Ruth Bader Ginsburg as eugenics mastermind

Yes, according to National Review.

But this isn't news. They ran a toned-down version in 2009. Why the revival? Because she said one other thing recently that could be similarly misinterpreted, so NR couldn't pass up the opportunity.

Here's what actually happened according to the person who conducted the interview. However, you won't see National Review running any clarifications, corrections, or apologies. Either the National Review actually thinks a Supreme Court justice is pro-eugenics, or they have no scruples about lying in that way. Amazing.

Now I think Ted Cruz is a demagogue who'd say almost anything, but I don't think he's a secret Nazi. But some people actually find it credible that Ginsburg could be the equivalent of a Nazi. Isn't that amazing?

Most likely, thought processes aren't involved, so these readers of National Review don't actually THINK Ginsburg supports eugenics. Instead, a NR writer tells them this, and they start repeating it because they are complete moron zipperheads with no thoughts of their own. Yes, now we're in a familiar and credible landscape. Partisan idiots will 1) believe lots of crap, and 2) repeat all of it. That's the price of reading politics these days.

And the writer of this trash--Kevin Williamson ... again. Another non-surprise. Sigh.

Now judging your fitness to reproduce - the Notorious RBG

Image: badgirlchats.com

Rant: Kevin Williamson is still lying about race

I was extremely pissed off last year about Kevin Williamson's lying piece about how the GOP was so great on civil rights and the Dems (all of them mentioned by name) were horrible.

Well, Williamson has another one. It's not as bad this time because it contains an interesting story about Goldwater helping with desegregation--and all these stories are worth knowing... when they are actually true. But Williamson isn't content to tell the true tales of the good GOP, he must bash each and every Democrat. So Lyndon Johnson isn't the president who pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. No, he "was gutting anti-lynching laws and assuring Democrats that he would offer those 'uppity Negroes' 'just enough to quiet them down.'"

The gospel according to Williamson is that Dems never did anything to help blacks gain their civil rights. AND THAT IS A CONTEMPTIBLE LIE. Did I ever say that I HATE LIES? I think I did.

The good news is that lies aren't winning elections so much anymore. That is wonderful--that the lies aren't winning. So you liars out there, your days are numbered. Whatever you try to hide, it ain't going to stay hidden.

Hat tip: Bernstein and The American Prospect

Hey Kevin, I found some missing Democrats.

Image: wikipedia.org

Short: Bernstein takes down the GOP civil rights claims

This could be a "History for Amnesiacs" post if I had done the research. But instead, it's a Bernstein self-Catch of the Day wherein he catches a guest writer for the National Review fibbing about the GOP's and Dems' roles in the civil rights struggles. A current conservative talking point is that the Dems were segregationists and the GOP were heroes in the civil rights struggles (scoff, scoff). And, of course, Robert Byrd was KKK, DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT!!!!!!!

The comments by Kylopod and Anon are informative. The comments by the NRO writer (Kevin Williamson) are lies, and that's what I call them right there. Plain writing and zero deference for liars--that's what I strive for.

Update 2/15/13. This is a better analysis of the GOP's admirable role in civil rights legislation and their strategies in the 60's and beyond. There was a time long ago when the National Review aimed for truth about civil rights.

Update 6/14/16. Another interesting article about party alignment on civil rights issues. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it's definitely worth reading. Note how it doesn't discuss anything beyond the 1960's. Are we supposed to assume GOPers are still for segregation?

Update 11/15/19. No surprise, but I still see conservatives pretend that the racial sins of the Democratic Party in the past are somehow still relevant and operative now. Then, a breath or two later, they'll deny there was a Republican southern strategy. This isn't new, but it's an oldie that keeps turning up. Bruce Bartlett proposed this view in the book Wrong on Race. Kevin Williamson (writer for the National Review) and too many commenters keep this fable going.