GONZALES AND "THE KIDS"
I'm a late adopter, so I still don't have the necessary software, but I would take great pleasure in a video mashup of this and this. E-mail me the link if you ever do one or see one.
(Hat tip: the Carpetbagger Report.)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
WHOOPS! SORRY I'M LATE. GUESS I MISSED THE WAR, HUNH?
From the Politico:
George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush who was a hit on the campaign trail, has been accepted in the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer and has begun the process of being commissioned for eight years of service.
Bush, 30, said in a telephone interview from his office at a real estate development firm in Fort Worth, Texas, that he was moved to join the service in part when he attended the rainy commissioning in October of the aircraft carrier named for his grandfather -- the USS George H.W. Bush....
Bush expects to receive his commission in a month or two. He will go to officer candidate school in Rhode Island, then intelligence school in Virginia Beach. The commitment involves two weeks of annual training. He can volunteer for active duty or be deployed after he finishes his intelligence certification, which takes about two years....
Show of hands: Who thinks he's going to volunteer for active duty?
His uncle's been sending people to war for more than five years, but only now, at age 30, is he signing up. He'll look as if he's doing his bit, yet he's surely counting on not seeing any action. Think about it: Unless he volunteers, he won't be deployed overseas for two years -- and he's doing this just about, er, two years before a new president takes office (a new president most Republicans think will be that hippie peacenik Hillary).
And if the '08 election doesn't go as expected, I'm sure some Texan at Bracewell & Giuliani will prevail upon President Rudy to keep George P. safe from harm.
One more thought: This kid is definitely running for president someday. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
From the Politico:
George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush who was a hit on the campaign trail, has been accepted in the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer and has begun the process of being commissioned for eight years of service.
Bush, 30, said in a telephone interview from his office at a real estate development firm in Fort Worth, Texas, that he was moved to join the service in part when he attended the rainy commissioning in October of the aircraft carrier named for his grandfather -- the USS George H.W. Bush....
Bush expects to receive his commission in a month or two. He will go to officer candidate school in Rhode Island, then intelligence school in Virginia Beach. The commitment involves two weeks of annual training. He can volunteer for active duty or be deployed after he finishes his intelligence certification, which takes about two years....
Show of hands: Who thinks he's going to volunteer for active duty?
His uncle's been sending people to war for more than five years, but only now, at age 30, is he signing up. He'll look as if he's doing his bit, yet he's surely counting on not seeing any action. Think about it: Unless he volunteers, he won't be deployed overseas for two years -- and he's doing this just about, er, two years before a new president takes office (a new president most Republicans think will be that hippie peacenik Hillary).
And if the '08 election doesn't go as expected, I'm sure some Texan at Bracewell & Giuliani will prevail upon President Rudy to keep George P. safe from harm.
One more thought: This kid is definitely running for president someday. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
IDIOTS OR DISINGENUOUS BIGOTS? YOU DECIDE
From Lucianne.com today:
Creator of anti-Clinton ad identified, linked to Obama camp
Anyone notice logo at end of clip displays the Gay Coalition rainbow colors? Whattup with that?
Does anyone not know the answer to this? Does anyone not know what the Apple logo color scheme was when the original "1984" ad appeared?
Lucianne Goldberg and her minions know. They just didn't want to pass up the chance at a cheap "Democrats are gay" joke.
From Lucianne.com today:
Creator of anti-Clinton ad identified, linked to Obama camp
Anyone notice logo at end of clip displays the Gay Coalition rainbow colors? Whattup with that?
Does anyone not know the answer to this? Does anyone not know what the Apple logo color scheme was when the original "1984" ad appeared?
Lucianne Goldberg and her minions know. They just didn't want to pass up the chance at a cheap "Democrats are gay" joke.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
FRAGGINGS
So the creator of the "Hillary 1984" ad is Phil De Vellis, a Democrat who worked for the tech firm Blue State Digital, which designed the Obama campaign's Web site. (AP story here.)
De Vellis tries to defend what he did at the Huffington Post:
The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's "conversation" is disingenuous....
Let me be clear: I am a proud Democrat, and I always have been. I support Senator Obama. I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics.) I also believe that Senator Clinton is a great public servant, and if she should win the nomination, I would support her and wish her all the best.
Oh, that's swell: You sucker-punched her, but you really wish her well.
Look, I have problems with Hillary Clinton, but just as David Geffen should have known he was repeating (and reinforcing) right-wing memes when he talked to Maureen Dowd, Phil De Vellis should have known that with this ad he was reinforcing the right-wing message that Hillary is a monster who seeks to accrue excessive amounts of power, which she craves because she has totalitarian impulses and can't wait to crush America under her jackboot.
Curiously, I learned from a few minutes' Googling that back in February of last year some Ohio Democrats were angry at De Vellis for another attack on a fellow Democrat. De Vellis was then working for Sherrod Brown's Senate campaign, and, according to Buckeye Senate Blog and Psychobilly Democrat, he e-mailed a negative Cleveland Plain Dealer article about Paul Hackett to a number of right-wing blogs. I don't get it -- I would never hand those bastards a gotcha.
So the creator of the "Hillary 1984" ad is Phil De Vellis, a Democrat who worked for the tech firm Blue State Digital, which designed the Obama campaign's Web site. (AP story here.)
De Vellis tries to defend what he did at the Huffington Post:
The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's "conversation" is disingenuous....
Let me be clear: I am a proud Democrat, and I always have been. I support Senator Obama. I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics.) I also believe that Senator Clinton is a great public servant, and if she should win the nomination, I would support her and wish her all the best.
Oh, that's swell: You sucker-punched her, but you really wish her well.
Look, I have problems with Hillary Clinton, but just as David Geffen should have known he was repeating (and reinforcing) right-wing memes when he talked to Maureen Dowd, Phil De Vellis should have known that with this ad he was reinforcing the right-wing message that Hillary is a monster who seeks to accrue excessive amounts of power, which she craves because she has totalitarian impulses and can't wait to crush America under her jackboot.
Curiously, I learned from a few minutes' Googling that back in February of last year some Ohio Democrats were angry at De Vellis for another attack on a fellow Democrat. De Vellis was then working for Sherrod Brown's Senate campaign, and, according to Buckeye Senate Blog and Psychobilly Democrat, he e-mailed a negative Cleveland Plain Dealer article about Paul Hackett to a number of right-wing blogs. I don't get it -- I would never hand those bastards a gotcha.
MORE ON THAT DAMN HILLARY AD
I keep talking about the amateur-geek-in-a-bedroom creation myth surrounding the Hillary ad because I think it's wrong, and because the myth reinforces the message of the ad, which is that Hillary is the enemy of our human essence -- which is a Republican message and which, if she's the nominee, is going to help give the GOP four more years to control the White House.
Debunking the creation myth is Zack Exley at techPresident; what he says is persuasive even if you don't buy the Obama part:
"Vote Different" Was Funded
Why is the "Vote Different" creator still in hiding? There can only be one reason: the project was funded by a well known Obama supporter, or someone with very close and public connections to the Obama campaign.
... so far most of the discussion of the ad has put up a picture of an independent video person working at home on their Mac in their spare time. But that's just not plausible. Such a character would be claiming his or her reward right now, boosting his or her career and having a great time doing the media rounds. And, also telling: the ad maker knew exactly what election law lines not to cross, stopping just short of express advocacy. Why didn't the ad say, "Vote Obama"? So, when did independent YouTube video hackers get access to their own election law attorneys?
This was a funded project, involving lawyers and an ad agency or at the very least a professional video person who's time is worth hundreds of dollars an hour....
The bit about not crossing the campaign-law line is utterly convincing to me.
As for who backed the creator, maybe I've been wrong all along -- maybe it really is an Obama supporter and not a GOP dirty trickster. Has anybody thought of asking David Geffen what he knows about this?
David All, a GOP media consultant, argues on his blog that the creator of the ad can't be a Republican. Most of his evidence is circumstantial, but he does quote an e-mail between a right-winger named Marcus Pittman and "ParkRidge47," who put the ad up on YouTube. Pittman wanted ParkRidge to endorse his video response, and Park Ridge replied by invoking two righty blogs: "If I wanted to promote your mindless right-wing talking points I’d go throw little green footballs at redstate." ParkRidge turned Pittman down. So maybe the ad is the work of a Democrat -- unless (donning tinfoil) the whole e-mail exchange and the rejection of the response video are phony or a smokescreen.
Meanwhile, Zack Exley's first commenter has an interesting story to relate:
The chair of the Democratic Central Committee the next county over sent me an email last night from the local Republicans. It urges all Republicans to watch the Hillary 1984 video. He and I believe the Republicans want the video to vilify both Clinton and Obama. They claim it "aggressively points out the weaknesses and hypocrisy of the Clintons." It also puts Obama in a bad light as tolerant of political sleeze. It pits the two Democratic frontrunnres against each other. And paints the Democrats as dangerously divided--perhaps too much so to govern. What Republican wouldn't have been happy to finance that?
I'll say this: It's either a GOP attack ad or an Obama video that's functioning as a GOP attack ad.
****
UPDATE: News Hounds points out that someone named "parkridge47" wrote a comment in response to a post titled "Lying Democrats Detour From Colorado Promise, Let Anti-war Kooks Spend Hours Debating Meaningless, Offensive Resolution" at ToTheRight.org ("Colorado's Top Conservative News Outlet"); here's the comment:
Why don’t they focus on running the state like they’re supposed to? If they want to pass meaningless anti-war resolutions they should run for U.S. Congress like everyone else.
It's not clear whether ParkRidge47 and parkridge47 are the same person, but that latter sure doesn't sound like an anti-Hillary Democrat.
I keep talking about the amateur-geek-in-a-bedroom creation myth surrounding the Hillary ad because I think it's wrong, and because the myth reinforces the message of the ad, which is that Hillary is the enemy of our human essence -- which is a Republican message and which, if she's the nominee, is going to help give the GOP four more years to control the White House.
Debunking the creation myth is Zack Exley at techPresident; what he says is persuasive even if you don't buy the Obama part:
"Vote Different" Was Funded
Why is the "Vote Different" creator still in hiding? There can only be one reason: the project was funded by a well known Obama supporter, or someone with very close and public connections to the Obama campaign.
... so far most of the discussion of the ad has put up a picture of an independent video person working at home on their Mac in their spare time. But that's just not plausible. Such a character would be claiming his or her reward right now, boosting his or her career and having a great time doing the media rounds. And, also telling: the ad maker knew exactly what election law lines not to cross, stopping just short of express advocacy. Why didn't the ad say, "Vote Obama"? So, when did independent YouTube video hackers get access to their own election law attorneys?
This was a funded project, involving lawyers and an ad agency or at the very least a professional video person who's time is worth hundreds of dollars an hour....
The bit about not crossing the campaign-law line is utterly convincing to me.
As for who backed the creator, maybe I've been wrong all along -- maybe it really is an Obama supporter and not a GOP dirty trickster. Has anybody thought of asking David Geffen what he knows about this?
David All, a GOP media consultant, argues on his blog that the creator of the ad can't be a Republican. Most of his evidence is circumstantial, but he does quote an e-mail between a right-winger named Marcus Pittman and "ParkRidge47," who put the ad up on YouTube. Pittman wanted ParkRidge to endorse his video response, and Park Ridge replied by invoking two righty blogs: "If I wanted to promote your mindless right-wing talking points I’d go throw little green footballs at redstate." ParkRidge turned Pittman down. So maybe the ad is the work of a Democrat -- unless (donning tinfoil) the whole e-mail exchange and the rejection of the response video are phony or a smokescreen.
Meanwhile, Zack Exley's first commenter has an interesting story to relate:
The chair of the Democratic Central Committee the next county over sent me an email last night from the local Republicans. It urges all Republicans to watch the Hillary 1984 video. He and I believe the Republicans want the video to vilify both Clinton and Obama. They claim it "aggressively points out the weaknesses and hypocrisy of the Clintons." It also puts Obama in a bad light as tolerant of political sleeze. It pits the two Democratic frontrunnres against each other. And paints the Democrats as dangerously divided--perhaps too much so to govern. What Republican wouldn't have been happy to finance that?
I'll say this: It's either a GOP attack ad or an Obama video that's functioning as a GOP attack ad.
****
UPDATE: News Hounds points out that someone named "parkridge47" wrote a comment in response to a post titled "Lying Democrats Detour From Colorado Promise, Let Anti-war Kooks Spend Hours Debating Meaningless, Offensive Resolution" at ToTheRight.org ("Colorado's Top Conservative News Outlet"); here's the comment:
Why don’t they focus on running the state like they’re supposed to? If they want to pass meaningless anti-war resolutions they should run for U.S. Congress like everyone else.
It's not clear whether ParkRidge47 and parkridge47 are the same person, but that latter sure doesn't sound like an anti-Hillary Democrat.
According to the subscription-only online newsletter Publishers Lunch, John Bolton's forthcoming book, to be published by Simon & Schuster, will be titled Surrender Is Not an Option.
Can't you just feel the hair growing on your chest already?
*****
(Ah, I see that title was reported a couple of weeks ago. Oh, but I'm pleased to see that if you want an e-mail alert about Bolton's book from S&S and you're under 13, you have to get a parent's permission.)
Can't you just feel the hair growing on your chest already?
*****
(Ah, I see that title was reported a couple of weeks ago. Oh, but I'm pleased to see that if you want an e-mail alert about Bolton's book from S&S and you're under 13, you have to get a parent's permission.)
"UNPRECEDENTED"
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday's (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET....
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
--from the blog of Republican senator James Inhofe, linked today at the Drudge Report
Increasing his carbon footprint, Gore brings more greenhouse gas to Hill today. Demands and gets 30 minute opening statement
--Lucianne.com
****
Independent Counsel Ken Starr defended his five-year investigation of President Clinton Wednesday but told a Senate committee that the law that gave him his current job is "structurally unsound," "constitutionally dubious" and should not be reauthorized....
In his nearly 30-minute opening statement, Starr laid out his constitutional objections in scholarly and legalistic tone....
--CNN, April 14, 1999
After a 30-minute opening statement that didn't mention him much, [Condoleezza] Rice took issue with allegations made by former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who charged -- among other things -- that the Bush administration saw al-Qaida as merely an important threat -- not an "urgent one."
--KSAT, San Antonio, April 8, 2004
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday's (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET....
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
--from the blog of Republican senator James Inhofe, linked today at the Drudge Report
Increasing his carbon footprint, Gore brings more greenhouse gas to Hill today. Demands and gets 30 minute opening statement
--Lucianne.com
****
Independent Counsel Ken Starr defended his five-year investigation of President Clinton Wednesday but told a Senate committee that the law that gave him his current job is "structurally unsound," "constitutionally dubious" and should not be reauthorized....
In his nearly 30-minute opening statement, Starr laid out his constitutional objections in scholarly and legalistic tone....
--CNN, April 14, 1999
After a 30-minute opening statement that didn't mention him much, [Condoleezza] Rice took issue with allegations made by former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who charged -- among other things -- that the Bush administration saw al-Qaida as merely an important threat -- not an "urgent one."
--KSAT, San Antonio, April 8, 2004
"WHY I WAS FIRED"
All I can say is that I hope fired U.S. attorney David Iglesias doesn't have a wife who's a covert intelligence operative. These people stop at nothing.
All I can say is that I hope fired U.S. attorney David Iglesias doesn't have a wife who's a covert intelligence operative. These people stop at nothing.
More charming behavior from College Republicans:
A Boise State University group has angered Latino leaders and other organizations by promoting a speech with a "food stamp drawing" that requires climbing through a hole in a fence and offering fake identification for a chance to win a dinner at a Mexican restaurant.
The school's College Republicans organization is offering the dinner for two to promote a speech it is sponsoring by Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez, a vocal critic of U.S. immigration policy who is planning to run for the U.S. Senate in 2008.
The speech scheduled for Thursday by the College Republicans is in the midst of the university's Cesar Chavez Week, sponsored by the Boise State Cultural Center....
The flyer ... contains the dinner drawing information: "Win dinner for two at a local Mexican Restaurant! Climb through the hole in the fence and enter your false ID documents into the food stamp drawing!"
Jonathan Sawmiller, president of the College Republicans, defended the flyer as "It's more of an attention-getting device," Sawmiller said. The group's Web site calls the dinner drawing "humorous." ...
Vasquez said the promotional flyer was not racist and that those who thought otherwise "find racism in everything that they disagree with."
Silly liberals -- they think "faggot" is anti-gay and they think illegal alien jokes are anti-Hispanic. Where the heck do they get these cockamamie ideas?
Here's the BSU College Republicans' Web site; the flyer is here (PDF).
(By the way, that's not the original version of the flyer. The original version gave the name of a specific restaurant, but the name was removed because it was used without the restaurant's permission, and the owners of the restaurant complained about getting angry phone calls from people who thought they supported this stunt.)
Vasquez, by the way, is a classic play-to-the-cheap-seats far-right showboater: He was the author of a resolution (which passed) that declared his county a disaster area as a result of illegal immigration, and he once sent a bill for $2 million to the Mexican consulate in Salt Lake City because he wanted the government of Mexico to pay for services to illegal immigrants. Oh, and he's mastered the art of constructing sentences out of ready-made right-wing catchphrases:
"As you sit in your Subaru Outback with the 'Save Tibet' bumper sticker," he wrote in one sneering column directed at liberals, "sipping your decaf-soy milk-latte, dining on your veggie burger, and whining about the poor al-Qaida being bombed, think about this: Freedom is not free. But don't worry. Your friends and neighbors are paying the price."
Wow, Robert, that's devastating -- I haven't heard those insults before. At least not this morning until now.
A Boise State University group has angered Latino leaders and other organizations by promoting a speech with a "food stamp drawing" that requires climbing through a hole in a fence and offering fake identification for a chance to win a dinner at a Mexican restaurant.
The school's College Republicans organization is offering the dinner for two to promote a speech it is sponsoring by Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez, a vocal critic of U.S. immigration policy who is planning to run for the U.S. Senate in 2008.
The speech scheduled for Thursday by the College Republicans is in the midst of the university's Cesar Chavez Week, sponsored by the Boise State Cultural Center....
The flyer ... contains the dinner drawing information: "Win dinner for two at a local Mexican Restaurant! Climb through the hole in the fence and enter your false ID documents into the food stamp drawing!"
Jonathan Sawmiller, president of the College Republicans, defended the flyer as "It's more of an attention-getting device," Sawmiller said. The group's Web site calls the dinner drawing "humorous." ...
Vasquez said the promotional flyer was not racist and that those who thought otherwise "find racism in everything that they disagree with."
Silly liberals -- they think "faggot" is anti-gay and they think illegal alien jokes are anti-Hispanic. Where the heck do they get these cockamamie ideas?
Here's the BSU College Republicans' Web site; the flyer is here (PDF).
(By the way, that's not the original version of the flyer. The original version gave the name of a specific restaurant, but the name was removed because it was used without the restaurant's permission, and the owners of the restaurant complained about getting angry phone calls from people who thought they supported this stunt.)
Vasquez, by the way, is a classic play-to-the-cheap-seats far-right showboater: He was the author of a resolution (which passed) that declared his county a disaster area as a result of illegal immigration, and he once sent a bill for $2 million to the Mexican consulate in Salt Lake City because he wanted the government of Mexico to pay for services to illegal immigrants. Oh, and he's mastered the art of constructing sentences out of ready-made right-wing catchphrases:
"As you sit in your Subaru Outback with the 'Save Tibet' bumper sticker," he wrote in one sneering column directed at liberals, "sipping your decaf-soy milk-latte, dining on your veggie burger, and whining about the poor al-Qaida being bombed, think about this: Freedom is not free. But don't worry. Your friends and neighbors are paying the price."
Wow, Robert, that's devastating -- I haven't heard those insults before. At least not this morning until now.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Hmmm -- I missed this last week:
Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, poised to sign a bill making New Mexico the 12th state to legalize medical marijuana, said Thursday he realizes his action could become an issue in the presidential race.
"So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do," said Richardson, one of the candidates in the crowded 2008 field. "What we're talking about is 160 people in deep pain. It only affects them."
The legislation would create a program under which some patients -- with a doctor's recommendation -- could use marijuana provided by the state health department. Lawmakers approved the bill Wednesday. The governor is expected to sign it in the next few weeks.
Richardson has supported the proposal since he first ran in 2002. But he pushed especially hard for it this year, leaning on some Democrats to change their votes after the bill initially failed....
The article (from AP) says this is likely to play well in the West, and isn't likely to hurt Richardson among Democratic primary voters -- though it would be a risk if Richardson won the president nomination.
But why? Medical marijuana polls very, very well in America. Only in the conventional wisdom is support for it an edgy, radical position.
Oh, and, of course, most politicians in America are either Republicans who want to seem tough and macho or Democrats who fear attacks from macho Republican posturers. That's really the only reason medical marijuana is still controversial.
By the way, Bill, I hope you realize this means you'll never be Hillary Clinton's running mate. Her instincts will be to run to the right on this issue -- even though the country doesn't demand that at all.
(Via Annie's Annals.)
Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, poised to sign a bill making New Mexico the 12th state to legalize medical marijuana, said Thursday he realizes his action could become an issue in the presidential race.
"So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do," said Richardson, one of the candidates in the crowded 2008 field. "What we're talking about is 160 people in deep pain. It only affects them."
The legislation would create a program under which some patients -- with a doctor's recommendation -- could use marijuana provided by the state health department. Lawmakers approved the bill Wednesday. The governor is expected to sign it in the next few weeks.
Richardson has supported the proposal since he first ran in 2002. But he pushed especially hard for it this year, leaning on some Democrats to change their votes after the bill initially failed....
The article (from AP) says this is likely to play well in the West, and isn't likely to hurt Richardson among Democratic primary voters -- though it would be a risk if Richardson won the president nomination.
But why? Medical marijuana polls very, very well in America. Only in the conventional wisdom is support for it an edgy, radical position.
Oh, and, of course, most politicians in America are either Republicans who want to seem tough and macho or Democrats who fear attacks from macho Republican posturers. That's really the only reason medical marijuana is still controversial.
By the way, Bill, I hope you realize this means you'll never be Hillary Clinton's running mate. Her instincts will be to run to the right on this issue -- even though the country doesn't demand that at all.
(Via Annie's Annals.)
KLEIN LOVES AUTHENTICITY, ESPECIALLY THE FAKE KIND
Oh, dear. I see that Joe Klein has fallen for the notion that that "Hillary 1984" ad parody was some sort of grassroots phenomenon -- he calls it a "guerrilla mashup" and links it to Time's cover story about the brave new world of amateur digital content providers collectively known as "You":
You are, apparently, not only the Person of the Year, but also the Political Consultants of the future.
I said it yesterday and Micah Sifry said it before that at techPresident.com: The Hillary ad is surely the work of people with real skills, not some amateur in a bedroom -- it's too well done not to be. (And I assume it's also the work of someone from the right, someone who doesn't like Clinton or Obama and who wants to keep them angry at each other.)
But Klein is dazzled -- and here's his last sentence:
Wonder how Hillary's paid help will respond.
Oooh, snap! Hillary -- alone among politicians throughout history! -- actually pays people to work on her campaigns!
Maybe Klein's too old and out of touch to understand the technology, but as a veteran political observer, shouldn't he be a tad skeptical about the ad's provenance? Alas, no; he desperately wants to believe that some candidate -- anyone who can beat that phony Hillary! -- is motivating The Kids the way JFK and Eugene McCarthy did. This is (to use one of Klein's favorite words) "authenticity" in a brave new political era -- a young, genuine candidate inspires Generation YouTube to rise up and smite the Hildebeast with purity of intent and laptops!
The cynical pro who made this ad must find that very, very amusing.
Oh, dear. I see that Joe Klein has fallen for the notion that that "Hillary 1984" ad parody was some sort of grassroots phenomenon -- he calls it a "guerrilla mashup" and links it to Time's cover story about the brave new world of amateur digital content providers collectively known as "You":
You are, apparently, not only the Person of the Year, but also the Political Consultants of the future.
I said it yesterday and Micah Sifry said it before that at techPresident.com: The Hillary ad is surely the work of people with real skills, not some amateur in a bedroom -- it's too well done not to be. (And I assume it's also the work of someone from the right, someone who doesn't like Clinton or Obama and who wants to keep them angry at each other.)
But Klein is dazzled -- and here's his last sentence:
Wonder how Hillary's paid help will respond.
Oooh, snap! Hillary -- alone among politicians throughout history! -- actually pays people to work on her campaigns!
Maybe Klein's too old and out of touch to understand the technology, but as a veteran political observer, shouldn't he be a tad skeptical about the ad's provenance? Alas, no; he desperately wants to believe that some candidate -- anyone who can beat that phony Hillary! -- is motivating The Kids the way JFK and Eugene McCarthy did. This is (to use one of Klein's favorite words) "authenticity" in a brave new political era -- a young, genuine candidate inspires Generation YouTube to rise up and smite the Hildebeast with purity of intent and laptops!
The cynical pro who made this ad must find that very, very amusing.
TIMES GIVES BUSH HIS TEDDY ROOSEVELT HALO
Dear New York Times: Please stop putting the administration's visual propaganda exactly where the administration wants it -- above the fold on Page One.
The version of the photo on the Times Web site solves the problem nicely, with cropping:
The accompanying story notes for the record that Bush spoke about the war "beneath a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt as a Rough Rider." That's fine. But retransmitting the image is transmitting propaganda, not news.
(And I won't like this propaganda technique any better if it's used in the future by a Democratic president, as I think I've made clear.)
Dear New York Times: Please stop putting the administration's visual propaganda exactly where the administration wants it -- above the fold on Page One.
The version of the photo on the Times Web site solves the problem nicely, with cropping:
The accompanying story notes for the record that Bush spoke about the war "beneath a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt as a Rough Rider." That's fine. But retransmitting the image is transmitting propaganda, not news.
(And I won't like this propaganda technique any better if it's used in the future by a Democratic president, as I think I've made clear.)
REPUBLICANISM: THE MOVIE
Does it get more meta than this? Right-wingers are eager for a presidential run by a guy who's best known for talking tough on a fictional TV show, and now that guy tries to show his foreign-policy chops to those right-wing voters by talking tough about ... a movie.
Here's Fred Thompson at Pajamas Media:
The comic book movie "300" about the Spartans and the Persians in 480 BC is still breaking box-office records. Now it seems the rulers of modern-day Persia, Iran, are not amused.
"300," shows a small band of Spartans saving the lives of their countrymen AND the seeds of modern Democracy by kicking the much larger Persians forces effectively in the backside at Thermopylae until the sheer numbers overwhelmed them. If I remember my history, that's exactly what happened.
But the Iranians have filed a flurry of complaints with the United Nations, claiming "300" is "cultural and psychological warfare."
Who are these guys who are getting all flushed over our cultural insensitivity?
People who want to blow Jews off the face of the earth. The regime that stormed our embassy in 1979 and kept Americans captive for 444 days. Iran's Hezbollah puppets have killed more Americans, than any other terrorist group except Al Qaeda. Explosive devices from Iran are being used right now against our soldiers in Iraq. They're clearly more skittish about cultural warfare than the sort that actually kills people -- like the one against Israel that Iran financed just a few months ago.
I must say that I'm impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.
I've said before that Republicans are much more focused on Hollywood than Democrats -- they seem obsessed with glamorous Hollywood types who are evil liberals, and they think an ex-actor is the greatest president we've ever had.
But I think their Fred Thompson and 300 fixations are about something other than glamour. I think they see the "global war on terror" as a movie: It's something they experience vicariously, and they really believe it ought to progress according to Hollywood-movie plot conventions -- which means, at a certain point, the Good Guys are supposed to summon their resolve and start "kicking ass," after which Bad Guys are supposed to start dropping like flies.
Rudolph Giuliani is polling well among GOP because he played a terrorism-fighter on TV (albeit in a reality series, not a fictional one). The Fred Thompson groundswell is more of the same -- yeah, he was a lawyer and a senator, but he's still best known as that guy on TV. Republicans love that.
And as for 300, check out this Free Republic thread:
300 - "This is Sparta" Clip & How TO Deal With The Islamic Fascists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtDx9s0OF8k&mode=related&search=^
This is how you handle the Islamic Fascists. Click on link to see....
It's not just a movie clip -- it's a military strategy! In real life, we should do stuff like this! We should yell patriotic slogans in a really loud, stagy voice, then kick a messenger down a well! It would work!
These people scare me.
Does it get more meta than this? Right-wingers are eager for a presidential run by a guy who's best known for talking tough on a fictional TV show, and now that guy tries to show his foreign-policy chops to those right-wing voters by talking tough about ... a movie.
Here's Fred Thompson at Pajamas Media:
The comic book movie "300" about the Spartans and the Persians in 480 BC is still breaking box-office records. Now it seems the rulers of modern-day Persia, Iran, are not amused.
"300," shows a small band of Spartans saving the lives of their countrymen AND the seeds of modern Democracy by kicking the much larger Persians forces effectively in the backside at Thermopylae until the sheer numbers overwhelmed them. If I remember my history, that's exactly what happened.
But the Iranians have filed a flurry of complaints with the United Nations, claiming "300" is "cultural and psychological warfare."
Who are these guys who are getting all flushed over our cultural insensitivity?
People who want to blow Jews off the face of the earth. The regime that stormed our embassy in 1979 and kept Americans captive for 444 days. Iran's Hezbollah puppets have killed more Americans, than any other terrorist group except Al Qaeda. Explosive devices from Iran are being used right now against our soldiers in Iraq. They're clearly more skittish about cultural warfare than the sort that actually kills people -- like the one against Israel that Iran financed just a few months ago.
I must say that I'm impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.
Fred Thompson is a former US Senator from Tennessee, an actor, and -- many say -- a potential candidate for President of the United States.
I've said before that Republicans are much more focused on Hollywood than Democrats -- they seem obsessed with glamorous Hollywood types who are evil liberals, and they think an ex-actor is the greatest president we've ever had.
But I think their Fred Thompson and 300 fixations are about something other than glamour. I think they see the "global war on terror" as a movie: It's something they experience vicariously, and they really believe it ought to progress according to Hollywood-movie plot conventions -- which means, at a certain point, the Good Guys are supposed to summon their resolve and start "kicking ass," after which Bad Guys are supposed to start dropping like flies.
Rudolph Giuliani is polling well among GOP because he played a terrorism-fighter on TV (albeit in a reality series, not a fictional one). The Fred Thompson groundswell is more of the same -- yeah, he was a lawyer and a senator, but he's still best known as that guy on TV. Republicans love that.
And as for 300, check out this Free Republic thread:
300 - "This is Sparta" Clip & How TO Deal With The Islamic Fascists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtDx9s0OF8k&mode=related&search=^
This is how you handle the Islamic Fascists. Click on link to see....
It's not just a movie clip -- it's a military strategy! In real life, we should do stuff like this! We should yell patriotic slogans in a really loud, stagy voice, then kick a messenger down a well! It would work!
These people scare me.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Who would want to disrespect firefighters in New York a few short years after 9/11, and on St. Patrick's Day, no less? Let Julia tell you.
Wait for the special appearance by (if we really are cursed as a nation) the next president of the United States.
Wait for the special appearance by (if we really are cursed as a nation) the next president of the United States.
LET'S HIM AND HER FIGHT
Somebody took Apple Computer's original "1984" ad, gave iPod earphones to the hammer thrower,* and replaced the Big Brother figure on the (ultimately demolished) telescreen with Hillary Clinton. The resulting mashup, known as "Vote Different" or "Hillary 1984," impressed the bejeezus out of a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and many of her interviewees:
It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising....
The ad is proof that "anybody can do powerful emotional ads ... and the campaigns are no longer in control," [Simon] Rosenberg [of the New Democrat Network] said. "It will no longer be a top-down candidate message; that's a 20th century broadcast model."
[Veteran San Francisco ad man Bob] Gardner said the success of "Hillary 1984" means that now "every candidate will have to worry about some guy with a video camera and a Mac being able to do whatever he or she wants."...
OK -- deep breath, everyone.
First of all, this wasn't created by some kid on a laptop. It's quite slick. Compare it to a copycat version that puts Obama on the telescreen -- in that version, the Obama footage just hangs in midair in place of the original telescreen, whereas the Hillary footage is tinted gray-white and projected on a telescreen of its own with subtitles and supertitles, in a deft mimicking of the original ad. Also, the addition of iPod headphones to the hammer thrower is done too well to be the work of some bedroom wannabe. [On that point, see UPDATE below.] It's lonelygirl15 all over again -- if you pay any attention at all, you can see the craft; you can recognize the work of people who know what they're doing.
But who's responsible for the ad? The Obama campaign says it isn't.
I believe that. What's more, I don't believe it's even the work of an Obama supporter.
I'm getting the same feeling I got when that Moonie Web site told us Obama went to a madrassa and Hillary's campaign was the source of the story -- I think this is an effort to attack one of the two Democratic frontrunners and increase the two campaigns' mutual mistrust. If I'm right, somebody in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy thinks a Clinton-Obama ticket could be the Dream Team -- and therefore must be prevented by any means necessary.
I just don't see Obama's campaign doing this -- he's so close to her in the polls already that he has no reason to go negative now. Also, a tossed hammer smashing Hillary's head to smithereens is an image likely to appeal to right-wingers much more than Democrats -- to a Democrat (this one, at least) it suggests violence toward women, but to a rightie it would be the Slaying of the Hildabeast.
It may be a new kind of campaign ad, but I think it's still an old-fashioned dirty trick.
*****
* UPDATE: I'm informed in comments that the iPod headphones came from an earlier tweaking of the original "1984" ad (which was the work of Apple.) But I'll stand by my theory, based on the care with which Telescreen Hillary is worked into the ad.
*****
MORE: In a follow-up in the San Francisco Chronicle, the author of the original article, Carla Marinucci, points to a post at techPresident.com by Micah Sifry; Sifry got in touch with the person who posted the video, but didn't get much information about him/her. Marinucci now seems to have come to the same conclusions I have -- that the creator was a pro, and probably not an Obama fan.
Somebody took Apple Computer's original "1984" ad, gave iPod earphones to the hammer thrower,* and replaced the Big Brother figure on the (ultimately demolished) telescreen with Hillary Clinton. The resulting mashup, known as "Vote Different" or "Hillary 1984," impressed the bejeezus out of a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and many of her interviewees:
It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising....
The ad is proof that "anybody can do powerful emotional ads ... and the campaigns are no longer in control," [Simon] Rosenberg [of the New Democrat Network] said. "It will no longer be a top-down candidate message; that's a 20th century broadcast model."
[Veteran San Francisco ad man Bob] Gardner said the success of "Hillary 1984" means that now "every candidate will have to worry about some guy with a video camera and a Mac being able to do whatever he or she wants."...
OK -- deep breath, everyone.
First of all, this wasn't created by some kid on a laptop. It's quite slick. Compare it to a copycat version that puts Obama on the telescreen -- in that version, the Obama footage just hangs in midair in place of the original telescreen, whereas the Hillary footage is tinted gray-white and projected on a telescreen of its own with subtitles and supertitles, in a deft mimicking of the original ad. Also, the addition of iPod headphones to the hammer thrower is done too well to be the work of some bedroom wannabe. [On that point, see UPDATE below.] It's lonelygirl15 all over again -- if you pay any attention at all, you can see the craft; you can recognize the work of people who know what they're doing.
But who's responsible for the ad? The Obama campaign says it isn't.
I believe that. What's more, I don't believe it's even the work of an Obama supporter.
I'm getting the same feeling I got when that Moonie Web site told us Obama went to a madrassa and Hillary's campaign was the source of the story -- I think this is an effort to attack one of the two Democratic frontrunners and increase the two campaigns' mutual mistrust. If I'm right, somebody in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy thinks a Clinton-Obama ticket could be the Dream Team -- and therefore must be prevented by any means necessary.
I just don't see Obama's campaign doing this -- he's so close to her in the polls already that he has no reason to go negative now. Also, a tossed hammer smashing Hillary's head to smithereens is an image likely to appeal to right-wingers much more than Democrats -- to a Democrat (this one, at least) it suggests violence toward women, but to a rightie it would be the Slaying of the Hildabeast.
It may be a new kind of campaign ad, but I think it's still an old-fashioned dirty trick.
*****
* UPDATE: I'm informed in comments that the iPod headphones came from an earlier tweaking of the original "1984" ad (which was the work of Apple.) But I'll stand by my theory, based on the care with which Telescreen Hillary is worked into the ad.
*****
MORE: In a follow-up in the San Francisco Chronicle, the author of the original article, Carla Marinucci, points to a post at techPresident.com by Micah Sifry; Sifry got in touch with the person who posted the video, but didn't get much information about him/her. Marinucci now seems to have come to the same conclusions I have -- that the creator was a pro, and probably not an Obama fan.
At Walter Reed, it's not just Building 18:
Burst steam pipes near electrical cables, rats, mold, and holes in floors and walls -- all of that extends far beyond the well-publicized problems at the notorious Building 18.
And 9NEWS NOW has learned managers may have been slow to respond.
A worried quality control inspector, Mark Cordell, finally quit last week in frustration....
Cordell says the worst of it may be Building 40. The old research institute has been condemned, but last week, the private contractor now responsible for maintaining Walter Reed sent workers in to fix a leak.
Cordell points to a picture showing the terrible decay inside the building and says, "The water is actually on the ground floor here. There is water halfway across the ground floor. And there's electricity too. There's high voltage that goes to this building. Two thirteen thousand volt transformers. Through the basement filled with water."...
And there are problems throughout Walter Reed, for instance, in Building 14 -- where many soldiers from Building 18 were moved.
Meanwhile, I see that everyone was too busy working out how the glorious transformative effects of privatization would take occur to notice that everything at Walter Reed was going to hell in a handbasket:
An Army contract to privatize maintenance at Walter Reed Medical Center was delayed more than three years amid bureaucratic bickering and legal squabbles that led to staff shortages and a hospital in disarray just as the number of severely wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan was rising rapidly.
..., needed repairs went undone as the non-medical staff shrank from almost 300 to less than 50 in the last year and hospital officials were unable to find enough skilled replacements....
The sequence is convoluted, but it appears than in years of seeking bids from private companies and then dealing with protests by both the private firms and government-employee managers (depending on who had most recently emerged the winner of the infighting), no one seemed to notice that the place was falling apart -- or at least no one was willing to take ownership of the problem.
Ultimately, the winning bidder, IAP, sought temporary help to deal with the departure of government employees, but, we're told, IAP couldn't find enough qualified workers. Meanwhile, more and more wounded troops were coming into Walter Reed all the time.
At a certain point, you'd think you'd want to do everything possible to avoid a wrenching transition during what would be critical recovery time for grievously wounded troops. You'd think you'd make it a priority to minimize disruption at Walter Reed. Maybe you'd freeze the current system in place and not continue the bidding process in the middle of a war.
Ah, but that's because you don't think like a CEO.
(Via BuzzFlash and Real Clear Politics BuzzTracker.)
Burst steam pipes near electrical cables, rats, mold, and holes in floors and walls -- all of that extends far beyond the well-publicized problems at the notorious Building 18.
And 9NEWS NOW has learned managers may have been slow to respond.
A worried quality control inspector, Mark Cordell, finally quit last week in frustration....
Cordell says the worst of it may be Building 40. The old research institute has been condemned, but last week, the private contractor now responsible for maintaining Walter Reed sent workers in to fix a leak.
Cordell points to a picture showing the terrible decay inside the building and says, "The water is actually on the ground floor here. There is water halfway across the ground floor. And there's electricity too. There's high voltage that goes to this building. Two thirteen thousand volt transformers. Through the basement filled with water."...
And there are problems throughout Walter Reed, for instance, in Building 14 -- where many soldiers from Building 18 were moved.
Meanwhile, I see that everyone was too busy working out how the glorious transformative effects of privatization would take occur to notice that everything at Walter Reed was going to hell in a handbasket:
An Army contract to privatize maintenance at Walter Reed Medical Center was delayed more than three years amid bureaucratic bickering and legal squabbles that led to staff shortages and a hospital in disarray just as the number of severely wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan was rising rapidly.
..., needed repairs went undone as the non-medical staff shrank from almost 300 to less than 50 in the last year and hospital officials were unable to find enough skilled replacements....
The sequence is convoluted, but it appears than in years of seeking bids from private companies and then dealing with protests by both the private firms and government-employee managers (depending on who had most recently emerged the winner of the infighting), no one seemed to notice that the place was falling apart -- or at least no one was willing to take ownership of the problem.
Ultimately, the winning bidder, IAP, sought temporary help to deal with the departure of government employees, but, we're told, IAP couldn't find enough qualified workers. Meanwhile, more and more wounded troops were coming into Walter Reed all the time.
At a certain point, you'd think you'd want to do everything possible to avoid a wrenching transition during what would be critical recovery time for grievously wounded troops. You'd think you'd make it a priority to minimize disruption at Walter Reed. Maybe you'd freeze the current system in place and not continue the bidding process in the middle of a war.
Ah, but that's because you don't think like a CEO.
(Via BuzzFlash and Real Clear Politics BuzzTracker.)
Well, that's awfully convenient -- a poll of Iraqis suggests (at least according to spin in a Rupert Murdoch paper) that there's a surprising amount of optimism in the populace -- and the poll appears one day before this poll sponsored by several major global news organizations is released:
A new national survey paints a devastating portrait of life in Iraq: widespread violence, torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever starker sectarian chasm -- and a draining away of the underlying optimism that once prevailed.
... Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby -- car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.
... More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.
This is the third poll in Iraq sponsored by ABC News and media partners -- in this case USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV -- and the changes are grim. In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26 percent say the same. One in three doesn't feel safe at all. In Baghdad, home to a fifth of the country's population, that skyrockets: Eighty-four percent feel entirely unsafe....
And note this:
... the number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. or coalition forces has soared from 17 percent in early 2004 to 51 percent now.
...Asked whom they blame most for the current violence in Iraq, far and away the most common answer -- voiced by four in 10 Iraqis -- is either U.S. and coalition forces (31 percent), or George W. Bush personally (nine percent). Al Qaeda and foreign jihadi fighters are cited by 18 percent (far more by Shiites and Kurds than by Sunnis).
Indeed, among the occurrences of local violence measured in this poll, the top mention is "unnecessary violence against citizens by U.S. or coalition forces." Forty-four percent of Iraqis -- including 60 percent of Sunni Arabs -- report this as having occurred nearby....
Right-wingers will grasp at this straw and make it the lede:
...Even as they express discontent with U.S. forces, Iraqis are equivocal about their departure.... Just over a third (35 percent) favor immediate U.S. withdrawal, peaking at 55 percent of Sunni Arabs -- fewer than might be expected given this group's nearly unanimous anti-Americanism. About four in 10 -- Sunni and Shiite alike -- say U.S. forces should remain until security is restored.
However:
...Fewer than three in 10 Iraqis think sending additional U.S. troops to Baghdad and Anbar -- the Bush "surge" -- will improve security in these areas. Among Baghdad residents themselves, 36 percent think the surge will help things. In Anbar, where the Sunni Arab opposition is rooted, essentially everyone thinks it will make security worse.
Which obviously proves they hate freedom.
Forget what I said above -- this is going to be the right-wing headline for this poll:
While it doesn't mitigate Iraq's troubles, there has been some progress. Median household incomes have advanced from $150 per month in 2004 to $204 in 2005 and $286 now. Employment is up sharply. So is possession of consumer goods: Nearly every household in Iraq now has a satellite dish and a radio; nine in 10 have a cell phone, up from a mere 6 percent in 2004.
Headline: Iraqis Say Economy Booms! What the liberal media won't tell you!
There's a lot here and virtually none of it is good news (except for the fact that the Kurds seem happy). I'm quoting the ABC story; more at USA Today, the BBC, and, for German speakers, ARD.
****
UPDATE: This USA Today chart tells you how much "freedom" has actually resulted from Operation Iraqi Freedom (click to enlarge):
A new national survey paints a devastating portrait of life in Iraq: widespread violence, torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever starker sectarian chasm -- and a draining away of the underlying optimism that once prevailed.
... Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby -- car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.
... More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.
This is the third poll in Iraq sponsored by ABC News and media partners -- in this case USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV -- and the changes are grim. In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26 percent say the same. One in three doesn't feel safe at all. In Baghdad, home to a fifth of the country's population, that skyrockets: Eighty-four percent feel entirely unsafe....
And note this:
... the number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. or coalition forces has soared from 17 percent in early 2004 to 51 percent now.
...Asked whom they blame most for the current violence in Iraq, far and away the most common answer -- voiced by four in 10 Iraqis -- is either U.S. and coalition forces (31 percent), or George W. Bush personally (nine percent). Al Qaeda and foreign jihadi fighters are cited by 18 percent (far more by Shiites and Kurds than by Sunnis).
Indeed, among the occurrences of local violence measured in this poll, the top mention is "unnecessary violence against citizens by U.S. or coalition forces." Forty-four percent of Iraqis -- including 60 percent of Sunni Arabs -- report this as having occurred nearby....
Right-wingers will grasp at this straw and make it the lede:
...Even as they express discontent with U.S. forces, Iraqis are equivocal about their departure.... Just over a third (35 percent) favor immediate U.S. withdrawal, peaking at 55 percent of Sunni Arabs -- fewer than might be expected given this group's nearly unanimous anti-Americanism. About four in 10 -- Sunni and Shiite alike -- say U.S. forces should remain until security is restored.
However:
...Fewer than three in 10 Iraqis think sending additional U.S. troops to Baghdad and Anbar -- the Bush "surge" -- will improve security in these areas. Among Baghdad residents themselves, 36 percent think the surge will help things. In Anbar, where the Sunni Arab opposition is rooted, essentially everyone thinks it will make security worse.
Which obviously proves they hate freedom.
Forget what I said above -- this is going to be the right-wing headline for this poll:
While it doesn't mitigate Iraq's troubles, there has been some progress. Median household incomes have advanced from $150 per month in 2004 to $204 in 2005 and $286 now. Employment is up sharply. So is possession of consumer goods: Nearly every household in Iraq now has a satellite dish and a radio; nine in 10 have a cell phone, up from a mere 6 percent in 2004.
Headline: Iraqis Say Economy Booms! What the liberal media won't tell you!
There's a lot here and virtually none of it is good news (except for the fact that the Kurds seem happy). I'm quoting the ABC story; more at USA Today, the BBC, and, for German speakers, ARD.
****
UPDATE: This USA Today chart tells you how much "freedom" has actually resulted from Operation Iraqi Freedom (click to enlarge):
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Many right-wingers are gleefully embracing the results of a new poll of Iraqi public opinion -- which is odd because, while it does say that a plurality of Iraqis prefer life under Maliki to life under Saddam, it also says that 26% of Iraqi adults have lived through the murder of a family member in the past three years, and that the figure for kidnapping is 23%. (CORRECTION: That's the figure in Baghdad; overall it's 8%. But half the country has experienced the kidnapping or murder of a family member, friend, or colleague.)
The results of the poll are here. I'm not sure many of the gleeful righties are actually reading them, preferring to cite these cheery articles about the poll from Rupert Murdoch's Times of London. By contrast, Richard Blair at Alternet notes the many less-than-cheery numbers in the poll.
I don't have much to add to Blair's analysis except this: The right-wingers embracing this poll need to find a way to explain the murder number, because they've been telling us for quite some time that there haven't been all that many civilian casualties in Iraq. Recall that they lashed out at the authors of a study published in The Lancet that arrived at an excess-death estimate of 655,000 since the start of the war, preferring a Pentagon estimate of 50,000. Er, the population of Iraq is nearly 27 million; if half of those are adults, and if the Pentagon estimate is right, then the more than 3.5 million Iraqis who say they have a murdered relative are all talking about the same 50,000 people. That's about a 70-to-1 ratio of relatives to victims. Plausible?
****
UPDATE: More non-Pollyannaish analysis of the poll here and here.
The results of the poll are here. I'm not sure many of the gleeful righties are actually reading them, preferring to cite these cheery articles about the poll from Rupert Murdoch's Times of London. By contrast, Richard Blair at Alternet notes the many less-than-cheery numbers in the poll.
I don't have much to add to Blair's analysis except this: The right-wingers embracing this poll need to find a way to explain the murder number, because they've been telling us for quite some time that there haven't been all that many civilian casualties in Iraq. Recall that they lashed out at the authors of a study published in The Lancet that arrived at an excess-death estimate of 655,000 since the start of the war, preferring a Pentagon estimate of 50,000. Er, the population of Iraq is nearly 27 million; if half of those are adults, and if the Pentagon estimate is right, then the more than 3.5 million Iraqis who say they have a murdered relative are all talking about the same 50,000 people. That's about a 70-to-1 ratio of relatives to victims. Plausible?
****
UPDATE: More non-Pollyannaish analysis of the poll here and here.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
HEY, YOU! YOU'RE PREJUDICED AGAINST TREASONOUS RACISTS!
Er, the Civil War is over, right?
A Tallahassee museum on Friday rejected a request by the local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans to remove an exhibit the group considers disrespectful of the Confederate flag.
The group, which has 56 members locally and about 1,500 statewide, asked the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science to remove "The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag" by John Sims. The work depicts a Confederate battle flag being lynched from a 13-foot-high wooden gallows.
The request was made by Bob Hurst, commander of the Tallahassee camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Mr. Hurst said the exhibit violated a Florida law that makes it illegal to "mutilate, deface, defile or contemptuously abuse" the Confederate flag.
Good Lord -- that's against the law in Florida? (Yup -- see section 256.051.)
Mr. Hurst, museum officials said, asked for all of Mr. Sims's work to be removed from the museum, including a 2007 piece called "Official Ballot for the Afro Confederate Flag."
In that piece, Mr. Sims depicts six versions of the Confederate flag on what resembles the Florida presidential election ballot of 2000. Instead of the traditional Confederate battle flag, though, the flags depicted are black, green and red.
Sounds cool. Actually, all his work sounds cool.
I can't find that ballot piece on the Net, but "The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag" is here. You can see that and several other of John Sims's works at this page, which was put up by some racist knuckledraggers to protest the "desecration of the beloved cross of St. Andrew, also called the Southern Confederate flag." (The page specifically refers to an exhibition of Sims's work at Gettysburg College; I'm not sure where the rant about homosexuality comes from, but, you know, all liberal abominations are interrelated, right?)
****
More Confederate news:
A panel of Georgia lawmakers signed off Thursday on a plan to create a Confederate heritage month, even as legislative leaders reacted coolly to a push to apologize for the state's role in slavery.
Sen. Jeff Mullis' bill would dub April as Confederate History and Heritage Month....
Democratic Rep. Tyrone Brooks, chairman of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, said it's discouraging to see the Confederate month proposal moving ahead after leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate said they're not in favor of apologizing for slavery....
To me it would be discouraging no matter what -- but I'm just a damn Yankee, so what do I know? I'm the one who's out of step -- after all, Confederate Heritage Month is officially recognized in five states and nearly a hundred localities, and officially proclaiming it in Georgia seems like a swell idea to the folks commenting on the story at GOPUSA:
The Confederates were the country's first Conservatives, standing in opposition to big government, unjust tarriffs and violations of the Constitution and States Rights. In retrospect, they must have envisioned the encroachment of the Federal Government into every aspect of our lives and its unsatiable appetite for additional taxes to feed a burgeoning bureaucracy.
So they were guilty of treason. They were better Americans than us liberals, dammit!
Er, the Civil War is over, right?
A Tallahassee museum on Friday rejected a request by the local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans to remove an exhibit the group considers disrespectful of the Confederate flag.
The group, which has 56 members locally and about 1,500 statewide, asked the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science to remove "The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag" by John Sims. The work depicts a Confederate battle flag being lynched from a 13-foot-high wooden gallows.
The request was made by Bob Hurst, commander of the Tallahassee camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Mr. Hurst said the exhibit violated a Florida law that makes it illegal to "mutilate, deface, defile or contemptuously abuse" the Confederate flag.
Good Lord -- that's against the law in Florida? (Yup -- see section 256.051.)
Mr. Hurst, museum officials said, asked for all of Mr. Sims's work to be removed from the museum, including a 2007 piece called "Official Ballot for the Afro Confederate Flag."
In that piece, Mr. Sims depicts six versions of the Confederate flag on what resembles the Florida presidential election ballot of 2000. Instead of the traditional Confederate battle flag, though, the flags depicted are black, green and red.
Sounds cool. Actually, all his work sounds cool.
I can't find that ballot piece on the Net, but "The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag" is here. You can see that and several other of John Sims's works at this page, which was put up by some racist knuckledraggers to protest the "desecration of the beloved cross of St. Andrew, also called the Southern Confederate flag." (The page specifically refers to an exhibition of Sims's work at Gettysburg College; I'm not sure where the rant about homosexuality comes from, but, you know, all liberal abominations are interrelated, right?)
****
More Confederate news:
A panel of Georgia lawmakers signed off Thursday on a plan to create a Confederate heritage month, even as legislative leaders reacted coolly to a push to apologize for the state's role in slavery.
Sen. Jeff Mullis' bill would dub April as Confederate History and Heritage Month....
Democratic Rep. Tyrone Brooks, chairman of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, said it's discouraging to see the Confederate month proposal moving ahead after leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate said they're not in favor of apologizing for slavery....
To me it would be discouraging no matter what -- but I'm just a damn Yankee, so what do I know? I'm the one who's out of step -- after all, Confederate Heritage Month is officially recognized in five states and nearly a hundred localities, and officially proclaiming it in Georgia seems like a swell idea to the folks commenting on the story at GOPUSA:
The Confederates were the country's first Conservatives, standing in opposition to big government, unjust tarriffs and violations of the Constitution and States Rights. In retrospect, they must have envisioned the encroachment of the Federal Government into every aspect of our lives and its unsatiable appetite for additional taxes to feed a burgeoning bureaucracy.
So they were guilty of treason. They were better Americans than us liberals, dammit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)