« Department of Irony | Main | Baby Einstein » I Made a Movie24 Jan 2007 01:17 am Inspired by Josh Marshall, I've created a video response to the State of Union, focusing on Iran rather than the NBA-related issues also raised by the speech. Because I was super-lazy, I recorded this in low resolution on my iSight rather than going upstairs to recover my better digital video camera. I'm also wearing an Adidas hoodie because that's what I put on when I came home from the gym, and I'm actually wearing the hood for no good reason other than sheer eccentricity. Comments (48)
But it won't be eccentric enough unless you commit to it. Your bloggingheads appearances are no longer hood-optional. Suggestion: combine this look with a pearl-handled walking stick! Then your publicist will have no problem getting you the cover of P: The Magazine of Pundit Fashion. 
That was the perfect number of beers (or what have you) to make that video.
Do you ever wonder at what point you just got to say fuck it man like when you gotta stop living up here and start living down here?
I Made a Movie Unfortunately, too late for Oscar consideration. I know Al Gore. Al Gore is a friend of mine. You sir, are no... Kidding.
Yeah, I kinda expected a beheading at any moment.
Important video revelation: It's EE-glay, not IH-Glay.
It sounded like someone was drunkenly tapping away at a Selectric in the background.
The hood gives you kind of a jedi vibe. I like it.
This should be a regular feature. Friday Hoodie Blogging or some such.
Webb could use a hoodie...it would help out with that Dwight Shrute thing he has going on.
That was hilarious bro...thanks. Good points, and impeccable (lack of) eye flutter. Peace.
I liked the hood, and I probably wouldn't have bothered to watch the video without it. I appreciated the previously noted Jedi vibe greatly. Of course, I go around calling myself "Neil the Ethical Werewolf", so I guess I'm the sort of guy who would.
That hoodie look is really you. Without the hoodie, you're an ordinary looking guy--with the hoodie, you're dark and mysterious. I would recommend a hoodie the next time you go clubbing; all the girls (& gay guys)will flock to you.
I'm a regular reader of a blog whose author does SOTU video responses in a green hoodie. Good. I'm resting easy that the bloggers I like will not sell out and become TV news pundits or ESPN NBA analysts.
This is rad. You should do more hoodie-blogging. I'm totally serious.
If you sell matthewyglesias.com hoodies, all your financial problems are over.
I Found Free PlayBoy Girls, you need view this. http://www.girlsupdates.com/gateway.php
Nice, Matt--you look like you're broadcasting from bin Laden's cave. I like it, too; the hoodie/beard combination adds a touch of Middle Eastern persuasiveness. (Disclaimer: I go for this look, too, though with more gray in both parts.)
I'm pretty severely disappointed. I was expecting you to issue your communique in rap form. If you're not going to rap, please don't wear the hoodie.
"I'm also wearing an Adidas hoodie because that's what I put on when I came home from the gym, and I'm actually wearing the hood for no good reason other than sheer eccentricity." That's what they all say, Obi-wan.
And as to the notion that because bombing Iran is bad policy, Democrats shouldn't be applauding anodyne Bush statements on the Middle East, well, you're fucking insane. Monomania is not a particularly helpful personality tic in a pundit.
How did applauding anodyne Bush statements about Iraq work out?
"How did applauding anodyne Bush statements about Iraq work out?" Right. Smart political parties boo and hiss anodyne statements. I love when folks get confused and think political parties exist to provide a platform for their own monomania, rather than to deal with the grubby business of winning elections.
Having only seen a couple of these now--yours, Josh's--it's probably premature to draw a conclusion. Nevertheless I'm willing to bet seeing more of 'em won't change my mind. I REALLY don't see much value-added in doing this sort of commentary in video. Text allows the commentor to stop and find accurate quotation, eliminate hems and haws, doesn't throw us distractions like hoodies, personal tics etc. Meanwhile it allows the audience to cut-paste quotes, stop and review what was said more easily, etc. Writing is not the process of transcribing what you think, it's the process of figuring out what you think. This all takes me back to one of the fundamental themes of one of the great novels of the Internet age, Snow Crash. Using higher tech than is necessary is a trap. Lo-tech is your friend. Hi tech amplifies sight in some areas but induces blindness in others (the "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" phenomenon). This whole experiment strikes me as a great example of the "Ooh, look, a shiny!" phenomenon. Plus I was really hoping there *was* a subtextual message to the hoodie.
When the anodyne statement is clearly designed as euphemism for controversial action, less cheering is sometimes appropriate. Political parties are about both the grubby business of influencing policy and and the grubby business of winning elections. The Democrats need to think about both getting elected and preventing a US or Israeli strike on Iran.
"The Democrats need to think about ... preventing a US or Israeli strike on Iran." Ahhhhhh... I can see you follow the political philosophy of King Canute. Personally, I'm outraged that the Democrats are doing nothing to halt the mediocrity of Oscar™ nominees. I'm outraged that the Democrats are doing nothing to halt the worldwide consumption of Vegemite. Wouldn't it be just slightly more interesting to focus on things that Democrats have any influence over, rather than actions of the Israeli government or actions of the WH that don't need Congressional authorization? But, such are the wages of monomania, I suppose...
Public criticism can have a big effect on actions taken by others. Certainly the US or Israel are more likely to strike Iran if the main opposition party in the US does not oppose the build-up for such an action. Starting a war with Iran is a little more important than the quality of Oscar nominees.
"Public criticism can have a big effect on actions taken by others." Perhaps you missed the memo where Bush decided to accept job approval levels in the 20% range in exchange for a free hand to pursue unpopular policies overseas. If you can conceivably come up with enough Republican votes to overcome a Presidential veto, put me down as supporting a Congressional resolution forbidding a US bombing of Iran. Short of that, you're not talking about effecting the actions of the WH, you're talking about a political sideshow. And for those of us lacking a monomaniacal focus, political sideshows are subject to political considerations.
Personally, I thought Matt looked more Dúnedain Ranger than Jedi Knight.
"I REALLY don't see much value-added in doing this sort of commentary in video." It's value-SUBTRACTED. In addition to the points DrBB made, it takes more time to watch a video than to read a post of the same number of words,
"Wouldn't it be just slightly more interesting to focus on things that Democrats have any influence over, rather than actions of the Israeli government or actions of the WH that don't need Congressional authorization?" Last time I read the Constitution, the president needed congressional authorization to launch an attack on another country.
"Last time I read the Constitution, the president needed congressional authorization to launch an attack on another country." That's not been the de facto standard over the past 60 years. A White House only needs authorization to maintain boots on the ground for more than a couple of months. See in chronological order Korea, Iran, Guatamala, Laos, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia again for some examples of the post-WWII de facto standard. I'm somewhat open to the idea that the de facto standard is an incorrect constitutional interpretation, but it is still the long-standing and bipartisan de facto standard.
Dammit. If I were up at freakin 2 a.m., I would have said "These aren't the droids we're looking for" and it would have been funny.
Seriously. If you sold green matthewyglesias.com hoodies I'd buy one. (I'd feel better about it if you didn't change where you blog every few months, but maybe that's just a way to sell more hoodies.) These kind of late night reports are great because about that time we lose the ability to read. Keep them coming!
The issue of possible Iranian nuclear weapons is about multiple nuclear holocausts. You seem, I think, to dismiss this risk as if it didn't exist or perhaps it is simply inevitable (so why get excited?). I think the issue should be treated with greater seriousness. Video blogging is fine. I even like the hood. But glossing over megadeaths is not fine. If you can demonstrate that the risk is mythical you can save the world a lot of money and a lot of blood. Surely it's worth the effort? I think the risk of horror is quite real and I think we need a solution. The only good solution is for the Iranians to avoid building nuclear weapons. Any violent solution is a disaster of one kind or another for Israel, the US, and probably the whole Mideast. And a violent solution is better than letting them blow up Saudi Arabia, Israel, or the US.
"Wouldn't it be just slightly more interesting to focus on things that Democrats have any influence over" ...Petey Petey, I sincerely and seriously believe Congressional Democrats could stop an attack on Iran, simply ..by screaming about it, talking about nothing else, and not stopping. By forcing the President to publicly commit to peace, even if some "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident is manufactured. Or if that failed, then Democrats would have credibility and legitimacy for extreme actions against the President following the attack, or the Pentagon would have a support for insubordinate restraint. We need to create space on the issue, room to maneuver.
And once again petey vastly over-reaches his own ability. One very real worry -- which petey himself tacitly admits -- is that a President can simply order, say, a massive airstrike, and present the Congress with a fait accompli. Given the unfortunate precedents of more than half a century, there's little to stop Bush from doing this. However, military officers are still sworn to uphold the Constitution. A binding resolution from the Congress, explicitly prohibiting anti-Iranian adventures, would give field-grade officers the latitude to question Presidential recklessness. In these unfortunate times, the discretion of field-grade officers may be our last, best hope for avoiding something truly cataclysmic. Dems need to encourage this by limiting the likelihood of unilateral, reckless action. They need to slow things down. Oh, and petey? Last I heard, political parties strive to win elections so that they can influence policy, instead of just winning for its own sake.
There's not a chance Congress could gather enough votes for a binding, veto-overriding resolution forbidding war with Iran. Far too many people want it, or want it as a possibility in the future, or want it as a credible threat.
If you make "veto-overriding" an essential condition, then you're probably correct. And my response is -- so what? It buys time. It's not like Bush is going to garner more confidence, more support, in the meantime. Besides, it happens to be the right thing to do.
I'm pretty sure Bush, as unpopular as he is, would have the majority of the American people on his side in the case of a simple Democratic majority passing a binding resolution forbidding war, and could veto it without any real problems. You can imagine the case he would make: it's dangerous to preemptively take an option off the table, what if horrible thing x y or z happened, this is an unconstitutional assertion of Congressional power, this limits the power of the President to respond to crises, etc. That argument would never fly on a liberal blog, but I think most Americans a) are too terrified of Iran to categorically rule out war, and b) probably like Presidential power enough to buy whatever Constitutional argument he makes. It might buy time, but it also might rally Americans to the President. It seems a gamble not worth the risk to me.
I think that you're neglecting the astonishing (yet fully justified) decline in the stature of this administration. Recent polls strongly suggest that solid majorities want the Dems to take the lead in foreign policy. I'm reading between the lines here, and I'm pretty biased, but I think that most Americans are now more worried about their own government than some nebulous "Iran threat". And I don't see Bush's approval going anywhere but down -- precipitously. There'll be no "rally" for this president, unless we define "rally" as, only two-thirds of Americans actively loathe the man. Down from three-fourths! Everything in politics is a gamble, but assuming they don't do something egregiously stupid (always a possibility, granted), I think the Dems have everything to gain by being bold. More than that, I'm convinced that blocking this administration from unleashing yet more disasters is positively patriotic.
Awesome post Matt. I too often comment here when I respond negatively to something you've said (and just lurk when I agree with what you say -- which is much more common). You're a great contributor to our discourse and I hope we here a lot more from you. Sean
The look is fine, but way too many ums. Go to a Toastmasters or something.
Hey, Obi Wan. Good to see you again, even without the light saber.
Those of us poor folks who can only afford dial up cannot download anything so I did not see your movie. I came apon your web site with the key words "democrats are doing nothing to stop bush" in my scroogle search bar and I got this site. By the way, don't ever use Google because they are tracking your surfing for the government and record every search for every person in America. www.scroogle uses google search but deletes the spy ware associated with Google so steer clear of Google for your own good. So, my point is Dont Vote anymore, all those fucking promises that the Democrats made went down the toilet and now they are comfortably in bed with the war mongering Republicans. Fuck Hilary too, she is a worthless piece of shit that loves the sight of blood as much as Bush.
Comments closed February 07, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Nice, Matt--you look like you're broadcasting from bin Laden's cave.
Posted by Steve | January 24, 2007 1:31 AM