MARY ALICE MILLER (11/20/11): Just curious? Where did you get the idea that Barron wants creationism/intelligent design taught in public schools? I missed that memo.
I first called out Chuck Barron on intelligent design on March 13, 2006. It was in the days before I mastered linking, and though I’d read it fairly recent, I could not find the link.
A few weeks later, when a “Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn” (DDDB) sponsored club packing resulted in a near endorsement of Barron by the liberal but not leftist Independent Neighborhood Democrats, I ended up making an impassioned speech pulling out every rabbit from my Barron hat in order to stop it (which I did).
Among the things I cited was “intelligent design.”
DDDB’s Dan Goldstein and his Amen Chorus called me a liar.
I said I read it in Newsday and was hooted with boos and derisive laughter.
Goldstein then committed the unspeakable obscenity of using his technical status as a Jew to defend from charges of anti-Semitism a man who apparently believes that we are the only minority group in the world not entitled to our own nation, and in fact, are not even entitled to our identity as Semites.
And there are those who think Dan Goldstein first forfeited his integrity and became a despicable unspeakable strumpet when he settled his differences with Bruce Ratner for his 30 pieces of silver adjusted for inflation.
The other day when I reprinted the “intelligent design” accusation, I still could not find the link and was restricted to mumbling excuses to Mary Alice, but though the article cannot be linked, it does exist, and yesterday morning it came into my hands.
Despicable anti-Semites always complain about being quoted “out of context;” normally, when a public figure says they were quoted out of context, they are lying.
When Louis Farrakhan called Judaism a gutter religion, there really wasn’t any context that could explain it. Try its sometime:
“Well, in my childhood memories, the gutter was a fun place; it was where we played ‘curve ball’ and ‘Johnny on a Pony’—those in Philly call it ‘buck buck’, it had great resonance upon my formative years, much as Judaism has had such resonance upon Islam, in other words, getting to it’s very gut…hence the term ‘gutter’ religion”.
So herewith, I quote the entire article.
December 21, 2005 Wednesday
New Yorkers take sides on the ruling
BY CURTIS L. TAYLOR. STAFF WRITER
New York reaction yesterday to a court ruling that struck down a Pennsylvania school board's requirement that biology students hear about the concept of "intelligent design" while learning about the theory of evolution split along political and ideological lines.
Many veteran defenders of evolution placed the ruling in the context of an old debate that has pitted scientists against religious fundamentalists for decades.
"I think the judge saw right through the charade," said Bret Bennington, a geology professor at Hofstra University. "I read the ruling and I was impressed at how the judge was able to discern very clearly that intelligent design was a religious doctrine and not science. Even more impressive was that the judge used the testimony for the defense to show unequivocally that intelligent design is not a scientific theory."
But for the Rev. Michael Faulkner of Central Baptist Church on the Upper West Side, intelligent design remains one of the few concepts where "science and the Bible were in agreement."
"This is not a religious issue, but a scientific issue," Faulkner said. "When the Bible speaks about science it is correct, so I think the ruling is a wake-up call that will spur the religious community to action."
However, opponents of the intelligent design movement characterized the ruling as "the final knockout blow."
"There is no question, there are plenty of people who think we should be teaching intelligent design in schools," said Hofstra biology Professor Russell Burke, who teaches a class on evolution every fall.
"This ruling should come as a blow. They will need to do a lot more groundwork before any intelligent design proposal can be developed that would get past the courts."
Still, there was local sentiment that New York's unique diversity should require educators to include the concept of creationism in the curriculum.
City Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn) said the ruling was effectively denying the schools' First Amendment rights to determine curriculum.
"I think both should be taught," said Barron, chairman of the council's Committee on Higher Education. "I don't necessarily think you are teaching religion if you tell students that there is a different account of how this world started."
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) responded similarly: "I believe school districts should have the right to teach intelligent design as part of American culture without saying it's science," he said.
There you have it. Charles Barron thinks it violates the First Amendment not to allow yahoos to impose their religious views on the Science Curriculum.
Apparently, he’s never heard that the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause.
As science, intelligent design is pure fiction. Chuck Barron’s existence alone serves as proof of its absurdity.
I was so happy to have this info drop in my lap that I let Colin have my (six year old) scoop so it would get out sooner.
Colin makes the salient point, which I also made, that Chuckles is something of a social reactionary.
Today Azi broke the big story of Barron's opposition to same sex marriage–over a year after Mary Alice Miller did the same (and a week after I rubbed salt in that wound for the umpteenth time).
This weekend Barron announced his latest run for Congress. Colin posted the truly amazing video.
The saddest thing about this may be how resolutely unfunky Chuck's theme song is (despite some awesome lead vocals from one soloist in the Amen Chorus).
Chuck may be Black and Proud (and says so in those words), but James Brown, he ain't (this song sounds more like Belafonte).
Of course, Brown was a Republican (like fellow Georgian Herman Cain, he was also rich, which probably explains it), but judging by the response on Colin's Facebook Page, a Barron victory would be a GOP wet dream:
Artur FiftyThree Percent Sadowski: This is awesome, i hope he wins, he will be the next laughingstock to be a modern day Cynthia Mckinney
Colin Campbell: Aye, I could see a Congressman Charles Barron being used in ads to scare swing voters in flyover country
Artur FiftyThree Percent Sadowski: Exactly, the Democrats will win that seat no matter what, but if Barron wins it then the vote he will provide them will be worth mess less than the election votes the Democrats will lose nationally if he is targetted in ads.
This is something I myself predicted in 2006:
If they are really serious about inflicting damage upon the national Democratic Party, there's one New York congressional race, currently appearing on neither party's list of targeted seats, to which Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman should be directing massive Republican resources. That is New York's 10th Congressional District, currently held by Democrat Edolphus "ET" Towns. And, already there is evidence that "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" has figured this out.
ET's seat is prohibitively Democratic, and there's no conceivable scenario under which it will change partisan hands. In fact, last time out, for no apparently reason, the local Republican Party did everything it could to successfully put an end to the candidacy of the one person committed to taking the Republican line and trying to run an actual race…
There is a good case to be made that ET is the preferable choice for Republicans. ET is a man of no fixed allegiance beyond personal expedience, who supported Bush on CAFTA and recently took a walk on a close and important budget vote. In 1997, his eclectic politics of convenience were nicely illustrated when his endorsement of Al Sharpton in the Democratic mayoral primary served as political foreplay for his general election endorsement of Republican Rudolph Giuliani (rumor has it that ET nearly had a heart attack, and was forced to cancel a previously scheduled day-after-the-primary Rudy endorsement press conference, when it appeared that Sharpton had unexpectedly forced a runoff). The next year, ET did the dirty deed again, this time on behalf of Al D'Amato. ET is well known for his willingness to trade his vote for pork (or, in the case of his Satmar constituents, pastrami) regardless of the issue and notwithstanding his prior record. In a district as prohibitively Democratic as the 10th, ET is as close as the Republican are going to get to a dream come true. But this year, Republicans can do even better with ET's strongest likely primary opponent, City Councilman Charles Barron, a former Black Panther who has been quoted to the effect that he would like to slap a few white people around for mental health reasons (Chuck, have you considered Prozac instead?)
There may actually be a few issues on which the Bush administration might find Barron preferable to ET. Barron is on record favoring the teaching of "intelligent design theory" in the public schools. And, given that pro-Israel groups were wary of granting control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, Barron would probably have supported the President in his efforts to do so. Barron's black nationalist ideology offers further promise, given the long history record of black militants migrating to the far right (e.g., Eldridge Cleaver and Roy Innes) without ever stopping at liberalism. Certainly, Lewis Farrakhan, a Barron buddy, has almost no problem with the agenda of the Religious Right, although Farrakhan's homophobia is a bit more pronounced. But, the limited possibility of getting Barron's support on a few issues has virtually nothing to do with why the Republicans should be excited about having Barron in Congress.
There is almost no chance that, beyond an enterprise zone here or there, Barron will support any of the Bush administration's economic agenda (unless Barron can be persuaded that the actuarials render Social Security a conspiracy against people of color; and, this is not impossible). Like many former Panthers, Barron has not been sold on the idea that Karl Marx is as much of a "Dead White European Male" as Adam Smith. In actuality, this suits the Republican Party just fine, for Charles Barron's face is exactly what they want the American people to envision when they form a picture in their mind's eye of a liberal Democrat.
Some of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" has already figured this out. Just this week on Fox, Sean Hannity took delight in displaying Barron in all his glory, while Barron's name flashed on the screen with a (D) next to it. Because Barron is currently little more than a local curiosity, the impact of such appearances is currently limited, in the same way that it was when Klansman and former Louisiana legislator David Duke's name used to appear on television with an (R). But, Barron's election to Congress will convert him from a local curiosity to a national embarrassment.
Republican direct mail fundraising would no longer include a picture of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank, or inflammatory quotes from Jim McDermott, Jim Moran or Christine McKinney. Barron would become the Republican Party's new Democratic poster boy of choice; moreover, Barron has a treasure trove of quotations Republican strategists will find more useful than "Bartlett's", and he is constantly at work creating new ones every day. Imagine Karl Rove's delight, when Democrats running in marginal districts are confronted on camera with the Hobson's choice of either disavowing a Barron quote and alienating African-American voters (and the Republicans will pay for ads on black radio rebroadcasting any such disavowels) or not disavowing him and alienating middle-of-the-road swing voters. And, just wait for the moment in the next presidential race when the Democratic nominee is similarly confronted with the opportunity to comment upon Barron's antics. Republicans will be so delighted by the possibilities Barron's election presents that he'll probably be invited to Fox News nearly every night to give the Democratic viewpoint. Hell, they'll probably give him his own show. And, did I mention the Jews?
In all candor, I have to admit that Barron is a man of considerable wit and charm; but so is Pat Buchanan. And, I'll also admit that some of Barron's more controversial remarks do not bother me in the least. He doesn't like Thomas Jefferson? Neither does Conor Cruise O'Brien. And, what's so wrong with pointing out that while Jefferson was creating some of the most beautiful prose poems ever written in praise of human liberty, he was singing those words to the tune of "Lay Down Sally"? Nonetheless, I would rather hear such things discussed on television by Henry Louis Gates (or if absolutely necessary, Cornell West) than by a Democratic Congressman with a predilection for publicly fantasizing about interracial S&M….
Most of this still holds true. ET is still selling out to the GOP oriented business interest of the month, while his other opponent, Hakeem Jeffries, also has some appeal to Republicans on at least one issue.
But only Chuck is a GOP dream come true. Elect Chuck and they’ll forget Barney Frank even existed.
Take that speech. It was almost as if Chuck had sat down with my latest column about him, and made sure to hit each and every note I found repugnant.
He bragged about how he will attack Israel. He urged electeds to be more like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. He called Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe his heroes (He did forget Assad who certainly has the credential to make Chuck’s hero list.).
He bragged about not saluting the flag and he race baited shamelessly (“WE are the 99% of the 99%”—someone should teach Chuck math; “YOUR oppression.”).
Chuck is literally the Tea Party's delusional fantasy of an "Obama Democrat" come to life.
As a real "Obama Democrat," I feel obligated to puke.
Chuck Barron is a sick, bigoted and dangerous demagogue, and a truck bomb headed straight at the Democratic Party. His defeat is a moral imperative, even if it means another term of Ed Towns.
I pray it does not come to that.