Alex Blaze

Michael Lucas is still writing at The Advocate

Filed By Alex Blaze | December 20, 2010 2:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Media
Tags: media, Michael Lucas, russie, The Advocate, Vladimir Putin

Earlier today I posted on how The Advocate will be losing Kerry Eleveld, who writes one of their politically neutral columns. But they'll still have Michael Lucas, who writes one of their conservative columns (if there's a regular liberal columnist there, she doesn't make it to the online version).

hollywood-lefties.pngHe's mad in his most recent column because the "Hollywood lefties" are supporting Putin in a video on YouTube. Lucas is mad that they don't seem to know who Putin is:

Don't they -- or their handlers, know how to use Wikipedia? Did Sharon Stone not realize she was flashing a victory sign to an ex-KGB agent, an eternal Communist, and a historical revisionist?

Fine, let's look at Wikipedia. It not only discusses Putin's premiership under Yeltsin, which started massive privatization of Russian industry and natural resources, and Putin presidential administration, which saw continued privatization of land and cutting of taxes (switching to a flat tax, a perennial favorite of the American right), it also mentions that he left the Communist Party in 1991 (as many non-ideologically communist pols did when the USSR collapsed) and went on to defeat Communist candidates in various elections.

I guess one can't expect The Advocate to keep up with the party affiliation of the world's biggest country's former president, even while publishing columns on him. It just changes so often. Like once. 20 years ago.

Wikipedia quotes a Russian sociologist who sums up Putin's administrations as "extreme right":

In December 2007, the Russian sociologist Igor Eidman (VCIOM) qualified the regime that had solidified under Putin as "the power of bureaucratic oligarchy" which had "the traits of extreme right-wing dictatorship -- the dominance of state-monopoly capital in the economy, silovoki structures in governance, clericalism and statism in ideology".[119]

Eidman continues in the original text (translated by Google):

The real opposition to the current ultra-bourgeois and bureaucratic power can only be the left. For it to become a reality, we need new leaders with different values, psychology, human qualities, the ability to internally free from the vices and temptations inherent in post-Soviet social elite. Policy-popular work for the benefit of the unprivileged majority of Russian people, but not in the interests of the successful reform of the upper social stratum. Leaders of the new left-wing opposition, capable of changing self-serving and inefficient post-Soviet power elites whose interests are protected and Yeltsin, and Putin, and most of the "opposition" liberals.

My guess is that Michael Lucas didn't read the Wikipedia page before writing his column and decided to run a fairly inconsequential (and completely non-gay, although gay conservatives only complain about "non-gay" issues in gay activism and media if they're not their issues, otherwise they're pretty brazen about mixing the two) YouTube clip that he found on Michelle Malkin's site or or wherever and put it up on The Advocate. While Putin is definitely no friend of LGBT people, neither is the American right and I don't want to be forced to show my loyalty to American rightwingers because Russian rightwingers are supposedly so much worse.

Anyway, here's a bonus error in the column that jumped out at me (as usual, there are probably more in a Michael Lucas column but I'm not going to fact check every sentence for The Advocate):

That brainless onetime starlet Sharon Stone once said that the earthquake in China (which killed thousands of people) was a punishment from God for their abuses against the Tibetans. If God does exist, I truly hope that he punishes Sharon Stone and all the other Hollywood celebrities at the event.

Here's what Sharon Stone actually said:

When the earthquake hit, Stone wondered if it was a case of what goes around, comes around.

"Then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice, that the bad things happen to you?" said the 50-year-old star.

It's a pretty shitty, elitist thing to say (China's government is brutal so karma punished Chinese working people?), but she didn't mention God. Potay-to, potah-to, but when you're supposedly running a real journalistic enterprise it's kind of a big deal. He's a columnist. They're supposed to have their own opinions, not their own facts.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Kathy Padilla | December 20, 2010 3:11 PM

Damn LA Political fundraisers...........

"As we noted earlier today, it now turns out that one of the FBI agents investigating the Asian campaign finance scandal of 1996-97, James J. Smith, was also the handler of an FBI informant, Katrina Leung. She turns out to have been a double-agent, in the service of the People’s Republic of China. Smith and Leung were lovers. And through this relationship and one with another FBI agent, William Cleveland, Leung managed to compromise not only the campaign finance investigation but perhaps also a great deal of US espionage against China over the last two decades. Now it seems clear that higher-ups at the FBI suspected or knew Leung was a double agent as early as 1991.

Oh, and one other thing: Leung is a long-time Republican party activist, fundraiser and party-donor. A November 2nd 1997 article in the Los Angeles Times called her “a dynamic Republican known to have friends and family connections in the highest echelons of Beijing government … [who] has opened her spacious San Marino home for local political fund-raisers and has facilitated visits to China by the mayor and others.”

I'm glad The Advocate is finally showing their true color: red. :)

I have my own conspiracy theory: Maybe Sharon Stone clapped so that evil Putin wouldn't send his sneaky spies to poison her! They were probably dressed as waiters, ready to top off the champagne of anyone who didn't clap for Putin.

But I really think the conspiracy theory we need to develop is why Michael Lucas is still working at the Advocate. Who does he have pictures of? Who is he fucking?

alex blaze... you are one of the biggest idiots on the web.. you actually disagree with this article? Just because you do not like Lucas? You defend Putin? you defend Stone? Shame on you.

You know me and Putin, we go way back. Like when we were in the KGB together... oops, I said too much.

Who defended Putin? I think it was patently obvious from the post that Alex didn't do anything of the sort. Try reading the post before running your mouth.

Lucas is an idiot. The question is - is he actually getting paid? A lot of their columnists and writers are seriously behind in getting their cash.

Where did Alex defend Putin? Did you even read the post before you started running your mouth?

Michael Lucas is a neocon. His entire world view and the motivations behind his articles are as transparent as glass. But I give you credit for doing so much fact checking. That's the kind of grunt work that distinguishes a journalist from a blogger.

Revision and personal opinion are rampant anymore. Few people present facts from a neutral perspective. Sorting through a spin is quite annoying.

I think this goes beyond "spin" to the wholesale creation of facts.

Why does the Advocate, which ceased being pro-GLBT when it was bought out by Goodstein almost 40 years ago, insist on giving this contemptible piglet Lucas a national voice.

The Advocate retains its standing as a 'right wing rag' of the movement press. I suppose that why they print Lucas's zionist and ultraright delusions. Or maybe some of his unsafe sex porn profits ended up in somebody's pocket, not that that ever happens.