07 March 2008

Almost A YouTube Addict!

I LOVE YouTube!
I have to limit the amount of time I spend pokin' around the various video sites lest I find myself wondering where the last four hours disappeared. What a powerful medium... from a political viewpoint, getting more and more powerful as both parties realize the possible impact there.


Two examples follow-
Although well done, I couldn't help but visualize German arms raised in the "Heil Hitler" salute as I listened to the background chant in this one:



So I was not surprised... actually comforted, to find that others were equally disturbed:



We've not yet seen the full power of YouTube and other internet video sites, folks. I'm simultaneously thrilled and frightened, trying to see the future there.

HA! UPDATE:
"If you care about your kids' future, not cheating on your wife and the mother of your children seems to be of far more importance than, say, who you vote for in the primaries."
That article, worth reading, is here.

16 comments:

Rodolfo said...

Yes I do see how some people can liken Obama's frenzied supporters with Hitler's. The big difference is that Obama's supporters are red-blooded Americans and not Nazis.

John said...

Wait...we have a sitting president that tortures people and taps our phone calls, and Obama is the Nazi? I'm missing something here.

That song by Cake is awesome. What a great band.

Greybeard said...

First, thank you both for your input.
Secondly...
"Torture",
"Nazi",
"Fascist", and
"Socialist", are all words likely to be thrown around this election. Lest you embarrass yourself, be sure you are up on your definitions!

cary said...

Did I miss the articles about the President himself, using his uber-training as an interrogator, torturing people?

Did I miss the other articles about the President himself, using his uber-training as an electronics wizard, personally tapping phones?

On a side note - since the only phone calls monitored were TO known terrorists outside the USofA, then by your use of the word "our" I will assume that you were calling a known terrorist outside the USofA, and you find that law enforcement DOING it's JOB is a breach of your "rights" with no regards to your own "responsibilities" as a citizen of this country.

Turn off the computer, John, and go back outside to play in the sandbox some more.

Greybeard - sorry to take up so much room in the comments for a rant such as this, but the liberal leftists in this country WILL be held accountable for the words they use and the phrases they turn.

Greybeard said...

Friend Cary-
You know we're reading from the same sheet of music, but go take a look at John's Blog...
I'll disagree with him about man-made global warming, but he's mostly friend, not foe.

Rodolfo said...

Cary asked: Did I miss the articles about the President himself, using his uber-training as an interrogator, torturing people? Did I miss the other articles about the President himself, using his uber-training as an electronics wizard, personally tapping phones?

Obviously it's not Bush that's doing the actual torturing and phone-tapping. I don't want to speak for John but I don't think that's his point.

Cary wrote: On a side note - since the only phone calls monitored were TO known terrorists outside the USofA, then by your use of the word "our" I will assume that you were calling a known terrorist outside the USofA, and you find that law enforcement DOING it's JOB is a breach of your "rights" with no regards to your own "responsibilities" as a citizen of this country.

There's no doubt we need to perform surveillance on terrorist. But I think there needs to be some form of checks and balance in the system. We (the citizens) can't simply give our Executives absolute control because absolute control corrupts. At some point anyone who has this much control WILL abuse it. I think that's the issue. I want those f**king terrorists brought to justice like any other true American out there but should our civil liberties be sacrificed for it? Shouldn't someone monitor the monitoree?

Cary wrote: the liberal leftists in this country WILL be held accountable for the words they use and the phrases they turn.

Does name calling really help the conversation move forward? Whether we like it or not we're stuck with each other. I'm sure we can all agree that even liberals love their children as much as conservatives. My point is that both sides of the political divide have the same goals but just different ways of getting there. Debates can be fun and constructive. Let's have them. But I find it irrelevant and counterproductive to resort to name calling and making faulty assumptions to someone's patriotism.

Greybeard said...

Pretty much what I said in a comment below, only VDH says it better.

John said...

Greybeard- thanks for sticking up for me. I suspect we'd disagree on some things, but I'd still enjoy a beer with you. I do seek out the other side of issues, and I enjoy getting them from your blog. I have great respect for you and I'd rather get that perspective here than from a talking head on the TV.

Cary - Good point. I highly doubt W can even tie his shoes without Dick showing him what to do. But seriously, the buck stops with him and his policies. And, I'd rather endure a dozen 9/11 style attacks than live in a society without freedom or one that does not respect human rights. Rodolfo said it all very well, those that have this kind of control will abuse it. Can we look ourselves in the mirror if we allow this to happen?

Greybeard said...

I must be blind, senile, or a little of both.
I sure don't see anything in Cary's comment about Dick Cheney, John. And please remember what I have said frequently...
No one will argue... W is a TERRIBLE public speaker.
So, apparently, was Thomas Jefferson. But W graduated ahead of the other Presidential candidate at Yale. Couple that with Kerry's post VN activities and his continued refusal to open his records to the public, then answer me this:
What choice did we voters have in '04?!!
Unfortunately, it looks to me as if we are headed for the same dreadful voting experience...
an inexperienced, slick, "clean and articulate" corrupt Chicago politician, versus a more experienced but flawed guy that wants to hand the country over to illegals.
How do we find ourselves here?

"... endure a dozen 9-11's..."
Thank GOD we'll never get to that point! I cannot imagine the general populace allowing that.
It's my hope, so long as we have strong defenders and intelligence gatherers out there, we can continue to stop the extremists from a 9-11 repeat.

And about defending you...
That'll continue so long as you add intelligent comments here. This one almost failed that test.

Rodolfo said...

Greybeard wrote: What choice did we voters have in '04?!!

None really. I always felt that my choice in 04 was between a douche and a turd. Both democrat and republican candidates over the last few elections have been cycled through by their respective *machines* This year might be different.

Greybeard wrote: Unfortunately, it looks to me as if we are headed for the same dreadful voting experience...
an inexperienced, slick, "clean and articulate" corrupt Chicago politician,....

How do you define experience? Is longevity in Washington a much better qualifier than sound judgment? To claim that Senator Obama is *inexperienced* ignores his 20 years of service to his state and country. And again please point me to any credible evidence that makes the Senator corrupt. This is your blog and you have every right to write what you want but let's try to stay on point by sticking to the facts.

Greybeard wrote: ....versus a more experienced but flawed guy that wants to hand the country over to illegals.

Let's cut through the talking points and get to the heart of this issue. Our immigration policy is in need of reform. No question about it. I think it's plainly obvious that the first thing we have to do is to secure our borders. How do we effectively do this when we send our troops to protect borders overseas? Second how do we deal with the illegals that are here? Now I'm opposed to amnesty. Our country is a nation of laws and those who break the law must be dealt with accordingly. But one of our country's many strengths is that we are also a nation of immigrants. I suspect that the majority of illegals coming into this country came for the same reasons that our forefathers did: Opportunity. We should stop illegal immigration where it starts but we must also find a humane and practical way to deal with the illegals that are here. It's difficult for me to judge other people purely for wanting a better life for themselves and their families. How do you think we'd look to the rest of the world when they see images of families being torn apart by police on the news?

Greybeard asked: How do we find ourselves here?

Only naturally I suppose. I see the the current polarization of our politics a vestigal organ of unfinished business that materialized in the 60s. It's time we turn the page.

John wrote: I'd rather endure a dozen 9/11 style attacks...

Not me. We need to fight *BOTH* attacks on our civil liberties *AND* Islamo-fascism.

Greybeard said...

"How do you define experience? Is longevity in Washington a much better qualifier than sound judgment?"

Not necessarily. But first I would like to see what you call "sound judgment." Giving aid to our enemies by implying we were at fault by taking the actions both President Clinton and the United Nations called for is NOT sound judgment. Suggesting we should bomb/invade a Sovereign Nation/ally is NOT sound judgment.

"And again please point me to any credible evidence that makes the Senator corrupt."

All I can say is, wait and see what unfolds. I may (or may not) be more attuned to what is going on in the Rezko trial than you are. I agree we may not necessarily want to tar someone because of their associations, but it is one of the only ways we have to judge our politicians sometimes. Now we find Rezko was near bankruptcy while he was dealing for this multi-million dollar piece of Chicago property... What other interesting tidbits will come out of that Chicago closet? Thank GOD the Chicago Tribune is one of the few major media outlets to begin to dig and look beyond the "halo"!

Immigration-
We don't need troops to protect our Southern flank...
We've been promised a fence. I have flown along the U.S./Mexican border many times. Much of that area is flat and unobstructed, and a fence could be built there easily. So why don't "they" build one? 'Cause they don't want to do it. Fixing this problem is gonna be painful under the best of circumstances. It'll take a true leader to get the job done, because he'll have to convince all of us it's worth doing. None of the present batch of panderers wants to take on this difficult task.

I'll say again what I've said before-
All we have to do is adopt Mexico's immigration policy. That would certainly begin to resolve this problem.
Build the fence. Incarcerate illegals when they break the law, and announce they'll be deported and won't be allowed to return to the U.S. under any circumstance. That would give those here illegally an incentive to go back to Mexico and start the (broken-in need of repair) LEGAL immigration process.

How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
Start soon, it's a big meal.

Greybeard said...

From the mouth of Obama's Pastor-
God Damn America!
Why has he stayed in this racist church 20 years?
Again, more coming, I betcha.

Rodolfo said...

Similar to the Great Wall of China? How effective were theose walls trying to prevent the Mongols from crossing over? If we're *really* serious about immigration we will put our troops there. There's no bigger deterrant than a loaded gun in your face.

Greybeard wrote: All we have to do is adopt Mexico's immigration policy. That would certainly begin to resolve this problem. Build the fence. Incarcerate illegals when they break the law, and announce they'll be deported and won't be allowed to return to the U.S. under any circumstance. That would give those here illegally an incentive to go back to Mexico and start the (broken-in need of repair) LEGAL immigration process.

There's no one magic bullet that will solve our immigration issues. It's complex because you also have to deal with Americans that are taking advantage of the cheap labor. Are we going to crack down hard on these business owners as well? Besides a fence can only go so high. What about those that dig tunnels? Or those that cross by small boats?

So you think it's really practical to jail an estimated 15 million people? Most of those that are here didn't come here overnight. I suspect they've been here for decades. They probably have children who by definition are Americans by virtue of being born on our soil. Do we really want to be a country that breaks families apart? Again I think this sends the wrong message to the rest of the world that America is the standard that everyone should follow. We ought to lead not only economically and militarily but also morally. That's IF we still want that title. We can't proclaim we're the best and not expect people to want to come here. That's only natural.

Greybeard wrote: Why has he stayed in this racist church 20 years?

That's a pretty heavy charge. First of all Senator Obama has already addressed this issue numerous times and I find his explanation sufficient. Everyone has a crazy old relative that will say things you wished they didn't say. So the pastor makes DUMB comments. Again name one influential pastor in recent memory who has NOT said anything offensive to stir up the pot.

I'm not defending the pastor or his comments but how is being self-critical racist? How do you define racism anyway? Isn't racism a belief that a group is innately superior to ALL others and therefore has the right to rule? Where in that article does the pastor call for Black supremacy? If a group of Americans want to form a club that defines itself from their ancestral origins does that make them racist? This is where blacks find themselves in a catch-22. Ex. If Senator Obama was of Irish descent and was a member of the Holy Trinity *Irish* Church does that make him racist? Substitute the word *black* or even *white* in there and it automatically becomes perceived as racist. But is it really?

I have no problem with people ranting and raving in the streets or in the pulpit. Our Bill of Rights give them that fundamental right. Good thing for us a right to free speech does not translate to a right to be taken seriously. We live in a great country but it's not perfect. Our Constitution states we are to "form a MORE perfect Union" Nowhere does it say say that our country *IS* a perfect Union. Being self-critical can be healthy in some circumstances because it's a way we can continue to become better.

Rodolfo said...

Note: This part was accidentally left off the previous post.

Greybeard wrote: Giving aid to our enemies by implying we were at fault by taking the actions both President Clinton and the United Nations called for is NOT sound judgment.

I'm not aware of this point. Can you point to a reference?

Greybeard wrote: Suggesting we should bomb/invade a Sovereign Nation/ally is NOT sound judgment.

From the elephant's mouth himself: "With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official."

This seems like a more practical solution to the war on terror don't you think? And do you think Afghanistan was a mistake? I don't. I was all FOR going to Afghanistan after 9/11. But then I woke up and found our country in Iraq. WTF!?!? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we didn't turn around and invade China. Now President Bush wants us to go to Iran? Wow.

Here's more sound and even prophetic judgement from the Senator from Illinois: "I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda."

Greybeard said...

R-
No time to respond completely to your comment... we've begun to talk AT one another rather than to one another anyway. You obviously are enamored with BHO, and he scares me just a little less than Hillary Rodham. The cards are beginning to fall, and the next weeks will be interesting for BHO, I believe, from within his party and without.
You will agree, I think, that he thinks invading Iraq was a mistake, in spite of the fact that Iraq never fully complied with United Nations demands after Gulf I, and the imposition of 17 U.N. sanctions with threats of overt action.
Check here for my post from a few months ago about President Clinton's thoughts on Saddam/Iraq.

Rodolfo said...

Greybeard wrote: You obviously are enamored with BHO

No doubt. It's only natural I suppose. He appeals to the young and we want someone that can speak our language. It’s my generation that will inherit the next chapter in American history. We see the divisions and partisanship that has plagued the politics of our elders and we want something new. That sounds like a cliché but it’s really that simple.

Greybeard wrote: The cards are beginning to fall, and the next weeks will be interesting for BHO, I believe, from within his party and without.

I pride myself in being objective. If I’m wrong I’ll be the first to admit it. But let’s see how it all unfolds. I like other people’s interpretations.

Greybeard wrote: You will agree, I think, that he thinks invading Iraq was a mistake, in spite of the fact that Iraq never fully complied with United Nations demands after Gulf I, and the imposition of 17 U.N. sanctions with threats of overt action.

I agree. But Iraq was a strategic blunder in our war against Islamo-Fascism. From what I can tell Saddam was a secular Muslim with no ties whatsoever to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda.

It would have made more sense for Bush Sr. to have finished the job the first time around but he didn’t. HE FAILED. This is not the time to rehash old wars because the new threat is more sinister. How many sanctions has North Korea failed to comply with? Should we attack them too? The logic is faulty. Our war is not with Muslims but with Islamo-fascists.