Guerilla vs. Chimp
July 3, 2004 8:19 AM Subscribe
The Stop Bush Project
...a documentation of anti-Bush sentiment from around the world expressed through graffiti, placards, flyers and other spontaneous, 'guerilla' means.
...a documentation of anti-Bush sentiment from around the world expressed through graffiti, placards, flyers and other spontaneous, 'guerilla' means.
I've searched
here and
here to assure this wasn't a double.
(Forgive the weird formatting, don't know what's going on)
posted by moonbird at 8:29 AM on July 3, 2004
here and
here to assure this wasn't a double.
(Forgive the weird formatting, don't know what's going on)
posted by moonbird at 8:29 AM on July 3, 2004
Having weird problems trying to enter links here, but what I was trying to post was that I did the MeFi search and google search to assure this wasn't a double.
posted by moonbird at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2004
posted by moonbird at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2004
I doubt it'll change the outcome of the election, but I can't remember when (if ever) a US president had sparked such worldwide hatred.
Here, in Chile, I've seen schoolgirls who shouldn't be worrying about anything more momentous than their hairdoes and crushes taking up their weekends plastering their school with handmade anti-bush posters, as the nuns (!) who run their school turn a blind eye.
It takes a special talent to turn global sympathy and good feeling (post 9/11) into widespread hate, fear and loathing.
posted by signal at 8:34 AM on July 3, 2004
Here, in Chile, I've seen schoolgirls who shouldn't be worrying about anything more momentous than their hairdoes and crushes taking up their weekends plastering their school with handmade anti-bush posters, as the nuns (!) who run their school turn a blind eye.
It takes a special talent to turn global sympathy and good feeling (post 9/11) into widespread hate, fear and loathing.
posted by signal at 8:34 AM on July 3, 2004
Here, in Chile, I've seen schoolgirls who shouldn't be worrying about anything more momentous than their hairdoes and crushes taking up their weekends plastering their school with handmade anti-bush posters, as the nuns (!) who run their school turn a blind eye.
Ok so let me get this straight.....they hate Bush in Chile....how about Sadaam Hussein? How about the Taliban and Al Quaea? Mugabe? Milosovec? The Chinese leaders who rolled over their citizens with tanks? I don't expect the world to love Bush or even America generally, but perhaps those nuns should start teaching the children who the real enemies are....
posted by Durwood at 9:15 AM on July 3, 2004
Ok so let me get this straight.....they hate Bush in Chile....how about Sadaam Hussein? How about the Taliban and Al Quaea? Mugabe? Milosovec? The Chinese leaders who rolled over their citizens with tanks? I don't expect the world to love Bush or even America generally, but perhaps those nuns should start teaching the children who the real enemies are....
posted by Durwood at 9:15 AM on July 3, 2004
Durwood: That's my point exactly, Bush has a special talent for presenting himself (and his country) in the worst possible light, i.e.: as a schoolyard bully gone global.
posted by signal at 9:19 AM on July 3, 2004
posted by signal at 9:19 AM on July 3, 2004
When I was in London last year there were quite a few anti-Bush (and anti-Blair) posters across the street from the Houses of Parliament. My favorite one had a big picture of Bush with a cowboy hat on, and said "Stop Mad Cowboy Disease."
posted by SisterHavana at 9:27 AM on July 3, 2004
posted by SisterHavana at 9:27 AM on July 3, 2004
Anyone know anything (advertising or psychological research) about whether all these anti-Bush messages actually help Bush by getting the Bush name out everywhere? Seems to me messages for Kerry would be better. I know Kerry isn't that great a candidate either, but if the anti-Bush people are helping unwittingly helping Bush, that's not great either.
posted by banished at 9:30 AM on July 3, 2004
posted by banished at 9:30 AM on July 3, 2004
Seems to me messages for Kerry would be better.
No one likes Kerry as much as they hate Bush.
posted by bitpart at 9:50 AM on July 3, 2004
No one likes Kerry as much as they hate Bush.
posted by bitpart at 9:50 AM on July 3, 2004
I should clarify my statement so as to not come off as a troll. I mean that Kerry is just an average candidate while Bush is a horrible candidate. So while it would probably be a better idea to be more positive toward Kerry as opposed to just being negative toward Bush, it's not that easy. Bush is too easy to vilify, and Kerry hasn't given people much of a reason to praise him. The main reason people will vote for Kerry is probably because they don't want to vote for Bush. Kerry might win simply by default.
As for the topic at hand, it's nice to see such overt opinions about Bush, but it's not a useful means for change. Those who agree with it will nod their head when they see it, and those who disagree will snub their nose at it. I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind.
posted by bitpart at 10:22 AM on July 3, 2004
As for the topic at hand, it's nice to see such overt opinions about Bush, but it's not a useful means for change. Those who agree with it will nod their head when they see it, and those who disagree will snub their nose at it. I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind.
posted by bitpart at 10:22 AM on July 3, 2004
Durwood, the Tienenman massacre sparked outrage and protest all over the world. Your argument is no argument. The fact that others do wrong doesn't mean that Bush does right. There were also protests about our government's recognition of China and of normalizing trade relations with them. Did you support those protests? Do you support any protests, anywhere? Your argument is nonsense. Bush enjoys the support of something like half of America and some nontrivial part of the world's leadership -- these kids beleive that their protests might actually reach someone. No-one is under any such illusions about China. And by the way, there's not a lot of point in these kids protesting Milosevic. Try to keep up.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2004
they hate Bush in Chile....how about Sadaam Hussein?
How about Henry Kissinger?
posted by homunculus at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2004
How about Henry Kissinger?
posted by homunculus at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2004
They hated Lincoln, they mocked Van Gogh, they hooted Dylan at Newport, and kicked Elvis off the Grand Ole Opry. They crucified Jesus, and made the entire African-American people sit in the back of the bus. They rioted at the premiere of "Le Sacre du Printemps," and put Chuck Berry in jail for violating the Mann Act. They remaindered "Moby Dick," spat at Jackie Robinson, and forced Socrates to swallow poison. They kicked Edgar Allen Poe out of West Point, called U.S. Grant a drunk, and took Whistler to court for "flinging a pot of paint in the face of the public." They handed over their Jews to the Gestapo, painted over the Stuart Davis mural at Newark Airport and the Diego Rivera mural at Rockefeller Center, and banned Marion Anderson from singing at the D.A.R. Hall. They shot cannons at the Parthenon, tore down Penn Station, and exterminated the Indians.
At the same time, they made "American Idol" the biggest hit on television, welcomed Fidel Castro to the United Nations, allowed Hitler to occupy the Sudetenland, cancelled "Star Trek," bought 6 billion hamburgers at McDonalds, elected Richard Nixon president twice (once by an enormous landslide), entered World War One cheering and singing, made Thomas Kinkade the most popular painter in history, Stephen King the popular writer in history, and Islam the world's fastest growing religion.
I don't think he's a very good president, but anyone the masses hate this much must be good. received opinion sucks. I'm voting for Bush.
posted by Faze at 10:48 AM on July 3, 2004
At the same time, they made "American Idol" the biggest hit on television, welcomed Fidel Castro to the United Nations, allowed Hitler to occupy the Sudetenland, cancelled "Star Trek," bought 6 billion hamburgers at McDonalds, elected Richard Nixon president twice (once by an enormous landslide), entered World War One cheering and singing, made Thomas Kinkade the most popular painter in history, Stephen King the popular writer in history, and Islam the world's fastest growing religion.
I don't think he's a very good president, but anyone the masses hate this much must be good. received opinion sucks. I'm voting for Bush.
posted by Faze at 10:48 AM on July 3, 2004
I usually stay out of the political threads, but Faze, that's one of the most fucked-up arguments I've ever heard. Most of the people you mentioned were artists and their decisions/actions did not result in the deaths of innocent people. No one decided to hate America or condemn USA'ns because Dylan plugged his guitar into an amp. In fact, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the people that spit on Robinson, forced Americans to the back of the bus, etc etc., also would have voted for Bush
I don't think he's a very good president, but anyone the masses hate this much must be good. ... I'm voting for Bush.
By that argument you'd vote for Hitler if he was running. Congrats. It's hard to argue with that kind of logic.
posted by dobbs at 11:05 AM on July 3, 2004
I don't think he's a very good president, but anyone the masses hate this much must be good. ... I'm voting for Bush.
By that argument you'd vote for Hitler if he was running. Congrats. It's hard to argue with that kind of logic.
posted by dobbs at 11:05 AM on July 3, 2004
I don't agree with you Faze.
It has nothing to do with the masses.
The "masses" are only masses for there is a groundswell of hatred for the attitudes and what I feel is the overall vibe exuded by this president = heavy on the despicable shades of untruthfulness. Not to mention his strong-arming controversial ultra-conservative judges onto the benches of the courts.
I don't like the way he mixes his religion ( Born Again -Fundementalism ) into his politics.
A President should be able to speak confidently and honestly, intelligently and understandably, able to explain in a manner that leaves no lingering doubt - to a confused public as to why he brought the US out of Afghanistan and into Iraq, when loads of evidence, contrary to his claims, dispute the all the necessities he concocted: Al-Qaeda ties, WMD and finally to liberate the country. Did you even witness his interview on the Meet the Press with Tim Russert?
--------
Excerpt
--------
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation-building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said — let me put it in context. I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
Russert: But this is nation-building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That's right....
Entire transcript
I don't want to feel like my President is a liar when it comes to life and death and I don't subscribe to his worldview as is interpretted via his narrow, unyielding religious beliefs as well.
posted by RubberHen at 11:14 AM on July 3, 2004
It has nothing to do with the masses.
The "masses" are only masses for there is a groundswell of hatred for the attitudes and what I feel is the overall vibe exuded by this president = heavy on the despicable shades of untruthfulness. Not to mention his strong-arming controversial ultra-conservative judges onto the benches of the courts.
I don't like the way he mixes his religion ( Born Again -Fundementalism ) into his politics.
A President should be able to speak confidently and honestly, intelligently and understandably, able to explain in a manner that leaves no lingering doubt - to a confused public as to why he brought the US out of Afghanistan and into Iraq, when loads of evidence, contrary to his claims, dispute the all the necessities he concocted: Al-Qaeda ties, WMD and finally to liberate the country. Did you even witness his interview on the Meet the Press with Tim Russert?
--------
Excerpt
--------
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation-building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said — let me put it in context. I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
Russert: But this is nation-building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That's right....
Entire transcript
I don't want to feel like my President is a liar when it comes to life and death and I don't subscribe to his worldview as is interpretted via his narrow, unyielding religious beliefs as well.
posted by RubberHen at 11:14 AM on July 3, 2004
dobbs, no matter how right you are, their is a sizeable portion of the population that believes just as Faze does.
The way to answer that is by doing what banished suggested... promote what Kerry actually stands for and how it will benefit people just like Faze.
For example, Kerry has a plan for adding ten million jobs to payrolls:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/10million.html
I'd like to see something as detailed from the Bush camp. Will they put their cards on the table? A glance at their plan on the Bush site http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/ shows it full of simplistic statements and lack of detail. Well whaddya know? ehh?
posted by kmartino at 11:17 AM on July 3, 2004
The way to answer that is by doing what banished suggested... promote what Kerry actually stands for and how it will benefit people just like Faze.
For example, Kerry has a plan for adding ten million jobs to payrolls:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/10million.html
I'd like to see something as detailed from the Bush camp. Will they put their cards on the table? A glance at their plan on the Bush site http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/ shows it full of simplistic statements and lack of detail. Well whaddya know? ehh?
posted by kmartino at 11:17 AM on July 3, 2004
Ok so let me get this straight.....they hate Bush in Chile....how about Sadaam Hussein
Unlike the United States, Iraq has no history of suppressing democracy in Chile.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:30 AM on July 3, 2004
Unlike the United States, Iraq has no history of suppressing democracy in Chile.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:30 AM on July 3, 2004
kmartino, just for the record, I'm Canadian (another reason I stay out of the USA political threads). I was simply stunned by Faze's comparisons and felt obliged to comment.
posted by dobbs at 11:41 AM on July 3, 2004
posted by dobbs at 11:41 AM on July 3, 2004
They hated Lincoln, they mocked Van Gogh, they hooted Dylan at Newport, and kicked Elvis off the Grand Ole Opry.
That sentence is factually challenged.
Elvis was not kicked off the Grand Old Opry--he played once to tepid applause and then went to its rival Lousiana Hayride where he was more well received.
Probably of all the Opry legends, the one they were most leery of running into was Bill Monroe. Many in the country field continued to view the Sun version of "Blue moon of Kentucky" as a desecration, and even Sam had heard that Monroe was going to take their head off for their untrammeled interpretation of his stately lament. But when they met Monroe, conservatively dressed in dark suit and tie and trademark white hat and at 43 already an elder statesman possessed a dignity that permitted neither insincerity nor informality, he came right out and complimented them. As a matter of fact, he told them, he had cut a new version of the song for Decca, due out next week, that followed their pattern...
Before leaving, Sam conferred briefly with Mr. Denny, who confirmed that Elvis Presley did not fit the Opry mold, but, he told Sam,"'This boy is not bad.' He didn’t give me any great accolades, he just grabbed me by my skinny arm and said, 'This boy is not bad.' Well people put down Jim Denny , nobody much liked Jim, he was a damn tough man, but he did me a favor".
As to Dylan getting booed at Newport in '65, there seems to be some dispute as to whether it even happened and, if in fact it did, whether that was over the shortness of the set he played with the Butterfield band--they had rehearsed only three songs--rather than the music he played.
The myth of Newport '65: It wasn't Bob Dylan they were booing
The July 25, 1965, audience, the story goes, was driven to rage because their acoustic guitar troubadour had betrayed them by going electric and plugging in. The booing was so loud that, after the first three electric songs, Dylan dismissed the band and finished the set with his acoustic guitar.
There's a host of other associated narratives about goings-on in the wings: Pete Seeger and other Newport board directors were so repulsed and enraged they struggled to kill the electric power; Pete was frenetically looking for an axe to chop the major power line; people were yelling, screaming, crying, beating breasts, rending garments. Griel Marcus tells some of those stories really well at the beginning of his 1998 Dylan book, Invisible Republic.
Great stories. But not one of them is true.
I was one of the directors of the Newport Folk Festival and I was in the wings during Dylan's Saturday night performance. Every time I heard those stories retold, I'd say, to whoever was talking,"That's not how I remember it. Nobody made a move for the power. Nobody took a swing at the sound man. It wasn't Dylan the audience was booing."
Dylan Goes Electric in 1965
There is no apparent booing on the surviving soundboard tape of the show. There is yelling. It has been suggested that the audience was complaining about the PA mix. Folk icon Pete Seeger admitted he was so enraged by Dylan's set he wanted to "chop the microphone cord," but only because Dylan's voice was so distorted. (On the tape, Dylan is front, center and bitingly clear.) The crowd was mostly upset because Dylan, the top god on the Newport bill, was on- and offstage in less time than it took some folkies to sing a murder ballad. He was so rattled when he returned alone (at the urging of Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul and Mary) to sing "It's All Over Now Baby Blue" and "Mr. Tambourine Man," that he had the wrong harmonica for the latter song. "Does anybody have an E harmonica -- an E harmonica, anybody?" Dylan asked the crowd. "Just throw 'em all up." He got one.
posted by y2karl at 11:47 AM on July 3, 2004
That sentence is factually challenged.
Elvis was not kicked off the Grand Old Opry--he played once to tepid applause and then went to its rival Lousiana Hayride where he was more well received.
Probably of all the Opry legends, the one they were most leery of running into was Bill Monroe. Many in the country field continued to view the Sun version of "Blue moon of Kentucky" as a desecration, and even Sam had heard that Monroe was going to take their head off for their untrammeled interpretation of his stately lament. But when they met Monroe, conservatively dressed in dark suit and tie and trademark white hat and at 43 already an elder statesman possessed a dignity that permitted neither insincerity nor informality, he came right out and complimented them. As a matter of fact, he told them, he had cut a new version of the song for Decca, due out next week, that followed their pattern...
Before leaving, Sam conferred briefly with Mr. Denny, who confirmed that Elvis Presley did not fit the Opry mold, but, he told Sam,"'This boy is not bad.' He didn’t give me any great accolades, he just grabbed me by my skinny arm and said, 'This boy is not bad.' Well people put down Jim Denny , nobody much liked Jim, he was a damn tough man, but he did me a favor".
As to Dylan getting booed at Newport in '65, there seems to be some dispute as to whether it even happened and, if in fact it did, whether that was over the shortness of the set he played with the Butterfield band--they had rehearsed only three songs--rather than the music he played.
The myth of Newport '65: It wasn't Bob Dylan they were booing
The July 25, 1965, audience, the story goes, was driven to rage because their acoustic guitar troubadour had betrayed them by going electric and plugging in. The booing was so loud that, after the first three electric songs, Dylan dismissed the band and finished the set with his acoustic guitar.
There's a host of other associated narratives about goings-on in the wings: Pete Seeger and other Newport board directors were so repulsed and enraged they struggled to kill the electric power; Pete was frenetically looking for an axe to chop the major power line; people were yelling, screaming, crying, beating breasts, rending garments. Griel Marcus tells some of those stories really well at the beginning of his 1998 Dylan book, Invisible Republic.
Great stories. But not one of them is true.
I was one of the directors of the Newport Folk Festival and I was in the wings during Dylan's Saturday night performance. Every time I heard those stories retold, I'd say, to whoever was talking,"That's not how I remember it. Nobody made a move for the power. Nobody took a swing at the sound man. It wasn't Dylan the audience was booing."
Dylan Goes Electric in 1965
There is no apparent booing on the surviving soundboard tape of the show. There is yelling. It has been suggested that the audience was complaining about the PA mix. Folk icon Pete Seeger admitted he was so enraged by Dylan's set he wanted to "chop the microphone cord," but only because Dylan's voice was so distorted. (On the tape, Dylan is front, center and bitingly clear.) The crowd was mostly upset because Dylan, the top god on the Newport bill, was on- and offstage in less time than it took some folkies to sing a murder ballad. He was so rattled when he returned alone (at the urging of Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul and Mary) to sing "It's All Over Now Baby Blue" and "Mr. Tambourine Man," that he had the wrong harmonica for the latter song. "Does anybody have an E harmonica -- an E harmonica, anybody?" Dylan asked the crowd. "Just throw 'em all up." He got one.
posted by y2karl at 11:47 AM on July 3, 2004
bitpart... you didn't understand my question. I understand why people are putting up anti-Bush ads as opposed to Kerry ads. I was simply asking if the anti-Bush people are actually helping Bush when it comes election time through these messages. Kind of like the old saying, "Any publicity is good publicity."
posted by banished at 12:03 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by banished at 12:03 PM on July 3, 2004
there is a sizeable portion of the population that believes just as Faze does
Oh, I doubt it. Faze says
a) They did a bunch of stuff that is implied to exhibit poor judgment and irresponsibility;
b) Since They are imputed to dislike President Bush, Faze will vote for him.
Which must on its' face be a minority viewpoint, predicated upon the idea that the holder is not a member of Them.
Secondly, I doubt that Faze really believes that They, for example, both "shot cannons at the Parthenon" and "kicked Elvis off the Grand Ole Opry." This is because these actions were taken, respectively, by mid-nineteenth century Turks and mid-twentieth-century American show business promoters, two groups that appear to have nothing in common aside from the choice Faze has made to collectivize their actions in the paragraph cited. Furthermore, It strikes me as a doubtful proposition that the Ottomans and the crackers would stand in solidarity against W.
I suspect that Faze doubts the moral value of collectivization; therefore I conclude that his post is partially hyperbolic.
posted by mwhybark at 12:31 PM on July 3, 2004
Oh, I doubt it. Faze says
a) They did a bunch of stuff that is implied to exhibit poor judgment and irresponsibility;
b) Since They are imputed to dislike President Bush, Faze will vote for him.
Which must on its' face be a minority viewpoint, predicated upon the idea that the holder is not a member of Them.
Secondly, I doubt that Faze really believes that They, for example, both "shot cannons at the Parthenon" and "kicked Elvis off the Grand Ole Opry." This is because these actions were taken, respectively, by mid-nineteenth century Turks and mid-twentieth-century American show business promoters, two groups that appear to have nothing in common aside from the choice Faze has made to collectivize their actions in the paragraph cited. Furthermore, It strikes me as a doubtful proposition that the Ottomans and the crackers would stand in solidarity against W.
I suspect that Faze doubts the moral value of collectivization; therefore I conclude that his post is partially hyperbolic.
posted by mwhybark at 12:31 PM on July 3, 2004
I was simply asking if the anti-Bush people are actually helping Bush when it comes election time through these messages. Kind of like the old saying, "Any publicity is good publicity."
I don't think that saying is true for politics, especially nowadays.
I have limited experience when it comes to knowing what pro-Bush people are thinking. The people whom I know of that plan to vote for Bush have naive reasons for doing so, and seem obstinate about any other choice in the matter. Essentially they're stubborn, and, like Bush, are driven strictly by their moral convictions.
When I mention Kerry, they seem to dismiss him as unworthy, and the reason for that, I think, is because he's viewed as boring. They view Kerry as stagnate, while Bush "gets things done." Bush appeals to their morality, while Kerry is a bureaucrat. My pro-Bush acquaintances will vote for him because they think what he did in Iraq was a morally good decision (buzz words: liberation, evil, etc.), as opposed to a politically bad decision.
So, I don't think any publicity is good publicity. I'm saying that anti-Bush ads are doing NOTHING to change the opinions of Bush advocates. In fact, I'd say that they are reaffirming to Bush supporters who naively think that those who don't support Bush are terrorist sympathizers who would have wanted Iraq left to its dictator.
posted by bitpart at 12:42 PM on July 3, 2004
I don't think that saying is true for politics, especially nowadays.
I have limited experience when it comes to knowing what pro-Bush people are thinking. The people whom I know of that plan to vote for Bush have naive reasons for doing so, and seem obstinate about any other choice in the matter. Essentially they're stubborn, and, like Bush, are driven strictly by their moral convictions.
When I mention Kerry, they seem to dismiss him as unworthy, and the reason for that, I think, is because he's viewed as boring. They view Kerry as stagnate, while Bush "gets things done." Bush appeals to their morality, while Kerry is a bureaucrat. My pro-Bush acquaintances will vote for him because they think what he did in Iraq was a morally good decision (buzz words: liberation, evil, etc.), as opposed to a politically bad decision.
So, I don't think any publicity is good publicity. I'm saying that anti-Bush ads are doing NOTHING to change the opinions of Bush advocates. In fact, I'd say that they are reaffirming to Bush supporters who naively think that those who don't support Bush are terrorist sympathizers who would have wanted Iraq left to its dictator.
posted by bitpart at 12:42 PM on July 3, 2004
Decca thought (in re the Beatles) that "guitar bands were passe," Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for homosexual acts, Nabokov would have been killed if he'd stayed in Russia, Pete Seeger was banned from the "Smothers Brothers," Albert Pinkham Ryder and Stephen Foster died in obscurity, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, Christopher Smart was locked in an insane asylum, Antonio Gramsci locked in prison, the novels of Peter DeVries are out of print, Conan O'Brien is trapped in a 12:30 time slot, all doctors smoked until about 1961, bear-baiting was considered sport, Stepin Fetchit was considered hilarious, Dr. Phil is considered wise, they thought John Everett Milais' "Jesus in the House of His Parents" was hideous and disrespectful, they hauled Galileo up before the Inquisition, and made John Burchfield design wallpaper. The masses have adopted Bush-hating as a kind of religion, with the salvationist hope that once he is gone, joy and harmony will once again reign. It's a spectacle of mass smugness, righteousness, and unearned self-congratulatory virtue unseen on this scale since the days of the Victorians. Doesn't this send some kind of signal to you? Doesn't this tell you that maybe, just maybe, Bush may be a historical figure on some level you and I can't appreciate? I couldn't imagine taking a political position so utterly without risk, so universally and unquestioningly held by so many powerful, comfortable and self-satisfied people, as is this popularly sanctioned, danger-free hatred of George Bush. True artists and intellectuals have only two honest votes available to them in this election: Ralph Nader (a man who will go down in history as one of the great benefactors of mankind, yet who is excoriated as if he were a fascist or had murdered his pregnant wife) or George Bush -- at worst a not-very-good president, whom the vulgar masses have chosen as their own personal Satan and the negative mirror of their prim virtue.
posted by Faze at 12:52 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by Faze at 12:52 PM on July 3, 2004
Faze, are you serious?
You are reifying "THEY" as some sort of pan-historic force, pointing out some errors allegedly committed by this alleged entity, assuming this same phantasm is against W, and thereby concluding the in most resounding non-sylogism since, well since whenever, that therefore Bush MUST be a "historical figure on some level" (whatever that means), and that anybody who opposes him must be an intellectual sheep (and part of THEY, I assume?).
No offense, but are you 111's stoner cousin?
posted by signal at 1:03 PM on July 3, 2004
You are reifying "THEY" as some sort of pan-historic force, pointing out some errors allegedly committed by this alleged entity, assuming this same phantasm is against W, and thereby concluding the in most resounding non-sylogism since, well since whenever, that therefore Bush MUST be a "historical figure on some level" (whatever that means), and that anybody who opposes him must be an intellectual sheep (and part of THEY, I assume?).
No offense, but are you 111's stoner cousin?
posted by signal at 1:03 PM on July 3, 2004
True artists and intellectuals have only two honest votes available to them in this election:
you said earlier that you were gonna vote for bush because people don't like him, even though you don't think he's a good president. what do you know about being an intellectual?
posted by mcsweetie at 1:05 PM on July 3, 2004
you said earlier that you were gonna vote for bush because people don't like him, even though you don't think he's a good president. what do you know about being an intellectual?
posted by mcsweetie at 1:05 PM on July 3, 2004
a) Some unrelated people commited some unrelated mistakes at different periods of time, except for the ones that are actually urban legends or made up.
b) Many people don't like Bush
c) Therefore, vote Bush.
See? It makes perfect sense.
posted by signal at 1:10 PM on July 3, 2004
b) Many people don't like Bush
c) Therefore, vote Bush.
See? It makes perfect sense.
posted by signal at 1:10 PM on July 3, 2004
Let's vote Bush, and then let's get sushi and not pay!
posted by homunculus at 1:14 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by homunculus at 1:14 PM on July 3, 2004
Here in the U.S., plenty of masses support Bush, too. But I suppose that being in global minority status must make them right. That's how these things work, you see. I say we scrap democratic elections and give the office to the candidate with the least votes.
Doesn't this tell you that maybe, just maybe, Bush may be a historical figure on some level you and I can't appreciate?
Or he might just be a fuckup. There's really no way to tell. (Except by, you know, looking at the evidence.)
posted by Tlogmer at 1:17 PM on July 3, 2004
Doesn't this tell you that maybe, just maybe, Bush may be a historical figure on some level you and I can't appreciate?
Or he might just be a fuckup. There's really no way to tell. (Except by, you know, looking at the evidence.)
posted by Tlogmer at 1:17 PM on July 3, 2004
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --- Carl Sagan
posted by SPrintF at 1:28 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by SPrintF at 1:28 PM on July 3, 2004
And how are the "masses" responsible for DECA's opinion of the Beatles? Is there some even MORE sinister plot you're not telling us about?
posted by signal at 1:29 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by signal at 1:29 PM on July 3, 2004
y2karl, If they didn't boo Dylan, they SHOULD have. This was the Newport Folk Festival, for heaven's sake. Bring on the Moving Star Hall Singers, Fred Neil, Ed McCurdy, Mississippi John Hurt. Dylan went on to conquer the world, and where are the Pennywhistlers today? Or Jim Kweskin? (Of course, Mel Lyman did get to be god for awhile.) I'm perfectly happy with those who decline to accept the received opinion of my generation, and happily proclaim that Dylan sucks. It takes more courage to say that Dylan sucks than to say that George Bush sucks. And what about Elvis. Taken in the context of country music, I wouldn't have invited him back to the Grand Ole Opry either. He came in during a kind of golden age of country music, just after Hank Williams, with Hank Snow going strong, the Louvin Brothers raging, and Chet Atkins still making a positive contribution. Sometimes I wish that Elvis had gotten discouraged by his turn-downs, and went back to driving that truck. His success trashed country for a generation, or at least drove it underground. Of course the masses, them that hate Bush, would see Elvis as the great liberator -- the man who saved us from Eisenhowerian conformity -- forgeting that it was that Eisenhowerian conformity that created the climate of safety and social stability that allowed the thousand flowers of 1950s artistic expression to bloom.
posted by Faze at 1:36 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by Faze at 1:36 PM on July 3, 2004
You do realize that there is nothing more mass-like ("massive"?) than rejecting the masses and announcing yourself an independent spirit?
posted by signal at 2:00 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by signal at 2:00 PM on July 3, 2004
add one more crime to THEIR list - THEY also cancelled Futurama!
posted by rks404 at 2:05 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by rks404 at 2:05 PM on July 3, 2004
Well, yeah, but THEY also cancelled "Bette", so THEY're not all bad.
posted by signal at 2:12 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by signal at 2:12 PM on July 3, 2004
Faze, I don't agree, but I just wanted to say that you've just pulled one of the weirdest arguments for Bush that I've ever heard. So Bushonian Democracy will breed a future of glorious creativity and freedom because people hate him.
God, the more I think of it, the more I like it! And they call liberals elitist relativists!
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:47 PM on July 3, 2004
God, the more I think of it, the more I like it! And they call liberals elitist relativists!
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:47 PM on July 3, 2004
I don't think he's a very good president, but anyone the masses hate this much must be good. received opinion sucks. I'm voting for Bush.
The U.S. is isolated in a way that it hasn't been in years, if ever. During Viet Nam, Europe felt threatened enough by the Soviet Union to preserve the Nato alliance. Today, Australian, British, Canadian, Irish politicians fear that supporting Bush is becoming a political liability. You can laugh and think about how much your vote will piss off the French, but that's not necessarily in your country's best interest.
I think the Conservative Party in Canada lost a good many votes because Canadians were afraid that Stephen Harper would have been too pro-Bush. Does that matter to the United States? No, not yet. But if Bush skepticism continues to spread there is a serious erosion of soft-power, which will make negotiating trade and the "war on terror" more difficult.
I am originally American, and I grew up largely abroad. This is the first time I actually feel hostility when I travel.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:47 PM on July 3, 2004
The U.S. is isolated in a way that it hasn't been in years, if ever. During Viet Nam, Europe felt threatened enough by the Soviet Union to preserve the Nato alliance. Today, Australian, British, Canadian, Irish politicians fear that supporting Bush is becoming a political liability. You can laugh and think about how much your vote will piss off the French, but that's not necessarily in your country's best interest.
I think the Conservative Party in Canada lost a good many votes because Canadians were afraid that Stephen Harper would have been too pro-Bush. Does that matter to the United States? No, not yet. But if Bush skepticism continues to spread there is a serious erosion of soft-power, which will make negotiating trade and the "war on terror" more difficult.
I am originally American, and I grew up largely abroad. This is the first time I actually feel hostility when I travel.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:47 PM on July 3, 2004
gesamtkuunstwerk -- Imagine the hostility felt by Charles Darwin when he published "The Origin of Species." Imagine the hostility endured by H.L. Menken when he suggested that maybe World War I wasn't such a good idea. Imagine the anger directed at Walt Whitman when he dared to "Sing the Body Electric." When you do great things, people are hostile. You have to go back to read the original newspapers and magazines of the late 1930s to realize how compete and universal the approval was for Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, and how you or I would have also approved, given the circumstances, and how terribly wrong everyone actually was. "Irish politicians fear that supporting Bush is becoming a political liability." Well, think of what a political liability it was to support Paul Robeson or Dalton Trumbo during the 1950s, or what a political liability it was to oppose the war with Spain in the early 1900s. The world is timid and suburbanized, and I'm ashamed to think that so many MeFiers and other who pride themselves on their skepticism and contrarianism, can fall in behind all this bland, Disneyfied political unanimity. If you can't support Bush, you can at least vote for Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin- bim-bin-bim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel (Silly Party) -- anybody but the NPR-mini-van bumper-sticker-safe John Kerry.
posted by Faze at 3:25 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by Faze at 3:25 PM on July 3, 2004
Your post reminds me of colleague of mine. We went to a concert of modern music. Half way through, the most horrible sound erupted from the microphones. I got up to leave, but my colleague protested that I was walking out on genius. It was, of course, static, and when the musicians apologized, my idiot colleague maintained that he liked noise, as if he were above music.
Where exactly is the genius in Bush's policy? What exactly is brilliant in his strategy? Do you feel safer in a world where your allies are afraid of you?
Or do you just feel alienated and figure that a shit disturber must be better because he resonates your alienation throughout the global community?
I try very hard to be an optimist, and I really tried to give the President the benefit of doubt. All I hear coming out of the White house is static. But enlighten us. Where is his genius?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:18 PM on July 3, 2004
Where exactly is the genius in Bush's policy? What exactly is brilliant in his strategy? Do you feel safer in a world where your allies are afraid of you?
Or do you just feel alienated and figure that a shit disturber must be better because he resonates your alienation throughout the global community?
I try very hard to be an optimist, and I really tried to give the President the benefit of doubt. All I hear coming out of the White house is static. But enlighten us. Where is his genius?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:18 PM on July 3, 2004
i disagree with faze but it's true the best art and conceived in times of revolutions and massive disagreement towards gvts -when art could actually have a voice for itself-.
posted by Sijeka at 4:34 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by Sijeka at 4:34 PM on July 3, 2004
As for the topic at hand, it's nice to see such overt opinions about Bush
Because God knows there's been a shortage of that. I was unaware that was upset with him. Heavens.
posted by jonmc at 4:48 PM on July 3, 2004
Because God knows there's been a shortage of that. I was unaware that was upset with him. Heavens.
posted by jonmc at 4:48 PM on July 3, 2004
As for the topic at hand, it's nice to see such overt opinions about Bush
Because God knows there's been a shortage of that.
Hopefully it'll all fizzle out in November. Then us new MeFites can bask in the glory of what MetaFilter once was. Hopefully.
posted by bitpart at 5:03 PM on July 3, 2004
Because God knows there's been a shortage of that.
Hopefully it'll all fizzle out in November. Then us new MeFites can bask in the glory of what MetaFilter once was. Hopefully.
posted by bitpart at 5:03 PM on July 3, 2004
Durwood: Actually I photographed stencils in Santiago that read, "ni bush ni sadaam"...
posted by ig at 6:16 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by ig at 6:16 PM on July 3, 2004
"Imagine the hostility felt by Charles Darwin when he published "The Origin of Species." " - Yes, that would be very similar, I suppose, to the hostility George W Bush is currently receiving for his 9-11 performance-art piece in which he read the goat story to a kindegarten group. It was sheer brilliance, Bush's performance, and pitifully understood.
The people are a beast. They comprehend nothing.
posted by troutfishing at 8:26 PM on July 3, 2004
The people are a beast. They comprehend nothing.
posted by troutfishing at 8:26 PM on July 3, 2004
Faze's argument really is a triumph of indie-kid contrarianism. It is a thing of beauty and a joy to behold. Desperation takes any port in a storm, I guess. H(Sh)e deserves the Order of the Several Sizes Too Small Sweater and a Bush/Cheney Button.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:28 PM on July 3, 2004
posted by octobersurprise at 9:28 PM on July 3, 2004
Where exactly is the genius in Bush's policy? What exactly is brilliant in his strategy?
If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Suffice to say, he changed the game forever. And to quote Woodrow Wilson, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." That is the common thread through most of Faze's many impressive examples. Bravo, Faze!
Do you feel safer in a world where your allies are afraid of you?
Oh, please enlighten us as to what this is supposed to mean. Are you afraid that George Bush is going to bomb Europe? Unlike these guys, who repeat that you've got two weeks to fall to your knees.
posted by David Dark at 10:21 PM on July 3, 2004
If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Suffice to say, he changed the game forever. And to quote Woodrow Wilson, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." That is the common thread through most of Faze's many impressive examples. Bravo, Faze!
Do you feel safer in a world where your allies are afraid of you?
Oh, please enlighten us as to what this is supposed to mean. Are you afraid that George Bush is going to bomb Europe? Unlike these guys, who repeat that you've got two weeks to fall to your knees.
posted by David Dark at 10:21 PM on July 3, 2004
anyone the masses hate this much must be good. received opinion sucks. I'm voting for Bush.
If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Suffice to say, he changed the game forever. And to quote Woodrow Wilson, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." That is the common thread through most of Faze's many impressive examples. Bravo, Faze!
~heh~
Hmmm. Fascinating. Reading Faze above, I thought at first that the right wing was just exhibiting more of their massive prevailing meltdown right before our ownest eyes,
However, I have to admit, David Dark is so right. Right wing logic like we see above may be more than we can ever "get".
In this thread, we discover that Faze, Dark, and the enlightened others who "get it", all love Bush more and more because of we who "don't get it by now". We (the vast majority of people in the world) who "don't get it by now" have concluded (via minor things like the events of the past four years) that Bush is an incompetent and silly person. However, those feisty contrarians-to-the-masses Faze, Dark, and the enlightened others who "get it" feel that the more people dislike Bush, the more reason indeed there thus is for cozying up as closely as possible to Bush. Indeed, many of their posts here are filled with certain fervent, passionate confessions of admiration and respect, if not outright fawning for Bush the Dumber.
Therefore....given that kind of right-wing logic...given that reason to continue to support the abject disaster that is Bush....please....please....nobody mention to these right-wing folks that most people condemn sex with goats.
I'm not sure MetaFilter, let alone America, is ready for those kinds of contrarian confessions.
~hyperbolic wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:21 PM on July 3, 2004
If you don't get it by now, you probably never will. Suffice to say, he changed the game forever. And to quote Woodrow Wilson, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." That is the common thread through most of Faze's many impressive examples. Bravo, Faze!
~heh~
Hmmm. Fascinating. Reading Faze above, I thought at first that the right wing was just exhibiting more of their massive prevailing meltdown right before our ownest eyes,
However, I have to admit, David Dark is so right. Right wing logic like we see above may be more than we can ever "get".
In this thread, we discover that Faze, Dark, and the enlightened others who "get it", all love Bush more and more because of we who "don't get it by now". We (the vast majority of people in the world) who "don't get it by now" have concluded (via minor things like the events of the past four years) that Bush is an incompetent and silly person. However, those feisty contrarians-to-the-masses Faze, Dark, and the enlightened others who "get it" feel that the more people dislike Bush, the more reason indeed there thus is for cozying up as closely as possible to Bush. Indeed, many of their posts here are filled with certain fervent, passionate confessions of admiration and respect, if not outright fawning for Bush the Dumber.
Therefore....given that kind of right-wing logic...given that reason to continue to support the abject disaster that is Bush....please....please....nobody mention to these right-wing folks that most people condemn sex with goats.
I'm not sure MetaFilter, let alone America, is ready for those kinds of contrarian confessions.
~hyperbolic wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:21 PM on July 3, 2004
They hated Lincoln, they mocked Van Gogh, they hooted Dylan at Newport, and kicked Elvis off the Grand Ole Opry.
When you do great things, people are hostile.
*....Well, no, in either case of Dylan or Presley, that's actually probably a myth, not borne out by the facts.*
y2karl, If they didn't boo Dylan, they SHOULD have.
And what about Elvis. Taken in the context of country music, I wouldn't have invited him back to the Grand Ole Opry either.
Well, Faze manages to have it both ways. They booed Dylan.
When you do great things, people are hostile.
They booed Dylan and when I point out they maybe did not boo him--Oh, well, they should have booed Dylan! He didn't do great things. He did terrible things. So did Elvis.
There, laid naked, is the circular argument that always leaves Faze in always right default mode--They are such mindless sheep, those other people, don't they know it's over ?--in his own mind: point out he has his facts wrong, and voila! black is suddenly white and everything you know is still wrong. The connoisseur of the fuckedness and worthlessness of everything and anything anyone else likes.
posted by y2karl at 12:02 AM on July 4, 2004
But Faze was just tossing us a word salad, wasn't he? Playing 'Mock the Fickle Wad' wasn't he? Impersonating a zealot, wasn't he? I thought he was. I ate my mildly entertaining portion out on the porch while listening to cicadas; I washed it down with some sweet iced tea.
Did I miss a chance to take something seriously?
posted by Opus Dark at 1:11 AM on July 4, 2004
Did I miss a chance to take something seriously?
posted by Opus Dark at 1:11 AM on July 4, 2004
Where exactly is the genius in Bush's policy? What exactly is brilliant in his strategy? Do you feel safer in a world where your allies are afraid of you?
How can you not love a dadist president?
My only question is: what kind of performance art do I want for the next four years?
posted by Kwantsar at 2:11 AM on July 4, 2004
How can you not love a dadist president?
My only question is: what kind of performance art do I want for the next four years?
posted by Kwantsar at 2:11 AM on July 4, 2004
You do realize that there is nothing more mass-like ("massive"?) than rejecting the masses and announcing yourself an independent spirit?
How can this statement possibly be true? The masses by definition will be in the majority, taking an alternative position will therefore put you in a group smaller than they and thus in less of a mass.
posted by biffa at 3:31 AM on July 4, 2004
How can this statement possibly be true? The masses by definition will be in the majority, taking an alternative position will therefore put you in a group smaller than they and thus in less of a mass.
posted by biffa at 3:31 AM on July 4, 2004
I approve of this thread.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:47 AM on July 4, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:47 AM on July 4, 2004
Foreigners hating Bush is one of the good reasons for voting for him, if you ask me. Even better reason: how much lefties hate him. Nixon winning in 1972 was a huge blow against the spirits of the left, and basically halted huge swaths of their advance -- heart-broken hippies sold out to become proto-yuppies. I wonder what cultural forms in the second half of this decade will proxy for the ex-hippie consolations of the 1970s (wide collars, full windsow knots, and disco...)
posted by MattD at 6:48 AM on July 4, 2004
posted by MattD at 6:48 AM on July 4, 2004
Then us new MeFites can bask in the glory of what MetaFilter once was.
Considering Mefi has only been around since a year before Bush took office, and really only gained steam around the time of the Florida debacle, I'm not sure when this mythical Mefi you're thinking of ever existed.
posted by jpoulos at 7:29 AM on July 4, 2004
Considering Mefi has only been around since a year before Bush took office, and really only gained steam around the time of the Florida debacle, I'm not sure when this mythical Mefi you're thinking of ever existed.
posted by jpoulos at 7:29 AM on July 4, 2004
Foreigners hating Bush is one of the good reasons for voting for him, if you ask me.
Especially if France and Germany and the other bed-wetting lefties are among them, Spanish socialist cowards included.
Poland and others, like the Czech Republic and Hungary, Britain, Spain (pre-attack) and Italy, to name just a few, were and are supportive of Bush and his administration, especially with regard to Iraq, for good reason.
It's just that we don't hear much from the supporters, because they act instead of whining and defacing private property with crayons, scrawling pathetic grafitti on the walls like simpering brats.
posted by hama7 at 7:40 AM on July 4, 2004
Especially if France and Germany and the other bed-wetting lefties are among them, Spanish socialist cowards included.
Poland and others, like the Czech Republic and Hungary, Britain, Spain (pre-attack) and Italy, to name just a few, were and are supportive of Bush and his administration, especially with regard to Iraq, for good reason.
It's just that we don't hear much from the supporters, because they act instead of whining and defacing private property with crayons, scrawling pathetic grafitti on the walls like simpering brats.
posted by hama7 at 7:40 AM on July 4, 2004
Nixon winning in 1972 was a huge blow against pretty much everyone from here to Timbuktu.
Unless you're a tratorious ratfink pinko commie.
posted by Ptrin at 7:42 AM on July 4, 2004
Unless you're a tratorious ratfink pinko commie.
posted by Ptrin at 7:42 AM on July 4, 2004
Nixon winning in 1972 was a huge blow against the spirits of the left, and basically halted huge swaths of their advance -- heart-broken hippies sold out to become proto-yuppies.
You aren't old enough to remember Watergate, I take it. Jesus, it was like Farenheit 9/11 on steroids 24/7/365 on the news. Oh, 1973 and 1974 were so heart breaking for the spirits of the left.
What is this, tag team stupidity ? It's like the Three Stooges of The Apocalypse. You guys gotta try busting the chairs over the other teams' heads, not your oversimplified own.
posted by y2karl at 8:08 AM on July 4, 2004
You aren't old enough to remember Watergate, I take it. Jesus, it was like Farenheit 9/11 on steroids 24/7/365 on the news. Oh, 1973 and 1974 were so heart breaking for the spirits of the left.
What is this, tag team stupidity ? It's like the Three Stooges of The Apocalypse. You guys gotta try busting the chairs over the other teams' heads, not your oversimplified own.
posted by y2karl at 8:08 AM on July 4, 2004
The people are a beast. They comprehend nothing.
I'm impatient with this kind of sweeping rhetoric. You can have a million people making the same choice out of all levels of consciousness. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not dismissed as so many sheep.
posted by orange swan at 8:10 AM on July 4, 2004
I'm impatient with this kind of sweeping rhetoric. You can have a million people making the same choice out of all levels of consciousness. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not dismissed as so many sheep.
posted by orange swan at 8:10 AM on July 4, 2004
Here in the U.S., plenty of masses support Bush, too. But I suppose that being in global minority status must make them right.
Is it your contention, then, that the citizens of the USA have the obligation to choose a candidate the rest of the world likes? Fine, but I demand the right to choose the heads of other states as well.
Marvelous trolling, Faze, you really nailed the hornet's nest there. Not that it takes a whole lot, these days.
posted by darukaru at 8:55 AM on July 4, 2004
Is it your contention, then, that the citizens of the USA have the obligation to choose a candidate the rest of the world likes? Fine, but I demand the right to choose the heads of other states as well.
Marvelous trolling, Faze, you really nailed the hornet's nest there. Not that it takes a whole lot, these days.
posted by darukaru at 8:55 AM on July 4, 2004
I suspected that there was a lot of truth in this when it was posted, and this thread pretty well confirms it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:32 AM on July 4, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:32 AM on July 4, 2004
darukaru -- I never said it made them wrong, either. Simply being in a minority means nothing about whether you're right or wrong. (And wow, congratulations, you trolled metafilter. Noble.)
posted by Tlogmer at 2:20 PM on July 4, 2004
posted by Tlogmer at 2:20 PM on July 4, 2004
tharlan, you may be one in a million--which only means there's 300 or so more like you within the national borders, so take a number and get in line.
posted by y2karl at 4:06 PM on July 4, 2004
posted by y2karl at 4:06 PM on July 4, 2004
Sorry to be in on this late, but Watergate was a perfect example of how neutered the left had become.
Nixon got bounced to be sure, to be sure, and elected a lot of Democrats in 1974, but that achieved exactly nothing in the broader scope. The high water mark of the advance of the left had already been set: there'd be no new welfare benefits or major public housing initiatives, the death penalty would be restored, marginal tax rates would be headed down, the Kissinger doctrine was firmly in place and no new countries would be conceded to the Communists (Nixon, alas, had conceded Vietnam already), etc. etc.
posted by MattD at 5:17 PM on July 4, 2004
Nixon got bounced to be sure, to be sure, and elected a lot of Democrats in 1974, but that achieved exactly nothing in the broader scope. The high water mark of the advance of the left had already been set: there'd be no new welfare benefits or major public housing initiatives, the death penalty would be restored, marginal tax rates would be headed down, the Kissinger doctrine was firmly in place and no new countries would be conceded to the Communists (Nixon, alas, had conceded Vietnam already), etc. etc.
posted by MattD at 5:17 PM on July 4, 2004
I think more than that, MattD, the persistent mindset of the left since Nixon's re-election, as evidenced by certain commenters here who note Watergate as as a great spirit lifter for the left, has been to gauge the status of the Democratic party not by the popularity of its own political goals or the quality of its recent achievements, but by the popularity or lack thereof of the GOP.
So little has changed in 30 years. Now, F 9/11 is hailed as the latest watershed event for Dems -- again, there is nothing inherently positive that the film has to say about the left, but it is regarded as a spirited victory, solely based on the perception of having exposed a weakness in the right.
posted by David Dark at 9:00 PM on July 4, 2004
So little has changed in 30 years. Now, F 9/11 is hailed as the latest watershed event for Dems -- again, there is nothing inherently positive that the film has to say about the left, but it is regarded as a spirited victory, solely based on the perception of having exposed a weakness in the right.
posted by David Dark at 9:00 PM on July 4, 2004
Vive David Dark!
What will you all do when Kerry loses, probably in a landslide, in November? Will there be mass Left suicides? Mass migrations to France? Canada? Oh, how sweet will the day-after-election day be; sort of like savoring the Yankees losing in the World Series!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 PM on July 4, 2004
What will you all do when Kerry loses, probably in a landslide, in November? Will there be mass Left suicides? Mass migrations to France? Canada? Oh, how sweet will the day-after-election day be; sort of like savoring the Yankees losing in the World Series!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 PM on July 4, 2004
The costs of the war in Iraq have been counted in dollars spent and lives lost. But with the handover of limited sovereignty complete, some diplomats, academics and human rights groups speak of a less tangible price, not just in Iraq but far beyond its borders.
The war and prisoner abuse - combined with the detentions at the U.S. base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the tough terms of the Patriot Act - have eroded the moral leadership that Washington has pursued without embarrassment for years, they say.
"It's caused incredible harm to our position in the world," said Felix Rohatyn, the financier and former U.S. ambassador to France, referring specifically to the prison abuse scandal.
"I'm a refugee," said Rohatyn, who went to the United States six decades ago, fleeing Nazi-occupied France. "I know what America stood for when I came here.
"That's not the way we are looked at now."
U.S. is seen losing its moral authority
posted by y2karl at 1:26 AM on July 5, 2004
The war and prisoner abuse - combined with the detentions at the U.S. base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the tough terms of the Patriot Act - have eroded the moral leadership that Washington has pursued without embarrassment for years, they say.
"It's caused incredible harm to our position in the world," said Felix Rohatyn, the financier and former U.S. ambassador to France, referring specifically to the prison abuse scandal.
"I'm a refugee," said Rohatyn, who went to the United States six decades ago, fleeing Nazi-occupied France. "I know what America stood for when I came here.
"That's not the way we are looked at now."
U.S. is seen losing its moral authority
posted by y2karl at 1:26 AM on July 5, 2004
Y2Karl is seen losing his moral authority (to the teeny tiny extent he ever had any in the first place).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:42 AM on July 5, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 4:42 AM on July 5, 2004
well your momma is seen as losing his moral authority! last night, that is! do something.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:47 AM on July 5, 2004
posted by mcsweetie at 7:47 AM on July 5, 2004
What's this "left" you all are yammering about? In the US? Please.
The US political spectrum goees something like this:
wacko-right ---> rabid-right ---> moderate right
posted by signal at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2004
The US political spectrum goees something like this:
wacko-right ---> rabid-right ---> moderate right
posted by signal at 8:47 AM on July 5, 2004
« Older Free Comic Book Day | Will John Kerry reach higher market share then... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:25 AM on July 3, 2004