How we shouldn’t sound
Two good friends of this blog, Red State Eclectic and Lew Rockwell.com, have posted this video today:
I find it difficult to express how saddened I am when smart, principled people allow themselves to be baited into making really bad arguments. Hell, usually I’m that person. But I’ve never gotten to the point of presenting anecdotal examples of administration proposals for national service in order to assert the imminence of a new Hitler Youth. Nor do references to “citizens of Israel” and images of scary black kids in camo help us.
I like being an advocate of constitutionally restricted government power. I do my best to make a persuasive case against the expansion of federal authority. I respect and admire the enthusiasm of my compatriots in the cause. I would like to see us all do the best we can to present our case effectively to the many Americans who are not yet convinced, but who can be.
This sort of thing isn’t helping. We can do (and have done) a lot better.
Christ that is embarassing (for those blogs) and completely laughable to the rest of us. This is Glenn Beck level of idiocy. To Laura’s credit she at least seems to have taken your criticism to heart. I may be a supporter of Obama, but I don’t see how his critics lobotomizing themselves with this kind of garbage helps anyone.
I keep waiting to hear reasoned criticism of the administration from the right. I am willing to listen. I don’t hang out on blogs like this for my great love of conservatism, or God, or the free market. Give me something that’s not transparently stupid.
Err, sorry, I feel like I am about to start lecturing when what I am trying to say is: keep fighting the good fight, Rojas.
Comment by tessellated — 4/11/2009 @ 9:30 pm
Both RSE and Rockwell provide pretty good criticism of the administration, I think. So do we at times.
This is just one of those aberrations that’s brought on by spending too much time with people who agree with us, I think. I’ve done my share of it as well, and I’ve always been grateful in retrospect when people let me know that I needed to raise the periscope and surface for air.
Comment by Rojas — 4/11/2009 @ 10:14 pm
No, you are right there have been numerous instances of thoughtful critiques on this blog. That’s why I hang around.
Comment by tessellated — 4/11/2009 @ 10:43 pm
I can’t currently view video, but I do know there is a lot of stupid criticism of the current administration going about. It somewhat reminds me of the excessive emphasis on ‘Bushisms’ that ran around during the last administration. While it was amusing to mock the verbal missteps of Bush, too often it was presented as a substantial argument whilst important issues slid by in the gutter.
Even more to the point the current ‘right’ such as it is angers me even more because they appear to be sliding into what the ‘left’ was for so damned long, an ineffectual opposition. I don’t view a flip-flop from one extreme to another as a positive thing. I want more than anything to see thoughtful movements on the(sadly) limited two political parties we have, at least in the absence of alternatives. I’m now just as angry with republicans(if not more) than I was with the democrats during the 2000-2008 years. It’s sad and pathetic.
Comment by Mortexai — 4/11/2009 @ 11:57 pm
Well that’s a little stomach churning.
You’re right, Rojas, this does zero to advance the conversation. In the end, no reasonable human being is persuaded away from her point of view with this kind of idiocy and I say this as an honest to God fence sitter on this issue. Fortunately, I know the difference between fringe and fact, so this isn’t a deal breaker one way or the other.
Comment by Liz — 4/12/2009 @ 12:08 am
Gee, Rojas, it’s not enough to flail me on my own blog?
Sometimes we’re all really desperate for inspiration for something to post, huh? In my defense, though, I didn’t endorse the video or anything in it–I merely had a one sentence introduction which suggested that readers ought to watch the whole thing, regardless of how upset they got. I could have not posted it at all, I guess, but then Rojas would have had to find something else to get worked up about tonight!
Comment by Laura — 4/12/2009 @ 12:16 am
Laura, don’t let this bother you. Those who remain on the safe sidelines in the fight against the lurch to the left are unwilling to include in the effort anyone to their right. One mustn’t disturb our liberal thought controllers. Don’t expect any of them to attend the “Tea Party” opposition effort to what is going on. That would be too radical.
Unfortunately, radical opposition is now called for. As to the video, it emphasizes similarities that now are in infancy or maybe beyond that. If unchecked, there is no question that they will destroy what is left of our constitutional liberties. What harm does this video, seen by only a few, do in comparison to the pap fed the public by the media and politically correct institutions in this country? Overwrought condemnation of it seems grossly out of proportion especially on a site that is supposed to be friendly to liberty. As to Obama, there is clearly a hero-worship that is clearly dangerous to our liberties when it is combined with a supine congress, adulating media, and cowed polically correct “opposition”. Laura, more power to you!
Comment by Coogan — 4/12/2009 @ 1:32 pm
You took the words right out of my mouth, Coogan. Hear, hear.
Comment by James — 4/12/2009 @ 1:45 pm
Balderdash.
What I can’t help thinking about is the comparison to the Ron Paul stuff, which a lot of the current waffle is directly coopting. The Ron Paul stuff was in a specific context (electoral), organized around specific, achievable (if at times long shot) goals, under an identifiable ideological rubric, whose intent was, in retrospect, less about raging against the machine and more about spreading a message.
By comparison, if there is a concrete goal of the Glenn Beck/Tea Party/whatever else stuff, I honestly don’t know what it is. It strikes me as directionless anger in a very bizarre context (it appears geared towards a vague goal of, I don’t know what, armed insurrection, or at least raising the specter of it, at least as much as any identifiable and specific positive goals). It certainly isn’t educational or instructional, the chief proponents seem to have no real intent of spreading any message beyond themselves, its goals and even specific objections remain unclear even to me and I’d have to assume I’d be about as sympathetic an audience to it as anybody), and I suppose what’s bothering me is that it seems like, frankly, there’s an attempt to coopt a real and identifiable anti-big government ideology and mush it into just directionless anger. It makes me a little ill watching Glenn Beck, say, try to turn himself into a some kind of fantasy warlord, either out of charlatanism or just because he’s just plain nuts, or to see congressmen holding up tea bags on MSNBC and trying to get on the bus but in such a way that asks nothing of them. They don’t want any specifics, they just want the general fugue in the hopes that they can direct to their own ends.
And it’s marginalizing itself. There is a very good, very necessary message that is the kernel of this tea party stuff, but it’s being wrapped in a veneer of crazy, such that when 99% of the rest of the country look at it, they don’t find it threatening or instructional, they find it funny and mockable. Say what you want about the Paul movement, but there was a begrudging respect from all corners of the political spectrum to it. The fear was always that it would be marred by its crazier elements and end up turning people off to the core message, but the more we get some distance the more I think it came off pretty damn well. The same can’t be said for this stuff. Guys like Glenn Beck are dousing members of the studio audience with kerosene, breaking down in tears at random intervals, kids in Pittsburgh are killing cops because of a vague fear that “they” are coming to the take their guns, CNBC anchors and random Republican congressmen are sopping it up like pigs in shit, and the rest of the country is thinking to itself “hrm, if that’s what being against big government looks like, maybe I ought to make my peace with Big Brother”, and the core activists of the movement are losing themselves further and further down the rabbit hole such that, by the time the next election does come around, they’ll be so far up their own asses stockpiling shotguns and baked beans that nobody will give a rat’s ass what they have to say, and they’ll have no real idea of what they want or how they can get it.
It’s like the right wing militia movement of the early 90s gone vaguely commercial.
Comment by Brad — 4/12/2009 @ 2:42 pm
If this was December 16, 1773, you would know doubt be among those scoffing on the docks of Boston Harbor.
Comment by James — 4/12/2009 @ 5:04 pm
At least that was a protest against something.
What are you going to do on the 16th, give back your moderate tax cut?
Comment by Brad — 4/12/2009 @ 6:13 pm
You know, after mulling this over for a while, while the video itself may have been a bit on the extreme side (especially its title and the overt connection of Obama to Hitler, which was not really justified–at least based on what we’ve seen so far), I do think there’s something to the notion that we should be constantly considering the direction that we’re pointed in. Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom” points out that liberties are not stolen overnight–they are taken away, bit by bit. As James alludes to in a comment to my original post, the question is whether we’re frogs that feel the heat being turned up and jump out, or whether we’re just going to let them cook us slowly, thinking that the warm water feels mighty good.
I’m a big one for moderate behavior–I’m not a radical in terms of behavior–in fact, I’m about as boring as is possible. But I do think we need to consider the road we COULD be on with each of these new government programs. Does that mean Obama means to open concentration camps? No. But if we “play nice” and accept these types of things with the expectation that nothing REALLY bad will ever come from them, then we’ve gotten one step closer to a point where someone who had truly evil motives could take advantage of the system that was developed for “altruistic” purposes.
I realize that videos like this one are off-putting to some. By the same token, they may–just may–be what is needed to wake some people from the stupor they appear to be in. Maybe it gets people to thinking about the road we may be on–even though it doesn’t necessarily reflect where we are on the road today. And I don’t think they’re any less fair than videos and accusations that Bush Administration Homeland Security types were jackbooted stormtroopers, or that we were entering an era with that Administration of “papers, please.” I hope that I would be saying the same thing–and that the same things would be said–if John McCain (who I didn’t vote for) as President had decided to promote mandatory national service. Barack Obama just happens to be the one in power now.
Comment by Laura — 4/13/2009 @ 12:09 am
Tax cut? I wish. What are you going to do, my “Libertarian” friend? You will toe the line for whatever political wind snaps your sails, yes? Sorry, but some of us are less interested with being the next Andrew Sullivan than we are with the fucking squall this administration and its slavering dogs seem to be sailing the ship of state into.
I’ll shut up now. Carry on.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 1:05 am
Laura, we need to make the case that the incremental actions of the Obama administration are bad in and of themselves, not as a result of some kind of unlikely long term consequence.
When voters make decisions–hell, when PEOPLE make decisions–they tend to make them based upon the expediency of the moment, or alternatively based on adherence to principles they’ve already decided upon. We can do plenty to oppose mendatory national service along those lines.
What we CAN’T do, if we wish to be taken seriously by anyone outside of our closest ideological allies, is continuously proffer scenarios of apocalypse resulting from incremental reforms along the lines of what Obama proposes.
It is, to put it mildly, incredibly unlikely that the Obama administration’s goal is to eliminate civil liberties in this country and to erect concentration camps for his political opponents. The American people know this. The more often we make that kind of argument, the less appealing we will be when we make arguments against those incremental restrictions of freedom of which Barack Obama seems fond.
Who is the person who you think would be “awakened from their stupor” by that video? Seriously? What are the conditions of life which would lead to a person to be passively supportive of Brack Obama until he or she happened to run across that thing on a blog, at which point he or she would suddenly be inspired to start attending tea parties? We keep angrily demanding that people “wake up.” Do you know ANYONE who has been converted by such a call?
Comment by Rojas — 4/13/2009 @ 11:19 am
Well, there were these guys named Jesus and Mohammad and they…well, you know.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 11:42 am
Dude, you have frequently, on this blog and elsewhere, argued that the United States federal government ought to have the power to conduct any kind of surveillance it likes against its citizens, to not just be allowed but be encouraged to erect and maintain prison camps—literal, real prison camps—for the purposes of detaining indefinitely without charge anybody it cares to up to and including American citizens, and that they should not just be allowed but encouraged to torture, and you view all that as nothing short as a positive step forward in the advance of Western civilization against the forces of tyranny.
But now that your upper tax bracket is going to take a hit you’re going to take to the streets shouting that Big Brother has arrived and anybody who disagrees with you are sheeple groveling at the altar of executive power?
And you’re going to give me shit about blowing which way the wind sails?
Comment by Brad — 4/13/2009 @ 1:47 pm
But look, I’ll certainly cop to being old school in the sense that I hope the new president succeeds (before you say it, I didn’t turn against Bush until a good three years in his first term). I am not certain that what Obama is doing is wrong, and I am flat-out unconvinced that what he is doing is radical in the sense that it’s well above and beyond what any mainstream Democrat and most Republican Presidents would have done under the circumstances (I’m talking here about the bailouts and his recession actions specifically, though that could equally apply to his longer term goals of health care reform, energy investments and the like). In fact, I could make a pretty darn good case that Obama has been, all things considered, pretty moderate in his response. If you’ve cared enough to pay attention, the debate in most economic circles is not that Obama has instantiated a radical program of Nationalized State—indeed, the meatiest debate for awhile on this subject was whether he was doing enough (if you check out last week’s Newsweek (Time?), you might note Paul Krugman on the cover).
And here’s the other thing: Obama is doing, on this front, more or less exactly what he was elected to do and what the vast majority of Americans believe he should be doing. Now, we can all have our opinions on that and that’s fine—indeed we should, and I’m with you and Laura that more Americans need to wake up. But what the kind of stuff Rojas is talking about is not a joining of the debate. Joining the debate would be taking on the reality of the situation, presenting sound alternatives, be willing to cogently and lucidly argue the point, and first and foremost doing all of that in good faith. You’ve shown how unwilling you are to do that in your post I just quoted. If everybody that supports Obama is a jackbooted sycophant under some kind of mass delusion and you’d prefer just insulting them wildly rather than engage them in intelligent discussion—well, get pretty comfortable in a tiny, tiny, increasingly fringe minority.
Generally speaking, calling people nazis or accusing them of slobbering all over Obama’s knob when they make any statements you perceive as supportive of his agenda is not really going to ingratiate you to anybody, and it’s certainly not going to build a movement that makes any kind of difference if guys like you are running it.
There is a debate to be had here. It involves joining the discussion on the terms on which it presently exists, on recognizing that Obama is not some singular enemy who, through sheer force of will, is brainwashing all your fellow Americans, but rather that Obama was chosen to represent those fellow Americans on the grounds that they approved of the policies he espouses. I think that’s what’s been bothering me about this veering wildly off into Tea Party and Glenn Beck zone; there was a GOLDEN opportunity, a great window opened for us, during the financial crisis, during the bailout debate, and to this day when we discuss how to go forward. Days when Ron Paul was thrown back in regular rotation, economists who predicted the disaster were being urged to run for Congress, monetary policy (and even Fed legitimacy) was an acceptable topic on places like CNBC, and Republicans were clearly looking to stick their toe in the water to see what their next moves might be.
And instead of seeing a whole legion of button-up fiscal conservatives calmly but aggressively articulating a lucid vision of a real conservative path and expressing the dangers of the path they’re on without resorting to flat-out hyperbole or conspiracy, they’re beginning to find a big warm current of shrill disconnect. In other words, we desperately, desperately need a seat at the table right now, and too many of us are concerning ourselves with trying to smash the place settings. That bothers me for the simple reason that I care about the legitimacy of the message, if for no other reason than because without some kind of legitimacy, we’re easily dismissed and the polite conversation moves on, the window is closed, and the debate centers on Obama v. Krugman while the message of small government and fiscal responsibility becomes inexorably intertwined with right-wing militia movement survivalism and kooky apocalyptic doom-saying and paper-tiger constructing.
Comment by Brad — 4/13/2009 @ 2:23 pm
Say what? I would love to know where you got that idea.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 2:28 pm
Wait, now we’re supposed to be representing each others opinions fairly, with respect, and with the nuance and context that they originally came with?
Make up your mind, man.
Comment by Brad — 4/13/2009 @ 2:40 pm
What the hell are you talking about?
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 2:54 pm
It’s not even that there isn’t a cogent voice speaking on behalf of our liberties, there is one who has been tirelessly speaking and is gaining more support all the time, so why aren’t people linking that instead of hysterical propaganda?
I am of course speaking of Greenwald.
Comment by Mortexai — 4/13/2009 @ 5:02 pm
Greenwald was recently interviewed on Bill Moyers’s show. I think Glenn’s profile is slowly growing.
Comment by tessellated — 4/13/2009 @ 5:18 pm
Many of the same people, RSE and LRC included, are linking both Greenwald AND this stuff.
Comment by Rojas — 4/13/2009 @ 5:43 pm
1) Mortexai is right–we ought to be linking to Greenwald more, who has been a great voice for civil liberties, through both the Bush Administration, and thus far in the Obama one.
2) It’s funny that the only people who seem to have gotten themselves worked up about that video are people here at TCP–Rojas issued the first comment on the original post at my sight, but no one else has piled on negatively (not even anyone else that I would identify as TCP readers)–and our readership is pretty robust and we’ve got a number of people who are not shy about expressing their opinions frequently. Guys–it’s a video. It’s no crazier than some of the goofy ones that were out there during the Paul campaign. If you’re offended, fine, but will you be less offended my mandatory national service for you and your children–even if you’re not forced to wear brown shirts?
3) As for convincing people that something is the correct (or incorrect) course of action based on the unlikely long term consequences or doing them (or not doing them), rather than short term expediency, I’m not sure I buy that, Rojas. Women are convinced every day to get mammograms beginning at age 40–not based on the likelihood that they have breast cancer today, but to build a baseline for the long term–we do plenty of scaring people people to take action today out of fear that something bad might happen tomorrow. People are plenty able to think about the future–not all of us are wrapped up in what feels good today.
4) As to “conversion” by such a “call” as seen in the video, no, I know of no one who has been converted. However I doubt that one video–or for that matter, one rational discussion about mandatory service–is going to convert anyone. But I think there are lots of ways to get the message across, and “outrageous” videos or arguments like this one might get people to thinking, might get them to reading up on the question, and might open the door to more discussions.
And as Forrest Gump said, “That’s all I have to say about that.”
Comment by Laura — 4/13/2009 @ 5:44 pm
It got me thinking alright — thinking that there is no reason to visit your site or leave comments there expressing my opinion.
Comment by tessellated — 4/13/2009 @ 5:52 pm
Rojas 23: To which I’d ask why? I mean, why link Greenwald, make a rational argument and then jump off the deep end? Counter productive if you ask me, unless of course you’re only interested in building a cheering squad.
Comment by Mortexai — 4/13/2009 @ 6:26 pm
Laura 25:
2)No crazier than some of the Ron Paul stuff eh? From my perspective, that would make it a negative on the side of the Ron Paul campaign, rather than a positive for this… whatever you want to call it.
3)I don’t know what that point is supposed to say. The way I’m reading it right now is that hyperbole and fear tactics are a)in use now b)they work and c)ends justify the means. I can’t say as that’s a terribly compelling argument, so I hope I misread it.
Comment by Mortexai — 4/13/2009 @ 6:40 pm
I guess that’s one of the questions; if one links to a video like this without explicitly expressing reservations about it, can one be assumed to be endorsing it in entirety? Tessellated, your comment seems to imply that you think so–that by posting the video without critical commentary, Laura is adopting it as her viewpoint, which makes the rest of her blog unworthy of interest.
As to the video itself, I thought it was extremely inflammatory. I thought it had a lot of chutzpah to accuse Obama’s administration of spreading propaganda, and I felt that the text “Obama suggests mandatory military service (or whatever it was) was misleading, especially given that it was followed by his speech, which presented military service as one among many options.
Personally, I would not be in favor of mandatory national service or guaranteed funding for college education, but it doesn’t strike me as being nearly as big of a danger as some other Obama policies.
As to the cult of personality which has developed around Obama, I don’t see that he has specifically done anything to encourage or discourage it. It’s unfortunate and potentially problematic, inasmuch as it seems to indicate acceptance of his policy because of who he is, rather than on their merits.
I don’t think that this video is a helpful addition to the debate, for the same reasons that Rojas and Brad put forward–it is unlikely to persuade anyone, and very likely to cause polarization without presenting coherent arguments. It’s intended to create fear and demonize Obama and his supporters, which is not conducive to debate. If you were trying to set the stage for an actual conflict or armed revolt, this would be appropriate propaganda. If you’re trying to encourage discussion and resolution of disagreement, it is emphatically not useful.
I hope I would say the same about the similar propaganda which was directed at Bush, although I personally found his policies to be vastly more of a threat to civil liberties than Obama’s, at least so far.
Comment by Talarohk — 4/13/2009 @ 6:44 pm
I personally think the use of “Wake up, people!” confrontational-type presentations to be inherently counterproductive, as they contain a built-in insult to the viewer; the implication is that the viewer of the presentation is a fool, and only a shocking presentation by the author of the propaganda (who is by comparison much wiser than the viewer) can jolt the viewer out of his or her ignorance and complacency.
This probably feels good to the author of the presentation–we all like to feel that we are wiser than those around us, and that the “sheeple” only disagree with us because they are ignorant and deceived; if only they could be shown the truth, they would agree with us. But that attitude is inherently condescending, and the “sheeple” are likely to perceive that. They probably won’t appreciate the implication.
That’s not to say that it can’t possibly be true, or that everyone’s opinions are equally valid and accurate. But if one really wants to bring the “sheeple” around to one’s own way of thinking, implying that they are stupid and easily led is unlikely to be persuasive. It’s more likely to make them reject anything one says out of hand.
That’s why I say that the video is more suited to polarization, demonization, and inflammation than actually convincing someone in a debate.
Do the authors of the videos want consensus or conflict?
Comment by Talarohk — 4/13/2009 @ 7:00 pm
Oh, and Laura–this is not intended to imply that you are a demagogue. I have always found your blog to be insightful and rational, whether or not I agree with you; I think you’d be a wonderful person to have a discussion with.
Comment by Talarohk — 4/13/2009 @ 7:01 pm
Tal:
I think that yes, posting a video like that without expressing one sentence’s worth of reservation implies approval. What seals the deal is the follow up commentary. Laura’s initial response to Rojas on her own blog made me moderate that reading, which is what I was alluding to in the first comment in this thread. Later commentary leaves me to re-evaluate that moderation. I think there is LOADS of useful commentary out there, why would I subject myself to a blog that defends the use of propagandistic horsehit in the hope that amongst the refuse there are gems to be found? I generally avoid a lot of left-leaning blogs for the very same reason. I just don’t have the patience for it.
Comment by tessellated — 4/13/2009 @ 7:05 pm
So posting this without bring up the fact that Jesse Ventura is bat shit crazy makes this blog unworthy in it’s entirety? Give me a fucking break, Tess. Brad didn’t feel the need to steer the readers of his post to a conclusion and nor did, Laura at RSE.
Get real.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 7:56 pm
Just sayin…
Comment by Mortexai — 4/13/2009 @ 8:05 pm
That clip wasn’t an edited piece of propaganda either, and sure, if it offends your sensibilities enough you could go elsewhere. Blogs are a vehicle of opinion (no surprise there) and all I am saying is that if you post something with next to no comment other than
then, yes, I feel justified in assuming you agree with what you posted.
Get real, indeed.
Comment by tessellated — 4/13/2009 @ 8:16 pm
I think you should work harder at controlling other peoples expression, Tess. You could maybe cut their internet connection when their presentation doesn’t meet your needs. After all, you simply want to protect people from being exposed to that which you find unacceptable. I am with you on this, really. Maybe a protocol, a script should be devised so that no one will be misled and can see the clarity of our perspective, yes? We may need more monitors, police to make sure that everything is presented how we see fit, don’t you agree?
Yes by golly, we are gonna make sure the truth gets out there. What was the truth again?
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 8:36 pm
Where did I suggest that Laura or whoever else shouldn’t have their own blog to say whatever it is they want to say? Just don’t ask me to take them (or you) seriously if you support something that is patently ridiculous. Also, don’t expect me to take you seriously if you continue giving your best impression of the ‘oppressed’ guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Comment by tessellated — 4/13/2009 @ 8:49 pm
Ugh. Come on James, let’s not do the “you expressing your negative opinion about my opinion is the same as censorship” stuff.
Between this and the Nazi comparisons, how many Laws of Internet Arguing are you trying to break in this thread?
Comment by Brad — 4/13/2009 @ 9:01 pm
Hey, you are the one who cited my “frequent” advocacy of things I have never advocated, Brad. You want to talk hyperbole? Please.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 9:08 pm
Man. It’s too bad irony is lost on you. You should read that line, coming from you, with my eyes.
If all you’re going to do is throw around innuendo and snipe, then don’t grouse when people don’t take your “arguments” seriously or afford them the respect and fairness you patently refuse to give anybody else.
If you’d like to have an intelligent discussion on ideas wherein you actually state your opinions and defend them rather than popping in and out to shadow box and personally belittle people without ever putting your own balls on the line, you know where I am.
I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by Brad — 4/13/2009 @ 9:47 pm
Nobody knows where you are, Brad. Not even you. And I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 10:32 pm
Getting back to the video. I didn’t see it as much against Obama as against the uncritical manner in which his every act is appraised by the MSM (and, I might add, some here). I didn’t see it as an attempt to say that he is a carbon copy of Adolf Hitler. That interpretation is simply overwrought. This little video must have really stepped on a nerve to have caused such an extreme reaction. It is as if it were a Rohrschach ink blot test that reveals a hidden adherence to the dominant liberal/leftist culture in the beholder.
By the way, will any of you condemn the brainwashing of those boys who paraded in their semi-militia garb? That kind of ignorant adulation should frighten anyone concerned with our Liberty.
Comment by Coogan — 4/13/2009 @ 10:42 pm
Having been painted as a radical loon (which I appreciate–it will up my street cred with some of my co-bloggers who think I’m just a little too moderate), let me suggest that everyone now just take a deep breath, and drop this discussion. Our two blogs have had a friendly relationship almost from the beginning of both of them–is it really necessary for what I considered to be a “throwaway” post to cause such heartburn? Just asking.
If you want to beat on me some more, why don’t you do it on my blog, rather than talking about me “behind my back” over here.
Comment by Laura — 4/13/2009 @ 10:48 pm
The title of the video is “Obama’s Hitler Youth”.
Comment by Rojas — 4/13/2009 @ 10:48 pm
Irony is lost on the ironheaded.
Comment by Mortexai — 4/13/2009 @ 10:51 pm
Laura, I don’t think I could have been any clearer in pointing out that you are not a radical loon. Nor do I feel any degree of disrespect for RSE; I think I’ve been plain about that from the outset.
We are partners in a common movement which includes a broad network of bloggers and other media commentators. Within the context of that movement, discussion of tactics should not be seen as an attack.
There are a number of commenters here who are not on board with the Paul movement in particular or the movement towards limited government generally. These are the sort of people we need to be reaching out to if we want to broaden the base of our effort. Some are more persuadable than others. You’re hearing from them, in this thread, what they think of that video. Don’t you think that this is information we can use?
I do feel bad about the fact that your feelings were hurt by my cross-post on this matter, but I can’t really apologize. I have always assumed that we have blogs in order to proffer our ideas for discussion. The idea you proffered was interesting to me, so I discussed it here.
Comment by Rojas — 4/13/2009 @ 10:57 pm
THE END
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 11:04 pm
One more thing, James :). Rojas 45–no problems here. It takes much more than this to hurt my feelings. My point would simply be this–perhaps our readership is different (not that RSE’s readership is a bunch of nuts) and what seems worthy of post and reasoned discussion at one site is viewed as outlandish at another. I just wish that some of the other folks who seemed to think it was so outrageous would have commented on our site, as well–it might have engaged those who read RSE in a productive discussion, too.
Comment by Laura — 4/13/2009 @ 11:12 pm
Keep dodging arguments James, it’s what you do best.
Comment by Mortexai — 4/13/2009 @ 11:13 pm
This is like watching the end of Ironman.
Comment by James — 4/13/2009 @ 11:14 pm
Laura, just for the record, don’t take this discussion as a referendum on you. Far from it; I think this topic has been boiling for awhile now (see my posts on Glenn Beck), and Rojas’ post just seems to be a jumping off point for having that discussion. I know and trust your motives on all this stuff, and as far as I’m concerned they could not be purer and I don’t think anybody’s suggested otherwise. You, personally, are really pretty incidental to the whole thing :).
Comment by Brad — 4/14/2009 @ 1:37 am
Brad 50: Duly noted.
Comment by Laura — 4/14/2009 @ 9:34 am
I don’t know about anyone else but I find the phenomenon of “right”eous outrage fascinating.
I mean for 8 long years it was Clinton this, China that, murder murder how many must the Clintons murder, FISA is unaccountable, SATANized communist medicine, blow jobs are the end of the republic, etc etc etc… Eight long years of paranoiac outrage.
Then for eight long years it was, don’t you dare question the government or the generals who speak for them in uniform, everything must be secret including the people we secretly wiretap/torture/and murder, actual government propaganda as news is not news, war war war, the justice department should carry out political persecutions, etc etc etc… To this day, not a lot of real outrage about the conduct of that era. Disgust, yes. Outrage? It’s been muted, marginalized, decentralized, characterized as the whinings of anti-american hippies.
2 months into the new democratic presidency? We’re
back to raving paranoia and anxiety about government expansion.
Never mind that it’s possible that government expansion is required to clean up the sewage left behind by that last “Churchillian” president no one but hippies complained about until he let a city drown in shit.
No, the unreasoned outrage machine picked up right where it left off 8 years ago when Clinton was Hitler. Funny thing about that well polished outrage machine, it was paid for by rich assholes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project
who employ people to lie and hyperbolize all the time. Dittoheads pick up on those lies and make them their own. The mainstream picks up on the lies, which have suddenly become news because of the dittohead protests, and reports them as news.
Aren’t people getting sick of outrage machines?
Comment by thimbles — 4/14/2009 @ 11:34 am