Right. So, um, I'm pretty embarassed this has been at the top of the Rec List for so long. I posted it as soon as I saw the video which was shortly after it had been released... about five million years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I think the video rocks and I was right that it would go viral.

So, hopefully, we'll get something else at the top of the Rec List soon.

Peace.

Posted at February 7, 2008 3:13 PM in response to Have you seen this?

Actually, I don't think that very many folks seem to recognize the revolutionary aspects of this "electronic conversation."

Your dismissive, facile and elitist comments about latte's and kitty's getting in the way of our monitors depressingly demonstrate that. Or, you're saying that because I can have a dialogue with coffee in hand and kitty in the way somehow are less than getting out on the street with placards in hand and screaming in throat.

I don't say that to insult, truly. But it feels, well, terribly old world to me. And while I'm all for learning from the past in order to not repeat those mistakes, I certainly cannot live there. The world moves on. 

Street protests - at least in my little corner of the world - make people yawn and think, "Ooohh. Look at the green people." Sure there are folks in my little klatch (I pretend no larger circle outside of places like TPMCafe) who feel it's important to get "out there" and "give it to the man" but I don't.

As I wrote, I honor those who have gone before me. I cannot sit here - pushing my cat to the side - and type these ideas out without there being those who've done constructive work to allow me such a possibility.

But... I cannot live in your past. 

Don't get me wrong. There will - hopefully - always be something stirring, wonderful and inspiring at seeing large numbers of people in one place speaking with one (well kind of one) voice. The voice of the masses should always have a kind of power.

The world, however, has moved on. Not because we designed it to be so, but because that's the way things seem to work. I've seen more constructive, rich, and influential dialogues happening online than I've ever seen in a mass of people screaming.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is something to be said for voices speaking individually rather than loud chants spoken by the many. Seems to me that we've reached a point in evolution that the voice of the one has the power to outweigh the voice of the many.

At least that's my hope.

Again, I may be spectacularly wrong. I'm okay with that. Are you?

No, I just read it somewhere.

- tom stoppard

Posted at January 25, 2007 10:51 PM in response to Can we get over the 60s already?

At the risk of coming across as a troll, can I just say, "ZZZzzzzz." Or to paraphrase the tagline for the film Alien: "On the streets, no one can hear you scream."

This whole hippie/yippie/hipster compare and contrast essay that's been showing up 'round these parts of late is frankly boring.

I was born in 1969 and my little baby brain didn't even remotely get into anything until the 1980's and even then it took a whole lot more, um, living to get what was going on around me.

I fully appreciate the works of those who went before. Truly, I do.

But... I marched here in Manhattan twice (once in 2003 and again during the Republican Convention) and afterwards swore I'd never do it again.

Why?

Because it was sound and fury signifying nothing. At least in the effect we were having.

Yes, it feels good to get out on the street and scream. It does. It also felt really good to be an 11-year old screaming at a Clash concert. Both were great screaming experiences but they didn't DO anything.

The internet seems to me to be the real analogue to the street protests of the past. The added bonus, of course, is that while you can type in all caps I still can't hear you scream. I can actually read what you're saying and agree or dismiss not just in my head, but in a way that might get heard too.

Seems like the MSM hears us far better too. Just saying.

It's useful to have these conversations, methinks, but at the same time I wonder why we don't acknowledge this medium through which we're, um, conversating. And... recognize the revolutionary (really) aspects of this conversation.

For once, it actually is the medium not the message. So, screw this particular message... it's dated by the medium we're using.

I reserve the right to be spectacularly wrong.

No, I just read it somewhere.

             - tom stoppard
 

Posted at January 25, 2007 9:45 PM in response to Can we get over the 60s already?

Um, that wasn't me. That was workerbee. But yes, I would agree that the "pathways to 9/11" was the catalyst.

You can only go back to the well so many times without the water turning into bile.

----------------------------
No, I just read it somewhere.
- tom stoppard

Posted at September 24, 2006 6:52 PM in response to Facing the Bullies in their Pulpits

I think it speaks to his political acumen that he went on the attack now. He did leave office quite popular - media narratives notwithstanding - and his words do carry weight. I think it highly unlikely that Bill Clinton thought that 15 minutes of un-edited interview on Fox News wouldn't provide a pulpit of sorts.

6 1/2 weeks out from Election Day, this seems quite a nice thing to add to the mix: A popular Democratic ex-President who can mix it up with anyone on issues of national security. And charm the pants off of folk too.

Not bad.

-------------------

No, I just read it somewhere.

             - tom stoppard
 

Posted at September 24, 2006 6:02 PM in response to Facing the Bullies in their Pulpits

All I can say is that if I'd have known in 1983 when a friend gave me a dog-eared copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook that my government 23 friggin years later - after three terrorist attacks here! - still hadn't checked that shit out... well, I think it highly probable that I would have just checked out then and there.

What part of basic chemistry are these geniuses missing out on? A position paper?

Sigh.

No, I just read it somewhere.

             - tom stoppard
 

Posted at August 10, 2006 9:21 PM in response to How Much Bush Stupidity Can We Take?

Hrm, let's see... NBC reported tonight that some of our soldiers in Afghanistan burned the bodies of two Talibani (which is apparently offensive to Muslims) in an attempt to enrage more Talibani. If NBC is reporting that we're burning the bodies of Taliban soldiers IN Afghanistan, then, um, perhaps things aren't going quite so smoothly, no?

And from what I can tell, the warlords are still active.

Afghanistan is still a mess. And I'd love to see a dialogue about it that talks about reconstructing the country and not just "Yeah, we didn't get Bin Laden! And Bush sucks!"

How 'bout Ahmed Rashid as a week long author discussion-thingie?

At any rate, my primary point still remains: the kind of dialogue that is going on here is kick-ass. 

Posted at October 19, 2005 8:25 PM in response to A Turtle's Lament

I wish I had something to say that had "intellectual gravitas" about Iraq and the differences of opinion good-minded people had regarding the whole war gig, but I don't.

That said, I'm deeply heartened by the dialogue here about this. Color me an optimist but posts like these clear the air in a way all the rancor and well-minded (and frequently vitriolic) arguments don't.

The only thing that still frustrates me to no end is that we're not really having the same conversations about Afghanistan. There was a golden opportunity to rebuild a shattered country AND get some truly bad guys and we botched both. And, frankly, that sucks.

But thanks to TPMCafe and it's participants for exploring the potential of "mea culpa" in a way that's actually constructive. 

Posted at October 19, 2005 8:01 PM in response to A Turtle's Lament

"Gee-From what we know about Frank Capra, wouldn't he have voted for Bush?"

Message, meet messenger. Note that the similarities do not outweigh the differences. Discuss. 

Posted at June 15, 2005 6:31 PM in response to Manchurian Candidate et al.