Bush to speak at RNC

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/rnc.day/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

He's not going to be physically present, but he'll remote in via satellite. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say...

[iNow]

I guess we're not going to hear from Cheney then?

[Pangloss]

I bet. Last week it was all glorious-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel thanks to the DNC, so this week it'll be all darkness-and-gloom, I'm sure.

[john5746]

I'll try to catch Thompson, he's usually pretty good if he isn't tired.

[iNow]

I never took Thompson seriously.

 

 

I've been watching the convention for the past 2 and a half hours, and I just saw the first black person in the crowd. Woo Hoo! Most of these folks are kinda crusty and old and pale.

 

Oops... Never mind. He works there. My bad. I'll keep looking.

 

 

Along those same lines, via Greg Laden's Blog:

 

Yes We Klan!

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Bush is about to speak. Laura is introducing him now. If you click the link quickly, you can watch.

 

http://c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

Edited September 3, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[bascule]

Here's a taste of YouTube action:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzovpnYk2o

 

That's it? WTF? Well, nobody ever said he was a man of words...

[iNow]

Thompson's speech was much better, but far too much of the "let's get them all incited with nationalism" for my tastes. Also, it's unfortunate that they are pimping McCain's prison camp story like Gulianni did 9/11. It really takes away from the sincerity and honor of such events. Oh well.

 

Watch out for this nationalism thing. It's out in FULL force at this convention. It's really quite scary, and this is not good (all partisan issues aside, nationalism at this level leads to really dangerous things). It's also not helpful when all of this nationalistic incitement is done against a backdrop where police in riot gear are pepper spraying people in such wide swaths that their targets even include Democratic strategist Donna Brazile:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02protest.html?em

[Pangloss]

That article doesn't say that she was a target, it says that she got hit trying to go around protesters who were being sprayed. But hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good hate-on.

 

Not to change the subject or anything, but your article does point out how those "peaceful protesters" were using violence and criminal behavior to get people to listen to them when they say how violent and criminal Republicans are.

 

smashing windows and battling with the police in clashes

 

shouting and chanting and throwing street signs and concrete planters in the road

 

members of the Republican delegation from Connecticut said they were shoved and spat upon by protesters near the convention hall

 

Besides the shoving and spitting, the protesters shouted epithets at the dozens of delegates, Mr. Fahle wrote.

 

"Peace activists" my lilly-white a@@.

[iNow]

I never said Brazile was the intended target. I was careful with my wording, and would appreciate it if you would avoid suggesting that I am a liar when the information I share is accurate. They sprayed pepper spray so widely that they hit people they shouldn't have. This despite the fact that pepper spray is designed to be used on individual aggressors, and if used properly would rarely if ever impact people innocently walking around some group which they are trying to control.

 

As for peace activists, I suppose you have forgotting how important such gatherings were in helping end the Vietnam war, and to end racial discrimination, and countless other hard times in our nations history. But, yeah, if you want to simply dismiss what they're doing because the local authorities disagree with it and prefer they not, I suppose that's your perogative.

[Pangloss]

No, you clearly said she was a target:

 

It's also not helpful when all of this nationalistic incitement is done against a backdrop where police in riot gear are pepper spraying people in such wide swaths that their targets even include Democratic strategist Donna Brazile:

Edited September 3, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/target

 

Main Entry: 1tar·get

Pronunciation: \ˈtär-gət\

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French targette, targuete, diminutive of targe light shield, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old Norse targa shield

Date: 14th century

 

1: a small round shield

2 a: a mark to shoot at b: a target marked by shots fired at it c: something or someone fired at or marked for attack d: a goal to be achieved

3 a: an object of ridicule or criticism b: something or someone to be affected by an action or development

4 a: the metallic surface (as of platinum or tungsten) upon which the stream of electrons within an X-ray tube is focused and from which the X-rays are emitted b: a body, surface, or material bombarded with nuclear particles or electrons; especially : fluorescent material on which desired visual effects are produced in electronic devices (as in radar)

 

 

 

You honestly think that my use of the word does not accurately fit into one of those, and that I am lying on purpose? Please. You need to note that there is a difference between "intended" and "unintended" targets, and also note the broader concept of "target" whereby it is defined as the recipient of any aggressive action. My noting her as a target remains valid regardless of intent since she was, in fact, hit.

 

Now, had I called it a bullseye, that'd be different.

[Pangloss]

It looks like a mis-statement to me, and that's fine, thanks for clarifying, but I wonder what, then, the point was of including it.

 

Yes, I dismiss what they're doing, but not because of anything to do with local authorities. I consider closed-mindedness and do-this-or-I'll-damage-something a pathetic and unproductive form of discourse, and so should anybody who considers science and reason paramount to improving society. Any role it played in ending Vietnam is trivial and social in nature, and came from peaceful protest, not violent protest. And the lack of any impact these people have had on the war in Iraq is obvious in the extreme. Those people are destroyers, not saviors.

[iNow]

Please describe to us all what makes you label what these people were doing blanketly as "violent protest." A few outside the bell curve (aka the outliers) do not define the group as a whole.

 

Maybe to get past this, I'll just say, yes. I used rhetorical license to generate interest.

 

 

Now, my other point about nationalism and the fervor being incited remains. I've seen it at both conventions, and it seems especially present in the RNC. Chants of "USA, USA, USA" seem to break out after every third sentence, complete with digital flags waving behind every speaker at the podium and the crowd holding signs which read "Country First."

 

Have we not learned of the dangers of this nationalistic frenzy from our past and from the mistakes of our neighbors on this planet? Are we doomed to yet again repeat the parts of our history which we so disdain, and which are so regularly resurrected online via Godwin's law?

Edited September 3, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Sure, I'll be happy to help you parse blame amongst sub-groups. Why don't we start by figuring out who's really to blame for Donna Brazile getting hit with pepper spray, instead of blaming it on those evil conservatives and their nationalistic ways?

[iNow]

Sure, I'll be happy to help you parse blame amongst sub-groups. Why don't we start by figuring out who's really to blame for Donna Brazile getting hit with pepper spray, instead of blaming it on those evil conservatives and their nationalistic ways?

 

We've cross posted. Would you like to read the rest of my post and reconsider your response?

[Pangloss]

Thanks. You agree then that Brazile got pepper-sprayed because of violent protesters? I know you made a point about pepper spray being individual in scope, but I think once that much of it gets into the air it's going to sting the eyes of everyone in the area, and it seems likely that's what happened in her case.

 

I don't disagree with you about the pitfalls of pushing nationalism or the right to peaceful protest. I don't see that protesters at the RNC are comparable to Vietnam protesters of the 1960s. These are committed ideological partisans, peaceful though many of them may be, and completely uninterested in freedom of expression or open-minded reason. They damage the country by their actions in exactly the same way that Rush Limbaugh does. I defend their right to do it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or see it as helpful or valuable in any way.

[ParanoiA]

Please describe to us all what makes you label what these people were doing blanketly as "violent protest." A few outside the bell curve (aka the outliers) do not define the group as a whole.

 

Maybe to get past this, I'll just say, yes. I used rhetorical license to generate interest.

 

 

Now, my other point about nationalism and the fervor being incited remains. I've seen it at both conventions, and it seems especially present in the RNC. Chants of "USA, USA, USA" seem to break out after every third sentence, complete with digital flags waving behind every speaker at the podium and the crowd holding signs which read "Country First."

 

Have we not learned of the dangers of this nationalistic frenzy from our past and from the mistakes of our neighbors on this planet? Are we doomed to yet again repeat the parts of our history which we so disdain, and which are so regularly resurrected online via Godwin's law?

 

Chants of USA? Country First? I understand the nationalistic phobia, but that's ridiculous. We can't cheer for our freaking country? No pride? Nothing?

 

This explains why Chris Collinsworth had to ask Kobe Bryant a second time if he was sure he should be saying things like "I'm proud of my country".

 

I think it's more about watching large groups of people catalyze each other. It's actually fascinating and scary at the same time. When you can feel the intensity - it seems like anybody could say about anything and the crowd would just respond. Like "Kill the queer" and they'll all go after some poor little blonde haired dude in the back.

 

When you add this group dynamic to ideology that you're uncomfortable with - the result is the queezy feeling they're out of control bigots whipped into a frenzy of nationalistic madness.

 

No. Chanting USA is about pride - go team! Country First is about putting the country before yourself. Stressing the importance of abandoning party politics. They're trying to pimp the message that they are above party loyalty, and are about national loyalty. I don't believe it - but that's what they're selling. And, it's a great thing to sell.

 

National loyalty is great. Party loyalty is pathetic.

[iNow]

Chants of USA? Country First? I understand the nationalistic phobia, but that's ridiculous. We can't cheer for our freaking country? No pride? Nothing?

 

Jesus Christ. I never said that. You and Pangloss have been doing a really excellent job of misinterpreting posts and strawmanning positions this past week.

 

Yes, I do have a problem with national pride. It gets people all frothy over some retarded cartography that means little in today's connected culture.

 

I'm going to try to not post for a bit while you all calm down some. I don't want to say something and be burned at the stake for it because you can't accurately read what I mean.

[CDarwin]

Conventions put everyone is such a bad mood. Geez. Can't we just appreciate the pretty lights and bright colors?

[Phi for All]

If Country First means putting the good of the US over that of either major party, then I'm all for it. If it means America: Love It or Leave It, then count me out. My country, just like me, has to earn its respect every day. We must deserve our victories.

 

We have a lot to cheer for, and we have a lot to change. I'd be scared if we had too little of either.

[bascule]

Chants of USA? Country First? I understand the nationalistic phobia, but that's ridiculous. We can't cheer for our freaking country? No pride? Nothing?

 

You might take a look at what George Orwell has to say about nationalism:

 

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

 

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.

[john5746]

Thompson's speech was much better, but far too much of the "let's get them all incited with nationalism" for my tastes. Also, it's unfortunate that they are pimping McCain's prison camp story like Gulianni did 9/11. It really takes away from the sincerity and honor of such events. Oh well.

 

 

I think it was powerful and relevent. This man knows war and sacrifice. It does not mean he will be a great President, just that he was a great patriot.

[ParanoiA]

You might take a look at what George Orwell has to say about nationalism:

 

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

 

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.

 

Cool read. Thanks for the link. Looks like partisanship is a great example of this poison, that's one of the first things to jump out at me. Well, any kind of thinking that relies on "us vs them" really. Any kind of thinking that degenerates one to focus on the competition over the means and principles you're fighting over. I agree, it makes it easy to excuse bad behavior to achieve stated ends.

[iNow]

While I appreciate the avoidance of "us/them" mentalities, this was a brilliant exposition of Rebpublican and Rightie lies and hypocracy last night.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

 

 

Later, Newt Gingrich gets spanked:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184087&title=newt-gingrich

 

 

Actually, that was one of the best episodes I've ever seen on the show. Available in its entirety below:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=184082

[ParanoiA]

I can't watch those at work, but I watched Gingrich last night - how did he get spanked? The only close thing was talking about Palin and how Obama doesn't have executive experience only for John to remind him that McCain doesn't either - and Gingrich agreed. What spanking are you talking about?

 

Maybe you got it backward, cuz Gingrich was great last night at the RNC and I enjoyed the bit I caught on the daily show.