A documentary on how the web 2.0 “revolution” is kaput. Old news, but essential watching for those interested in the issue. Will blog on this later.
Hip-hop star Snoop Dogg has launched a scathing attack on U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, accusing him of gleaning support from the Ku Klux Klan.
The SF Gate does not attempt to source the information quoted by Snoop. At this point the internet rumor is almost two months old and well traveled and known about.
Interesting Obama defense from this commenter. The Obama campaign needs more of this stuff, and less of the calling people racist. Here’s a bit: “One of my roomies — total arch conservative — was on law review with him, and said he was a totally great guy. I think one of the reasons is that he treats everyone with respect and consideration. he treats conservatives as friends he disagrees with, not as satanic enemies like Hillary and most of the left do. And that matters a lot.” Again, the Obama campaign should remember this and not rise to Hilary’s bait, which is predicated on making him come across like a traditional Angry Black Candidate.
Note that middle bit there in quotes. “he treats conservatives as friends he disagrees with, not as satanic enemies like Hillary and most of the left do. And that matters a lot.”
It’s a bit hard to stomach this being pointed out by the king of calling all lefties evil based upon the words or actions of a few for a good number of years now. Ward Churchill anyone? It’s been a systematic tactic of Reynolds and other propagandists of the right to label the left everythiing from lunatics to unhinged to mentally unstable.
Glenn is playing a disinformation game here anyway. It’s called “call Obama for REACTING to others playing the race card.” Which is exactly the strategy that the Clinton campaign pushes. Because it’s lose lose for the Obama campaign. They lose if they respond in any way (reacting to thus playing the race card in the eyes of those with no real critical thinking such as Reynolds) and they lose if they don’t respond.
And note, it goes without comment from Glenn that Ferraro’s comments were indeed racist. He lets a link speak for him. He leads this particular post off with a link to a WSJ piece that proffers that Ferraro may be right! It never occurs to Gleen that the WSJ is supporting racist statements, just as his hypocrisy supports disinformation and scapegoating of those who don’t agree with him. A close cousin to racism to be sure, since it’s a form of eliminationsim. He’s blind to the intellectual conflict that exists therein… It’s what makes him the Putz.
Glenn should just take a break. His game is way off. Is it me or as his influence and reach been marginalized to the point of being the internet version of a half filled balloon floating in the corner of the room?
It’s emblematic of the downward spiral that has crippled media ethics and the investigative process the past several years. The real story here is how the information went from investigation to press, and what laws if any were really broken by Spitzer, and the legal hand wringing and negotiating struggle that is ongoing at this moment. But, finding information on that is difficult when there is snark to be written about the hookers rap music offerings on her MySpace page. And, people wonder why the US is in such deep trouble. It’s called an idiot wind.
Digby’s dday agrees.
Whenever I want to know the spin and disinformation of the day that is clogging up the infobahn, I head on over to a few places that are tried and true bastions of uberidiocy, home to the canard breathing boneheads who practice a form of black arts genius navel gazing and intellectual flatulence that passes as cogent thought and problem solving in the halowed halls of Wingnuttia. And, one of those fav places is Connecticut Yankee. Cause, ol’ CY never met a nut he didn’t want to suck the life out of and then try to pass onto the waiting world as a pearl simply by virtue of it having his teeth marks on it.
Tbogg finds a beaut that proves that CY probably either 1) Reads every other word as taught to him in the Evelyn Wood Reading Class, or 2) Just makes stuff up.Read More
I’m a little late but better than never…
Yes, tis Blogroll Amnesty Day, which means that today we celebrate all the small blogs (like this one) that aren’t on the blogrolls of the larger blogs anymore, for the day of the great purge came and went. Not that blogs like this one got much traffic from them, but it was nice to get a little note in your box now and then saying “I found you via…” wasn’t it?
Jon Swift has a fantastic roundup of all the blogs participating, and here are some links to blogs that I read that may be off the beaten path or not linked to very much or simply friend’s places I like and want to promote on this day.
Also, I’m adding a new link area to the right titled “B.A.D.” which contains all the links of participants (lifted from Jon Swift’s post) and my links for Blog Amnesty Day. Look for it and click on some new blogs. There is some truly wonderful work going on out there.Read More
A gem over at Douglas’ blog, in the comments. For the “wish I’d said this” collection:
Our resistance movement, such as it is, is buried in the minutia and manufactured paranoia, and missing the big picture. And this makes it even easier for the fascists to do their business
If people really understood how serious and backwards it all is, they’d also immediately realize, (as one does in times of great danger) that there is no time for folly such as paranoia. Our instinct for survival kicks in. But, I fear that all too many are diffusing their instincts with mind games.Read More
Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend made an appearance on CNN yesterday and it was stellar.
Truth be told, yours truly has mixed feelings on bloggers appearing as pundits. To my mind, the TV format has real deficiencies compared to the blogging format. It may be live video compared to textual post and comments, but when you compare how information comes out and how it’s dealt with, blogging wins. I see the value of bloggers on TV, but also the pitfalls. TV is really an imperfect medium for the conveyance of real information and discussion. Well, actually, it’s become an imperfect medium for information. There was a time when it was a bit more balanced in presentation. But, hype, commercialism, and polarization has stepped in. Upon a time, one might see Gore Vidal on The Tonight Show one night and Barry Goldwater the next, and they talked about issues, not about their new tattoo.
Obviously, the host on a TV show gets to dictate what is discussed and set the tone, and because commercials are inevitably more important than actually finishing a discussion, incorrect statements will go unresolved. (I’m assuming some basic liberal blog rules here: no moderation of comments for starters.) Read Pam’s post (and the comments) linked above for an example of that in progress.
Blogging picks up where TV drops the ball, and TV is trying to adapt, but it’s still glaringly apparent how static and rigid the TV format is… yet, it’s still the dominant force in many ways. Alas…Read More
My favorite conservative blooger, Jon Swift has been kind enough to remind me that he reminded Skippy that a bunch of other people are reminding us all that national blogroll amnesty remembrance day is fast upon us. As Skippy notes:
…if we can get as many of the mid-level and lower-trafficked blogs to participate, perhaps we can build an infrastructure of our own to help build the memes of progressive ideals, to counteract the mighty wurlitzer that had dominated the national discourse for so long.
I’ve added all the afore mentioned to my blogroll, and if you aren’t on mine, please just send an e-mail by clicking on the contact link above (don’t be scared away by the no robot site) and I’ll add you to my most illustrious blogroll.Read More
Bill McKibben has written an interesting article in The Atlantic on how internet radio trumps satellite radio because internet radio makes local radio global. His point being that community is what people crave, and local community allows people to connect in a way that a disjointed, chaotic or simply programmed (24 hours of music but no talk.) does not.
The web will be the venue of the next media movement, but first it needs to iron out the kinks. It will be community based and the closer it can get to real time, the better. At first, like Facebook and Twitter, the social communities will be random and somewhat disjointed, the result of who is in your address book and using the application too, mixed with connecting via random interest in a plethora of searched words, links and web sites, all brought together by curiosity, the technological newness of the application and the desire to reach out and touch someone.
The process is similar to how AOL chats worked in the mid 90’s.- a new computer, new connection to “cyberspace”, and lots of people just like you, looking to talk. Both ICQ and AOL were great at bringing strangers and friends together, but the common elements that create a lasting and growing community were lacking. It was pretty chaotic. People coming and going, not really getting any farther than idle chit chat, which is pretty much the scene on Twitter and Facebook and My Space. IM’s function in a similar manner, as do text messages.
At first, the AOL chat rooms that were so popular began to morph into something else. The ability to create your own chat became the popular choice and established AOL created chat areas faded away. But, not all of them. Some of those prefab chat rooms on AOL began to coalesce into more specific communities, and you’d notice that the same 50 to 100 people were now regulars. Like a cyberspace bar.
The binding connection was like minded lives and interests. You could find anything from car talk to conspiracy talk to bondage in the AOL chat area. My hangout was a public chat called Hollywood Tonight, and once the membership became solid, it evolved and moved into the Hollywood Cafe, a place hidden away in a mostly forgotten area of AOL, which meant that it wasn’t really monitored by the AOL police and that you pretty much had to know where it was to find it. So, it was pretty exclusive.
The “HC” was a den of thieves and Cheers all at once- celebrities, producers, agents, writers, directors, crew and wannabes- all hanging out at the wee hours of the morning talking about pretty much everything under the sun, but most especially movies and the biz. And, when you entered (assuming you’d already gone through the ritual verbal hazing for a month or two), a bunch of people knew your name. (Or your screen name actually.) It was the flamiest place on the web and the most fun. But, you had to pay your dues. Everyone knew each other in either the cyber world or the real world or both. And, relationships were tight. The famous mingled with the infamous and the nobodies. The real action was in IM’s of course.
What linked everyone together was their love of the movie and tv industry and networking. People networked for everything- agents, scripts, connections, introductions, cyber sex and in a number of cases, real sex. And, there was even a real world meet up at an LA bar where everyone could actually meet the people they’ve known only through a bemusing screen name. They’d chat about work, and network. It was quite the hot spot. We affectionately referred to ourselves as “the dorks”.
In the end, it was destroyed by the elements that destroy most communities- a deadly combination of outside forces and inside acrimony. Whilst the members of our little community devolved into clique fighting and petty arguments, the little virtual bar we called the Cafe was under assault by the corporation that was AOL. The area that we inhabited was to be discontinued. (The chat room was part of the Hollywood Online area, and it was dismantled when AOL acquired Moviefone.) For awhile we moved into a private chat, but the member limit was too low, and only allowed 30 members at a time, when it wasn’t uncommon for a daily chat to flow to over 50 and the active members on “the dork list” numbered easily over 100. Plus, being a private chat meant that new members couldn’t join unless they were invited and sent a link to the chat by an existing member. So, new blood was cut off. All in all, a deadly combination that doomed the Hollywood Cafe to the dustbin as a place of legendary social interactive networking on the web years before anyone had thought to call it that.
It’s the great example of how AOL pretty much killed itself by eliminating one of the most popular features for a good number of users. They could not see the value in a community of people all congregating in large groups, at the same time, nearly every single night of the week, but especially on weekends and during big industry nights (the Oscar night chats were incredible, especially when it wasn’t uncommon for someone we knew to be there.). It would take another ten years before corporations like AOL would see the value (on their terms, which means collecting information on users) of social networking at its best.
Today, much of the social networking applications are weak substitutes for the intensity that was a good AOL chat room. From sex talk to philosophy, it was all there. But, more importantly, relationships were built and nurtured and destroyed and rebuilt and abandoned and kindled and ignored, new friends found, enemies were made, just like the real world.
The lesson is that in order to foster a strong social community, the sense of place – even a virtual one- has to be solidly established. It’s essential. Not just a location on the web, not just a web page with all of your likes and information on it. Facebook and Twitter are both lively and interesting communities, but that sense of place and of intimacy is not there yet. Information about what you are doing and thinking moves back and forth, but that sense of place isn’t. Even a virtual Cheers is better than the emptiness of open cyberspace. It’s about the people in the space, it’s about the ability to mimic what we do in person- congregate in groups together and talk and hook up. Simply knowing what someone is thinking or doing at any given moment isn’t enough. You have to be able to take it to the next level, to connect on an intimate level and make a friend or an enemy.
Otherwise, it’s all just chit chat, an endless loop of nothing. Like 24 hour all country radio on Sirius or XM satellite. No signposts in the road. Just fence post after fence post after fence post.
I can think of nothing so boring.Read More
So, am going to be posting some oldies but goodies from the Jakeneck days. Things that are still important after a few years. Here’s one about an American citizen who suffered from mental illness who was gunned down by Marshall’s for creating a scene on an airplane. It’s important to remember the level of fear that was fostered and supported by many American’s in the months after 9/11. I was particularly shocked by the reactions of many of my fellow Neckers who actually supported the deadly force used on this man. Fucking amazing. Of course, if it was them or a family member, I’m sure they would be singing a different tune.
The archival post:
I feel so safe
When “agitated passenger” Rigoberto Alpizar was shot for wearing a backpack and attempting to disembark a plane, while also reportedly saying “I have a bomb!” with his wife trailing behind him yelling “he’s not well, he’s got a disorder!” a good number of blogsphere pundits from the right side of the aisle immediately thought it was proper for the Air Marshall’s to shoot the man. Dead.
My intial response was the same as Jeff Goldstein’s:
For what it’s worth, jihadists seldom announce their intentions to detonate an explosive, so let’s not jump to conclusions.
Common sense actually. And, truth be told, Jeff’s statement is at the crux of this tragedy.
But, the right just loves their terror, even if it’s NOT REALLY terror, it just looks like terror, or at least, the kind of terror they lust for: We are safer when we kill anybody who COULD have been a terrorist. I feel safe when they kill people.
This is how they think. Fear in play.
The fraidy cat over at Stop the ACLU is honest about his fraidy catness:
Another mistake, but who can blame the Marshall for his response? I think he did exactly the right thing, and it makes me feel safer that we have such rapid responders. (emphasis added) I wonder if the lefties will try to make a bad guy out of this man?
To the latter: No. But, if it turns out that the man, who had a name, Rigoberto Alpizar, didn’t say “I have a bomb.” someone has some explain’ to do. To the former: Think about this for a minute. This peanut brain admits the killing is a mistake, yet says he feels safer. They are killing innocent people, but I feel safer because, well, they do it so well! And so fast! Thank you rapid responders! Have a cookie!
The meat mass with eyes over at Sister Toldjah cuts right to the point:
The person claiming to have had the bomb is indeed dead. The air marshal in this instance did the right thing. Let’s hope we don’t start seeing the usual suspects call for an ‘investigation’ into this to find out whether or not the air marshal erred when all the man was doing was his job.
Don’t wants no pesky facts gettin’ in my war on terror soup! Kill them bastids. Even the innocent crazy bastids who we thought were terrorists but are just crazy bastids! Them ‘usual suspects better not put no information in my soup.
John Hawkins of Right Wing News was particularly cold and predictably boneheaded:
Assuming everything in this initial report is accurate, it sounds like a tragic, but righteous shooting by the air marshal.
Ah yes, a morally improper use of the word “righteious“, followed by the all important “caveat” soon followed by dipshit analysis:
In fact, since we’re talking about a man with a backpack, claiming to have a bomb, on a plane full of passengers, the Air Marshals would have been completely justified in killing him before he even had time to get off the plane. But, perhaps they figured he was moving away from the plane and it was better to get him away from the passengers, rather than risk an accidental detonation near those civilians.
No, it doesn’t work that way. As it went down, “figuring” it is better to let a bomb toting terrorist move away from a plane doesn’t even enter the equation.
Rigoberto Alpizar was running down the aisle and running out of the plane. The Marshall’s were pretty much thinking “Holy shit!” and everything after that is a fog with a loaded gun pointing the way. But, John’s 20/20 hindsight analysis is fun to poke a stick at anyway. Let’s continue with the carnival of the dipshit:
As far as his wife saying he was bipolar goes, you simply can’t take her word for it. For all the air marshals knew, she could be Chechen Black Widow trying to trick the marshals into getting closer to him or trying to distract them while he got the bomb ready.
Well, you know, some of us of a more cynical bent would like to think that this is true, but alas, a man is dead, and what do you know! NO BOMB. So, theory number 2 is just a pile of lint in the corner. But, again, it’s fun to watch such bad ideas grow whiskers.
It’s a terrible thing for an innocent man to be gunned down like that in front of his wife, but unfortunately, mentally ill or not, he brought it on himself. You run around an airplane claiming to have a bomb in front of armed air marshals, you’re just asking to get killed as surely as if you jumped in front of an oncoming train.
The possible mentally ill guy brought it on himself? Hmmm. Interesting. So, if it turns out that the guy was bipolar and his meds were a bit outdated or he just didn’t digest it well that day that he brought it on himself.
See, what John is saying here is: This is the best we can do. Too bad. He wasn’t a terrorist, but he COULD have been a terrorist, so it was better to kill the innocent to protect the innocent. Just in case. You never know. And, to top it off, he’s blaming the victim!
What a crock. But, wait, it gets better!
My sincere condolences go out to the Alpizar family, but it sounds like the air marshal who killed him did the right thing.
Great. I’m really sorry they killed your husband/brother, but you just can’t be crazy like that an not expect to get shot fives times.
What a nice guy!
The sheer lack of respect for a once living person, Rigoberto Alpizar, the lack of waiting to comment on the story until more information was available, is just so fucking typical.
What a pasty assed coward. Hawkins is essentially condoning the killing of possibly innocent people in the pursuit of phantom security. It’s all part of their nonsense:
“If we shoot people who MIGHT be terrorists, we are safer.”
And, of course, those of us who actually wait for such stories to unfold because we know that media manipulation always works from the front back… Knew that there was definitely more to this story. And, of course, there comes this today:
At least one passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 924 maintains the federal air marshals were a little too quick on the draw when they shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar as he frantically attempted to run off the airplane shortly before take-off.
“I don’t think they needed to use deadly force with the guy,” says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. “He was getting off the plane.” McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.
“I never heard the word ‘bomb’ on the plane,” McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. “I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous.” Even the authorities didn’t come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. “They asked, ‘Did you hear anything about the b-word?'” he says. “That’s what they called it.”
When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. “[Alpizar] was in the back,” McAlhany says, “a few seats from the back bathroom. He sat down.” Then, McAlhany says, “I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying ‘I have to get off the plane.’ She said, ‘Calm down.'”
Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. “She was running behind him saying, ‘He’s sick. He’s sick. He’s ill. He’s got a disorder,” McAlhany recalls. “I don’t know if she said bipolar disorder [as one witness has alleged]. She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane.”
So, there is a first hand account that Rigoberto Alpizar did not say he had a bomb. I expect there will be many more. And, the FBI questioning thing is a red flag. Call me crazy, but if Rigoberto Alpizar was yelling “I’ve got a bomb!”, and it’s understood, and the Feds all agree, the Feds don’t go around asking the witnesses “Did the guy say the ‘b-word’?” They say “tell me what he said.” or something like that. Obviously, there was some doubt as to whether the “b-word” was used at all.
Who knows. In that quck of an instant, backpack = bomb. Crazy man carrying backpack = bomb + terrorist. At least on a very primal level. But, we all deserve better.
Obviously, training is not sufficient, for the reaction was over the top for the situaion. And, um, I hate to point this out, but something went wrong, an innocent man is dead.
If gets even better:
McAlhany says he tried to see what was happening just in case he needed to take evasive action. “I wanted to make sure if anything was coming toward me and they were killing passengers I would have a chance to break somebody’s neck,” he says. “I was looking through the seats because I wanted to see what was coming.
“I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I realized it was an official.”
These Air Marshall’s are working on Autopilot. No real analystical thinking is going on at all. It’s an obvious fuck up and an indictment of the security measures implimented by DHS, a point almost magically proven by the following PR style spin statement by DHS which left me speechless:
“This incident demonstrates the critical role that air marshals play in aviation security today,” said Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke.
If killing an innocent man is an example of the “critical role” of air marshall’s, we’re all doomed.
John Cole tells it like it is here.
I feel so safe…Read More
Whenever I want to find out what the current lies on a given topic might be, I head on over to the house that inbreeding built. And, it would seem, so do others. Just like McDonald’s, ‘ol Bob Owens can be counted upon to provide a consistent product. And, for those of us who crave it, Supersize just won’t do.
And, here’s some extra credit for those in need of the backstory on one of Gomer Owens favorite topics.Read More
A few reasons to start pricing out beach front property in Ecaudor. (It’s pretty cheap actually.)
there are the very people who will likely lead the wingnuttia media chase to annoint the GOP candidate for president. Sorta makes your monkey tail twitch, doesn’t it?
It’s always interesting to me how the right wing reacts to certain articles that espouse ideas that are so close to their own. Most especially when those ideas are from the most hated of enemies, the despised New York Times. Catapulting the propaganda via the right wing blogsphere. From Memeorandum:
Discussion: Power Line, Times of London, Townhall.com, The Atlantic Online, Think Progress, Reuters, The Belmont Club, NewsBusters.org, Villainous Company, rubber hose, No More Mister Nice Blog, TigerHawk, Election Central, Commentary, Wake up America, Althouse, Hot Air, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Eschaton, The Moderate Voice, BBC, USS Neverdock, Informed Comment, Gateway Pundit, Donklephant, National Review, Connecting.the.Dots, Taylor Marsh, The Carpetbagger Report, BLACKFIVE, The Strata-Sphere, The Sundries Shack, Balloon Juice, JustOneMinute, Weekly Standard, Neptunus Lex, Captain’s Quarters, Flopping Aces, Jules Crittenden, Right Wing News, Betsy’s Page, UrbanGrounds, WILLisms.com, Clayton Cramer’s BLOG, QandO, PrairiePundit, Macsmind, Comments From Left Field, Transterrestrial Musings, Dean’s World, Blue Crab Boulevard, TIME, The Young Turks, Telegraph, Sister Toldjah and INDCJournal
You’ll notice a few similar points repeated over and over: The two writers are “liberals” from a “liberal think tank”, Brookings Institution. Neither is really true. Anyone who thinks that Brookings is liberal hasn’t been paying attention.
This smells of a well organized propaganda campaign if ever there was one. “Liberals say the war in Iraq can be won.” Good headline that. And, it’s great fodder for the spinning masses, who can reverse the direction and turn it into something like: The War The Dems May Lose. Brilliant. But, ultimately misguided. Lies come apart. A lesson that these clowns can’t seem to quite comprehend.
And, this isn’t the first time that Kenneth Pollack, the co-writer of the NY Times article above, has carried water for the Bush White House. He did so in August of 2006 in the Washington Post:
Much as Americans may want to believe that the United States can just walk away from Iraq should it slide into all-out civil war, the threat of spillover from such a conflict throughout the Middle East means it can’t. Instead, Washington will have to devise strategies to deal with refugees, minimize terrorist attacks emanating from Iraq, dampen the anger in neighboring populations caused by the conflict, prevent secession fever and keep Iraq’s neighbors from intervening. The odds of success are poor, but, nonetheless, we have to try.
In essence: “Stay the coarse.”, which was the Cheney Administration mantra, and remains so today. I wonder who sent the e-mail to all of the right wing shills above alerting them to the NY Times article this morning? Nicely done. But, pretty obvious.
Of particular note is how the wingnuts swallow this fish whole. No calls for confirmation of the points in the article, as they’ve done with Scott Thomas Beachamp. Considering that the article is in the evil librul traitorous New York Times, you’d think that would neuter the credibility of the article, right?
Yet, there it is, in black and white and they love it. LOVE IT.
Food for thought. There’s a reason behind it all.
Update 2: Think Progress looks at some of the inconsistent facts from O’Hanlon and Pollack’s article.
Update 3: McQ at The Qando Blog steps up and begins the spin when he writes :
The SNAFU Principle has decided reaction to this particular article today smacks of a conspiracy. The proof?
“You’ll notice a few similar points repeated over and over: The two writers are “liberals” from a “liberal think tank”, Brookings Institution.”
Huh. We’re listed with the conspiratorial cabal, but as I scan the post, the words “liberal” and “Brookings Institution” are nowhere to be found. What, did I miss the memo?
And to seal the deal, to make the conspiracy claim irrefutable, he declares breathlessly in an update:Update: Atrios agrees. So does John Cole, and Glenn Greenwald.
Oh, well run up the white flag, the big three have spoken.
The name of the post? Uh, “The right wing echo chamber has a party”. Yeah, I know … irony impaired. At least the blog lives up to its name.
Of course no mention of the substance of the article, not that any was expected.
Interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, McQ seems to think that simply because the words “liberal” and “Brookings Institution” aren’t in HIS posting, that I am wrong, because, you know, I MUST have been talking specifically about HIS blog. Well, no. Sorry, I don’t read it. But, if one is to, oh I don’t know, think about it for a moment, the liberal New York Times, the liberal think tank Brookings… Not a great jump in logic or facts there McQ. Click on some of the dozens of other links I provide, well, it’s pretty obvious. And, it’s quite clear that the word “Liberal” and “Brookings” and “liberal” and “New York Times” go together in the minds of many on the right. Playing childish games doesn’t alter that. But, I’ll give McQ a A for effort. A C- for execution since he falls onto the tried and true “tin foil” hat offensive attack. Poke that puppy with a stick.
Second, I never said it was a conspiracy. I simply said it was a good example of how the echo chamber worked. And, one way it works is via e-mail to a few of the bigger bloggers and it rolls from there. Same thing happens on the left. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s how propaganda is catapulted. Give it a nice kick, and the masses of true believers, like McQ, will eat it up and do all the work. The blogsphere is fantastic in this regard. But, it also shows a level of informational organization (and ideological group think) when so many link to a single article so quickly. Especially when that article is an Op-Ed in the NY Times, it being one of those places that the right loves to link to so frequently, the hub of extremist right wing thought that it is…
My further point was also quite clear: the massive linking was an example of how the right has no compunction about dismissing liberals, except when when fake liberals spout right wing talking points. (See Joe Lieberman) They get pretty gold stars when they can call people who espouse conservative ideas liberals, in some twisted exercise in proving that all liberals were wrong because a select few from the ranks disagree. The Times functions in that way as well. “Read what it says in the New York Times, of all places” is crowed. Add to it the little bit of cognitive dissonance about the NY Times being the citadel of hated liberalism except when it’s spouting right wing talking points… It’s an important observation that is shared by many.
McQ doesn’t address the fact that neither O’Hanlon or Pollack, or Brookings for that matter, are not actually liberal. It’s a misrepresentation that is used to the advantage of the right. Nor does he address the selectiveness of the right in embracing the hated NY Times when it suits their agenda. A clarly propagandistic practice in both instances.
Third, I didn’t address the “facts” in the O’Hanlon and Pollack article simply because I felt that three of the links I provided, Greenwald’s, Think Progress, and Media Matters had already covered that ground more than adequately. Perhaps McQ didn’t click on them or read them, so he was ill informed.
Finally, McQ seems to not understand exactly what the SNAFU Principle is… and gets hung
up on that first word. Pretty typical. It’s a lot of syllables to be sure, and literary. Here’s a clue, McQ. Maybe you should read the book.
So, in the end, it’s rather telling that McQ decides to invoke the tinfoil hat attack, and the condescending attack, when it is plainly clear what I was saying. It must have hit pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that, don’t ya think? Maybe he’s just upset cause he never got an invite to the party.
(Correction: For some reason, the WaPo quote that I placed in the final draft reverted back to one I had in a prior draft. The blockquote code in the Memeorandum quote seems to be the culprit. I’ve corrected it.)Read More
It would appear that Fox News online has seen fit to publish an AP article verbatim. So what you say?
Well, according to the ever intrepid and on top of it propaganda bozos over at Newsbusters, the AP article in question is proof of the liberal media conspiracy that “ AP Shills for MoveOn, Daily Kos Campaign Against Fox News”. It’s not possible that AP was simply reporting a story, as Fox News was…
Irony thy cut is deep. (Google cache of the Fox link, just for kicks.)
Over at the aptly named Hot Air, Bryan links to the Fox News posting of the AP story and writes:
They don’t believe in the First Amendment. Keep that in mind.
To the simple minded ideologue, it’s fascism/communism/insert boogeyman here when the left does it. But, when the right does the very same thing? It’s perfectly fine.
The following comment from a GOPUSA forum thread on this topic sums it up:
This begining to look like communism more and more every day. Getting rid of the competition so they can have a clear field.
Frightening, isn’t it? Ideology kills brain cells. There’s the proof.Read More
All an unannounced republican has to do is stay that way for a few more months. Shrillary will destroy the Islamic candidate and in the process destroy herself. Talk about no 08 candidate. the democrats have dug up ever dead dog they can find and as usual it’s a comedy. Even the soon dead MSM can help them this time (they all like to listen to themselves talk), running a criminal with a history back to the sticks of Ark and a radical Islamist who lies like all Islamist that he isn’t a radical or an Islamist. He is or he would be dead. Islam spent 8 years planning 9-11 and Islam has spent 30 years planning to get an Islamist in the white house and the democrats are too stupid to see what is in front of their eyes. BDS has already progressed to insanity, probably pushed on faster by the democrats heavy drug use. A socialist/communist and an Islamist are the leading democrats. ROFLMAO
The “unannounced candidate” would be Fred Thompson, “Islamic candidate” is apparently Barack Obama (even though-ahem- he’s not a Muslim.) Note how “Islam” has become an evil sentient being, with thoughts, and goals meant to destroy us all. Also, note the level of paranoia. It’s tickles your monkey tail, doesn’t it?
Ironically (and sadly), in the same comment thread, directly above was this brilliant piece of propaganda inspired pablum:
It’s simply amazing how fast and far left the democrats have turned. The do nothing democrat congress is praying for a “gotchya” sentence and/or sound bite to bring home to their nutroot base.
Remember to the Democrats, battling terrorism is a mere bumper sticker.
Marvel at the idiocy that is the base of the right wing. It’s so breathtaking as to be a thing of pure beauty. Yet, remember that these are the rabid racist and moronic dogs who would have no problem with seeing “their side” take over power for good. All in the name of “democracy” no doubt.
Monkeys with blowtorches.Read More