OSR sez Chuck Levesque "hates the United States"

By John McDaid | Friday, 7 March 2008

Must be read to be believed. The Ocean State Republican site features an interview with a fictional alien brother of State Senator Chuck Levesque, attacking the legislation he sponsored supporting protection for people regardless of their immigration status. If you were expecting reasoned criticism, you'll be sorely disappointed. And perhaps nauseated. I'm not a lawyer, but it's clearly intended as a parody, which arguably excuses any disregard for provably false statements.

Well, its classic Marxism, which is just a subset of collectivism — communism; socialism; fascism — they’re all just different species of the genus collectivism. First you need to understand that collectivists like my brother actually despise the whole notion of patriotism and national sovereignty, and hold particular contempt for the United States. They hate the United States because its founding principles are the polar opposite of collectivism: the United States stands for individual liberty and its reciprocal requirement for individual self-reliance and self-responsibility, which in turn are enabled by free-market capitalism. They hate the United States because it is this world’s most economically and militarily powerful nation, it is a political finger in the eye of Marxist collectivism, showing by its success the inherent flaws of collectivism.
— via Ocean State Republican

If you follow the link, be warned: in my professional opinion, based on 20 years of experience as a theorist and designer of hypertext systems, this is one butt-ugly Web site.

You know, I really like the idea of parody. You can get away with a lot. That's a thought to file away for future reference.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871

Comments

Portsmouth Citizen

Fri, 03/07/2008 - 1:27pm

Sure, you certainly can "get away with a lot" using the form of parody. Maybe you were just being kind with the phrase "disregard for provably false statements", but I prefer to call that bald-faced lies.

There is no slur too horrible, no accusation too shocking and no dishonesty too outrageous that can't be protected from prosecution under the guise of parody.

So, if "getting away with it" is the goal, parody away. As an avid reader, though, I would prefer you simply continue to tell the truth.

I wouldn't like to see your website fall to the depths of that OSR posting. Besides, with the continuous supply of uninformed remarks made by Tailgunner, do you really need to work so hard as to resort to parody?

John McDaid

Fri, 03/07/2008 - 2:02pm

Hi, Portsmouth Citizen...
I'm with you. Telling the truth has always been my goal on this site, and I have no intention of changing that. When I'm reporting, I do my best to capture the facts accurately.

Do I have an agenda? Sure. Do I make choices that the AP Stylebook would frown on? Absolutely. Do I make fun of people? On occasion. The new journalism of Wolfe and Mailer and the gonzo approach of Hunter S. Thompson showed years ago that sometimes the only way to tell a deeper truth is to relax the constraint of "objectivity."

But not to worry. I have no intention — nor, as you point out, any reason — to resort to parody here. There's a bright line for me between "commentary" and "making stuff up."

Cheers.
-j

Fox

Fri, 03/07/2008 - 2:00pm

I have just read the sight you mention, and I do not feel that there is anything wrong with it, "parody",or otherwise. I fail to see the difference between that site,and yours(or anyone else's,for that matter). A blog is a blog is a blog,and everyone seems to have one these days. These people have just as much right to blog anything they please on the Internet as you do, correct? I am sure that many people do not agree with your opinions,and regardless of what the issue,you are entitled to blog as you see it, and believe it. Why would you take offense to anyone else's right to do the same?
I found the Parody very amusing, the site is funny,and VERY well done.
If it has upset you,or angered you in any way, Perhaps you will get more of an understanding of how some would feel the same way about your comments about a certain few,which also could be viewed as "butt ugly". Honestly, I fail to see the difference from one blog to another. If you don't like the other"butt ugly" site,there is a very simple solution, don't read it.
I read many blog sites, some I love,some I like,and some I hate,its all just a matter of preference,and different opinions...and most importantly...Freedom of speech. So blog on everyone ,the good,the bad,the butt ugly, there is plenty of room for everybody!

p.s. I'm not a newbie to reading this blog as a guest (only),but have commented only twice as a user,so far.

John McDaid

Fri, 03/07/2008 - 2:39pm

Hi, Fox...
Thank you for your readership, and for your comment.

Let me try to state quite clearly how I see the difference between what I do here, and what the OSR did in this particular case. There is a difference between opinions and statements of fact. When I'm reporting on an event, and I comment on the things that public figures say or do, I make every effort to report the facts accurately.

You seem to dismiss any such attempt by saying "a blog is a blog," but I would suggest that the evidence says otherwise. If I base my critcism on inferences drawn from verifiable events -- like the things people say and do at public meetings -- and the OSR needs to make up interviews with aliens to buttress their attack, I would respectfully suggest these are not the same kind of thing.

Do they have the right to do so? Absolutely. Parody is protected speech, and the bar for public figures is understandably high. I disagree with what they say, but I as one of those ACLU liberals they seem to have no use for, I would vigorously defend their right to say it.

That doesn't mean, however, that I'm obligated to give them a pass. I read OSR all the time, and this is the first occasion where I felt it was just so over the top I had to say something. If you can disagree with me, I can disagree with them, no?

On the other hand, I stand by my professional opinion that their Web site is butt ugly.

Best Regards.
-j

Fox

Fri, 03/07/2008 - 3:23pm

You can disagree. And just for the record ...I don't always disagree with you. Matter of fact I agree with you on many things, I even agree that it was a bit "over the top". But on the other hand I still think the parody things are funny. Poking fun,and making (sometimes nasty) comments about politicians is as old as dirt, so it is weird( i will admit), how some of them still manage to crack me up. Possibly a stress reliever?In a world that is so upside down.Who knows.
Hmm...maybe "a blog is a blog" isn't what I should have said, or I should have worded it in a different way, some blogs are based more on facts,and truths ,than others, for sure. But the bottom line remains the same...the writer believes in what he writes,the truth as he/she believes it to be. What is, or is not funny, according to ones own sense of humor,and style. I believe that is what makes us all unique, individual,and interesting,in some shape ,or form.
I truely enjoy the blog. Keep up the good work.

John McDaid

Fri, 03/07/2008 - 3:50pm

Hi, Fox...
I very much appreciate your comments, and share your respect for the power of parody. Steven Colbert is a prime example. And you're quite right about matters of taste. The line between funny and offensive is fuzzy and subjective. (Nowadays, we think Lenny Bruce is pretty tame.)

Guess what I was reacting to was the way the OSR post was written. I mean, if you wrote a parody of Chuck Levesque, say, sitting in the state senate, reading Marx and calling everyone "comrade," well, you'd recognize it as parody. But what got up my nose was the way they wrote this piece, with Jabba serving as a mouthpiece for what seemed to be clearly intended as statements of fact. "They hate the United States" doesn't sound like parody. It sounds like a lazy author telegraphing a message. Maybe what I'm really criticizing is their rhetorical style.

And sure -- about rhetoric, like comedy, judgements can differ.

Cheers.
-j