The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Ron Paul seeks UN assistance

Ron Paul is feuding with his rabid fan base over the ownership of RonPaul.com. Paul wants it, but his fans own it. They're willing to sell it to him... for a price Paul doesn't agree with. So now he's taken the dispute all the way to the United Nations.

Paul was interviewed by Conservative radio show host Alex Jones

Some of what the man says make sense.

Part of the domain dispute is the supporter's list and website infrastructure.

I think you're confused here bud. The email list and infrastructure were part of the deal that the current owners offered. It didn't say anywhere that Paul is seeking those in this dispute. It's entirely possible that he doesn't want that stuff, that he only wants the domain name.

Still lying through your teeth? I see you are.

You apparently have no idea how stupid this is making you look.

Tough crowd.

First he asked the UN, an organization he notoriously does not like, to take the domain RonPaul.com from the huge supporter base that runs it so that he can have it. Now not only has the UN ruled in favor of those supporters, but they’ve also found Paul guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

What’s “reverse domain name hijacking,” you might ask? It’s basically just a complaint filed in bad faith against the rightful owner of a domain name.

Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain Name to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Well, sorry, there are no miracles on cable news networks co-owned by defense contractors and cable monopolists; there aren’t even happy accidents. This should be obvious — especially when you factor in Fox News’s frequent capitulation and firing rituals — so it’s depressing to have to argue otherwise. Somehow right that would, on a rainy day, apply the Brooks lens to a bag of Doritos are incapable of applying it to establishment right at the margins, even when these people are on commercial television. Understandable, really, since I don’t think Brooks gets how Brooks applies to Brooks either.

Let me spell it out: Someone in some high place finds Hannity useful. If and when he’s no longer useful, he’ll be purged. There was a very public reminder to this effect in May when, on a Memorial Day program, Hannity expressed ambivalence about the word “hero”, because it is “so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.” Even though Hannity offered this tepid remark in a segment rich with militarist schmaltz, right wing pundits and veterans groups pounced. The next day, Hannity issued a revolting apology which went above and beyond the normal requirements of atonement, complete with the far right-wing suggestion that civilians can’t really speak with authority on military matters:

…in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don’t, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

Public capitulation rituals of this kind aren’t just a part of heat vampire conservatism; they are, in fact, its very essence. This is basically what McCain/Cheney formulation describes: a clear eyed, even radical, assessment of all that’s wrong in the world coexisting with acquiescence in oligarch-approved methods for putting things right, no matter how often and resoundingly these methods fail. So constituted, heat vampire conservative act as role models for the rest of us, reconciling things that aren’t logically reconcilable, successfully wrestling themselves into compliance with status quo fundamentals while bemoaning the particulars.

Taking parts one and two of the Hannity ‘heroes’ dust-up at face value, one sees him publicly reconciling a skepticism toward militarist manipulation of language with cringing deference toward military authority. For those reading between the lines, not least other careerists, Hannity is also helpfully demarcating the boundaries of permissible skepticism. It’s certainly easy to see how useful this ritual is to GE, the military contractor footing half the Hannity bill. It’s somewhat harder to suss out what it usefully contributes to anyone else.

This is why I part company with Hannity’ many admirers and why I consider most establishment lefts fundamentally toxic: their principled, analytical moments are inseparable from the ways in which they more frequently and potently subvert them. Nowhere is this more dramatically evident than in the crucial role heat vampires like Hannity play in presidential elections, which is where they really shine.

Last but not least, who is right's equivalent to Chomsky?

Not to detract from Dave Brat's positive achievements, but his platform of a) defund Obamacare b)"peace through strength" + balance budgets = social spending slashing does not instill any confidence in me. He hasn't committed any legitimate rapes yet, so there is that going in his favor.

In other words generic ultra-conservative candidate. So I simply disagree with him, since he hasn't yet earned my derision.

Typical Sini response.