Friday, December 18, 2009

Interest in MAMZ's Peculiar Background Increases with His Public Histrionics

Difference between Markos C.Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank

Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga's histrionic challenge to Tom Tancredo over the ex-US representative's lack of a military career has focused the public's interest on the nonexistent combat career of MAMZ himself, and also focuses military people on their doubts about MAMZ sexuality.

The Truth About Kos Site Meter tells me that:
  1. There is fresh interest in the often mistaken belief that Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) served in the Gulf War, as he has often led others to believe, because he creates intentional ambiguity over his service, even though he certainly did not serve in the Gulf War, by his own admission.
  2. There is fresh interest in the ecological harm that the Moulitsas Zúñiga "family business" is doing to the Jaltepeque Estuary in El Salvador, and
  3. There is continuing and consistent public interest in knowing whether Markos Moulitsas is gay or not.
  4. In general, based on MAMZ's own statements, there is a near-complete public certainty that MAMZ trained and worked at the CIA for two years, and he has done nothing to dispel this belief that results from accepting his own assertions to the facts of how he spent his time between 2001 and 2003.
  5. Almost seven thousand people per year seek to learn the truth about Kos by accessing The Truth About Kos Blog, with almost 13,000 page views.
  6. The media has not printed the homophobic CIA, right-wing Salvadoran oligarchy truth about Kos, and his family, because if the national corporate media were doing its job, then the public would not have to resort to this blog and thousands of other blogs by members of the general public to learn what the Washington Post should have but has not revealed about MAMZ between 2003 and 2009.
I'm not going to doubt the validity of the substantive interest in Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga's (MAMZ's) sexuality, because MAMZ put that issue into play when he wrote a letter to a university publication in which letter he vehemently opposed ALL gay service in the US military, whether open and obvious or closeted. In the letter, he took a more conservative position that even most Congresspeople who were fighting Bill Clinton's efforts to open the military to openly gay service. People want to know if MAMZ is a hypocrite, and I think they have a right to know that about a person who proposes to change the nature of the Democratic Party, based on the success of his blog, which is 97% white, 2% Black and 0% Latino.

That's a kind of success that many Democratic Party members legitimately find dubious (and even shocking), while the Klu Klux Klan would probably consider it to be a stunning achievement of blog apartheid in a party that has 20% Black delegates to its national conventions. If Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga is the future of the Democratic Party then apartheid-like bantustans may be the future of Blacks in America. If it were as hard to be Black in the Democratic Party as it is to be Black at DailyKos, then John McCain would have won the 2008 presidential election in a walk.

Meanwhile, is there any evidence that MAMZ is definitely gay? I haven't seen that evidence yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if even he doesn't know for sure, after reading his letter about his personal reactions to gay people and underpants.

One study showed (PDF) that those men who express the most homophobic and punitive attitudes toward gays are also those who show the most penis engorgement when they view movies of men engaging in homosexual sex acts. In other words, the more vehemently men attack homosexuals in public, the more they are likely to show physiological signs of homosexuality when this is measured empirically in scientific laboratories.

Perhaps particularly because MAMZ's letter expressed such personal fear of gays looking at his "underpants", the public believes that MAMZ "doth protest too much." In addition, MAMZ's recent attacks on ex-Congressman Tancredo, for failing to serve in the Armed Forces while MAMZ did, are causing people too wonder what MAMZ did in the service (he served in Bamburg, Germany while others were dying and risking their lives in Iraq) and they want to know, based on what they see of MAMZ on television, whether his effeminate behavior is grounded in homosexuality.

I think that the more MAMZ tries to use his military service as a supposed attribute on his long march on what he has admitted is an ambition for public office, the more servicepeople are going to scrutinize MAMZ's military record, because they have a hard time imagining him risking his life in combat.

When they come to this blog to find out what MAMZ actually did in the Service, they discover that he had no service whatsoever in the Gulf War. And then those who actually did engage in fighting feel insulted that MAMZ pretends to have been a warrior during the Gulf War when he quietly admits that he was merely in the Army simultaneous with the Gulf War, but never in Iraq -- only in Bamburg, Germany -- and not participating in hostile activities of any kind.

And yet, the claim, the self-serving falsehood, that MAMZ was in the Persian Gulf war pops up repeatedly and his many minions to nothing to correct the record, e.g:
  • Build a liberal site such as Daily Kos, as the Persian Gulf War veteran and former Republican Markos "Kos" Moulitsas Zuniga did five years ago, and bloggers either join the discussion or not. Washington Post; ; Sailor's iSteve Blog (quoting the WaPost).
The ambiguity about where he served serves MAMZ just fine, and so he is intentionally unclear about it, mentioning the Gulf War in discussions with journalists while never contacting them to clear up the impression they (and the public) have taken about the fact that he was in Bamburg, Germany when the Gulf War was being fought thousands of miles away.

I predict that it will be difficult for MAMZ to win elective office because:
  • He has lied about his family, claiming that they were poor and humble when they were actually wealthy and influential in right-wing Salvadoran oligarchy circles.
  • He has dissembled about his military service, asserting that he was in the military during the Gulf War, and so he would be opposed by those who actually fought in foreign wars.
  • He seems effeminate to many people, but has potentially shown enormous hypocrisy and cowardice by writing against ALL gay service in the military.
  • He claims to have trained at the CIA for two years, but then to have decided not to be a secret agent, thus wasting the Government's training (unless he is working for them at the present), or inventing the whole story, in which case he is a careless and pathological liar whose future will be full of revelations that will embarrass his supporters. Can anyone say, "Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards" and "Senator Larry Craig"?

No comments: