Thursday, July 29, 2004

LEFTOVER CRACK ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Now here is some provocative, political punk rock.  I found myself agreeing with a lot of the things they had to say, which you can get an idea of from the song titles, like "Clear Channel (Fuck Off)," "Life Is Pain," and even the album's title "Fuck World Trade." But the song "One Dead Cop" is where I have to take exception--it exhorts listeners to "Kill Cops..."

Granted, you can barely understand it as it's being sung, but it's right there in the lyric sheet. I do agree with them that the police are "protecting the money and out serving the state/crushing the people with the laws they create" (from the song "Gang Control"). But I can't agree with killing anyone, cops or criminals. Unless maybe the cops are the criminals and they won't be deterred any other way.

I don't know--I really found myself questioning my beliefs as I listened to the album. Leftover Crack really has some extreme left-wing politics, which I like, but I guess what makes me uncomfortable are the methods of bringing their politics to fruition that they advocate.

For example, I can relate to the sentiment of "Burn Them Prisons." It is very much of a piece with that favorite Eugene Debs quote of Kurt Vonnegut's:

"While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free."


But the lyrics of the song are "We'll bomb the police state/assassinate the magistrate/we'll go to every town and burn them fuckin' prisons down." Again with the killing.

And of course, the closest analogue to Leftover Crack that I'm familiar with is the Dead Kennedys (I understand they're very much like Crass also, but I'm not very well-versed in their stuff at all). The thing is, the DKs seemed to use much more hyperbole and satire ("Kill The Poor", etc.). Their lyrics were over the top politically, so you got their point, but they seemed less radical (by which I mean they didn't advocate killing people--I mean, they didn't like the cops, but they never said that cops should be killed--to my knowledge) than Leftover Crack.

That's why I'm kind of thrown off a little bit by Leftover Crack. There's not really any humor to speak of--maybe in "Rock The 40 oz." But if that's humor, it's slight and nonexistent for all practical purposes. Really, there's nothing reassuring about Leftover Crack, like I always kind of felt there was with Dead Kennedys, Sex Pistols, the Clash, the Minutemen, etc.

Life is all blackness and hopelessness and the only way out of it is to kill cops, they seem to be saying. I generally would agree with the first part, but I have to take exception to the second part. That's one of the main problems with society, is that everyone is always trying to solve problems with violence.

Obligatory Michael Moore Section

It reminds me of one of the best Michael Moore ideas--I believe it's from "Downsize This." I can't remember exactly how he set it up, but it was something like an open letter to Arafat, in which Moore basically sympathizes with the Palestinian people. But he points out that the Palestinians cede the moral high ground with their suicide bombings.

So Moore asks Arafat in the letter if he's not familiar with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. He points out that they got what they wanted through nonviolence. He even goes on to say that war can and often has fallen short of helping nations achieve what they want, but he points out that nonviolent protest has never failed.

Back To Crack

So anyway, in any event, I wouldn't sit around and listen to Leftover Crack for pleasure. But I do think that they have an important, and desirable, anti-corporate message. I just wish they wouldn't talk about killing cops. I might just be missing the wink (hey, could someone start using that for someone who doesn't get something that's tongue-in-cheek)--you know, like maybe they're going "wink, wink, we don't actually mean for anyone to actually kill cops, we're just expressing the outrage of the oppressed in extreme terms." And that very well may be the case.

I would sit around and listen to Chumbawamba's new album "Un" for pleasure, though. They're basically just as lefty as Leftover Crack, but they're even more subversive because their songs are so pleasant and catchy, yet so crafty and just-subtle-enough that the message seeps into the brain of the unsuspecting listener bopping to the beat. And Chumbawamba's got a sense of humor about it.

And that's not to say that the literal plundering of the world and the literal sacrifice of the good of the world's people for higher profits by corporations is in any way funny. But what a coup (pun intended) to turn public opinion against such things with the cold, hard truth and a belly laugh now and again. Because we're all going to die, so why not have a chuckle once in a while?

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

CONTEXT COUNTS, PART THE SECOND ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...
Just played a gig in Memphis at the Blue Monkey with Tucson Simpson (who were super nice and a great band), so spent Monday driving back and didn't read Raimondo's Monday column, "Do We Want A War Criminal As President?" until today.  I guess my "Context Counts" entry didn't change the national debate on Kerry's status as a war criminal.

Well, anyhoo, I had to respond, so here's my letter to's Backtalk section.

I look forward to reading Justin Raimondo's column every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.  I find to be an invaluable resource for countering the pro-war misinformation that taints other outlets.  I truly appreciate the fact that Raimondo's columns always challenge conventional wisdom, are exquisitely sourced, and display a level of acrid wit  and non-conformist intellectual honesty unmatched by few pundits.

Having said that, I don't always agree with Raimondo and sometimes take great exception to what he has to say.  His column of July 26 ("Do We Want A War Criminal As President?") is one of those.  In particular, he links to an mp3 of John Kerry supposedly admitting to "war crimes" in Vietnam.  The problem is that Raimondo, like the most of the rest of the media, quotes Kerry incompletely, missing the point of his remarks entirely.

The mp3 quotes Kerry thusly:

"I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.   All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions..."

But the key second part of that last sentence is cut off--here's the full sentence (these quotes can be found here): " All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." 


And then the rest that always gets left out in discussion of these particular remarks of Kerry's: "And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Raimondo's column mischaracterizes what Kerry said about himself when Raimondo says "listen here as he [Kerry] confesses to what he himself describes as 'war crimes'."  Did Raimondo even listen to the clip?  Kerry never once utters the phrase "war crimes" or "war criminal" in reference to himself or anyone else--in that particular clip.  As you can see, he does eventually get around to accusing people like Johnson, Nixon, and McNamara of being war criminals--but not by name.

Now Kerry did refer to committing "atrocities," but that is not what Raimondo says he said.  Are "atrocities" the same thing as "war crimes"?  Maybe so or maybe not,  but either way, that's not what Kerry said in the mp3 Raimondo linked to.  And it's not in the mp3 because it's not what Kerry said back in 1971.

The point is that Kerry was explaining out how the Vietnam War itself was a crime which forced all who took part in it to be criminals because of the rules of engagement put in place by our government.  And he had the intellectual and moral honesty to acknowledge his own role in those events.  And then he had the intellectual and moral courage to try to atone for that role by helping (and I might add, succeeding) to bring an end to that tragic conflict.   Long story short, the fair way to interpret Kerry's remarks is that he was saying that anyone who fought in Vietnam committed atrocities--be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, liberal, conservative, or what have you.

I would think that John Kerry, of all people, might be treated to a tough yet fair-minded critique by Justin Raimondo, seeing as how he actually fought in a war and then worked to stop that same war.  That people now selectively use Kerry's words and treat them as though they mean the opposite of what they actually say is something that I would think Raimondo would be vigorously against.  He's howled in more than one column about how he's been misquoted and misinterpreted.

Kerry has not taken an antiwar position, and I wish he would, but I am afraid that if he does, he will lose.  And if Kerry loses, Bush wins and the country loses.  Like it or not, there are only two real choices in this election--Bush or Kerry.  I wish that were not so and I would work to see more parties built up and injected into the national debate--that's the main reason I voted for Nader in 2000 (Gore had no chance in my home state of Mississippi).

I hope Raimondo will keep up the good work.  Our country needs him, but it needs him to be accurate.  And to answer his question--no, we don't want a war criminal as president--we're in the process of trying to throw one out of the White House.



Tuesday, July 13, 2004

A THEOLOGY LESSON ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

If Bush wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage," he should be proposing a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce. After all, here's what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had to say about divorce:

"Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery." Mark 10

Sounds to me like Rush Limbaugh is an adulterer a few times over. So is Newt Gingrich. So is John Kerry, for that matter. And adultery is a sin--it's in the mothergrabbin' Ten Commandments, for the love of Pete.

How many times did Jesus mention homosexuality? NONE!!!

Case closed--this amendment will never pass, it's vile and purely political gamesmanship. Bush is a terrible president, the radical right is un-American, hateful, and both are about to get a major smackdown come November.

Being gay does not destroy society; gay marriage does not destroy society. There is absolutely no proof of that. But many studies have shown that the outrageous divorce rate in America is having an enormously negative effect on our society.

"Truth is not the secret of a few..." Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Monday, July 12, 2004

3 QUICK THINGS ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

1. Election postponement/cancellation:
Unnecessary, ill-advised, and scary as's as though Bush is begging to be impeached right away so as to keep something like this from happening before we can do anything about it. I mean, come on, if there's a terrorist attack in a major city or even several major cities, that shouldn't stop the rest of the country from voting. On 9/11, we down here in Mississippi went about our lives pretty much as usual but kept a close eye on goings-on up north.

Also, on that point, if Tom Ridge and his boys are able to detect "chatter" from terrorists, why can't they locate the terrorists? I mean, if they know their whereabouts enough to know where to listen for them, why can't they catch them? Do they not want to catch them? Are the terrorists and their vague threats useful to Ridge and Bush so that, maybe, I don't know, a terrorist attack could be faked, the election postponed, and then Bush automatically gets four more years since there's no way he'll be re-elected without such a scenario or something similar.

2. Stem-cell research:
This is a no-brainer--it should be legal. It promises to be the most significant advance in health care in a very long time if not ever. And Orrin Hatch was just on Hardball (this should be where the transcript will appear) condemning Ron Reagan Jr. and the Democrats for "politicizing" the issue. Bush politicized it almost 3 years ago when he issued an executive order against it. Does Orrin Hatch (on skis) really expect any citizen with half a brain that he is against politicizing issues?

3. Gay marriage:
I think John Kerry and John Edwards ought to run on a campaign of adding a constitutional amendment of outlawing divorce. If anything is ruining families and hurting our society, it's divorce. I mean, even Jesus said that if you divorce someone and then have sex with another person, it's adultery. Gay marriage hurts no one. Again, on Hardball, Chris Matthews was suggesting that homosexuals are more promiscuous than straight people and Orrin "Don't politicize anything" Hatch does nothing to counter that impression. Straight people are pretty damn promiscuous, too. And Hatch kept saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to "impose" their values on society, implying that it's okay with him if straights impose their values on gays. And he thinks that because a majority of Americans in a certain poll said that they disapprove of gay marriage, that's all the authority anyone needs to disallow it. But people's opinions about an issue aren't what should make our laws--what should form the basis of our laws is that which is fair and decent to all citizens.

Oh, and in a speech today, Bush said that invading Iraq was right even without the presence of WMD because he didn't want to run the risk of Saddam aiding terrorists. So, as my wife pointed out, he'd rather go after someone who might help terrorists and who was not himself a terrorist (to the U.S.anyway) rather than tracking down the known terrorists who attacked us. What a chump.

Not only that, but it looks the Filipinos are more humanitarian than we are. I guess maybe some of that "Christianizin'" we did about a hundred years ago paid off...what happened to us? We send people over to foreign countries to die for lies, then don't negotiate even though lives could be saved...

Sunday, July 11, 2004

MY WHITE ASS CAN BE PRESIDENT...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

G.(ee) W.(hiz) Bush, master of timing and put-downs, implied that John Edwards pales in comparison to Dick Cheney in terms of experience when Bush was asked what of thought of Kerry's VP choice. What Bush said was, "Dick Cheney can be president."

Bush's razor-sharp wit and biting, incisive commentary save the day! Except for two things: 1) Dick Cheney is the president, and 2) my white ass or anyone's white or black or brown or red ass can be president under the following circumstances:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

That is of course, from the U.S. Constitution, which I realize is a document that Bush and his pals don't take too seriously. But under those guidelines, not only could John Edwards be president, but I could be president. My wife could be president. My dog Skeeter could be president (in people years--oh wait, the language does say you have to be something called a "person").

Check This Out
Here's something interesting that I just discovered--if you go to Google and type in "bushcheney04" and then click on the first entry, it takes you to!!! I looked up Bush's site so I could find out for sure what his experience was before he was installed as president by those goddamn activist judges he and his buddies hate so much. Apparently his only qualifications were two terms as governor of Texas, and he only served half of the second term even though he lost the presidential election in 2000 but again, was installed in the White House by the Supreme Court.

If I Were...
If I were a nationally known news personality, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity might be inclined to say "Look at this liberal bastard--he's helping to perpetuate the lie that Bush lost the election and only came to power through the partisan machinations of the Supreme Court." And they would be right about everything except the part about all that being a lie.

The only reason that George Bush is president right now is that even though Gore undisputedly won the majority of the popular vote, that majority did not take to the streets or storm the White House in order to morally or physically prevent him from taking the oath of office. Why? Because liberals and Democrats believe in law and order and in the orderly transfer of power, even if it doesn't seem quite right. Hey, no one can win all the time.

But as Buzzflash points out in this news analysis, the Bushies don't believe that and will stop at nothing to win elections. Let's not forget the the redistricting fiascos in Texas (nice summary and then final outcome)and Colorado (nice summary and final outcome). In fact, a sentence in the Washington Post article about Colorado from last year says it very well: "According to experts in the field, there is no precedent in modern U.S. politics for what the Texas and Colorado Republicans did." That applies generally to most hardcore Republicans--they like to violate precedents and pretend that the generally perceived understandings and unlegislated traditions (i.e., redistricting only once a decade instead of every time the balance of power changes) that keep our government somewhat in check don't exist. For example, they think nothing of handing out the largest tax cuts in history to the wealthiest citizens while waging an illegal, unprovoked war after losing an election and having been installed by the unelected Supreme Court (the conservapundits always love to point out that the Supreme Court and federal judges in general are not elected).

Bush Can't Win Legitimately--He Didn't Last Time
But, not to worry, because there is no way John Kerry will lose this election--the only chance Bush has is to cheat like last time. Kerry is the most qualified, the most dignified, the richest, the most benevolent, and the most rockin' candidate. In fact, I'm glad Kerry pointed out that of the two tickets, he and Edwards have the best hair. That means Kerry learned something from the 2000 election--and that is that substance means nothing to the American media, but image means everything to them. That remark showed he has a sense of humor and also that Dick Cheney is mean, fat and bald. And that he drinks orphaned children's blood from the hollowed out skulls of "liberated" Iraqis. And using Cheney's own standards of proof (fifth paragraph), what I just said must be true, because it has never been proven...or disproven.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

IF YOU WANT BLOOD (YOU GOT IT)...a vote for bush is a vote against yourself...

Now the battle is joined...Kerry and Edwards. I'm glad on just last names alone that the choice is Edwards and not Gephardt or Vilsack. Those last two names are sort of anatomical and would probably be played upon--Dick has "heart" and will give heart trouble to Dick Cheney, and Vilsack would probably become "Vilnutsack" in graffiti.

I'd pontificate more, but what can you say? A Kerry-Edwards ticket is badass. Beats Bush-Cheney any day of the week, just like Gore-Lieberman beat it last time. And I'll say it again--I believe there is no way that Bush can legitimately win this election. He may end up "winning," but it won't be because he actually got the most votes. The only way Bush can win is if he gets his daddy's powerful friends to help him like last time.

At any rate, my fantasy is that the new campaign theme song for Kerry-Edwards would be AC/DC's "If You Want Blood (You Got It)," directed of course, at the Republican attack machine. Because we want them to bleed for the metaphorical sense, of course. Maybe Audioslave or some other American band with a good shrieker could do a version. But in the meantime, "I Won't Back Down" will work.


And by the way, is Fahrenheit 9/11 propaganda or truth? I only ask because that is swiftly becoming the story line accepted/parroted by mainstream commercial journalists/pundits without much if any evidence to back that up. What the hell is propaganda anyway? An interesting website on the matter is here.

No one can agree on what propaganda is, but everyone seems to agree it's bad. Or maybe everyone could agree that propaganda is relative--it's whatever I think is true but you think is false and vice versa. It seems that a lot of people think of propaganda as being untrue and dishonest, but if you go by the defintion at, which says:

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

That's a very non-judgmental definition and describes the actions of both Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. So I guess Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda, but only to the degree that the programs of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are.


A: Defenders of the little guy against the corporate greedmongers that have been after the working people in this country since they first came into being. So Haley Barbour and Ed Gillespie and Governor Bush (George W., not Jeb--well, Jeb too, but I'm trying to make a jab at George W.'s unelected status) need to cool it with the tort reform talk.

Better a trial lawyer in the White House than a heart-attack-prone, foul-mouthed, war pig oilman. Yes, we're talking about he whose dick is in chains...

Oh, and one last thing...why is it OK in crazy Republican philosophy to be a billionaire if you're a dirty, underhanded CEO but it's an affront to voters if you married into money? The old line on Kerry was that he was a conniving sack of shit for marrying a fantastically wealthy heiress, and the new one that Beck and Limbaugh tried out today was that "Kerry is a billionaire." No comment or anything, just saying that Kerry is a billionaire, and therefore a sack of shit. Because he wants to be president instead of a labor-exploiting, exorbitant-salary-making CEO.

OK, this is the real last, brief thing...McCain had a chance to do something extraordinary by running with Kerry and turned it down to shill for the guy who cut him off at the knees in the 2000 primary. Is this the kind of thing that vast life experience brings you to? McCain is a war hero, he survived the Hanoi Hilton, and he's served in government for years. He gets an opportunity to really make a difference and stick it to Bush, and he ends up being Bush's warm-up act?

It reminds me of my father, who has a Ph.D in thermodynamics, has visited Europe and Africa, has worked with and taught people from all over the world, and who is one hell of an intelligent guy. He was liberal through my childhood and a lot of my youth, but admitted to me in 2000 that he's become a single-issue voter and that his single issue is abortion. I'm flabbergasted that after all that experience over 60-odd years, his mind closes. It closes rather than opens. His vote hinges on one issue that doesn't even affect him directly. If McCain and my dad are examples of what happens to a person once they accumulated years of experience and knowledge, then...that sucks!

My wife gave me a quote today from Tolstoy that kind of summarizes this situation:

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

Monday, July 05, 2004

BECOME THE MEDIA...a vote for bush is a vote against yourself...

Today Rush Limbaugh poo-pooed the idea of "the public airwaves." He said that the idea of public ownership of the airwaves is "poppycock." Then he went on to defend the FCC's fines of Howard Stern because of Stern's supposed violation of "decency statutes."

It's so typical of the dittohead mindset that Rush could simultaneously pronounce the public ownership of the airwaves to be null and void while at the same time upholding the right of the trustees of those airwaves to selectively enforce decency standards. What Rush is basically saying is that the airwaves are subject to market forces like any other commodity and that he and his blathering brethren have sewn up the market and the FCC should exist to intimidate and fine their competitors off the dial.

The idea that the airwaves should be subject to market forces culminated in the 1987 repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" by Reagan FCC appointees. Of course, this paved the way for the rise of right-wing radio, discussed here with some good links.

It seems to me that Rush and his hateful, anti-American breed are guilty of the ultimate act of indecency themselves--promoting the pursuit of profit at any cost over the security and well-being of the majority of the American public. They're in favor of "free trade," "tort reform," "family values," etc.--anything that has a pleasant-sounding name but actually serves to diminish the rights and well-being of individuals while strengthening the military-industrial stranglehold on our culture. Oh yeah, and "deregulation" above all else. You know what a good synonym for their definition of "deregulation" is? Feudalism.

These guys try to serve up a big, steaming plate of horseshit to their mostly white, working-class, religious listeners while telling them it's filet mignon. If only these listeners would say "there is some shit I will not eat..."

I thought this story on self-made millionaires dovetailed nicely with this discussion...


By the by, my letter to the editor regarding "Fahrenheit 9/11" was printed in the Hattiesburg American along with another letter in favor of the movie. We both got taken to task by another letter writer. I present all the letters for your amusement below...

We're victims of mind control


Greetings from the mind-controlled state of Mississippi. Michael Moore's politically incorrect movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," opened on 1,000 screens nationwide to rave reviews - only one of which was in Mississippi (the Malco Cinema 10 in Tupelo). If people in South Mississippi want to see the film, they can go to Mobile or New Orleans.

It's interesting to note that the equally controversial "The Passion of the Christ" was shown everywhere in Mississippi; it was thought by many to be anti-Semitic.

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself," said Potter Stewart, former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robert R. Regl,


Originally published Tuesday, June 29, 2004

OK, then my letter again...

No need to fear 'Fahrenheit 9/11'


Michael Moore's new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" should be seen by every voter before the election in November, as it is a brilliant synopsis of what should have been in the major news media since 2000.

Unfortunately, Tupelo is currently the only city in Mississippi where the movie is playing, so I went to see it in New Orleans with my wife and some friends. Why any theater owner or distributor in this area would not want to make some money from this movie is beyond me - the showings in New Orleans were sold out Friday and Saturday (the night we went), and reports are much the same across the country.

The movie is as "fair and balanced" as any Rush Limbaugh broadcast, and it shows the ill effects the Iraq war has had on the Iraqi people as well as the toll it has taken on our country and our brave soldiers.

There is no need to fear "Fahrenheit 9/11" - unless your name is George W. Bush.

Clinton Kirby,


Originally published Tuesday, June 29, 2004

And then the brilliant response to both of these letters...

'Fahrenheit' twists truth


It astounds me to think that anyone ("We're victims of mind control," June 29) would find it hard to believe that people are as interested in a far left movie created by Michael Moore as they would be about Jesus Christ and his sacrifice.

Please understand that many people are aware of Michael Moore's poor credibility based on his past. He stated that his` movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," is based on facts, while time after time over the last several days, both liberal and conservative broadcasts have shown how statements and news were taken out of text to present a one-sided documentary.

For example, in the movie, Mr. Moore only inserted a portion of the president's response to a question about terrorism in Israel. Mr. Moore made it appear that the president was talking about Iraq instead of Israel, which completely changed the reasoning of his response.

The only reason Mr. Moore does this is to mislead those who are not educated on current affairs in hopes they will believe this garbage. He hopes to persuade people and turn votes towards the more liberal ticket.

In respect to Mr. Kirby's statement ("No need to fear 'Fahrenheit 9/11'" June 29) about how the movie shows the ill effects the war has taken on Iraq, I just saw the latest poll taken in Iraq that shows 95 percent of the people support the overthrow of the horrible regime.

Mr. Kirby also said the movie was fair and balanced. This movie has already been proven to be so unbalanced that it wobbles.

Please keep in mind that Mr. Moore makes a living by focusing on people who either don't know the facts or would rather ignore them. Don't fall into his trap and let Mr. Moore laugh all the way to the bank with your money.

God bless America and our leaders.

Gary Jackson, Poplarville

Originally published Friday, July 2, 2004

Oh, and one last thing...this blog is now located by Google...if you type in "lefthandedleftist" rather than "left-handed leftist"...

And a fellow blogger has taken notice of the Left-Handed Leftist...