« The Yoo Coverup | Main | Resistance is Futile » Helter Skelter02 Apr 2008 01:41 pm I'm still not sure I fully understand why Mike Gravel was allowed onto nationally televised political debates, but I do like this video: It seems that he's a Libertarian now. It's odd that Gravel, who's a joke and clearly not a libertarian, is running on this ticket whereas Ron Paul isn't. I'm not a Paul fan, but his set of ideas seem like a pretty good basis for a third party candidacy. Comments (15)
1) Actually, Mike Gravel is worthy of respect. It was he who put his ass on the line by putting the FULL classified Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. 2) What many people think of as the "Pentagon Papers" is actually the New York Times' summation of/interpretation of those fractional areas it found of interest. A "secondary source" of little value compared to the Primary Document that Mike Gravel risked prison to give us. 
Hmmm. The above post is not as clear as I would like. Try this update: I wouldn't wipe my ass with the New York Times' paraphrase of the Pentagon Papers. Yes. That's better. Adds the desired scholarly rigour and objectivity.
Ron Paul is hardly a Libertarian; check out his right-wing social agenda.
It's too bad the only guy who wants to end the war on drugs is such a toolbag. Funny video though.
Anybody else hear HRC's maniacal Sunday-morning-talk-show laugh in the background? [disclaimer: I didn't make it all the way through the video, just in case this fact is made explicit later on]
This video is repulsive. I don't think it's funny to have Gravel goofing around while being shown people executed and blown up or the airplanes hitting the towers. This is the anti-war equivalent of pro-life protesters showing photos of abortions. By doing this, Gravel shows contempt for reason and civility.
Gravel has nothing to lose running as a Libertarian, whereas Paul has a congressional to keep.
Seems like people are projecting a lot of different things onto this video. I've seen it billed as an "anti-Hillary" video, which is kind of weird. So I might as well project my view of it. Seems to me it's straight anti-war, and as such extremely powerful. Gravel isn't just "goofing around," he's showing the insanity of war and the mess it's made of the planet. War and the military-industrial complex that makes war inevitable are no more "reasonable and civil" than the Manson gang's murders. I was in tears by the end when the clip of Eisenhower's warning was played. (According to Wikipedia, Paul McCartney said he wrote the song using "helter skelter"--the name of a British amusement park ride--as a symbol of the decline and fall of empire; Manson saw the song as a prophecy of a catastrophic war between racists and nonracists.)
Settle down Phil. If you follow the narrative, this video is a very effective primer on American History for the last half-century. In addition to getting us into Vietnam, Ike begat Nixon--who spawned two generations of influential evil-doers that have put us in the mess we're in. Sometimes life is ugly, whether you like it or not. By doing this, Gravel shows his willingness to speak truth to power, even if he comes across as an addled dupe in the process.
Three letters....L.S.D.
This video seems related to Rev. Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" sermon in a weird sort of way. At least part of the message is the same in both ie. don't rush into war and there are reasons why some people in the world dislike America.
Whoa. That just totally harshed my buzz.
(No need to get obnoxious, unclesmedleuy. I don't need to settle down. I'm just expressing my opinion.) I believe I was misunderstood by several of the posters that followed. I agree with the anti-war position presented by the video, and know well the rise of the military-industrial complex as a factor in American politics. I think the (only) truly useful and powerful part of this video was the extended clip from that prescient speech given by Eisenhower, which is not as well-known as it should be. This video is not, as you call it, speaking truth to power. As a Quaker peace activist, I saw truth spoken to power many times. This, on the other hand, is more like screaming unproductively at your enemy. In my original post, I compared this barrage of clips of obscene violence to the pro-life protesters who hold up photos of aborted fetuses. I see no difference in tactics. Life is ugly sometimes? No doubt. But that doesn't mean the way to address it is to hit people over the head with it repeatedly. This does not change a single heart. Someone who is already anti-war might have a cathartic experience and cry from watching the video, feeling good that they're on the right side, fighting the good fight, but no one who disagrees will be anything but disgusted by it. (Also, BTW, libertarians don't oppose war because war is violent or ugly. So this has little to do with any principled libertarian position, except, again, the end.) A much more effective video in my opinion, and one I would support, would be simply to run the Eisenhower speech.
Just wanted to back fill Phil up on this. It is repulsive to play synth beats and quote pop song lyrics through a montage of political violence. You don't have to be a Quaker peacenik to see that ;).
Comments closed April 16, 2008. |
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
I think an Ashcroft & Gravel Vegas lounge act could be a big success. They've got the pipes, and they're funny (unintentionally). Gravel kind of has an Andy Kaufman-type thing going on.
Maybe not? Fine. But I would buy tickets, dammit!
Posted by Lev | April 2, 2008 10:57 PM