Jim Treacher: We are the vermin we’ve been waiting for.
As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don’t think even he ever put out a “LaRouche Action Wire.” Probably because he didn’t think of it first. Not to mention that he’s never had a chance in hell of winning.
Where is the outrage?
And this article provides a more general non-partisan discussion of using private email for confidentiality purposes.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080916-palins-e-mail-habits-come-under-fire.html
Bob how in the world can you claim “a more general non-partisan discussion” for a link which includes specific reference to Palin in its title?
Yeah I know Ars Technica and I wouldn’t assume any more lack of bias (towards getting eyeballs) from them than I would from Slashdot (i.e. no lack of bias at all: bias is actively encouraged).
The Washington Post isn’t worth much more comment that the New York Times, there should be other choices than “defecated on and drenched in vomit” and “sprinkled with feces and lightly marinated in bile” unless of course such is portrayed as the “important news” in the first place.
Bob I’m unable find a reasonable explanatory justification except the very obvious for why you and others like you think speculation on possible intent (Palin) is a more important matter than openly encouraged and enabled fascism (Obama campaign).
And yes that is what it is, if the SA of the NSDAP had computers and the internet back in the late thirties it is exactly what they would have done.
HH,
The Ars Technica article has “Palin” in the title because Palin’s use of yahoo triggered the conversation in the press. Do you have criticism of the article rather than its title?
Perhaps you (or perhaps even Rand, when he has the time, and if he has the inclination) would like to suggest what counts as a credible source around here.
I don’t think one matter is more important than the other. Two other commenters changed the subject.
I don’t think there is any Fascism at work here. If there was, I would be concerned.
I don’t think the Obama Action Wire was intended to create a Denial Of Service attack. Why does everyone think it was? If it is having that effect, the Obama campaign should react by encouraging its supporters to not do that. But does each supporter know what the other supporters are doing? If lots of people are calling the radio station with pro-Obama comments, and they are getting on the air, no need to call, unless you have something unique to say, and the Obama campaign should say so. On the other hand, if no one is getting on the air, how can the other Obama supporters know not to call? If the radio show is swamped, it could be very well be an unintentional emergent property from lots of individual actors who don’t know what the other actors are doing.
I do think – as I explained in a previous comment – that all of this activity is a potential boon for the radio stations in question. I think that over time, the radio station can fulfill their goal of providing an orderly and informative conversation by hiring more vetters, and they can fulfill their ultimate goal of making money by providing targeted advertising, as described in a previous comment above.
Finally, no that’s not what the SA would have done.
Just as an experiment, I went to the Holoocaust museum website and picked the first article I found on the Sturmabteilung. Here’s what I found:
“On May 6, 1933, students led by Storm Troopers (On May 6, 1933, students led by Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung; SA) broke into the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and confiscated its unique library. Four days later, most of this collection of over 12,000 books and 35,000 irreplaceable pictures was destroyed along with thousands of other “degenerate” works of literature in the book burning in Berlin’s city center.”
Calling a radio station in support of your political candidate is not equivalent to burglary, theft, and mass book burning. Look, even if the entire Obama Action Wire participation is entirely orchestrated, it isn’t different – at worst – than marching around and chanting loudly while clogging the streets. The police cordon off such people, and if they obey police direction, they generally don’t get arrested even though they don’t have a permit. Such people are protesters. They are not brownshirts. In the case of the radio station, the cordoning should be provided by the radio station, which should be gleeful at the advertising opportunities (as described upthread.)
than marching around and chanting loudly while clogging the streets. The police cordon off such people, and if they obey police direction, they generally don’t get arrested even though they don’t have a permit. Such people are protesters.
Do you really think ordinary citizens should support Obama because he incites people to take the streets, chant loudly, and clog traffic?
Haha! No, Leland, I think protesters are usually morons. It takes extreme situations like the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989 to justify street protests.
But the original Obama Action Wire didn’t actually suggest that people chant or clog things up. I’m not denying that moronic chanting and clogging happened, but I think it was inadvertent.
Obama doesn’t necessarily share the views of his omst avid supporters. I was watching Obama on cable news today, and some protesters were waving KKK signs, and the crowd started chanting back. Obama immediately said (paraphrase) “Hey young people, it is ok for you to wave your signs, and everyone else just settle down and be quiet” and then he went back to talking about the financial crisis. I was glad he silenced the anti-KKK chanters — chanting is annoying.
But the original Obama Action Wire didn’t actually suggest that people chant or clog things up. I’m not denying that moronic chanting and clogging happened, but I think it was inadvertent.
But you could well have denied it, because the Obama Action Wire never called for any rallies. All that they called for was an organized phone and e-mail protest. They responded to WGN Radio in exactly the same way that conservative groups have responded to media targets on many occasions, including for instance “The Reagans”.
Except that in the case of the Reagans, the campaign was not to criticize a show that was aired, it was to prevent it from being aired. Talk about a Messiah complex: Reagan was long out of office, but it was still “Thou Shalt Not Criticize Reagan.” It’s true that emotions and opinions on both sides are running high six weeks before the election. But demagogues can malign any dead or retired Democrat or liberal and I would have little impulse to argue against it, much less protest it before it airs.
Jim Treacher keeps saying that scripted protests are censorship and not protected speech, but obviously they have always been protected speech. You don’t have to be original or thoughtful to have freedom of speech. Even if you bleat with a thousand other sheep, it’s still free speech. After all, one human version of it is called “singing”.
There one other silly debating trick that has appeared several times in this discussion, that refutation equals acceptance. It reads like this:
Jane: Barack punched Stanley on the nose.
Joe: No, he said that Stanley’s nose is ugly.
Jane: Leave it to Joe to defend nose-punching.
Obama doesn’t necessarily share the views of his omst avid supporters.
But that’s the issue with the Obama Action Wire. With the OAW, he is inciting his most avid supporters do to things that limit the speech of individual citizens. I think it is becoming more obvious that it doesn’t bother you that a politician is requesting people does this.
Indeed, not only does that not seem to bother you, but you spent a great deal of time complaining about Palin using Yahoo email, rather than even being upset that emails on private accounts are now apparently free game for discussions. Is there any low that the left can go, and you finally decide that it is too much for you to continue to condone?
Ok, the Ars Technica article does give a way this could happen. It still strikes me as flimsy protection. After all, once you find out one “private” email account has been used for public business, then you can subpoena all of them. Just discovering the aide’s comment above about private email is sufficient, I suspect for a subpoena.
To be honest, that seems to be the extent of the controversy, at least in the absence of futher evidence. Palin uses private mail accounts *and* we have a suspicious comment about the resistance of private email accounts to subpoena. We still don’t have that Palin actually uses those accounts in the way that has been claimed.
Several people are claiming “intent” without anything more than this flimsy proof. Often when there’s a whisp of smoke there is some sort of fire, but we need to keep in mind that Palin’s administration has been subject to a great deal of subpoeana mining by opponents of her administration. My take is that it’s pretty easy even in the complete absence of wrongdoing to find mildly suspicious discussion and other communications when you have something like a year of material and the opportunity to portray what you find in out of context and in an unflattering light. I need more to take these accusations seriously.
Rather than even being upset that emails on private accounts are now apparently free game for discussions.
Leland, if the subject line happens to be “Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger / Container Tax” and the sender happens to be Palin’s Deputy Chief of Staff Randy Ruaro, then yes it is free game for discussion. The question is not whether that e-mail was in her private Yahoo account, it’s whether it should have been there. The answer is no.
Let’s say that pranksters broke into a Congressman’s home and found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Would you tell me that we shouldn’t discuss that money because the Congressman has a right to kitchen privacy?
We need to keep in mind that Palin’s administration has been subject to a great deal of subpoena mining by opponents of her administration.
Yes we do, Karl. That means that there is not only smoke, but also kindling.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that there was no talk about subpoenas from either side. Let’s say that Palin just started shunting state e-mail to a Yahoo account for no reason, that it was just a hockey-mom thing. Then it would still be improper handling of government documents. Among other reasons, it would undermine the very “frankness” that justifies executive privilege. If you were a state official or businessman who shared sensitive opinions with Governor Palin, would you want your e-mail forwarded to gov.palin@yahoo.com?
That means that there is not only smoke, but also kindling.
No, it means that unlike most politicians, she not only has enemies in the opposite party, but from within her own, given her demonstrated propensity to clean the place up.
No, it means that unlike most politicians, she not only has enemies in the opposite party, but from within her own, given her demonstrated propensity to clean the place up.
Yes, it’s the old story of the enemy within. How do you tell the difference between a real reformer and a treacherous schemer? Basic common sense tells you that the real reformer makes a lot of friends and just a few enemies; the treacherous schemer makes enemies on all sides, including within his own camp.
How deep within in this case? One of Palin’s big enemies is Walt Monegan, a guy who she hired herself about a year before he was fired. A year is all it took, and she had to fire his replacement after two weeks. If she is cleaning up the place, she’s now sweeping up her own dirt in a circle.
But let’s suppose that Palin was a great reformer, that she was the best house-cleaner that ever hit Juneau. Let’s also suppose that every last subpoena swarming around Palin right now were completely groundless and partisan. Then it would still be wrong to stash e-mail in a Yahoo account to avoid those subpoenas. Even if you’re a saint and a scoundrel stacks kindling in front of you, it’s still wrong to play with matches.
Wow Bob can you look yourself in the eyes while saying that out loud?
Don’t you see that removing words you disfavor and removing speech you disfavor is essentially the same thing?
If you don’t recognize the act of removing speech in what others here have correctly identified as similar to a (Distributed) Denial of Service attack then you do not understand how (D)DoS attacks work and what they aims to achieve.
And no the US or anybody else cannot manage that kind of behavior be it from botnets or their flesh equivalents if it gets widespread enough or concentrated enough. Party organization, approval, and encouragement certainly won’t help limit it (it was bad enough that Ron Paul didn’t clearly distance himself from the automated spamming on behalf of his candidacy but what the Obama campaign has done is far worse).
Ever heard and understood “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”?
There’s a campaign of a presidential candidate advocating the opposite. Starts with O but it ought to have started with J for Janus because two-faced is the name of the game they play.
How do you tell the difference between a real reformer and a treacherous schemer?
Well, by experience here, the easiest and most reliable way is to see who is supported by Jim Harris. If it’s the latter, it’s most likely the latter…
HH,
Please show me where any Obama campaign material encouraged a denial of service attack. Obviously they wouldn’t say it explicitly, but where do they even implicitly talk about shutting down free speech via swamping behavior. Please show me where any Obama campaign material that in any way advocates the opposite of Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s famous saying. (Yes, I had to look up the author!)
Seriously, all this talk about “credible sources”, and you guys haven’t provided any. Lets stick with original sources, from the Obama campaign. I’ll admit I was wrong if you can provide any evidence.
You’re welcome Bob.
Here’s “Hit ‘Em Where It Hurts – Stop this Ad–Contact Other Advertisers” and the full text of that page is:
“Some TV stations are running a full-fledged attack ad from a right-wing group connected to John McCain that pulls in every baseless lie and re-hashed false assertion in the playbook to smear Barack Obama.
Contact companies advertising on these stations and tell them to take their money elsewhere.
Our online tool will help you share your voice.
To begin, click Participate. We’ll provide you with talking points on this maliciously false hit ad to help guide you through the process.”
Clicking “Participate” you first get a page with a list of companies and fields to fill out your name, mail address etc. Next you get a pre-written letter explaining this and that including why the spam targets AT&T, Comcast, Ford – Advertising, Ford – Media, GM -Buick/Pontiac/GMC, GM – Cadilac/Hummer/Saab, GM – Chevrolet, Toyota, and Verizon. In a panel on the same page are a few talking points, one can freely edit the mail content. The last page gives a preview of the letter as it will be sent with your e-mail address, name etc.
It’s simply a semi-automated spambot and you can fill in whatever you want and claim to be whoever you want (but it all goes to at least one of those companies and they probably put the originating server(s) on their blacklists after a few hundred messages).
The companies were chosen because (from the pre-written letter) “…your company is advertising on some of the same TV stations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Virginia that are airing…” an ad from The American Issues Project.
The big deal is this guy (good picture eh? Seems like an honest guy and despite it all I can respect that).
I have no idea how many actually used the Obama spambot and it didn’t manage to stop the ad but the intent of it all was pretty clear wasn’t it?
I looked at some of the other stuff and it’s all “meat-puppet nirvana” although they require more information from time to time and don’t write your letters for you most of the time from what I could see (but I got bored and might not have a representative opinion of all of it, no way I’m going to spend the entire night typing in zip-codes from around the US to see what’s going on).
About one of those phone spams of radio shows here’s a link to the Obama Campaign’s site. Here’s another. I bet “be civil” turned out to be a really bad joke but it hardly matters.
I know these are not the only examples and why would they be? (But I’m not going to sign up to the Obama site to get you more).
Contacting the advertisers is not censorship. You have the right to tell Ford that you won’t buy its cars because its ads share air time with ads that you oppose. You have the right to say so even if you’re wrong and you will buy Ford’s cars, or even if you bleat it from a script along with a thousand other sheep. It’s a hyper-partisan tactic and I don’t admire it or participate in it. But it’s neither illegal, nor unconstitutional, nor fascist. It’s both protected speech and common political behavior.
This accusation against Obama is going nowhere. McCain still has a chance of winning, but not this way. Basically the whole “liberal fascism” meme is as bankrupt as Lehman Brothers.
Jim Harris except for your last four and a half sentences I sort of agree. Likewise national socialists also have a right to free speech. I think that’s good and it’s one of the opinions I’ve changed during the last ten years because I’ve come to realize how truly self-defeating censorship of opinions is.
Still the intent is clearly to encourage and assist in stifling opposing views, that is totalitarian and fascist. Not “liberal fascism” but straight garden-variety old fascism. National socialists wear those words as a badge of honor because it is what they believe in, good for them, but it is thoroughly unfitting for a party that calls itself the Democratic party and who claim to be against totalitarianism and fascism.
Yes the “Democrats” aren’t the only ones who do it but please provide a similar example of another presidential campaign going to this length.
And one sees where it ends up: overeager brownshirts publicly advocating and justifying acts of violence against those that disagree. They even manage to do it in a way that is both fascist, racist, and sexist all at the same time.
There’s your “protected speech” right there, all yours as long as you make sure to vote Obama’1932.
HH,
I appreciate your effort to research the issue, and thank you for trying to answer my question. I’m not persuaded, and here’s why: Either we’re talking about a denial of service attack, or we’re simply talking about protesting what someone is saying (while allowing them to say it).
I’d say your links bolster the case that no denial of service attack was intended. The documents from the Obama campaign presuppose that a conversation is going to take place, or that the email is going to be read, things that wouldn’t happen during a denial of service attack. Do a thought experiment: imagine the recipient of a denial of service attack has an infinite number of servers, and an infinite amount of bandwidth, all which are completely free (it is a thought experiment). Under those conditions, no one would bother with a denial of service attack. But under those same conditions, the Obama campaign would be encouraged — it would be mean that each and every phone call and email would be received.
If we’re not talking about a denial of service attack, then we are simply talking about run-of-the-mill protest, which of course, you want to protect. If two guys stand on the corner and yell back and forth at each other “Shut up”; “No, you shut up”; “No, YOU shut up!”; it isn’t fascistic – it is just free speech. If an Obama supporter tells a sponsor that he is advertising on a show that is lying about Obama and might buy from a competitor if the lies aren’t stopped, again, that isn’t fascistic – it is just free speech. There are often economic consequences to speech, and that’s part of capitalistic democracy. There isn’t anything unique here — people attempt economic boycotts all the time (and they seldom work).
I don’t admire such boycotts. In contrast, I do admire calling the radio station and giving your side of the story. Assuming there is no denial of service attack intended, calling the station is just part of conversation you and I both think should take place.
Finally, you said “overeager brownshirts publicly advocating and justifying acts of violence against those that disagree. ” I’m totally lost here. Where are the acts of violence?
I just realized something intriguing about one of the topics while typing up a reply and I need lots of time to check it out (been unusually busy lately) so sorry Bob but this is my final comment in this thread. No loss I’m sure ^_^
And thanks!
Did “Bob” ever get around to telling us whether he thought Obama’s attempts to shut down critical media outlets was good? Yes, we know that he thinks that doing so is free speech (a position that no one has argued with) and that he thinks that Reagan did the same thing.
Since he’s equated the two, maybe he’ll tell us whether or not what Reagan supposedly did was good. If it wasn’t, then maybe he’ll tell us why Obama’s thing was different. Or, simply concede that it was bad when Obama did it too.
Andy, you are confusing me with Jim.
Also, apparently, you are confusing Reagan with a televsion show about Reagan. But you wouldn’t be the first to do that!