It took me a while (being born in 1979 and all) to realize that a lot of the debate over Iraq is/was really about re-fighting the politcal battle over Vietnam.

What's surprising is how much the government's strategy also maps to what was said in the 60s about the conflict there. The paralells are really kind of scary.

Tomorrow, the GOP will launch attack ads saying Democrats are waving the white flag in Iraq by saying a military victory there is not possible for US forces.

There's some debate about how to respond, a lot of noise out there, but I think this dairist on Kos has it right.

The idea here is not to get Bush. Bush isn't up for re-election. Don't use Republican statements (Hagel, et al) to try and create a bipartisan cover for anti-war Dems. We don't need it. This is about contrast, people. We've got the public consensus on Iraq. The occupation is not suddenly going to get popular because of an ad campaign. Americans aren't going to change their minds and decide they like the war, but they may change their mind about who they want to lead them out of it.

Democrats need to provide a compelling rationale as to why they, not the GOP, should have the job of ending the US occupation.

The message is simple. Republicans (not Bush, Republicans... make them point out the difference; it confuses them to be divided against their leader) are fixated on an impossible military victory in Iraq. They are profiteering off this war, and they lack the will, courage, and insight to understand how to best Al-Qaeda. Then play the Bush speech about how he doesn't think we'll win the war on terror. Republicans, obsessed with Iraq, soft on terrorists.

Democrats understand that real victory in Iraq is up to the Iraqis, and that US troops there are providing a strategic benefit to our real enemies in Al-Qaeda. We want to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fund what has become a giant terrorist training camp. We want to stop putting our troops in harms way guarding an occupation based on lies and misinformation. We want to bring our occupation of Iraq to a close so we can get back to Job #1: shutting down international terrorist networks.

One of the things about underground/indie music is it tends to be local, meaning if you don't live in the locale you miss out on the good stuff. I was out at UP the other weekend up on a mountain high and getting the hipster claustrophobia fear -- the steamroller of gentrification... every place has a bouncer now... girls getting younger and less pretty every year... -- and the skinny-ass white kid with the stringy Alan Ginsburg beard on the decks dropped this track:

Aceyalone, The Faces

And it makes everything ok, a little too ok actually. Sexy even. I go over and ask him who it is, trying to maintain some edge, some pride, some credi-fucking-bility in this now-thrumming sharklike scene. "A.C.L.O" I hear, and it sticks, even though it's wrong, so I ask google and plus in some lyrics that stuck too ("lemme holla at ya face to face") and in three or four clicks I get around to A Book Of Human Language, an apparently seminal track from 1998. Up there with Dr. Octogon and Deltron3030, now out of print. Took me somewhat longer to score the track I heard off the peer to peer scene.

But I believe it must be that good of an album. There was some very very good shit coming out regional at that time. Outkast, the Wu Tang, Del, etc. Give that mp3 a listen and see if it doesn't tickle your lower back a bit.

Apropops my previous post, on the down-side the internet's empowering publishing ability lets idiots run free. It's often less than pretty.

FWIW I don't think it's a great idea for anyone (left or right) to try and liken their political opponents to Adolph. It's tasteless. Goodwin's law, and all that, you know? But whatever, it happens.

However, the author makes a defensive attempt to point out Charlie Chaplin's work in that vein -- The Greatest Dictator -- saying "it's just a joke" like that but this only makes things worse. This unchecked aggression on the meaning of clowning cannot stand. I'm fully willing the believe she thought what she was doing is funny (which you can judge however you like), but the Chaplin comparison is insulting to anyone who's actually tried to do comedy, not to mention patently illogical.

Let's break it down. Charlie Chaplin was a comic genius (hint: you're not), who dressed himself in the likeness of Hitler (hint: you photoshopped Howard Dean, not yourself) and made a fairly relavant point about international politics (hint: your work is at best a blaring
non-sequitor... it's not even on-topic for your post). Also, quoth imdb Charles Chaplin said that had he known the true extent of Nazi atrocities, he "could not have made fun of their homicidal insanity".

So don't compare yourself to Chaplin, lady. It's embarassing for all of us.

New study shows people feel politically empowered through the use of the internet. A little acadmic vindication for me and my types, though I feel compelled to point out that there's a bit of an important distinction between "feel politically empowered" and "have increased their political power."

I think we'll get there, but to be frank we've still got a ways to go on that front.

The study also has some interesting stuff inside. Net use is about to top 80% in the US, with 2/3 of all citizens having access in the home. The fastest-growing demographic in terms of access is those earning below $30k. Close to 50% of all users are on broadband, and the net is more valued than television, meaning, if you had to dump your internet or your TV, which would you prefer... people would kill their televisions before they'd kill their internet.

Also interesting, people who visit certain websites frequently have an 80% degree of confidence in the information they get there. Considering that confidence levels in traditional media, political parties, government and even the M-F church fall well below 80%, I think there's something going on here.

Ironically, the full report costs $500 (or $1500 if you're corporate), but you can get the highlights, which is where I culled all of the above, as a PDF.

This information aught to be free.

New study shows people feel politically empowered through the use of the internet. A little acadmic vindication for me and my types, though I feel compelled to point out that there's a bit of an important distinction between "feel politically empowered" and "have increased their political power."

I think we'll get there, but to be frank we've still got a ways to go on that front.

The study also has some interesting stuff inside. Net use is about to top 80% in the US, with 2/3 of all citizens having access in the home. The fastest-growing demographic in terms of access is those earning below $30k. Close to 50% of all users are on broadband, and the net is more valued than television, meaning, if you had to dump your internet or your TV, which would you prefer... people would kill their televisions before they'd kill their internet.

Also interesting, people who visit certain websites frequently have an 80% degree of confidence in the information they get there. Considering that confidence levels in traditional media, political parties, government and even the M-F church fall well below 80%, I think there's something going on here.

Ironically, the full report costs $500 (or $1500 if you're corporate), but you can get the highlights, which is where I culled all of the above, as a PDF.

This information aught to be free.

I've enjoyed the little "Leave it to Bush" animations. Peep episode three. The original (with Busey) was a work of pomo genius; the sequels a little less so, but still worthy.

I've enjoyed the little "Leave it to Bush" animations. Peep episode three. The original (with Busey) was a work of pomo genius; the sequels a little less so, but still worthy.

I've been staying over at Aaron's place cat sitting and sleeping here the past two nights because I work late and then don't feel like projing on home since it's below freezing, maybe snowing, etc. I've been watching some DVDs too, the first season of Lost, which is another example of the good episodic TV trend.

There was just this episode where the Bhudda-like old man (John Locke, ho ho ho) dosed up the preppie kid with some good old jungle yage and left him tied up in the woods to sort out his demons. This is principally what the show is about -- overcoming your past, your fears, etc, with slightly horrific overtones -- and it's a nice little episode; got me thinking about my own yen for a shamanistic trip from time to time.

It's really a shame that psychadellic drugs are on the wane. It's a shame these things are more easily available to teenagers and college kids and not to young adults. I think we can to a lot better than yayo for kicks in our age bracket, but the question of supply is more or less inscrutible.

I'm a firm believer in the virtue of the psychadellic experience. It can be a sort of psychic scouring, spiritual cleansing, and lately my chakras are feeling a little gummed up. It's not for everyone, but it's been a highly positive influence on my life. It's also been a while.

We ran into some mushrooms on the road this summer, scarfed them down in the misty mountain night of the Shanandoah, but for my part it was just goofy kicks, not enough active ingredients to really blast off. Plus the setting was a little inhibiting, what with all the familiy neighbors and all. "That's the mad cackle that keeps the kids awake." Heh-indeed.

LSD at the DNC was more kicks (and not a little bravado, I might add), and the same batch of Tennessee acid in higher dose at the OCF2004 was good, but somewhat short-circuted by having to deal with our midnight tiki-bar getting busted by security. I have to go back to Burning Man '03 for a really clear jolt of witch-doctoring caliber. Now, that's not the sort of experience you want to hit yourself with every weekend, but I think biannually is a decent frequency. This summer's trip to Black Rock didn't yield, but that's life. It'll happen when it happens. C'est la vie.

Cool. It has Beast. Now all they need is Gambit.