Said Niko Horvat, of Dubrovnik,
"I’m feeling a little bit lovesick."
He went to Tatjana,
Who said "I’ll get on ya,
But first you must put on a glove, Nick!"

The “other version” of the Hitler-Coakley-Brown video has now received well over a million views. But not only on DrRonPaul2012’s page. The same video has been uploaded to YouTube by:

• Battlefield315 (67,000 views as of Friday afternoon)
• RonPaul4Pres2K8 (4,200)
• tikamue (1,500)
• tonytonytee (1,200)
• wbradss (400)

… and a whole bunch of others. There are probably additional me-too posts coming in every hour.

So now I’m wondering whether DrRonPaul2012 is really the author of the subtitles of “Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Massachusetts Senate Seat” or if he was also merely a re-poster who happened to get found by the right people.

Can anyone shed some light the true origins of this clip? (Not the TRUE origins … we know it’s from the movie “Downfall.” I mean the true origins of the more popular Coakley-Brown version.) And if DrRonPaul2012 is not the real subtitle author, does the real subtitle author have any copyright claims against him? Or does the fact that we’ve all be stealing from “fairly using” the original movie void any sort of authorship rights for the new subtitles we’ve added?

Some three-and-a-half hours later, I posted my creation:

I put a link to the video in my Facebook status update and in a tweet with the #MASen hashtag, and went to bed.

This morning I was very happy to see that a handful of people had already watched it. Some of my Facebook friends shared it, and some of their friends watched it, too. It wasn’t too long before the video had over 100 views. I was pretty psyched. People were paying attention.

Then around 1:00 this afternoon I saw myself mentioned in a tweet. It said “@universalhub Local playwright Dave Schrag’s video @dvschrag is a better take: http://bit.ly/7iOtjH.” OK, I thought, that’s good news. One of my friends is spreading the word. But then I thought … Wait a minute. A “better take” than what?

I looked at @universalhub’s earlier tweets and found “Hitler is stunned by Coakley’s defeat. http://bit.ly/6pRqzt.” Someone else had come up with exactly the same idea. And this other video was getting picked up all over the place, including big-name sites like Comedy Central. It was no contest. By early evening, my video had been watched almost 350 times, a number that I would have been awfully pleased with twelve hours prior. But this other video – which is funny but, IMHO, not as funny as mine – had almost 75,000 views. Seventy-five-THOUSAND views in a day. It was the 55th most viewed video today on ALL OF YOUTUBE!

So I ask those of you who know this stuff better than I, what did I do wrong? Why did this other guy go viral and not me? Did I fail to plant some seeds in the most obvious places? Or did this DrRonPaul2012 fellow have a huge head start on me? (He’s only got 61 YouTube subscribers, so I don’t think that alone could account for the rapid spread.)

Any ideas?

Double Yellow Lines: Both Solid
Two solid yellow lines prohibit vehicles moving in either direction from crossing the lines to pass another vehicle. You may not cross these lines unless turning left when it is safe to do so.
[Caption to illustration:] Do not cross a double yellow line unless turning left.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 14 – the code I allegedly violated – has this and only this to say on the subject of left turns:

When approaching for a left turn on a two-way street, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic to the right of and nearest to the center line of the roadway and the left turn shall be made by passing to the right of the center line of the entering way where it enters the intersection from his left. When turning to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway an operator shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, including a bicycle on the right of the other approaching vehicles, which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard. It shall not be a defense for a motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of vehicular traffic. When approaching for a left turn on a one-way street, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the left-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of roadway.

As I see it, the only way I can be said to have violated the law is under one of the following conditions:

1. The turn I made was a U-turn rather than a left turn, and U-turns are never permitted across double solid yellow lines.
2. The presence of the traffic island partly blocking the entrance to the driveway is by itself clear evidence that left turns and/or U-turns into the driveway are prohibited.

It is my contention that:

1. The turn was not a U-turn because by the time I started turning in a direction back toward my pre-turn position, I was already in the driveway. In other words, I made a left turn into the entrance of the driveway, then I bore further left after entering the driveway, and then followed the driveway around to the right.
2. Even if the turn was a U-turn, there is no absolute prohibition against U-turns that cross double solid yellow lines.
3. The traffic island’s purpose is to prevent cars that are leaving the driveway from turning left onto Arsenal Street, not to prevent cars Arsenal Street to enter the driveway when it is safe to do so. If left turns into the driveway are prohibited, there should be a “No Left Turn” sign either on Arsenal Street or on the traffic island itself.
4. Because all oncoming traffic was stopped at a light in front of me and I had a clear view of any potential obstacles, there was nothing inherently unsafe about the turn I made.

Here are some additional photos with close-ups of the traffic island:

(note how easily a car turning left can enter the driveway, and the absence of signage on the traffic island)

(a closer view of the driveway entrance)

(if no left turns are permitted, it could and should say so right here)

Some have pointed out that I could have made a left turn into the same parking log another half-block ahead, where there is a traffic light. True enough. But by that reasoning, virtually every U-turn should be prohibited and drivers should always proceed to the next intersection and make a series of left and right turns in order to change direction.

I’ll admit to being impatient, but I won’t admit to being unsafe or to violating the law.

Around ten after nine an unrobed man came in, positioned himself in front of the judge’s bench, introduced himself as Mr. Finucane, and explained what was going to happen this morning and what our rights for appeal were in the event that we did not agree with his decision. He swore us in en masse. Then the cases were heard. Mine was third, and up to that point the defendants were zero for two.

A police officer – not the one who had stopped me – read the charges against me. But I had come prepared. I explained that no law prohibited what I had done, and I told Mr. Finucane I had a video recreation of the events in question. He called me to his bench and had me play it, asking me to adjust the screen at one point so that the cop could see it. This is what they saw: (NOTE: This video was uploaded to MSN Soapbox, which is being shut down on August 31, 2009. After that date, the video will no longer be accessible)

As the video played, I pointed out that the traffic light ahead of me had stopped all oncoming traffic and so it was perfectly safe for me to make a left turn. I also pointed out that the entrance into the parking lot was only slightly obstructed and that no U-turn or other unusual maneuver was required for me to enter.

I informed Mr. Finucane that I also had still photographs if he wanted to see them. He declined. I stepped back. He asked no further questions but proceeded to announce the verdict: “I find you responsible …” I was stunned. I immediately announced my intention to appeal. As I signed the requisite form the cop said to me “You know, sir, there’s a traffic island there that’s intended to prevent you from making a left turn at that spot.” “But there’s no sign telling you that you can’t,” I said, “I know that know.” The cop laughed.

I had to pay $50.00 in cash to get the appeals process started. Yes, I’m paying $50.00 to appeal a $35.00 ticket. But the true cost of a moving violation is much larger than the face value, because it affects your auto and umbrella insurance premiums.

My appeal will be heard in six to eight weeks. Free the Watertown One!

Wertigo (WAYR-ti-goh): the sensation of confusion and disbelief that arises after the apparent disappearance of an object that was just there a second ago, just put down, or was just in one’s hands. Most commonly experienced when working with tools and writing implements.

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/08/who-is-the-mother-of-trig-paxon-van-palin

http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

One such tale dates back to Palin’s days as a star high school basketball player in Wasilla, Alaska. According to a 2008 biography by Kaylene Johnson, Palin achieved fame by making an important free throw in a statewide basketball championship game. Now a source who claims to have first-hand knowledge of the event is reporting that Johnson left out a critical detail from the story. According to this source, immediately before Palin sank the free throw, she loudly passed gas and sent the entire arena into fits of laughter. Palin allegedly skipped the post-game celebration and refused to go back to school for a week.

The potential impact on the campaign of this revelation, if proved true, is unclear at this point. Some analysts believe it could drag down Palin’s image as a clean-cut reformer, while others noted that it might serve to humanize her in the eyes of the voters. Several commentators questioned the validity of the report, however, noting that the story bore striking similarities to an episode of the TV sitcom “Roseanne,” in which Becky cut the cheese. Neither the McCain-Palin nor the Obama-Biden campaigns could be reached for comment.

Whether or not this specific rumor — which some in the media quickly dubbed “Fartgate” — turns out to have legs, the fact that it has surfaced so quickly is yet another testament to the impact that the Internet can have on today’s political climate.