November 1, 2014

Mary Burke's use of the swastika in her ad does the very thing defenders of the ad will say she's accusing her antagonist of doing.

"Mary Burke hits Scott Walker in ad with swastika imagery," says the headline at the Washington Post.
Democrat Mary Burke released a new ad Friday accusing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) of using a Republican county chairman's "lies to attack" her. The ad includes images of swastikas, it says, the county chair posted to his Facebook page.

Burke's ad seeks to tie Walker to Gary Ellerman, the Jefferson County Republican Party chairman and a former human resources director at Trek Bicycle, the Burke family company where the Democrat used to work.

Ellerman was quoted in a report on the conservative Web site Wisconsin Reporter that cited sources saying Burke was fired from the company. In the report, Ellerman said, “She was not performing. She was (in) so far over her head. She didn’t understand the bike business." Burke denies being fired.
You can watch the whole ad at the link, but here's a screen shot of the part where swastikas float across the screen and have whatever subliminal effect they're supposed to have:



There's writing on the screen, but are we supposed to read it or just have feelings that something awful is going on? If you're watching it on line, you can freeze it and read it, and if you do, you'll find swastikas used against Obama in exactly the same way swastikas were used against Scott Walker back in the 2011 protests, to say that a politician you oppose is like the Nazis.

Burke seems to be saying that Ellerman is bad because he used the swastika, and since Ellerman asserted something about Burke that could help Walker, Walker is connected to Ellerman, and Ellerman's form of expression should be attributed to Walker, making Walker bad.

If we had the time to read the words on the screen, it would be clear that Ellerman's use of the swastika is not pro- but anti-Nazi, but the ad doesn't give us that time, and in fact, the words on the graphic on the left never fully appear appear on screen. The most you ever see — and I had to freeze the frame to read this — is "cordance with the/Order, all Christian/-ches must hand over/-rmons regarding/-sexuality and gender/state so that we may/or and "correct" any/-rsive speech that/-dicts our Manifesto," a quote attributed to "-ton's Democrat Mayor, Annise Parker." The words "-sexuality and gender" line up with the eyes of the unfamiliar woman who is smirking and has her hands in what could be called the I-have-an-evil-plan position.



What subliminal effect does that have? One might, in so little time, subliminally read the "evil" woman as Mary Burke. And it is Mary Burke who is wafting swastikas in front of our eyes. I've seen anti-Walker protesters holding signs that put a swastika on Walker, so a casual viewer might think that's what Burke is doing here, even though she wants to say that's the kind of thing that Ellerman does. But most of us don't know or care about Ellerman any more than we know or care about Parker, so I think the subliminal effect — probably intended — was to make us think of Walker as a Nazi. That's something that Burke herself cannot say as a mainstream candidate, but it is something Walker-haters have been expressing for years.

At the 2011 protests, we saw many, many signs comparing Walker to Hitler. Meade and I frequently approached people who were holding these signs. Asked to explain, they always defended the comparison. Here's of photo of mine from February 2011:

P1060646

I asked that woman behind the sign if she thought Scott Walker was like Hitler, and she said "Yes." So I followed up with: "Are you saying that you think fascism could come to America?" And she said, "It's what's happening." 

And then there was this woman, also from February 2011:



The expression on her face and the tone of her voice when she said "like Hitler" is something Meade and I have never forgotten. (Watch how quickly she otherizes Meade.)

Here's an "Adolf Walker" sign with a swastika.

P1060655

Here's a young woman with a sign that says "Walker is a dictator" and has an image of Walker with a Hitler mustache. She says she "definitely" thinks Walker is like Hitler. Why? "He doesn't do nice things. He's not a nice person."



Meade follows up: "So, anyone who's not nice is like Hitler?" She tries again: "Well, no. He doesn't do what he should, doesn't do the right thing, and he's doing something that might ruin a lot of things for people. He's pretty much ruining, like, our future."

Meade offers: "You don't think that's over the top, that you're comparing him to Adolf Hitler?" She responds: "It might be a little over the top." Meade: "Just a little?" She makes the concession that might be perhaps what Gary Ellerman would say about Obama: "Just a little, but we kind of need to be dramatic in something like this."

An older woman cuts in and says: "It brings the point across." Meade: "And the point is?" Woman: "The point is this is a democracy, not a dictatorship." Meade asks whether there was something undemocratic about the election back in November, and she says: "Nothing. But what he's doing now is undemocratic." The woman continues, admitting that she didn't vote for Walker, but it's undemocratic because he's not "willing to compromise and negotiate... and that's what democracy is." That's what a lot of people thought about about Obama — quite aptly — when he said "I won" and foisted Obamacare on us when clearly there wasn't majoritarian support for it.

Now, you can see that the young and the older woman are nice people, not extremists, but aggrieved by the policies of the candidate who won the last election, and that they are appropriating a vivid graphic symbol for dramatic effect. Personally, I would not display a swastika as a way to make an exaggerated point about an American politician, but others do — on the right and on the left.

Obviously, I don't refrain from showing you that others are using a swastika in their form of expression, and you might say, that's exactly what Mary Burke is doing in her new ad.

But I am showing you things carefully, so you can study them, and to slow things down so there is no subliminal effect, no irrational roiling of the emotions. And that's exactly what Mary Burke is not doing. Her ad begins with a picture of Walker standing with "a Walker campaign worker and donor who puts pictures like this on his Facebook page." The image — my screen shot, above — slips by in 3 seconds, obliterating any hope of figuring out that Ellerman is not a Nazi fan and that he's just another Wisconsinite using dramatic imagery to get his point across.

Ironically, Burke's use of the swastika works exactly like Ellerman's, and she's doing the very thing defenders of the ad will say she's trying to criticize Ellerman for doing. Arguably, it's worse, because it's not a still image that you can gaze at until you understand. It means to creep in by the backdoor to your mind.

AND: From February 20, 2011: "Do you think Scott Walker deserves to be compared to the Nazis?"/"Yes, I do":



ALSO: I'd written "Annie Parker," but it's Annise Parker. Here's the story the swastika graphic was about:
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

221 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 221 of 221
Achilles said...

madisonfella said...
"The word "irrefutable" keeps getting tossed around, as does Albers being cited as the only valid source. But I am unable to find any statements or quotes from him saying it is irrefutable that she was fired.

Anyone got a link?"

"We reorganized and eliminated the position I had."

Mary Burke

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8CRC0TP20A"

Stop being deliberately obtuse please.

Achilles said...

madisonfella said...

"One party control is never a good thing. Which is why I'm voting for a divided government on Tuesday."

Wow. Talk about cowardice.

Nobody buys it. You haven't posted a non-statist position on this blog. You obviously don't have the critical thinking skills to actually pull something like that off.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...

"Can't Wisconsin Republicans come up with sources [all Walker supporters] that aren't racists, drunks, violent, use swastikas, or smash themselves in the face with a rock?"

I think you should leave this country and go somewhere where you aren't protected by the US military. You are a disgusting worm.

Just saying.

Rusty said...

madisonfella said...
Yes. tragic.
But the question was. Which unions has Walker eliminated.

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
alive as you and me.
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
"I never died" said he

Nice sentiments, and one can say that as long as there is hope then one is truly not "eliminated". But fact remains he made it illegal for over 5000 workers to belong to a labor union.

That said, Walker is not Hitler and it is ridiculous to say he is.

That you can't gin up membership since act 10 is the unions fault, not Walkers

If McDonald's customer base were to suddenly plummet because it a new law made it illegal for them to sell any food products at all except for french fries, and even then they were only allowed to sell small orders of it, I would say that the law was the main factor for the loss of business. Especially if McDonald's was also required to give everyone french fries for free if the customer didn't feel like paying for it.

You'd really say it was McDonald's fault for not being able to gin up business?


You're obviously having problems with public vs private. Coercion vs voluntary.
Try again

kcom said...

"Remember the other post on Althouse where people started getting punched in the face if they insulted Islam?"

I don't remember it because it didn't happen. That's why I objected so vociferously to the misuse of the term "spouting Islamophobia" in the title of that post. There's nothing in the video that backs that up.

There is not one insult to Islam in the entire video. Watch it five times and you won't find one. The man never mentions Islam, Mohammed or anything like that. He never even mentions religion. He objects to the guy based on his dress. And only that. He's practicing guilt by association (the same as Mary Burke is doing). That's problematic, because of the huge potential for misapplication (see the John Doe probe), but it's not "insulting Islam". How is it possible to talk truthfully about a situation when the terms you use to describe it are a semantic lie. The result is you get well-meaning comments like this one that have no basis in reality.

Plus, the term itself is inaccurate. It's the equivalent of saying Mary Burke is spouting Naziphobia because she has an objection to the actions of Nazis (leaving aside the wisdom of using it in a campaign against a political opponent in the US in 2014). Here is an example of actual Islamophobia:

Book on Muhammad Cartoons Won't Show Them

There are plenty more.

Unknown said...

Somebody asked if Elbers explicitly said Burke was fired. Here’s the link to the interview where he said ..

“I pretty much came back with the same conclusions that John Burke had made; and that was that we had major people problems over there and were in a situation where we could lose a lot of people. We were losing a lot of money and I couldn’t see where Mary Burke was going to turn this thing around.”

Albers reported his findings to Richard Burke, who listened intently and then, Albers says, acted decisively.

“The family—and by that I mean Dick and John Burke—finally agreed to bring her back. And so, to say it bluntly, she was fired.


http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/former-trek-president-and-ceo-confirms-12916069/

Anonymous said...

I eagerly await your votes on a straight Republican/Conservative ticket the next time city elections are held in Madison.

You really have no idea at all what you're talking about. One can not vote a "straight ticket" in non-partisan elections.

Fon's Law: Partisan hacks will always assume everyone else is also a partisan hack, because their mind knows no other way.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8CRC0TP20A"

The word "irrefutable" doesn't even appear anywhere in that GOP advertisement, let alone stated by Albers.

Fub's Law: If you are going to drunkpost at 2 in the morning then be funny rather than stupid.

You haven't posted a non-statist position on this blog

In what world is pro-gun considered non-statist? Because I've defend open carry against those who want to make it illegal.

Fef's Law: Those who claim to have read all the comments on a blog are usually lying about doing so.

You're obviously having problems with public vs private.

Can you explain what "private vs public" has to do with the claim that Act 10 has had nothing to do with decline in public sector union membership, and instead that it is entirely the sole purpose of the unions themselves? Because that is what my analogy was in reference to.

Fuh's Law: If one has good faith intentions in regards a discussion, then know what is actually being talked about before jumping into it.

geokstr said...

Why is it so difficult to believe the "blue posters" were quite real? One might not have expected to see "Che" posters in Obama field offices either, but there are pictures of them that show up when googled. Leftlings are zealots, and rarely display the good sense to keep their prejudices hidden. Thus the presence of hammer-and-sickle signs at "spontaneous" protests. They depend on the "unbiased", "objective" "news" media to ignore such displays or at least readily swallow their denials.

Too bad our whistle-blower didn't have the prescient presence of mind to know Chisolm, his long-time good friend and mentor, was going off the hyper-partisan deep end, and that he would soon need hard evidence to protect himself for doing the right thing. It would have been easy to use a smartphone camera and its recording capabilities to show that the blue fists and political bias in the DA's office were very real.

I've been in that situation before in the corporate world, not realizing how important it is to document literally everything just in case you might need to prove "X" and "Y" in the future, when it turns out trusting someone was your friend was an error in judgment.

Of course, 20 years ago we didn't have Droids to make that so much easier to do.

Anonymous said...

In what world is pro-gun considered non-statist? Because I've defend open carry against those who want to make it illegal.

cx: In what world is pro-gun considered statist?

PackerBronco said...

madisonfella said...
I eagerly await your votes on a straight Republican/Conservative ticket the next time city elections are held in Madison.

You really have no idea at all what you're talking about. One can not vote a "straight ticket" in non-partisan elections


Wow and here I thought that Madison was run by the Democrats, but no, madisonfella assures us that it's a non-partisan government.

Oh, I know what you're talking about. Yes, on the ballot the candidates are not divided based on party affiliation but the point is that there is a ruling party in Madison and it ain't the Republicans and there's a ruling ideology in Madison and it ain't conservative.

If your stance was sincere you'd be out advocating for Republicans and Conservatives to thwart one-party rule in the capital city.

But you don't because your stance is not sincere. That's okay, we all knew that.

Rusty said...

Don't blame me because you can't make a coherent analogy.
It's not my fault you're stupid.

Drago said...

Rusty said...
Don't blame me because you can't make a coherent analogy.
It's not my fault you're stupid

madisonfella can't remember what she posts from day to day so she's all over the ballpark.

She doesn't do "coherence".

BTW, her McDonalds analogy was so off base it was as if someone commandeered her handle just to embarrass her.

Jim Howard said...

A Nazi shot my Dad.

When someone (usually a leftie, but not always) compares an American politician to a Nazi what they are really doing is holocaust denial.

They are turning the most evil group of people to appear in the last several centuries into cartoon characters.

And of course these college kids are taught from birth that America is evil, so anyone who opposes America has some street creed with them. Even Hitler.

Birkel said...

Deeply held = Shit I just made up

The Democrats on this thread should be embarrassed but everybody knows they're incapable of that level of introspection.

Birkel said...

Jim Howard:
I dIsagree that Nazis were uniquely evil. Nazis were not worse than communists everywhere communists have come to power. After all, they have the exact same collectivist principles and the same murderous impulses upon which they have acted.

But the Nazis were evil, I agree.

Known Unknown said...

Samhill's blogger profile is not available? Unpossible!

Peter said...

Can't you just hear the Horst Wessel song, the drums, the marching boots in that ad?

"The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed! ... Soon Hitler's banners will flutter above all streets!"


If all publicity is good publicity, then perhaps this ad is a good ad?

(Yes, it's a "get out the vote" ad. But what does that say about those it appeals to?)

Peter said...

"I dIsagree that Nazis were uniquely evil. Nazis were not worse than communists"

As bad as communists were, Nazism was more virulent.

After all, Nazis were in power for just twelve years (six before the war plus six war years). Yet in that brief time they brought about horrors that were once all but unimaginable.

Communists brought about their own horrors, but it took them nearly a century to do so. They brought about great evils, but not with the intense virulence of Naziism. Is it even possible to imagine what Nazis would have wrought, had they stayed in power that long?

Bad Lieutenant said...

I generally support my great-aunt Filia's point of view, who thought that Nazism vs communism was a case of 6-5 pick'em; and communism was a greater existential threat inasmuch as Nazism could never hope to take over the world;but this is because Nazism is more deadly. It's too virulent: a case of Ebola vs (Spanish flu, smallpox, whichever).

Nazism exists to kill people. Without the slaughter of untermenschen there is no point. Those whoevers just cannot be allowed to live. Communism, they don't have to kill a single soul just as long as every single soul obeys. You could save yourself under communism. That might be a difference. Obedient commies might be sent off to the wars, and the system may require a certain number of victims to grease the wheels, but although your like might be worthless or if negligible value, it was not malum in se.

Where under that framework does Islam fit in? Hmmm.

None of the above is to be taken as any kind of defense of Nazism, communism or Islam. All bad in their own way, but different flavors of evil ice cream. (Oh, if you want to say Islamofascism, fine, if you see a practical difference. But really, not imho)

Bad Lieutenant said...

Just think what the Nazis would have done in Africa.

Alex said...

Well that Nazi thing went down in flames. I guess normal people don't like that kind of last minute desperation tactic.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 221 of 221   Newer› Newest»