This video speaks entirely for itself. The Republicans have out-dumbed Dan Quayle with their selection of Sarah Palin.

There’s really nothing, and I mean nothing, that I can add.

Please make sure this is spread far and wide. Email it to everyone you know. Post it on other blogs. Let the “brilliance” of Republicanism shine (under a thousand points of light?) for all to see.

OK, a couple of people had something to add:

Animated educational aid:

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

UPDATED AGAIN: September 1, 10:59 p.m.

Amy Goodman has been arrested in St.Paul

by: bluestateblues

Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 21:19:32 PM EDT

This afternoon, I watched today's edition of Democracy Now!, which included a piece about the St. Paul police conducting preemptive raids in advance of the Republican convention, targeting groups of protesters, journalists and videographers, including videographer, Elizabeth Press, who works for Democracy Now!.

I just received the following email announcing Amy Goodman has just been arrested.

I spent time volunteering for Democracy Now! last week in Denver, where I distributed information about the show at events around the city. Amy produced a 2 hour show daily during the convention in Denver, and planned to do the same this week during the Republican convention.

 You can view the video of Amy being arrested here.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

The Republican Convention starts Monday, and the police in St. Paul are rounding up activists to prevent them from demonstrating against the Guardians of Privilege.

Glenn Greenwald is all over the story at Salon, including video of residents and neighbors. I am particularly interested in the president of the local Lawyers Guild chapter, who is very informative.

In these raids, armed officers from a nearby county sheriff's department (that's right, they were operating outside of their geographic jurisdiction) burst into at least four homes, known in their neighborhoods as “hippie houses”, handcuffed the residents and guests in the homes and forced them to lie on the floor for as long as forty-five minutes, and executed warrants authorizing them to seize such common household items as laptop computers, maps of St. Paul, twine, cardboard, spray paint, and paint thinner. A couple of people were arrested on the bogus charge of conspiracy to riot.

In one video one of the lawyers working as a liaison with the police at a home where journalists were being detained is seen speaking to the press in handcuffs.

It's obvious that they're doing this to prevent people from protesting the Republican Convention. It's too early to know if there has been any coordination between county sheriff Bob Fletcher and the RNC, but I assume people will be looking into that. Meanwhile, this is something that we need to follow very closely. As the Bush administration has attacked all forms of constitutional protection, including the right of habeas corpus, this comment from Firedoglake is particularly apt:

Didn’t the Chinese do the same thing to potential protesters (raid their homes, intimidate them, follow them around, force them to leave town, detain them) ahead of the Olympics and we denounced them as the repressive regime that they are.. even called our president to boycott their precious games? I’m so glad that we live in a country that would never do such things to its own citizens….

I'll keep this diary updated as I learn more.

UPDATE: Local TV stations are showing video of items the local sheriff says he seized from the raids, including buckets of urine, homemade caltrops to block buses by puncturing their tires, and other items.

The Strib has more information, including a response from Denis Nestor, the Lawyers Guild president that Glenn Greenwald also interviewed.

The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said.

 UPDATE: Here's the link to the RNC Welcoming Committee, the anarchist organization sponsoring a lot of the anti-RNC activities. As you read their materials, you can see very clearly that they intend to blockade and disrupt the Republican activities.

Here's what they say about “violence”:

30. (Insert question about rock throwing/smashing windows)

As the Welcoming Committee, we refuse to condemn the defense of individuals, communities, and the Earth. Most violence comes from the state. When you come to St. Paul in September, look around: we won’t be the ones with nightsticks, guns, and Tasers.

31. What’s your stance on violence and property destruction?

Destruction bad. Property bad. The concept of property is used to deprive people of the basic necessities of life. We live here, and want to live in beautiful, clean environments, just like you. We also believe we have a right to defend ourselves, and if the tools used to attack us include the tools of property, it’s not exempt.

32. But haven’t all of society’s gains been made by “non-violent” action?

First, while we support oppressed peoples defending themselves with whatever means appropriate, our blockading strategy does not call for violence.

Power will use whatever means are most effective to maintain control. The primary tool of state control is violence whether physical, economic, or psychological. The state will use violence when needed to put down dissent. The only check on state violence is the risk of losing sovereignty and with that facing greater dissent. When “non-violent” action has seemed to be successful it is not because the appeals of the masses tugged at the hearts of the men in power. Rather, it becomes clear to those in power that if they don’t deal with the more moderate protests the protesters will all become “extremists”, and more voices will rise in protest. So, ultimately those who are behaving in a more moderate fashion receive a space at the table in order to keep the “radicals” out and to prevent the radicalization of the moderates. So, even the moderates have the state’s fear of radical action backing up their arguments.

At the Big Tent in Denver, Markos Moulitsas of “Daily Kos” fame made plenty of copies of his new book, Taking on the System, available. I’ve been reading my copy on my trip back to Vermont (I am actually writing this diary from O’Hare in Chicago).

It’s a good read. Markos is an excellent writer (lord knows he gets enough practice). It lacks citations, which drives me nuts, but I’m getting a lot out of it. Most of the book is an exercise in breaking out the transformational power of new media into its constituent parts and providing successful case studies of each (and not always political case studies as Markos sees a lot of parallel institutional change in, for example, the music industry).

Markos casts himself and the netroots movement as the next step in Saul Alinsky-style activism, disarming the critcism from the more reactionary set (many of whom cite Alinsky – to whom Taking on the System is dedicated – as an inspiration themselves) with Rules for Radicals quotations such as “we will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy”. It should be mentioned that Markos casts himself in such a role without ego, as he is uniquely able to speak about himself and his contribution objectively, almost clinically so. It’s refreshing.

But here’s the discussion: Markos observes in the prologue that the rapid democratization of media and (by extension) other power institutions has left the “traditional gatekeepers” (largely the traditional media) and the political “elites they guard” with a choice:

Some are embracing this democratization, welcoming the new participants. Others are simply tolerating the interlopers, acknowledging the process as an inevitable evolution in our culture. Then there are those digging in their heels, and fighting a losing battle to protect their domain.

At the Denver convention – both on the ground with the Vermont delegation and in reviewing the coverage back home – JD, Christian and I were witnessing all three of these reactions. Most prominently (I believe) on display was the “tolerating” process of simply dealing with these changes as an inevitability. But each of the other reactions Markos lays out were clearly in play as well.

Rather than give you my opinion, I’d like to hear the opinion of GMD’s readers. Among the Vermont “gatekeeper” and “elite” set, who do you think is welcoming the new paradigm, who is simply accepting it and trying to make the best of it, and who is digging in and pushing back?