cleveland, look here. The overview correlates pretty well with what I know about what was going on at the time, and how Kucinich's tenure as mayor is perceived now in Cleveland.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 3:30:01 PM

Heh.

When I read that passage, the term "Moonbat" finally got a face...

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 23, 2007 3:32:00 PM

I'm betting Kos' ancestors in the Toltec and Mayan regions knew exactly what Kucinich is talking about re:
matter/spirit, holy/whole.

We live in a time and a place where it's forbidden to go there.

Too bad.

Posted by: Garuda | Feb 23, 2007 3:36:02 PM

Ok, so I disagree with the new-agey basis for the idea, but what about the idea itself?

We now have a department of homeland security that puts together under one roof and one director all the various government agencies that impact on homeland security. At the time, this was viewed as a good thing. Why is a department of peace so "silly"? Is taking peace as seriously as security that absurd? Why would it be so bad to combine of the current local efforts at community building, international aide efforts, state department diplomacy, and so on? The goal is the same, isn't it?

Posted by: Dan | Feb 23, 2007 3:38:12 PM

The stuff about Kucinich's very disturbing anti-choice background and his apparent mismanagement of Cleveland are completely fair criticisms. The other stuff, not as much.

I'm not really a Kucinich fan, and I'll admit the 'Dept. of Peace' thing struck me as odd when I first heard it. But the language that Markos points to which is apparently supposed to be totally ca-razy really isn't. The idea of 'transforming consciousness' I think just means changing the way people think about things. 'Paradigm shift' is very standard corporate-speak. It's lofty rhetoric, and I'm not saying a Dept. of Peace is necessarily a great idea (though I'm not saying it isn't), but hardly makes him some raving lunatic.

As for the stuff EK quoted about spirit and matter, all he's really doing is putting forth a spiritual/religious view of the world, and frankly it's a view - a type of panpsychism or something - that has a lot more plausibility than, say, Catholicism.

Posted by: Jason | Feb 23, 2007 3:39:03 PM

Kucinich made his shift from anti-choice to pro-choice when he decided to run for national-level offices. Being pro-choice in any proactive way would have been political suicide back when the only political base he needed was the ethnic Catholics on the west side of Cleveland.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 3:45:49 PM

Weren't you guy railing about how terrible the switch is that Romney made?
How is Kucinich any different?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 23, 2007 4:07:39 PM

Fred, I hadn't noticed anyone defending Kucinich's switch in positions. I, for one, am not defending it. I think Kucinich made his switch for the same reason Romney made his switch -- both men wanted to achieve viability with their respective parties on a national level. What either man really believes is, of course, now anyone's guess.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 4:14:39 PM

His rhetoric's overheated, but Kucinich's cosmology--and his sense of the relationship between our bodies and exploding stars--is dead on. It's loopy when the Kuch says it, but how about Wehrner von Braun: "Everything science has taught me— and continues to teach me— strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death. Nothing disappears without a trace."

I agree he's ridiculous, but in such a great way, I just wanna hug the guy. I saw speak him recently, and he told the gathered that we need "a mystical faith in our democracy." That, too, is easy to poke fun at, is indeed risible on its face and will get you laughed out of any political contest where all the "serious people" sit in plush TV studios and bask in easy judgments and comfortable in their understandings of the world that can fit into 10 seconds of dead air. But I'd ask any good secular lib, secure and smug in the reality-based community, to find me a rational grounding for democracy that's based on truths that aren't "self-evident" (i.e., tautologous). I'll be waiting here as the crickets chirp.

Posted by: Brian Cook | Feb 23, 2007 4:15:22 PM

But I'd ask any good secular lib, secure and smug in the reality-based community, to find me a rational grounding for democracy that's based on truths that aren't "self-evident" (i.e., tautologous). I'll be waiting here as the crickets chirp.

Brian, the best I can do for you on such short notice is to refer you to John Rawls. Meanwhile, as a Clevelander who has a certain affection for Kucinich as well, I'll continue to be amused and impressed by the way he's been able to work the not-so-reality-based community.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 4:26:03 PM

Why is a department of peace so "silly"?

Well, I always thought that the State Department (before the current administration, of course) was in charge of keeping things relatively peaceful with aid, diplomacy, etc. What is this peace department supposed to actually do that State specifically would not?

Posted by: latts | Feb 23, 2007 4:38:15 PM

Brian, the best I can do for you on such short notice is to refer you to John Rawls.

Nah, Rawls relies on some explicit unproven assumptions.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 23, 2007 4:56:31 PM

Do you mean things like the artifice of the Original Position, Sanpete? Because if you do, I don't think that's the same thing as saying Rawls relies on propositions that are "self-evident" or tautologous in the rhetorical sense.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 5:14:57 PM

Actually Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate THEN to the US Senate, the demonstrates an ability to move upward in electability.

Obama was elected to the state senate in a solidly Democratic district, and was elected to the U.S. Senate only after his main rival dropped out following a sex scandal and was replaced by Alan Keyes. Obama has only run in one competitive election - and he lost that one.

Posted by: Christmas | Feb 23, 2007 5:24:08 PM

Christmas, tbogg has some things to say about the "Obama only won because Ryan had to drop out" meme. Check it here. Looks like Obama had a lead on Ryan even before ex-wife Jeri's lurid claims became public.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 5:29:14 PM

I don't read Kos much: does he always sound so smug and disingenous? "I really didn't want to trash your guy but you made me." Fucking asshole.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 23, 2007 5:33:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.