Looking Into A Funhouse Mirror

March 5, 2009

Chris Floyd linked and quoted my piece on Obama Implements Neocon Startegy Against Iran. Thanks Chris!

He received some comments towards his piece.

The first one must have been a bit weird with comments copied from here included and ~~Chris deleted that one~~ it was down-voted into the nirvana.^*

Then another of his commentators by the name blue ox babe refers to that and presents his/her view of the commentators at this site:

the gang at Moon of Alabama are moderately arrogant, and highly partisan. they are the sort to think of “practical” solutions which involve murdering other nations’ innocents if the “national security” interests are valuable enough to the MoA commenter in question. what MoA is, essentially, is a bunch of wannabe policy wonks.

Now you know it!

This blog received 123.697 comments as of now. Can someone please show me the one where the author seems ‘to think of “practical” solutions which involve murdering other nations’ innocents if the “national security” interests are valuable enough‘ ? I must have missed that one.

Funny that blue ox babe later admits that he/she comments here him/herself under a different moniker. His/her statement above was self referential?

A comment further at Chris’ site commentator wal, the one who posted the first – now deleted – comment there, asserts:

… this discussion was the subject of two posts at MoA the first of which was originally titled Obama Attempts to Blackmail Russia.which was renamed Obama Continues Bush’s Russia Policy after it was thoroughly discredited by clever commenters who researched and dissected the issue.

Hmm – I admit that I sometimes change the headlines of my posts. Usually within a the first few minutes after publishing and rereading them live. But I never changed a headline because of the comments the post received.

I did not do so with the Russia post. I did not ‘rename‘ it and I can prove that.

The system this blog runs on is Typepad and it has a specific way to assign URL’s to a new post. The first part of the URL is always “http://www.moonofalabama.org” followed by “/year/month” and then by “/pagename.html”

When I save a draft post before assigning the headline then the first words of the post are used as the pagename. See this one for an example.

When I assign a headline before saving the post the headline becomes the pagename. For example: The post James Baker On Solving The Crisis has the pagename “/james-baker-on-solving-the-crisis.html”. The headline was assigned before saving and publishing the post.

When a headline is later changed and the piece saved and published again the system does not generate a new pagename but the old pagename is kept. I have no way to influence that. For example: The post Britain Will Lose The Afghan Drugwar has the pagename: “/britains-afghan-drugwar-will-be-lost-.html”. Obviously I change the headline of that post after saving it first under a different headline.

Now onto the Russia post. Did I change the headline because the comments were going in this or that direction?

The headline is Obama Continues Bush’s Russia Policy and the pagename is “/obama-continues-bushs-russia-policy.html”. Hmm – seems to me the post still has its original headline.

What does that tell us about wal’s accuracy in commenting?

—
^*Changed after Chris rightly corrected me.

Posted by b on March 5, 2009 at 10:54 UTC | Permalink

Comments

never mind.
The US is continuing its bipartisan foreign policy, yes. It will not work. They have no money for another war. Nobody will lend. Then what?

Posted by: outsider | Mar 5 2009 11:42 utc | 1

Dear B, Thanks for the link, but I’d like to point out that I didn’t delete any comment from my website. The comments section had a “vote up-vote down” thing, but I didn’t know that this would allow a comment to be down-rated by readers and disappear. I’ve now disabled that voting mechanism, and all comments are visible there now.

Posted by: Chris Floyd | Mar 5 2009 12:13 utc | 2

I did not do so with the Russia post. I did not ‘rename’ it and I can prove that. Perhaps not, but it was originally titled “The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia”
There’s contention here b. Where lies the truth of it?
And my post at Empire Burlesque wasn’t deleted, it was rated down which means it’s not shown on the page, you have click on the ‘show’ button. The comments from here posted there were to illustrate how even your loyal commenters disagreed with you on that headline and the premise of the article, which Chris had linked to. In a previous post at Empire Burlesque I also posted comments from here demonstrating how annie had researched some truth about how the meme was being spread.
Chris Floyd, like you, is very busy demonstrating how dishonest and deceitful president Obama is. He’s accused the president of being an outright liar. I debate with him regularly.
As for my post being ‘weird’, I can demonstrate how it is not.
This morning at Democratic Underground, a thread was posted that with the banner “Obama to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead”. The post reads
“…President Obama’s White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.Obama doesn’t even want to discuss it.Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan). Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress. Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House. During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the President’s Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House. Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors – Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young – to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer. Obama would have none of it. This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House – no invite.
This prompted comments underneath include “I’m NOT so glad he’s our President anymore.Maybe I just was able to summon up just a spark of hope that he might actually turn out to be a progressive leader, after a lifetime of cynicism. Shame on me for being gullible.” “To not even invite single payer advocates…It’s lame, and a bit surprising.” “I guess I never had any real belief in his campaign rhetoric” “Yep – he’s too close to both the insurance and banking industries.”
Yet in tonight’s Huffington Post “Obama Will Have Single-Payer Advocates At Health Care Summit”.
“There has been a lot of speculation over which sides of the health care debate will be present when the Obama White House hosts a summit on the topic this Thursday. Included in that has been concern among advocates of a single-payer system that their voices would not be included at the table.An administration official put that unease to rest on Wednesday night, telling the Huffington Post that, “single payer advocates will be represented at the forum tomorrow.”Another source with knowledge of the event says: “Rep. John Conyers, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a known single payer advocate, and at least one group advocating single payer, will be there as well.”
There you have it in a nutshell. The US electorate, having had it’s nerves stretched to breaking by eight years of lawless amoral behaviour from the chimp regime and fourteen years of Rethuglican rule in Congress, now not only has to contend with a vast insidious dishonesty from the corporate media ~“Media assault on Obama’s character: He “lied” and has “broken so many promises” (see Media Matters today) but ongoing, innaccurate, misleading and ultimately self- destructive bad journalism from supposedly pro-liberal blogs.
Your post was headlined negatively and casting a light on Obama as devious and dishonest, a meme that influences your readers and effects their comments. Chris Floyd does the same.
Last, the reason I post at EB as wal is because I registered there years ago as waldo but because Chris has been hacked many times by sophisticated software, I found myself no longer able to post under that nom. No subterfuge, nothing to hide.

Posted by: waldo | Mar 5 2009 12:30 utc | 3

Thanks Chris for clearing that up. I will mark that in the piece above.

Posted by: b | Mar 5 2009 12:30 utc | 4

@waldo
Warning: You lied at another public site about me changing a post title when I obviously did not change it. Prove is in the facts above obviously.
The line you quote in comment 3 as an alleged title, “The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia”, is from the text of the piece and was never in the headline which has never changed. The text has not changed either, not even the typos.
There are folks who seem to quite agree with my interpretation towards Iran/Obama – Jim Lobe for example and Steven Walt and Chris and some commentators here too.
You don’t agree and other commentators here do not agree. That is fine with me.
Your opinion about Obama is your problem not mine. But you lying about me is a problem for me.
Either you change your behavior, or I will have to ban you from this site.

Posted by: b | Mar 5 2009 13:01 utc | 5

I figure that this “waldo” and “blue-ox-babe” are examples of suckers — literally, suckers, they suck time and energy simply for the pleasure of being noticed , but offer little (=nothing) to the actual exchange of ideas and opinions.
I suppose it could be called a sub-speicies of troll.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Mar 5 2009 14:25 utc | 6

” …..what MoA is, essentially, is a bunch of wannabe policy wonks.”
That’s definitely me, a wannabe Neocon-Zionist-Ayatollah …..
Seriously, the comment smacked of sour grapes, as MoA reflects diverse views and often witnesses major disputes between its regular posters, which is quite normal and healthy. In fact, I believe if there is any problem with MoA it’s that some of us have actually given up hoping that our comments could make the slightest difference to the decisions of those in power.
My only little gripe is that there appears to be an air of intractable doom and gloom about us that prevents us from acknowledging anything positive that crosses our radar. But this sense of hopelessness rather contradicts the quote above that strangely suggests we’re motivated by frustrated personal ambition.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 5 2009 14:59 utc | 7

Perhaps not, but it was originally titled “The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia”
There’s contention here b. Where lies the truth of it?
….
Your post was headlined negatively and casting a light on Obama as devious and dishonest, a meme that influences your readers and effects their comments. Chris Floyd does the same.
waldo, you are stepping over the line here. personally, i have no issue w/your constant defense of obama, it doesn’t irk me like it does others. but i really take offense at you coming here and not only implying, but stating unequivocally , that b is essentially lying. obviously this is offensive or he wouldn’t have made a post about it (i can’t recall him making an entire post directed to the allegations (involving personal integrity) by one poster. to counter his defense w/this insistance he changed the title is beyond rude. if you don’t like it here, just go away. i don’t agree w/everything i read here but i don’t make it my personal responsibility to always defend that which is still unknown.
but beyond that, to go to another site and badmouth this blog, on a site that calls attention to it is unconscionable. it would be one thing if it was done by a lurker or driveby poster but b has provided us w/a home of sorts. we are a community. don’t wash your dirty linen in public for god’s sake. it is one thing to critique b’s posts on this site, but to go offsite and make personal insults about his integrity is fucked.

Posted by: annie | Mar 5 2009 15:15 utc | 8

We are not a bunch of wanna-be policy wonks, we are folks who meet here to share a (virtual) drink and our views on whatever topic is afloat.
There are just some out there who take themselves quite seriously and just assume that everyone else has the same inflated image of themselves…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 5 2009 15:18 utc | 9

the gang at Moon of Alabama are moderately arrogant, and highly partisan. they are the sort to think of “practical” solutions which involve murdering other nations’ innocents if the “national security” interests are valuable enough to the MoA commenter in question.

Wow, waldo was the first (and only) person here I could think of who fit this description. I mean, I can be arrogant as anyone but I’m not actually partisan. I hate republicans, but today’s democrats are little different. I’m more of an anarchist than anything else. In the same way, most every poster here is against the whole idea of “American Empire” at the expense of other people of the world. That’s really the whole attraction of this blog, other than the quality of the posts you folks put up here for my perusal. I only occasionally post anything, and then more to find out if I have offended someone and gotten banned than any other reason (I’m actually pretty good at that).

Posted by: Jim T. | Mar 5 2009 15:26 utc | 10

“blue ox babe” posts as “micah pyre” here

Posted by: b real | Mar 5 2009 15:28 utc | 11

sorry, left out supporting evidence for #11 – I comment as “blue ox babe” over there

Posted by: b real | Mar 5 2009 15:30 utc | 12

’the bargeload’ that the readers of MoA made refuting the premise of the post seem to credit my position, no?
ee gads waldo, i just went and read the comments @ chris’s.
this is all in the ad hominem category of evading the points and making sweeping character judgments devoid of events.
i’m over it, this is bullshit. i feel like somebody took a big dump in my kitchen. notice how chris’s comment section is diverted to examine the qualifications of the actors instead of the points in the post.
micah pyre? oh. nuf said. the neonut pc patrol.

Posted by: annie | Mar 5 2009 15:41 utc | 13

they are the sort to think of “practical” solutions which involve murdering other nations’ innocents if the “national security” interests are valuable enough to the MoA commenter in question.
Well, let’s be honest. Watching those buildings collapse made some of us happy.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 5 2009 16:03 utc | 14

honesty, what a concept….eh sloth

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 5 2009 16:27 utc | 15

I always keep in mind when posting here that at the end of the day many of our non-American comrades, consumed as they are by hatred of a preferred abstraction of “american empire,” would like to see “america” suffer even as that suffering is universal.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 5 2009 16:42 utc | 16

lol, what does liking to see america suffer have to do w/an affinity for murdering other nations’ innocents if the “national security” interests are valuable enough?

Posted by: annie | Mar 5 2009 17:17 utc | 17

ahh, the plot thickens. how scandalous and intriguing. waldo moves from entertaining sideshow to an obvious agitator misrepresenting our generous barkeep at other sites. to echo annie’s sentiment, that is fucked.

Posted by: Lizard | Mar 5 2009 17:18 utc | 18

speaking of murdering other nations innocents, that is called collateral damage, we do it all the time.

Posted by: annie | Mar 5 2009 17:20 utc | 19

hmmmm, wal/waldo and blue ox/micah, and now slothrop. i’m staying away from this thread; looks like a bar brawl waiting to happen. see ya over on the OT.

Posted by: catlady | Mar 5 2009 17:22 utc | 20

i shouldn’t have said ‘stating unequivocally’, but it was more than an implication to make the assertion after the post for heavens sake. I did not do so with the Russia post. I did not ‘rename’ it and I can prove that.
of course why would b lie about this for heaven’s sake. ok, i have said enough.

Posted by: annie | Mar 5 2009 17:27 utc | 21

And I was so looking forward to watching Waldo’s logic twisting in the wind as Obama’s policies unfolded. This is a wringing endorsement to hope he just takes his bunched panties elsewhere.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 5 2009 18:17 utc | 22

And, as El Lissitsky said:
Beat the whites with the red wedgies!

Posted by: biklett | Mar 5 2009 18:20 utc | 23

Careful with those invectives Waldo, or you’re liable to hang yourself with you’re own rhope.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 5 2009 20:36 utc | 24

Waldo,
Haven’t had much time to comment much at MOA but I will always try and take some time to defend b’s character. I am a little groggy right now (I had a colonoscopy just a few hours ago and was scared to death – but everything turned out OK) but this is too important for me not to chime in. In general, I am a big baby and am scared of flying (cloister phobia, fear of crashing, etc.), and didn’t have any spare money at the time, but b’s intelligence impressed me so much that when he had that open invitation on New Year’s a couple of years ago, I jumped at the chance to meet him. Upon meeting b in person, not only was I further impressed with b’s intelligence, but his character as a fellow human being impressed me even more. Over the years, my main successes in life have been because of an innate ability in judging people’s character and honesty. Without a doubt, B rates at the top.

Posted by: Rick Happ | Mar 5 2009 23:19 utc | 25

Well, looks like I’m toast. How I copied and pasted this: “The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia” from your post into the comments of 3rd march and now it doesn’t exist, never did exist and is either a figment of my imagination or a deliberate untruth, befuddles me.
Annie, I’m sorry you think my behaviour was fucked.

Posted by: waldo | Mar 6 2009 0:32 utc | 26

Waldo: From where I sit, it would seem that you simply copied and pasted the blackmail phrase from the text of b’s post instead of the headline, and then confused yourself as to where the phrase came from. It’s still there in the body of the post, plain as day, just as b said @#5 above.

Posted by: catlady | Mar 6 2009 0:53 utc | 27

catlady, you are being very generous by trying to understand why waldo is being such a shit. you exemplify why this community here is the antithesis of how it was depicted by slanderers.

Posted by: Lizard | Mar 6 2009 1:16 utc | 28

wondering if waldo is wearing brown shoes by any chance. his recent tactics are eerily reminiscent of those of the fbi in its actions against the new left back in the cointelpro days:

policing expressions of political radicalism that are interpreted as a threat to the status quo

disrupting the internal organization & discussions of at least two sites that fit that description

attempting to create dissension w/i and between groups

creating an unfavorable public image to discredit targets utilizing media sources to plant/disseminate anonymous disinformation
etc

Posted by: b real | Mar 6 2009 5:02 utc | 29

Slothrop,
“… many of our non-American comrades, consumed as they are by hatred of a preferred abstraction of “american empire,” would like to see “america” suffer even as that suffering is universal. ”
Sorta like the foreign equivalents of Rush Limbaugh, wanting our President to fail out of hatred for all things “liberal”…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 6 2009 9:11 utc | 30

Slothrop,
You keep harping tht the US empire is an abstraction, as in a figment of our collective imagination. So what do you call a country that has:
1. 700-800 military bases overseas. Even the Romans and the British did not have close to that number.
2. Military spending that equals the rest of the world combined.
3. Military presence in 130 out of 192 countries of the world.
4. Have fought a war or staged an intervention under every elected president since and including FDR.
If that is not an empire, then I do not know what is.

Posted by: ndahi | Mar 6 2009 17:21 utc | 31

Annie, I’m sorry you think my behaviour was fucked.
waldo, it all comes down to respect. i am not offended by people having come to different conclusions, or even people who have yet to come to conclusions (and i place myself in that category). but you seem to have blinders on when you are convinced of something. as catlady mentions, and any person w/a casual glance can see, the text you copied is still right there where is always was. b mentions this in the post and you don’t even check it. furthermore you seem bent on finding your adversary (in terms of opinion) deformed in the personal arena, instead of simply understanding that an easier more logical explanation is people of integrity simply come to different conclusions.
but to buttress this theory by cherry picking and isolating particular parts of peoples argument (made in good faith) to somehow construe b is being dishonest or depraved in his assessment (sorry, too lazy to use exact quotes)..well, do you see how it led to a culmative effect of insulting/demeaning the site, and all of us who post here in good faith and somewhat with the safety of being able to argue different sides of issues.
i realize i have more of the ‘hope factor’ compared to the ‘realists’ here and i don’t know is that is the case of me being just more of an optimist (in a sinking ship) on this site in relativity to others. you’ve taken your share of slap downs for your assertions, but i see this as part of your unwillingness to allow for even the possibility of caveats with obama. and unless you know the guy personally or something you are basing this stuff purely on impression iow your own judgement, no more vsluable to you than mine is to me, or b’s is to b, or r’giaps is to r’giap, etc etc.
calling someones character into question always changes the dynamic of the argument (i’ve done it, people do it) that is why a reputation is essential. b’s been providing us w/these incredible posts for so long and the value of him hosting us is immeasurable. this term ‘blackmail’ which seems to have twisted your panties so much, instead of arguing the term outright, you attack from this angle of him being this coward w/allegations of him hiding it or whether the term is used in the title or text is immaterial. really, i could go on forever.
this site has survived hella bar fights, rounds and rounds between sloth and r’giap, myself taking on debs for christs sake, and others too. but it seems like the potential for b somewhat hitting the bigtime, chris floyd for heavens sake! lobe! do you now see how going there (from a tip you read on this site) and dragging our arguments out of context, plastering them there to prop up an argument leading to the degredation of b’s character..can’t you see how this is too much. carefully consider catlady’s #27, and carefully consider your own wish and hope for obamas success and just see if this has somehow inspired you to overload all over the owner of this site at the time he is being highlighhted in important venues. not his ideas mind you, but his integrity.
and i notice how somehow my approval is important to you, for it seems odd you are sorry i think it is fucked rather than where your sorry should be directed. take a look within and ask yourself what your reasons for being here are and if your method of argument is furthering that goal.

Posted by: annie | Mar 6 2009 18:09 utc | 32

Rather beautifully put, Annie.

Posted by: Tantalus | Mar 6 2009 19:07 utc | 33

annie,
A very nice post and captures the reason I enjoy the debates at MoA more than I have any other place. Most of the denizens are pretty civil to one another and b doesn’t seem to have a mean bone in him. He tends to the place well, and keeps everyone up to date on the latest news with a quickness I envy.
It is always the weakest argument that resorts to name calling when they lack the ability to use facts. What is sad is that waldo is an interesting writer that shouldn’t need to resort to such juvenile tactics when arguing his point. It seems that he has plenty of chops to use other than name calling.

Posted by: David | Mar 6 2009 19:09 utc | 34

The empire fallacy is serious business, imo. The US military defends the “interests” of the US, which are coevally the “interests” of capital.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 6 2009 19:12 utc | 35

Rick,
completely off topic, a few months back I had my first colonoscopy and the doc found a couple of tiny polyps which he promptly removed. I resisted the procedure for a long time but have to admit that I am better off for having done it.
jokingly on the way into the room where the procedure was done, I asked the doctor if he would call me in the morning. my smart alec way of dealing with another man becoming very intimate with me. Wouldn’t you know, he actually called!

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 6 2009 22:12 utc | 36

rick & dan
i had a slightly less optimistic prognosis but the necessity to have this & any other invasive process is absolutely necessary. since late capitalism seems nothing other than invasions of one kinf of another – why not my body?
as for waldo – the polyp is a good metaphor for what he is here – he is trying to envoyée the empire up our ass in a new & iproved way
rick & dan – good health

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 6 2009 22:34 utc | 37

Tantalus, David, thanks.
b, as always i love you for what you offer us day in and day out. your shining integrity merged w/incredible intelligence, insight, knowledge and wisdom. i, we, are all so lucky to have found you and our moon home.

Posted by: annie | Mar 8 2009 6:44 utc | 38

I do’nt get it. What does blue-ox-babe have to do with anything ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 8 2009 10:29 utc | 39

blue-ox-babe?

Posted by: David | Mar 8 2009 12:13 utc | 40

you must tell me David, how the hell did you ever learn about Paul Bunyon? I read that stuff when I was in grade school but you almost certainly did not based on the year you graduated from HS anyway….unless you graduated at 30 something.
I always enjoyed those stories, like when it got so cold the candle froze and they had to wait until spring to blow it out. Not many people know that old Paul is responsible for the Grand Canyon too, seems he was distracted and drug his pick for while.
you are the first person I have heard mention the tales of Paul Bunyon and Babe the blue ox in over 40 years.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 8 2009 13:24 utc | 41

Thanks David@40,
OK now I know who “Babe the Blue Ox” is and I really liked the part about how he found “Bessie the Yeller Cow”. Plus I found his picture on wiki
Paul Bunyan & Babe the Blue OX
And now I’m really upset at everyone who’s said bad things about dear Babe-Blue-Ox.
I still do’nt get it though. What does Babe-Blue-Ox have to do with this

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 8 2009 13:27 utc | 42

jony,
see comment #11 above. blue ox babe said some rather unflattering things about us over at Chris Floyd’s site. b real identified him as micah pyre

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 8 2009 14:04 utc | 43

DoS-Thanks! Actually Babe and Paul share a spot along the highway in the redwoods near my mom’s home. I have a freaking photo I shot somewhere, but it’s so old it’s on slide film… must be close to 20 years old now.
I didn’t know what the reference was to so I guessed… wrong, oops. But I remember Paul Bunyan stories from my youth also, but I’m not sure if it was from school, tv or maybe just because my dad worked in the woods… But the stories are classic.
Here is a link to the Trees of Mystery where Babe and Paul live A Babe in the woods

Posted by: David | Mar 8 2009 14:48 utc | 44

I do’nt (sic) get it. What does blue-ox-babe have to do with anything ?
then
now I’m really upset at everyone who’s said bad things about dear Babe-Blue-Ox
—-
spending summers traveling around michigan as a kid, use to see paul & babe all the time. visited this one in ossineke a number of times, long before paul had his nuts blown off.
good external links on the (commercial) origins of this bit of u.s.american folklore here

Posted by: b real | Mar 8 2009 18:32 utc | 45

ha. serious typo alert. “long after…”

Posted by: b real | Mar 8 2009 18:36 utc | 46

mf’r. babe, not paul. (should’a just stayed in bed)

Posted by: b real | Mar 8 2009 18:39 utc | 47

Geeze, somewhere in the family archives there’s a photo of me with Paul and Babe. Iirc, I was more impressed with an “indian” teepee on the other side of the parking lot.

Posted by: beq | Mar 8 2009 21:17 utc | 48

now I get it, This threads about two separate & unrelated subjects : first waldo and then blue-ox-babe/micah
but does’nt babe-blue-ox deserve his own thread ? Or a thread with Bessie if he really has to share ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 8 2009 21:22 utc | 49

not quite jony, blue ox babe is mentioned in the original post for this thread. He called us all a bunch of wanna be policy wonks in the comments section of a story on Chris Floyd’s site. blue ox babe and wal are the names micah pyre and waldo use when they post on Chris Floyd.
It may very well be time to start a Bessie the yeller cow thread.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 9 2009 1:57 utc | 50

babe, not paul.
so paul didn’t get his nuts blown off? that’s a relief. i looked at the photo and wondered if he was holding his hands like that to cover up his blownup parts. did anyone make blue a new set?

Posted by: annie | Mar 9 2009 2:29 utc | 51

Geez, youtube has everything… The Mighty ~~John Wayne~~ Paul Bunyan…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 9 2009 3:51 utc | 52

Yeah, “His strength and his goodness helped America grow.”
He clear cut the land for ~~farmers~~ The Archer Daniels Midland Company. All that propaganda for the American myth, pride and nationalism, reduced to the Jolly Green Giant. Your best friend in pea’s and corn.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 9 2009 3:59 utc | 53

uncle, the two links @53 left me with mixed emotions.
the old Jolly Green Giant ad thoroughly creeped me out, and will probably disturb my sleep. (and that you came at it through the strange and wonderful Paul Bunyan tangent Blue Ox Babe inspired is great)
the other link, a trailer to KING CORN, actually pissed me off. not because i don’t agree with the premise, but because of how information has to be seductively sold to us to get our lazy, over-stimulated attention to focus on a glimpse of the meta-narrative.
jauntily hip is how one reviewer described the film. maybe it’s just personal preference, but i would probably choose different words to describe how important and totally insane the corn part of our failing system actually is.

Posted by: Lizard | Mar 9 2009 4:55 utc | 54

Back to Main