Protest Warrior - what is the point?

[wowser]

I am English, so forgive me if I am a little late finding out about Protest Warrior (http://www.protestwarrior.com). The Right is the dominant paradigm in the US - the government are currently a far-right administration, networks like Fox News are heavily slanted towards the Right. Often the only way the Left can voice itself is through protesting, weblogs and such like. My point is why does the Right need to adopt these tactics? It is laughable for sites like Protest Warrior to claim that they have somehow become marginalized, and that the only way to get their points accross is to disrupt anti-war marches and so forth. I am all for free speech, but when their ideology mirrors the government's - why bother?

[grapes911]

Actually, Fox is one of the few sources of Right sided media. Most other major networks and newspapers are to the Left.

[Blue Velvet]

Because of the feminazi, tree-hugging, gay-loving, Hollywood, liberal media elite?

All of them, girly-men...




(I'm being deeply sarcastic, here btw)

[wowser]

Because of the feminazi, tree-hugging, gay-loving, Hollywood, liberal media elite?

All of them, girly-men...




(I'm being deeply sarcastic, here btw)

haha!

I think most major US news networks are actually pretty centrally centred (if that makes sense) Fox makes a big jump to the right, whilst ABC and CBS make only a very slight edging towards the left.

[zimv20]

the political leanings of US media outlets has been discussed here ad nauseum. the only thing we learn is: no one changes their mind.

here's a tidbit from today:

ABC news w/ peter jennings talked a little bit about the supreme court discussing the issue of capital punishment for 16 and 17 year olds. they presented some of the justices' comments, then had other people express their opinions, for both sides of the argument.

what they absolutely neglected to mention is recent pyschiatric and physiological research that shows people of that age don't have fully formed reasoning centers; it's actually the last part of cognition to develop. this research is central in the issue before the court.

but -- it wasn't mentioned. why? maybe someone will read into it that the research helps make an anti-capitol punishment case. does this belie a political leaning of abc news?

[grapes911]

the political leanings of US media outlets has been discussed here ad nauseum. the only thing we learn is: no one changes their mind.

here's a tidbit from today:

ABC news w/ peter jennings talked a little bit about the supreme court discussing the issue of capital punishment for 16 and 17 year olds. they presented some of the justices' comments, then had other people express their opinions, for both sides of the argument.

what they absolutely neglected to mention is recent pyschiatric and physiological research that shows people of that age don't have fully formed reasoning centers; it's actually the last part of cognition to develop. this research is central in the issue before the court.

but -- it wasn't mentioned. why? maybe someone will read into it that the research helps make an anti-capitol punishment case. does this belie a political leaning of abc news?

This hints that ABC News points to the Right.

[Chip NoVaMac]

what they absolutely neglected to mention is recent pyschiatric and physiological research that shows people of that age don't have fully formed reasoning centers; it's actually the last part of cognition to develop. this research is central in the issue before the court.

Not wanting to go OT, but studies like this are general in nature and may or may not represent the development of the mind of a juvenile commits cold blooded murder.

[wowser]

ok, but I'm still not sure what the point of Protest Warrior is

[grapes911]

I thought me saying ABC News points to the Right sounded wrong. They usually are a Left-winged media.

Here is the story
He cited scientific evidence that juveniles lack maturity and have deficits in reasoning, judgment and controlling impulses. Waxman said 18 was considered by society as the defining line between childhood and adulthood.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=162200

This story isn't even on Fox.
Its on the more liberal CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/13/national/main648929.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories) though.

[wowser]

another example of how lame right-wing film makers are can be seen by viewing the trailers of the current anti-liberal films doing the rounds. I mean, a bad film is a bad film whatever you believe. For instance, these are scenes (cut, i have to add) from the film IsIt True What They Say About Ann? http://65.36.166.137/ . These were cut, but the trailer is just as banal and pointless. All the other films shown by these conservative film festivals merely seem to be montages of library footage with 'dramatic' music set to them. Poor.

[Chip NoVaMac]

another example of how lame right-wing film makers are can be seen by viewing the trailers of the current anti-liberal films doing the rounds. I mean, a bad film is a bad film whatever you believe. For instance, these are scenes (cut, i have to add) from the film IsIt True What They Say About Ann? http://65.36.166.137/ . These were cut, but the trailer is just as banal and pointless. All the other films shown by these conservative film festivals merely seem to be montages of library footage with 'dramatic' music set to them. Poor.

And trailer one seems more like a Bush advocacy ad, not a trailer for a movie.

[wowser]

Eaxctly. Left Wing satrists like Moore make films to counter the dominant ideology of the Bush administration, where as right-wing film makers can only ever serve to , as you say' promote the current government. As the government has millions of dollars to do this, why would anyone else bother?

[Chip NoVaMac]

As the government has millions of dollars to do this, why would anyone else bother?

Because the truth behind the Left's films (or the Right when the Dems have the White House) is closer to reality than the governments truth.

[IJ Reilly]

Getting back to the original question... a theory I've floated around here before is that the Right in the US is currently falling into the same pattern (and trap) that the Left did 30 years ago. Controlling the nation's political agenda as they do, and with a media that ranges from compliant to sycophantic, they calculate that their next step is mopping up, consolidating power. They are working on the marginalization of any and all opposition. If we listen carefully we can hear this in the talk about a creating "permanent Republican majority."

Not that this will ever happen, of course, but from the standpoint of the Right, they've already collected most of the marbles, and not only can they make a case for being put in charge of everything forever, they're justified in saying to anyone who doesn't share their views something very similar to what Dick Cheney so delicately told the Senator from Vermont. They figure that they've won the ideological war and it's time for everybody else to just accept it.

That is also why the right-wing commentators who dominate our airwaves can get away with saying things every day which by any objective measure are outrageous, offensive and downright scary -- as nobody on the Right breathes even a word of criticism. They're the point-men in the fight to eliminate, once and for all, any last pockets of resistance to complete Republican rule. No way is anyone who'd like to see this come about going to call their best attack dogs off the kill.

But as I said, we've seen it all before, 30 or so years ago on the Left. At that time, American liberals adopted essentially the same point of view. And it was that arrogance of power that led to them become out of touch with the nation -- and vulnerable to attacks from the Right. And we know how that worked out. It can all be explained as hubris -- the arrogance of power. The pride that comes before the fall.

[mischief]

Not wanting to go OT, but studies like this are general in nature and may or may not represent the development of the mind of a juvenile commits cold blooded murder.

You are, perhaps, correct.

Studies of mass murderers, serial rapists, etc have shown distinct neurological differences in the frontal and pre-frontal lobes in areas to do with impulse control. Oddly, in Serial Killers the lobes go through a cycle of "overactivity" (individual's impulse control is FAR above "normal" 99.99% of the time, most mild mannered dude you'll ever meet) and then effectively "shorts out" (episodes of extreme, ritualized violence) under extreme stress.

This neuroligical abnormality is not a genetic or purely physiological malformation but is linked to very specific circumstances in early childhood resulting in a warpage of context and the effective "scarring" of neural patterns.

Ironocally the movie "Psycho" covers the standard FBI profile quite closely. This profile and neurological print are very well documented and extremely consistant.

When I learned of this phenomenon I couldn't help but think that our entire criminal justice system could be overhauled by these concepts. We no longer have to be using 400 year old modes of punnishment for crimes that are either attributable to neurological dysfunction, drug addiction or poverty.

Wouldn't it be lovely to humanely euthanize the truely psychologically unrecoverable and really rehabilitate the rest? My god! we may not even need 1 in 10 existing prisons!! :eek:

[SiliconAddict]

haha!

I think most major US news networks are actually pretty centrally centred (if that makes sense) Fox makes a big jump to the right, whilst ABC and CBS make only a very slight edging towards the left.


The only American news station I remotely trust is CNN and even then I prefer the BBC and occasionally go to http://www.aljazeera.com/ to check things out.

[Chip NoVaMac]

mischief, well put overall. I am not sure how I sit on the death penalty in general. It is sort of like the insanity arguments used in court. I believe that anyone that kills in "cold blood" has to be sick minded. And how certain lives are worth more than others

Sorry for OT

[mischief]

mischief, well put overall. I am not sure how I sit on the death penalty in general. It is sort of like the insanity arguments used in court. I believe that anyone that kills in "cold blood" has to be sick minded. And how certain lives are worth more than others

Sorry for OT

I came to the conclusion I did RE: Euthanasia after several years volunteering in animal shelters where the same behavioural-decay patterns and overall close-quarters health issues play out as in prisons... just on a smaller scale. I noticed the same basic pattern in dogs that the Psych community noticed in the above groups: Some are simply unrecoverable. Only in Dogs it IS more hardwired than taught. In either case it seems the most humane answer is a compassionate death by lethal injection in the company of a caring RN with good pre-mixing. IMHO anything else is cruel and unfortunately entirely too usual punnishment.

[IJ Reilly]

As if we needed any more evidence that the right wing in the US has gone completely bonkers, here's an exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, from his Thursday show:

O'REILLY: Are you a right-wing extremist?

COULTER: I guess so, but I think that's synonymous with American patriot.

...

O'REILLY: So you're -- that's good. You know -- you recognize you're a right-wing extremist, and you're happy with it. You're content with being that. Can you persuade, then, other people to see things your way if you are so extreme?

COULTER: Well, truth be told, I think I'm a moderate, and the rest of the world is crazy. I will accept the right-wing moniker.

I've searched and searched, and I cannot find any quotes from well-known American leftist radicals that compete with these for their shear nuttiness. So unless somebody can come up with quotes I'm not able to find, I may have to modify my thesis somewhat. The right wing radicals of today are even further off the edge than any notable leftist from the '60s. They're so far over the horizon, they're completely out of view of land.

[mactastic]

Didn't O'Reilly also make some wierd comment about the cover of Coulter's new book showing her in some kind of black leather outfit in front of a chalkboard during that interview?

[wowser]

he seemed very toned down, almost normal on the Daily Show - perhaps the Fox show is just all an act?

[Thomas Veil]

My 2¢: I blame it all on Ronald Reagan. Let me explain. It will be long but hopefully interesting.

When Reagan came into office, he did two things that forever changed American politics. His administration adopted a "greed is good" attitude, and his FCC revoked the Equal Time provision for all radio and TV stations.

The "greed is good" mentality basically legitimized amoral, anything-goes corporate behavior. Like vampires preying in the dark suddenly able to operate in broad daylight, the worst corporations no longer had to care whether their actions were tainting food, destroying the environment, or sending people into poverty. As far as Reagan's government was concerned, what mattered more was maximizing corporate profits.

The revocation of the Equal Time provision became a means to that end. Previously, the airwaves had been a precious resource, and the FCC was the guardian of their usage. From Reagan on (including, AFAIK, Bill Clinton's term), the FCC treated the airwaves as a commodity, a thing to be sold or used in selling. The right, more organized (and far more devious) then the Left at that point, saw their opportunity, and they took it. A number of big radio and TV corporations (Fox, Clear Channel. etc.) slanted their coverage rightward, with no consequences to pay. Even the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC), owned by big corporations, began to play it safe. As Jon Stewart tried to say, they no longer ask the important questions. They no longer challenge lies. The Left has tried to play catch-up via efforts like Air America, but having fallen so far behind, they are really fighting an uphill battle.

Now I don't wish to imply that the entire right is a bunch of greedy, amoral nut cases. But the traditional conservatives, like John McCain and George Will, certainly seem to be outnumbered by the powerful voices of the radical right. Think about it. Whose message is more widespread? McCain or Bush? Will or Ann Coulter? If you chose "B" to each of those questions, you win. (Until you have to live with the consequences.)

So what has emerged is a predominantly centerist-to-far right wing media, depending upon the network. There is very little on the Left. But the radical right, controlling the presidency, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, is now hard-put to label liberals in government as the Source Of All That's Wrong With America. They needed a new target, even if they had to manufacture it. And that target is the "liberal media".

They've also targeted the media because the media is the Left's primary hope for regaining any kind of power. As centerist as Bill Clinton was, look how they freaked out at his two-term presidency. They have to assure that that never happens again.

And so the right-wing media is a means of consolidating and spreading their power. But it seems to work best for them if they continue to play the role of The Victim. No matter that they control almost everything, they have to make it look like they are the powerless ones, the ones under constant attack. Heck, for most of Bill Clinton's two terms, professional liar Rush Limbaugh opened his show by describing his country as "America Held Hostage, Day xxx."

And so you have not only radical right-wing blogs and web sites, but the (unfortunately) by now traditional radio shows. And that, I think, is your answer.

If Bush wins, it'll only get worse. Hell, if I were Kerry, the first thing I'd do was fire the entire FCC and replace them with people who are truly interested in running the airwaves in the public interest.

One more thing: there are far right-wingers who sincerely do believe this stuff. The American voting public has quite a few empty heads waiting to be filled with whatever swill cynics like Karl Rove are willing to concoct. These are the Angry White Men that people like Michael Moore speak about. All mouth and no brains.

And that means education is a key. Another very important plan for any centerist or liberal president to launch is voter education in our schools. We need to teach kids how to compare reality to the lies they hear from the right (and sometimes the Left). We need to teach them to question the b.s. they often hear from their dittohead daddies. If the kids still come to the conclusion that the radical right is the way to go, fine. But at least we will have opened their minds at the age when they are still impressionable enough to be open.

That, and freeing the media from the grip of right-wing fanatics, are the two most important things we need to do right now in America.

I told you it would be long. :o

[wowser]

long and interesting! You came up trumps, there. So, why then, do these right-wing 'activists' believe that they are so hard done by?

[wwworry]

good post Mr. Veil. Broacdcast television is a big problem in this country. They do not even have to show childrens educational television anymore. I do not know where we would be without school-house rock.

Also the idea that the candidates have to PAY to advertise on public owned airwaves is crazy. Our government has been sold to the highest bidder for lousy malinformative 30 second lies.

[IJ Reilly]

All true, but this doesn't address the question of why "traditional" conservatives (such as McCain and Will; we could easily name others) are so completely silent in the face of their far more radical brethren. Has George Will ever denounced the incendiary lies, historical fabrications and general nastiness perpetrated by the likes of Ann Coulter? It would certainly be big news if he did. No, the rabid right is being given a free pass by the "traditional" right. It might be well worth asking why.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thomas, you are so right. Look at the Sinclair group wanting to run the Kerry documentary. And then look at the news in the Washington Post today (in the Style section's Name and Face's trash column):

NAMES & FACES


iN Demand Says No Moore
Behold the power of television: Two documentaries slated to air before the election are causing a certifiable brouhaha for networks, filmmakers and candidates alike.

Last week, Sen. John F. Kerry and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ("the conservative senator from Massachusetts," says the president) were up in arms over an anti-Kerry documentary slated to air on 62 stations owned by the Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group.

Now, the cable pay-per-view company iN Demand has pulled a three-hour election-eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore. "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" was set to include a showing of his box office coup "Fahrenheit 9/11," as well as interviews with politically charged celebs, all for the low price of $9.95.

A company spokesman told the Associated Press on Friday that the decision is based on "legitimate business and legal concerns." But Moore, who inked a contract with iN Demand in early September, said he is contemplating legal action because he feels the company succumbed to pressure from "top Republican people."

"There's been one struggle or another over this, but we've always come out on top," said Moore, whose documentary would reach about one-quarter of the nation's homes if aired on iN Demand. "You can't tell Americans they can't watch this."

In a twist worthy of a TV drama, Moore told the Sinclair Broadcast Group on Friday that he'd let them air the special for free. Who knows if the broadcaster will accept, but it sure might help with those pesky "fair and balanced" issues Sinclair's having.


Wonder what "legitimate business and legal concerns" that iNDemand has before the Republican controlled Congress. And they must be confident that it will remain in Republican control.

[Thomas Veil]

IJ, I have no answer for you. I can only surmise that they are willing to let their side win at all costs, even if it means descending to outright lies and deception. (To be fair, McCain has once or twice spoken up against his own party, but not often enough.)

Similarly, I'm not sure if I have an answer for you, wowser. If you're asking why the far right acts the way it does, I can only tell you that they seem to be driven by two things.

One is fundamentalism. Which is ironic, since that's what we claim to be fighting "over there". Over here, it's pseudo-Christian fundamentalism. It's not real Christianity, of course, because Jesus never would have put up for a second with what these guys are doing. But there are plenty of nuts who will vote for Bush, despite all the harm he's done and will continue to do, purely because they're against abortion, or because they "have" to have the Ten Commandments posted in every school, or because they believe in "an eye for an eye", and many Democrats are opposed to the death penalty.

The other reason is equally ironic: a sense of entitlement. They love to claim liberals feel entitled to handouts. But in reality, it is they who feel entitled. Entitled to what? Power and money. There's this very evident attitude that corporations are entitled to make money any way they can, and that their party is entitled to control our government.

(Word is that in 2000, when Bush was contacted in his car and told that Gore was retracting his concession and prepared to ask for a recount, Bush became angry and shouted, "Who does he think he is??")

It's saddening, because throughout history, all empires and governments have sooner or later come to an end, and I see the time I'm living in as the beginning of the fall of our democracy. The dichotomy between what the Founding Fathers intended and what we actually are is greater than ever, and the two are moving apart from each other rapidly.

Frankly, I see only corruption and decline in our future.

[wowser]

It's not real Christianity, of course, because Jesus never would have put up for a second with what these guys are doing.

Exactly what I, as a Catholic, feel about this 'Christian' right.

[solvs]

he seemed very toned down, almost normal on the Daily Show - perhaps the Fox show is just all an act?
I noticed that too. They were both so cordial towards each other, even after O'Reily had just said that thing about Daily Show viewers all being stoners. Stewart just made a joke about it. Would have been funny if he tore into him like he did to BowTieBoy on Crossfire on CNN. But then, I guess he wouldn't have agreed to come on. Plus Stewart's too good of a guy to do something terrible like ambush a person after inviting them to your show, then cutting their mic off and making them look like an idiot (you know, like O'Reily does all the time). Would have liked to see him on the other end of the stick in this case though.

Jon Stewart has a good excuse, he's a comedian. Bill O'Reily is supposed to be a news commentator. Although after Rush got caught poppin' pills, he claimed he was just an entertainer. Funny how people who make a living condemning drug use and sexual perversion keep such loyal fans when they themselves become guilty of these sins. Typical fundamentalism. Do as I say, not as I do... living in glass houses... etc. Hypocrites. Jesus and Mohamed both spoke against these types of false profits. Too bad people forget that part. And they use the people's ignorance against them to spread their messages of fear and hatred to further their causes.

Shame so many fall for it.

[wowser]

I saw Orielly once where he had this poor 14 year old boy scout on - OReilly ripped into him! I mean, it's one thing to give politicians a grilling, but this was just cruel :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I have no answer for you. I can only surmise that they are willing to let their side win at all costs, even if it means descending to outright lies and deception. (To be fair, McCain has once or twice spoken up against his own party, but not often enough.)

It's a classic case of silent complicity, and ends justifying means. Moderate Republicans might not approve of the tactics of the loony Right, but they are content to keep their criticisms to themselves so long as the rabid dogs are fighting on their side. I don't think I need to weave any historical analogies to support the point that many horrors have been committed while people of supposed principle stood aside while others split heads in the service of their cause. This is what happens when a sense of entitlement takes over.

[solvs]

I saw Orielly once where he had this poor 14 year old boy scout on - OReilly ripped into him! I mean, it's one thing to give politicians a grilling, but this was just cruel :rolleyes:
I've heard of that, haven't seen it. Would like to though. Someday, maybe.

[wowser]

you can live in hope.

[solvs]

you can live in hope.
There's always bit torrent.

[wowser]

If you ever find it, let me know - it was a funny clip