alternative hippopotamus

Little LuLu points us to the straight poop on Iraq as told by the truth-tellers at FreeRepublic. This is a real he-man account. Not the candy-assed Frenchified version of events as told by the estrogen-drenched Iraq Study Group.

We have spread democracy in Iraq, much like the French spread brie on their toast and snails. Yes, Sir! We have plastered the f’ing toast with f’ing democracy, Sir! That must hurt Old Europeans like John Fwad Kerry (Citizens Report on Iraq, pp. 72-73):

In the Sixties and Seventies, the anti-American left worked with our communist enemies to bring about the political victory they were unable to win on the battlefield. For example, Democrat Sen. John Kerry, then a reserve Naval officer who had served in Vietnam and Cambodia, met with our communist enemies in Paris in 1970. The next year the testified in uniform before the Senate that we should accept the communists’ terms of surrender, while at the same hearing he vilified American soldiers as war criminals. Col. George ‘Bud’ Day, a prisoner of war being held by the North Vietnamese communists at the time ahs stated that Kerry’s actions lengthened the POW’s captivity by giving the communists hope for a then elusive victory.

Thus, it should be obvious to even the densest of the blame-America firsters, that their so-called “elected representatives” are hoping to undermine our soon-to-be imminent victory in Iraq (which we intend to rename “Valley of the Purple Fingers”), and are doing so just out of a fit of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

YouTube announces that it will rip-off video providers slightly less than it does currently: (Washington Post, emphasis mine)

Hurley, 30, gave no details of how much users might receive or what mechanism would be used.

In October 2005, Revver — which like YouTube offers video clips online — announced plans to attach advertising to user-submitted videos and give their creators a cut of the profit.

Hurley said that when YouTube started, he and the site’s co-founders — Steve Chen and Jawed Karim — thought revenue sharing would build a community of users motivated by making money rather a love of videos.

Really? So you figured you’d keep all the money and that would make the motives of the YouTube community purer? Because YouTube founders aren’t corrupted by the same influences that its users are?

Now, I’ve been pointing out that YouTube is the most parasitic of the video sharing sites for a few months now. How did it get so popular? As far as I can tell, because it didn’t do any policing of copyright violation until fairly recently when it was hit by several lawsuits. By then, the branding had been established.

So, I went to the march last Saturday, and it was okay.

The highlight? Getting a chance to chat with Hilzoy (Obsidian Wings), Jay! (Best of the Left Podcast), and Thomas “Newsrack” Nephew. (eRobin, were your ears burning, by any chance?)

I’ve seen discussion here and there about how protests, rallies, marches, etc., are things of the past. Relics of the drug-induced, hippie-crazed flower child love-in acid rock fest that was the 1960’s. To which I can only respond I’d love to change the world, but I’ve bang a gong, get it on, and a-help ‘im a-drink-a his wine.

Protests can be an effective form of street theater. What’s good about it is that there is no “audience,” everyone is an active participant. They can also be a scattered experience if not effectively organized.

Instead of trying to make out whether last Saturday’s march was a good thing or a bad thing, I’d like to suggest an Alternative Hypothesis: there are ways of protesting the actions of the government other than a march or writing letters to Congess. It’s about time we started to look at some of those alternatives.

Consider, for instance, the AIDS quilt display on the Mall. Any image of the display to this day hits me like a solar plexus punch. It does so in a way, that bypasses any arguments, any prejudices, any baggage that might be associated with the subject of AIDS. It bypasses the logical mind entirely, and convinces me at the level of it symbolism.

Or, consider Gandhi’s Salt March. A brilliantly conceived non-violent protest, marching to the sea to make salt. To arrest someone for what amounts to a domestic activity could only be the act of a tyrrant, but that, of course, was the point.

Certrainly, an effective protest need not be somber. One of my favorite examples is a bit of political theater from Michael Moore that he turned into a short film. To protest the lack of choices for candidates running for Congress, he started a write-in ballot for a ficus plant. He’d introduce the ficus at rallies, put together a solidly pro-ficus platform, and even had the ficus challenge other candidates to debate. As the word got out, people from all over the country began running ficus plants in their districts.

The year isn’t 1967, it’s 2007. It makes sense to me that the form and methods of protest need to be adapted to fit this time.

For those of you who occasionally enjoy perusing comments on rightwing blogs, this exchange on Althouse:

Gahrie said…

The gay rights crowd is terrified of finding out that homosexuality is the result of some easily corrected genetic defect.
7:44 AM
buffpilot said…

gahrie,

That is something the gay rights crowd is fundamentally terrified about. If there is a ‘Gay gene”, even if only turned on with certain environmental situations, that gene can be tested for. And if it can be tested for it can be chosen to be aborted or not used for fertilization just likes Downs syndrome. If there is no ‘gay geme’ then being Gay is a lifestyle choice not something that they are born with and so could be “cured”. A huge problem for the entire gay culture.

An interesting discussion over at Dr. Black’s place. He tends to place the origin of the netroots, as does the illustrious Big Media Matt, at the Monica Lewinsky phase of Whitewater.

Here’s Matt expanding on an earlier post from Matt Stoller:

9/11 and Iraq are today’s signature issues, but the origins institutionally and emotionally are the battles in defense of Clinton (1998) and Gore (2000) and I don’t think the implications and meaning of this are well understood.

I think this is a good starting place for looking at the progressive movement vis-a-vis its role as grass roots/internet activism. I can’t really add much to this from a historical perspective in that my orientation, that is, what I value most about the political internet movement is different from Matt’s Y and S, or for that matter, Dr. Black.

My orientation tends to reflect a lifelong interest in the arts and philosophy. So, I’m much more interested in how Fahrenheit 9.11, or for that matter, The Path to 9.11 can influence public perception of current events. I mention both the arts and philosophy in that verite, pursuit of truth, play a role in the perception of art. An argument can be made that parts of Fahrenheit failed in the test of pursuing truth. An argument that can be mostly dismissed, but still an argument. The Path to 9.11 was fundamentally dishonest, and in terms of any philosophical test, fails. I’m sure that you’ll recall that philosophy at its root means “love of wisdom.” I’m not sure what the Greek is for “love of deception,” and for all I know they didn’t have a word for it.

Another aspect of my interest in the internet/grassroots movement is in terms of finding an alternative source for news. After the 2000 election I became convinced that the traditional news sources, the major networks, the major dailies, etc., no longer served their purpose. They became… I wasn’t sure what, but it wasn’t news any more. It was more a combination of gossip and conventional wisdom, manufactured by those within elite circles in NYC and DC, and no longer an honest and in-depth examination of what was going on in the world.

It was at this point I started watching DemocracyNow! instead of the NewsHour and reading the blogs. One of my most important reads at this time was Tom Tomorrow’s place, though in time he passed the torch to Atrios, among others.

Meanwhile, I became aware of an opposing force, what is now called the rightwing blogosphere. Its role became the unswerving support of the newly appointed President Bush, and unending contempt for the emerging progressive voice.

I mention this as the growth of the netroots occurs not in a vaccuum, but is partly defined by the “netweeds,” those voices on the internet that hope to destroy the new left.

If you have any doubt this is one of their goals, let me refer you to an Instapundit post from last year:

Various lefty readers email to say that Ward Churchill is not the authentic face of the Left.

I wish I agreed with that. But, sadly, he is its very image today.

When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war, when Michael Moore shares a VIP box with the last Democratic President but one, when Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is “screw ‘em,” well, this is the authentic face of the Left. Or what remains of it.

There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn’t a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.

[…]

There’s an endless supply of guys like Churchill. And I’d love to believe that they’re marginal figures. But then I see the embrace of Moore, and the behavior of major Democrats like Boxer and Kennedy, and it’s just hard to believe. There certainly are some well-meaning people on the Left who don’t like that, but I”m afraid that they are the marginal figures nowadays.

[…]

And for those who email saying “what about Falwell on the right,” well, it’s worth remembering that the term “idiotarian” was coined with Falwell in mind. It’s just that the right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots, while the Left has embraced them. And if the “backlash” theory set out above is true, it will only get worse, which is bad for the Left, and bad for America.

Oliver Willis emails that my pointing this out is “vitriol.” But in fact, following my advice would be likely to help the Left, and the Democrats, do better in elections.

“Better in elections.” Heh. Indeed.

From last night’s SOTU, with a few notes:

“My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. [the ISG also did some opining, but we came to disregard them as too French] We discussed every possible approach [but in the end decided to go with the irrational]. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success [or at least will kick the can down the road for 2 more years]. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching [and by many, I mean Joe Lieberman]. If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. [Sunnis to the left of them, Shia to the right. Stuck in the middle with Kurds.] We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country [like so much spilt contagion]— and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. [Believe me when I tell you we’ve already go caricature artists working on the drawing.]”

“For America, this is a nightmare scenario. [Like my reelection] For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally . . . their greatest ally in this struggle [oops, almost said “my” there]. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources and an even greater determination to harm America [like American Idol, without the… come to think of it, pretty much like American Idol]. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. [Here tragedy, come here, Tragedy. Good boy. Now sit.] Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq, and to spare the American people from this danger. [The second most important is not to consider the alternative reality of this being Al Gore’s second presidential term.]

“This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I’ve spoken with many of you in person. [Others, through mental telepathy.] I respect you and the arguments you’ve made. We went into this largely united — in our assumptions and in our convictions. [You assumed I was arrogant and indifferent, and I assumed you couldn’t stop me, so who cares.] And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. [Forgetting the 2004 election, where failure was your only option.] Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way. [And those on the way home until I extended their tour of duty.]”

If you haven’t read the Liz Cheney editorial, Everything I Really Need to Know I Learned from Teutonic Bloodlust, please consider first putting on Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries to get yourself in the mood:

We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women.

[ed: I don’t think those freedoms mean what you think those freedoms mean.]

Alternatively, consider Elmer Fudd’s Kill the Wabbit.

Cap’n Crunch on the Fox smear of Obama:

Obama included his educational history in his memoirs. It seems more than a little irrelevant what kind of school in which his parents enrolled him when he counted his age in single digits. Obama has not lived his life as a Muslim but as a Christian, and received most of his education in American public schools. (Maybe we should be questioning that.) He isn’t a stealth Muslim regardless of his middle name or his two-year attendance in a school in Indonesia. Nor does anyone offer any proof that this information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

See how easy that was? Smear bad, must stop smear. Stopping here and moving on to the next post would be the civilized thing to do. Alas, the temptation to show the dark unbelly of the “other side” is just too great: (continuing from the previous quote)

Granted, it sounds like the kind of character assassination that the Clinton team performed in the past, especially James Carville, but unless Gibson has some proof that it came from Hillary’s campaign, then he shouldn’t have speculated on it on national TV.

That’s from the “if the glove fits, you must not acquit” school of punditry. Still, better to stop here, and move on. Under no circumstance should you make tortured analogies to recent scenes where you embarassed yourself. And then, under no circumstances you should protest that this shows you were right all along:

This is no different than the Jamil Hussein embarrassment at the AP. The news agency used a single source, hiding behind a pseudonym without any notification to the reader that the source was not named, to publish dozens of reports of atrocities in Iraq.

The infamous Jamil Hussein incident has nothing in common with Fox quoting the Moonie News to suggest that Obama was a one-man sleeper cell. Fox quoting The Moonie News to smear a political candidate is right-wing hackery. Jamil Hussein is what you call, an actual source, that the right-wing became obsessed over in a vain effort to prove that the MSM is biased against them. Okay, they both involve right-wing hackery. So they have that in common.

Just last night I was making the point in conversation that the left, or whatever it is we’re calling ourselves these days, doesn’t have anything equivalent to the unholy trinity of Fox News, Drudge, and Limbaugh.

There is no permanent mechanism in place to smear politicians at the drop of a hat. At least not in such a triangulated way as the Repubroots.

Take this morning’s jihadfest from Fox News: (ThinkProgress)

DOOCY: Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?

[snip]

DOOCY: We should also point out that Barack Obama’s father is the one who gave him the middle name of Hussein. And the thing about the madrassa, and you know, let’s just be honest about this, in the last number of years, madrassas have been, we’ve learned a lot about them, financed by Saudis, they teach this Wahhabism which pretty much hates us. The big question is was that on the curriculum back then? Probably not, but it was a madrassa and the big question is whether or not any of these revelations about the fact that he was a Muslim — right now I understand he does go to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, although not a regular parishioner — but raised as a Muslim, went to a madrassa.

[snip]

DOOCY: Is it ancient history or do you think madrassa matters. [phone ringing] Josh joins us from Colorado. Good morning to you Josh.

CALLER: What’s up?

DOOCY: What do you think?

CALLER: I think that ultimately this will probably be one of the main reasons is he not elected.

DOOCY: Just the fact that his father was a Muslim, he was raised as a Muslim for awhile, and went to a madrassa school in Jakarta?

CALLER: Right. I mean, you think that would possibly give him better insight on the enemy, maybe he doesn’t consider terrorists the enemy.

There was a time not so long ago when this kind of religious smear would result in a collective at long last sir, have you no shame moment. In this time the answer, apparently, is not only do they have no shame, they consider this an honest day’s work.

Or: One of These Things is A Lot Like the Other Thing.

From Kos:

This winger article profiles the right-wing’s supposed answer to MoveOn — and organization called (in typical cheesy right-wing fashion) The Vanguard.

But while the organization looks more like vapor than anything else, there was this interesting passage:

“Martin refuses to confirm or deny rumors that Jerome Corsi — co-founder of 2004’s “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” which irreparably damaged John Kerry’s Presidential hopes — has signed on for a similar effort against Hillary. The ubiquitous Corsi could not be reached for comment.”

From Corsi’s buddy Richard Viguerie:

“In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, but
isn’t, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on
grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress.

“Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the
Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to
500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report
quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220
would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history,
critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.

I find it very difficult to believe that legislation would be targeting bloggers.

I find it very easy to believe that legislation would be targeting partisan hack shops disguised as a fake grassroots groups, a la the Swiftboat Vets for Truthiness.

By coincidence Viguerie seems to be behind such a group, USA Next: (USAToday)

In style and tactics, the USA Next campaign appears to be modeled on the effort by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to tarnish Democrat John Kerry in last year’s presidential campaign.

The veterans group parlayed an initial financial stake, about $500,000, into a much larger political force through a provocative TV ad. That generated media attention, which led to stepped-up fundraising. The group, later renamed Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, raised and spent $22.5 million on hard-hitting anti-Kerry ads, putting it among the most influential of the independent political groups in the campaign.

Many of those involved in the USA Next campaign are alumni of the Swift Boat ad campaign. Strategist Chris LaCivita has been hired. The group is looking to enlist the same media firm that devised the Swift Boat ads, Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm. Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm that worked for the Swift Boat Veterans, and Regnery Publishing, which produced an anti-Kerry book for the Swift Boat group, also are helping.

Here’s what I’m suggesting may be behind Viguerie’s antics: he doesn’t want to be impaired from starting up a new Swiftboat group (along with the usual suspects) to attack the potential Clinton and Obama campaigns. Which could even take the form of a grassroots group attacking them not as presidential candidates, per se, but for what they do in the Senate.