Since it’s up everywhere else:
You can view this 15 min cinematic masterpiece at the following venues:
Rappahannock Red: What happens when jeffery “m” frederick gets in a room with the va gop grassroots april 4?
Contemporary Conservative
: BREAKING…New Frederick Video….Authentic Sequel to the Hitler Parody
Too Conservative: Great Video Spoof of Mr. “Grassroots”!
The Write Side of My Brain: Just when you thought RPV could have any more drama…
Tertium Quids: “M” Meets Jeff Frederick
Bearing Drift
: New Jeff Frederick “trial” video emerges
Now that’s entertainment! Not sure whether I’m more of a fan of the Trial, or the Downfall…
If you haven’t seen M, it truly is one of the greatest films ever made. Fritz Lang (who also made Metropolis, a silent film from the 1920′s that might very well be my favorite movie of all time) made M in the waning days of the Weimar Republic just before Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came to power… and their censors… and their cultural imposition on the film industry. Watching the film in that context, and even in the context of the movie itself, gives a ready insight even into modern day issues.
I just read your post on Bowden’s metaphors, and consequently find your having apparently delighted in the carefully crafted metaphors of these videos a bit troubling. I’ll quote from your other post:
“Stop using metaphors, especially those that only bring confusion, harm, and objectify the ‘Other’… Naturally there are connotations with being called a lynch mob, and those who propagate that line of attack know this. It’s a language war of sorts… one that need not be waged if fairness and accuracy are your penultimate concerns.
Otherwise, if the metaphors continue, then one can only reasonably expect the perpetuation of more of the same: anonymous commentators, charges, secret meetings, innuendo, and political campaigns in place of just and ethical decision making. That’s no good for anyone.”
Does this line of thinking (and the rest of your post in response to Jim Bowden) not apply to the videos that you have featured on this site?
Apparently delighted?
You know Steve, it just occurred to me that you are an official blogger at RPV. Are you defending your chairman and opposing your State Central Committee on the RPV dime?
Shaun,
You have staked out a fair position on Jeff’s removal, and from what I’ve seen you haven’t engaged in the kind of hurtful and counterproductive rumor-mongering that has elsewhere been the focus of what you characterize as my “defending [my] chairman and opposing [my] State Central Committee.”
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, because I think you’ve generally been fair minded and reasonable about this whole thing, but the rebuke of Jim Bowden’s metaphor appears ill-considered, given your approval of the same kind of thing in these videos. Do you not agree that, for the same reasons you were upset at Jim’s choice of language, these videos help no one, and only serve the “perpetuation of more of the same: anonymous commentators, charges, secret meetings, innuendo, and political campaigns in place of just and ethical decision making”?
You answer my question by implying some sort of impropriety on my part, unrelated to the question. Fine. First, I don’t know that RPV has an “official blogger.” I volunteered to serve the party in any capacity last summer after Jeff was elected, and was later asked to contribute to the blog. I have. That’s it. Second, what would make you think that I’m doing anything on RPV’s dime? I don’t get paid by RPV (or anyone else but my fulltime employer), don’t use RPV offices or facilities, and only use RPV servers when I make blog postings, which assiduously avoid intraparty issues. Any suggestion of impropriety is inappropriate. Third, yes, I am defending the Chairman where I think he has been unfairly maligned, but no, I am not opposing the SCC. The SCC has not spoken on this issue. When it has, I will respect the outcome, and will continue to offer my services to the party in the same spirit. We’re ultimately all on the same team, and should all recognize that we have a lot more that brings us together than that drives us apart.
Steve –
Skadden Arps? I think my mother used to work for that firm a number of years back…
Apparent delight is an assumption, that’s all. I am interested to see that you hold Jim Bowden’s remarks with the same regard you hold the videos.
On your points:
(1) You are the prime blogger at the RPV blog… attacking State Central members at the same time you blog for the official blog raises eyebrows and doesn’t exactly instill trust. In fact, it only fuels the rumors that RPV staff is overtly taking sides in l’affair Frederick.
(2) I’m glad to hear there is not conflict of interest. Very glad, as a matter of fact.
(3) I would offer the following: That the same interest you show in defending the Chairman be extended to those members of State Central who express their opinions as well. Not only is SCC the governing board of RPV, they are ultimately the “shareholders” of the operation (if you don’t believe me on that, ask anyone who was in the room when State Central was told who would be ultimately responsible for paying back the $900K settlement with DPVA during the eavesdropping scandal).
Agree with your final sentiment. There is plenty more that brings us together than drives us apart. Looking forward to a final settlement of affairs, either on 04 April or at the State Convention.
Shaun,
If I did have a conflict (i.e., if I was an employee or otherwise beholden to the organization), I would agree that I probably have some duty to individual members of the SCC, as you suggest in your point (3). But neither of those things is the case. I’m just an activist, and just as different SCC members can publicly spar about RPV’s dirty laundry, so can I. In fact, I probably have less of a duty to SCC members than they arguably have to each other.
I know there is not a conflict at work here, so I’ve never thought of my activities in the way you’ve described, but your point (1) is well taken. Even the appearance of a conflict can be troubling, so I’ll be mindful of that going forward. I appreciate the good-faith critique.
Pingback: WHAT THE BLOGS SAID LAST WEEK ABOUT JEFF FREDERICK, THE RPV CHAIR « Citizen Tom