The Death Star is ready-DU BrownShirtSociety

[Sepka]

Yeah, all that calling and faxing has really made a difference.

Would you trade today's congress for the congress of 2003? Are their agendas and priorities the same?

[Doodad]

The people who are calling, writing and faxing are the people who are making a difference, and getting something done for their side, for good or ill. Most of the protesters seem to have this kind of cargo-cult like idea that re-enacting the sorts of protests that took place in the sixties will somehow return political discourse to where it was in the sixties. Those are the older ones. The remainder are pretty much college kids who are having fun marching around outside, roleplaying at being anti-war activists like the ones their parents and grandparents used to talk about.

like the ones their parents and grandparents used to talk about.

Or their profs

[theeKultleeder]

like the ones their parents and grandparents used to talk about.

Or their profs

You mean, like historians?


TITLE: Ohio - the mining troubles in Hocking Valley - scene in the town of Buchtel - the striking miners' reception of "Blackleg" workmen when returning from their work escorted by a detachment of Pinkerton's detectives / from a sketch by Joseph Becker ; Hyde.

[sunny]

Would you trade today's congress for the congress of 2003? Are their agendas and priorities the same?

Yes. Have they defunded the war? Repealed the MCA? The Patriot Act? Fought Bush on illegal spying? What about, at the very least, holding him accountable for torture, or enforcing those subpoena's that keep getting ignored?

Right now, they're trying to give telco's retroactive immunity on illegal domestic spying with only 2 or 3 Senators (the usual ones like Feingold) trying to stop it. The FISA "fix" they passed in August stabbed the base, and the American people, in the back by giving Bush a legal pass on the spying he'd already done, and allowing him to continue without fear of prosecution.

How would a Repub controlled congress look any different? They couldn't even get enough of their own party to support an override of a veto of a childrens health insurance program.

[Doodad]

like the ones their parents and grandparents used to talk about.

Or their profs

You mean, like historians?


TITLE: Ohio - the mining troubles in Hocking Valley - scene in the town of Buchtel - the striking miners' reception of "Blackleg" workmen when returning from their work escorted by a detachment of Pinkerton's detectives / from a sketch by Joseph Becker ; Hyde.

You KNOW exactly what I mean.

[theeKultleeder]

You KNOW exactly what I mean.

Horowitz style "vast left-wing conspiracy" liberal agenda?

[marmot]

"How's your Paranoia, Brian?" - Bob Dylan

Rolling Stone... in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, ran full page ads in all of the Trade mags stating "Perception - Reality".

Under the Perception title was a pic of a bong toting hippie. Under the Reality title was a pic of Reagan at the mic. Below all of this was the copy that informed the potential buyers of ad space in Rolling stone that, despite many people's perception of the magazine, the reality was the majority of their readers voted for Reagan. So, "Hey, corporate America!! Don't hesitate to buy ad space here and shill your razor blades and deodorant!!"

In the end, the "Truth" of the matter is a synthesis. RS readers did smoke a lot of pot and a lot of them voted for Reagan. Just ask Ann Coulter the next time you see her at a RatDog concert. Especially if the venue is Bohemian Grove, I hear those tickets are real hard to come by.


...such is Life. Hi - Ho.

Evil forces infiltrate spaces constantly. Sometimes they even infiltrate spaces they already "own". Be rigorous. Be intuitive.

The well you drank fresh water from a year ago may now be poisoned.

Things fall apart.

IanEye, fascinating post! Have you ever seen the ads for advertisers in Advertising Age magazine? For example a teen magazine for girls will place an ad appealing to prospective advertisers by detailing exactly how vulnerable and image conscious their demographic is, how advertisers can particularly exploit the impressionable sensibilities of their reader base.

[IanEye]

well, I hope the way I started off my last posting with the Dylan quote was a bit of a clue to my approach. Paranoia can be a tool.

Sometimes it is useful to start off full blown paranoid and then rachet off the flow until it is at a comfortable level. Tastes may vary on where that comfort level lies. I put forth that the entire "Politically Incorrect" event was a piece of theater, including the DU comments. Feel free to ratchet back the valve to your own personal taste, I won't be offended.

There is a moment in Stone's "JFK" where Oswald is on a talk show.

Irate Anti-Castro Cuban: You Sir, are a Communist.

Pro-Castro Oswald: I am not a Communist. I am a Marxist-Leninist.

Irate Anti-Castro Cuban: What is the difference?

And indeed, a US citizen who pre 11-22-63 was willing to see a difference between a Communist and a Marxist-Leninist may have been less willing to split hairs once this Marxist-Leninist Oswald had used violence to forward his agenda. Was this why Oswald was on the talk show in the first place? To help forward the idea post 11-22-63 that all of them Commies are the same?

Back to "Politically Incorrect". For me the parts that seem fake are:

The very fact that it does take CBS security so long to deal with the hecklers. It is like the classic move in pro wrestling where the ref is distracted and it takes him forever to finally turn around and see that the "bad guy" is doing all of the underhanded dirty moves on the "good guy" and it is only when the "good guy" has had enough and strikes back that the ref turns around and sees the "good guy" behaving badly

ref: Hey now! none of that!! we run a clean game around here. Really, Good Guy, i expected better from you. tsk tsk

audience: but, but!!

And Stein's line:

“I was only allowed two guests, so things should be OK after this.”

is a great line. But it is a little too cute for me, a little too self aware and Post Modern. Consider it a Shakespearean "aside" to the audience, perhaps.

I do believe that there are still real people out there willing to cause a ruckus. i believe some of those people read at DU. I believe some forces want to try and sell those real people on the idea that ruckus causing isn't really worth it and none of your peers will applaud your actions anyway, so why bother?

In the end, perhaps I have been too in the thrall of Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK". Mr. Scott believes that by studying 11-22-63, one can gain insight into 09-11-01. It is an interesting approach but it can also make a student such as myself get into a state of "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues"

[marmot]

Here's video of the scene last night:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5182

so i ask you? what was so wrong with the disruptive tactic of some guy yelling, "hey bill, what happened to building seven?"

how else are they (or we)---who ever they (or we) are and whatever they (or we) believe---to get our issues out there, exept on a live forum that gets pumped out to the world?

the controls are everywhere. even where this video was uploaded, TPTB can take it down... how do you get your message out there?

you all who are critical of these tactics... suggest something more effective?

bill reminded the audience that they were passive listeners... that they did not get a voice... the issues are framed and balanced up on stage...

[StarmanSkye]

sunny wrote:
"Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink are singled out for special scorn at places like Dkos and FDL. These people are sitting there typing on their computers, "calling, writing, and faxing their representatives" while Cindy and Code Pink are out there doing something. Some of them even claim to be baby boomers who participated in anti-Vietnam War protests, but these people have no idea what real activism looks like. They don't know from putting their bodies on the line, engaging in civil disobedience and getting arrested. They go on and on about how dire our situation is, but they continue to sit there, ridiculing people who are doing something. They actively discourage participation in protest marches. It makes. me. sick."

**
I have to agree. The biggest distinction between the keyboard-speaker/advocates and actual activists like Sheehan and Code Pink are the latter's face-to-face interactions, networking and impact -- the dynamism of which can't be overemphasized as a vital, real communication, especially when contrasted with the tendency for the 'message' of the written word to get lost in the signal's background noise and trivialized or displaced. That's not to say it's an either-or issue (which seems the basis of Sepka's critique) -- just that the put-down marginization and disparaging criticism of participatory activism by stay-at-home forum-writers is incredibly perverse. As is the tendency cited by EiAE re: DU community becoming the very Brownshirt instruments they claim to despise. There's a noteable lack of rigorous analysis, suspician and awareness of how liberals and progressives are targetted audiences, manipulated and exploited by well-organized interests. Probably one of the most vital, important 'lessons' here at RI is learning how to question the context of our understanding and to look behind the facade of media-constructed impressions, to better analyze what's REALLY going on and why. 'Course, sometimes that leaves you questioning EVERYTHING.

[sunny]

Sometimes it is useful to start off full blown paranoid and then rachet off the flow until it is at a comfortable level

I must admit that is usually the way I operate. There are times when I ratchet down more quickly than others.

Mr. Scott believes that by studying 11-22-63, one can gain insight into 09-11-01

I believe that too, probably because of Prof. Scott.

[Sepka]

Have [congress] defunded the war? Repealed the MCA? The Patriot Act? Fought Bush on illegal spying? What about, at the very least, holding him accountable for torture, or enforcing those subpoena's that keep getting ignored?

The government isn't meant to turn on a dime. That's by design. The system operates to frustrate the ambitions of all-or-nothing extremists like Cindy Sheehan, just as it does to frustrate the ambitions of Pat Robertson and his ilk. The people who actually exercise power are the broad middle, the ones who are willing to compromise. They understand that over the long run, a buffered system protects them to the same degree that it frustrates them. Both sides will, at some time, be in the unpopular minority.

I don't think anyone who follows events can seriously contend that the congress is as open to the use of military force abroad as they were in 2003. Were that the case, we'd have taken action to disarm Iran already. Now, as always, congress lags somewhat behind the general mood of the country. In the aftermath of 9/11, I think most Americans would have cheered to see the Arab population centres nuked, without regard for what might follow. Now, many want the army to be precipitately withdrawn from Iraq, without regard for what might follow. In both instances, the design of the government acts as a brake upon popular enthusiasms, as it was meant to.

"Holding him accountable for torture", of course, is kind of like "have you stopped beating your wife". Wait until torture has occurred to punish people for it.

[Doodad]

You KNOW exactly what I mean.

Horowitz style "vast left-wing conspiracy" liberal agenda?

Kult, it's no secret the political backgrounds of many professors drives their "professing." Thus, education under them becomes less about learning truths than learning THEIR truths. Gramsci predicted it and so it became. Since history has taught us that intellectuals are the backbone of fascism it is important we take care to know that this is the case whether the prof be left, right or whatever. I speak this not because I cling to the beliefs of Horowitzes and their ilk but because it's obvious to anyone who is capable of doing the one thing critical thinkers have to do to be critical thinkers; suspend belief, step back, observe ALL the evidence, not just some, and conclude, knowing that ones conclusions have as much chance of being wrong as right.

Short answer, if the hairs on the back of your neck stand up when you are being led somewhere you're in trouble. If they don't you may still be in trouble. History proves this truth.

[Doodad]

In both instances, the design of the government acts as a brake upon popular enthusiasms, as it was meant to.

this is of no consequence to ideologues.

[FourthBase]

et - I am sure the thought has crossed your mind, but reading what you have assembled here, the whole thing smacks to me of the 60 Minutes Bush TANG thing. Where the whole thing is a set-up and every aspect is controlled by the same PuppetMaster.

Meaning, Mr. Maher knew the hecklers would be there, knew their "agenda", because it was from the same Pro Wrestling script he was reading from.

The DU bloggers unsuing comments? Paid for by the same people, much as the "hey, Rather's lying because the font wasn't around then, blah blah" comments were paid for.

Again, perhaps my mind is too steeped in paranoia. But I frequent a blog where I am supposed to give actual credence to the idea that Sidney Aaron Chayefsky was a CIA stooge and all of the talent and effort that went into making the film "Network" was merely to provide a distraction from an article in Rolling Stone about Mockingbird. All of this in '77, Carter's first year in office.

The same Rolling Stone that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, ran full page ads in all of the Trade mags stating "Perception - Reality".

Under the Perception title was a pic of a bong toting hippie. Under the Reality title was a pic of Reagan at the mic. Below all of this was the copy that informed the potential buyers of ad space in Rolling stone that, despite many people's perception of the magazine, the reality was the majority of their readers voted for Reagan. So, "Hey, corporate America!! Don't hesitate to buy ad space here and shill your razor blades and deodorant!!"

In the end, the "Truth" of the matter is a synthesis. RS readers did smoke a lot of pot and a lot of them voted for Reagan. Just ask Ann Coulter the next time you see her at a RatDog concert. Especially if the venue is Bohemian Grove, I hear those tickets are real hard to come by.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that as a faithful RI reader, I try to be as rigorous as I can be. How deep can I go when I ponder the whole "Politically Incorrect" heckler flap? As deep as I go when I become wary of someone who wants me to cry foul at "Network" in order to support a magazine that in '85, Reagan's first year of his second term, was actually trying to get me to consider Michael J Fox, Don Johnson, and Bruce Willis as viable musical alternatives. There they were on the cover of RS, month in, month out, with guitars in their hands.

At which point, I told Rolling Stone to go fuck itself and bought something called SPIN, a magazine put out by a pornographer's son which, in the first issue I bought, had an article by Geza X which taught me point by point how to "DIY" make my own music and put it out myself. I should also be honest and say that I had never heard of the Stooge's "Fun House" album until I read an article in SPIN by Henry Rollins that was so laudatory of the album I had to check it out myself.

These days when I happen to pick up an issue of SPIN I usually say to myself, "this magazine sucks now", and Rollins is doing voice over gigs for GM. such is Life. Hi - Ho.

Evil forces infiltrate spaces constantly. Sometimes they even infiltrate spaces they already "own". Be rigorous. Be intuitive.

The well you drank fresh water from a year ago may now be poisoned.

Things fall apart.

well, I hope the way I started off my last posting with the Dylan quote was a bit of a clue to my approach. Paranoia can be a tool.

Sometimes it is useful to start off full blown paranoid and then rachet off the flow until it is at a comfortable level. Tastes may vary on where that comfort level lies. I put forth that the entire "Politically Incorrect" event was a piece of theater, including the DU comments. Feel free to ratchet back the valve to your own personal taste, I won't be offended.

There is a moment in Stone's "JFK" where Oswald is on a talk show.

Irate Anti-Castro Cuban: You Sir, are a Communist.

Pro-Castro Oswald: I am not a Communist. I am a Marxist-Leninist.

Irate Anti-Castro Cuban: What is the difference?

And indeed, a US citizen who pre 11-22-63 was willing to see a difference between a Communist and a Marxist-Leninist may have been less willing to split hairs once this Marxist-Leninist Oswald had used violence to forward his agenda. Was this why Oswald was on the talk show in the first place? To help forward the idea post 11-22-63 that all of them Commies are the same?

Back to "Politically Incorrect". For me the parts that seem fake are:

The very fact that it does take CBS security so long to deal with the hecklers. It is like the classic move in pro wrestling where the ref is distracted and it takes him forever to finally turn around and see that the "bad guy" is doing all of the underhanded dirty moves on the "good guy" and it is only when the "good guy" has had enough and strikes back that the ref turns around and sees the "good guy" behaving badly

ref: Hey now! none of that!! we run a clean game around here. Really, Good Guy, i expected better from you. tsk tsk

audience: but, but!!

And Stein's line:

“I was only allowed two guests, so things should be OK after this.”

is a great line. But it is a little too cute for me, a little too self aware and Post Modern. Consider it a Shakespearean "aside" to the audience, perhaps.

I do believe that there are still real people out there willing to cause a ruckus. i believe some of those people read at DU. I believe some forces want to try and sell those real people on the idea that ruckus causing isn't really worth it and none of your peers will applaud your actions anyway, so why bother?

In the end, perhaps I have been too in the thrall of Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK". Mr. Scott believes that by studying 11-22-63, one can gain insight into 09-11-01. It is an interesting approach but it can also make a student such as myself get into a state of "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues"

Seriously, this is some of the best stuff posted here in ages.