Who Is Paul Mulshine?

On December 15th, Newark Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine quoted a controversial excerpt from an old Ron Paul newsletter, then doubled-down in defending it. I find it curious that a large, mostly liberal newspaper in New Jersey would prop up supposedly conservative, Ron Paul supporting columnist Paul Mulshine to represent the Right given some of Mulshine's musing and his own newsletter past.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Oh my God! How could someone write such a thing? Perhaps because it's not just opinion polls that show that few blacks have sensible political opinions. Have these guys ever read election returns? Exit polls? 

For the record, Mulshine considers himself far more enlightened than we lowly bloggers, even taking to the Wall Street Journal to tell us so.

If you haven’t read this morning’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, “All I Wanted for Christmas Was a Newspaper”, it’s just the kind of arrogant-clueless screed by a newspaperman against the blogosphere that elicits first anger, then pity.

As for other Conservatives, former Reagan speech writer Jeffrey Lord, who now writes at the American Spectator, is "perhaps the worst writer among the so-called "neo" conservative pundits, a dreadful bunch of prose stylists...." Limbaugh and Hannity are also mere neo-cons, in Mulshine's vernacular, and author of "Liberty and Tyranny" and the soon to be released "Ameritopia", Mark Levin is a Marxist, according to the Ledger's one true conservative, Paul Mulshine. How can you take a guy like that seriously?

Yet, here is the masterful Mulshine weighing in on AIDS in an old David Horowitz newsletter of sorts, Heterodoxy in January 1994. Does this sound like an enlightened Conservative to you, or a chapter out of Ron Paul's book that recently made news for pretty much the exact same sentiment? Whatever the case, it is representative of the type of thinking the liberal Star Ledger opts to use as demonstrative of Conservative thought.

Perhaps it's because AIDS continues to act in a politically incorrect manner. HIV is like a smart bomb seeking out all those groups beloved by liberals: homosexuals, drugusing minorities, people from the Third World—virtually every PC-approved group except lesbians.

(When a purported case of lesbian-to-lesbian HIV transmission was reported recently, lesbians greeted the news like the Immaculate Conception; finally, they were victims too, entitled to all the rights and privileges.)

And the most un-PC thing about HIV lies in the people it spares: white heterosexual males, most particularly those who live in suburbia de him feel "gayer." Which it no doubt did. All indications are that, as it concerns American sex lives, AIDS will remain "a gay disease." Gay activists hate that locution, not only because it's true, but because it points up the inherent flaw in the gayrights movement.

If society is going to create a new class of civil rights based on behavior, society has a right to demand that that behavior either be in society's interests or at the very least be harmless. But the behavior of gay Americans in the last two decades has fit neither of those criteria.

In the Jan/Feb issue, it was black intellect, or the lack thereof, that caught Mulshine's attention, again, on a Nation cruise. No doubt they came away thinking we Conservatives are a thoughtful, enlightened bunch after this.

But atleast it's not only black women incapable of rational thought in Mulshine's world view. Women don't seem to have much to offer when it comes to logic and reason - Math being proof of that, as it is for male's only, evidently. But Mulshine can't resist including minorities, too, for some odd reason, which undercuts his reasoning given that includes the male of the species, or race, in this case. So, what is Mulshine really thinking with this?

Certain questions are hard to face for us beleaguered white males. We don't want to consider the real reason, for instance, why women and minorities do worse than we do on standardized tests such as the SAT. We hide behind the easy excuse: the test is culturally biased. This is the easy way out, and like most easy ways out, it is not true. The test isn't biased. It is mathematics itself that is biased.

Only in a male-dominated, Eurocentric world would two plus two always have to equal four. Always! There's no room for discussion, no area for compromise. Just the same rigid answer, day after day. This is exactly the sort of system you'd expect a white male to set up. Why, just look at the number one! It's the very first number men invented, and what's it shaped like? All straight and rigid and pointy like that?

I rest my case. Math is unfair. It's time we started to raise consciousness about the need to make mathematics more flexible. We need to get rid of the ludicrous idea ' that there's just one "correct" answer to every math problem. We need to soften and, yes, feminize math. This is, of course, a ludicrous proposal, but if I were to write a book on this theme under a female pen name, perhaps with a picture of a lesbian in a muumuu on the back cover, I'd have a best-seller. Let's face it: Women hate math. Not all women, just the type of women who end up as militant feminists and, for that matter, the type of foggy-brained males who support them.

Whatever his thinking, or the Ledger's motivations,  it does cause one to wonder precisely what interest is being served by having Mulshine hold court as representative of Conservatism at a mostly liberal large newspaper. Are they shedding light on a different type of thinking to give readers a glimpse of Conservatism, or do they enjoy him as a parody of sorts, while painting an otherwise ridiculous view of Conservatives for their readers? If it's that, it would make Paul Mulshine the Star Ledger's useful idiot. But then, on the upside, at least he'd be useful for something besides getting a paycheck to spout nonsense in that case.

Comments

[USA American]

Wow, first class-warfare against Mittens. Now the race card.

How progressive.

[EBL]

Great article. I just saw it posted by Mark Levin at his Facebook page. But as we are seeing with Maureen Dowd lying about Rick Santorum: http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/maureen-dowd-is-big-fat-liarand-meghan.html And lefties taking Mitt Romney out of context: http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-like-firing-people-too.html And the hypocrisy and lies of Barack and Michelle Obama: http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/crying-wolfi-mean-raaaaacism.html

It is just par for the course. And of course we know Barack Obama is up on golfing references!

[EBL]

Paul Mulshine is not a conservative, he is a Moby.

[USA American]

Haha, the butt-hurt over taking Mittens "out of context" is especially cute given that his campaign has declared that taking the President out of context to imply that his words mean the polar opposite of what he said, is free game. And you idiots know that it's the GOPer candidates who are smacking Mittens around the most, right? Right, liars?

Double, haha, now Newton Leroy is blasting Mittens over being part of the 1%. But that's probably Democrats' fault too.