by Milt Shook
One of the most galling things about the professional left is the number of times they lie to make a point. You can’t be a progressive and also lie to the people who read your stuff. As this blog notes time and time again, the truth has a liberal bias; Fox News needs to lie; we do not.
Case in point; the hysteria over what many pro and emo lefties refer to as the “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Even people I often admire are buying into the hysteria, and it’s become depressing.
First thing you should know is, there is NO SUCH THING as an “Indefinite Detention Bill.” The actual bill Obama first threatened to veto and has now agreed to sign is called the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.” The part about the “indefinite detention” is actually a poison pill amendment Republicans inserted into the bill to portray any Democrat who votes against it or President Obama if he vetoes it as being “against our troops.” Republicans put it there, not Democrats or Obama.
Yet, who the hell do these supposed “liberals” go after? Not the people who put that crap into the bill in the first place, of course. They go after President Obama, who has command the military (which includes my son, who’s working hard trying to rebuild Afghanistan, by the way) and have little choice but to put up with such Amendments. How incredibly stupid is this? Did so many progressive really learn NOTHING from the 2010 elections?
Obama doesn’t have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and Congress, including teabaggers, who have declared defeating Obama as their main goal, worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?
Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you’re claiming a lack of principle when you’re lying to the public about a bill that doesn’t exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?
I don’t like this amendment any more than you do. But you know what? If he vetoes this bill to kill that amendment, and then causes the Republicans to win in 2012, they’re just going to pass the same bill, and allow President Gingrich/Romney/Perry to detain people at will, anyway, right?
I remember all those many months ago when President Obama made clear that he was going to pull our military out of Iraq by the end of 2011 and how it was met with skepticism and pretty much dismissed by those in the Professional Left, who see everything through a filter that turns President Obama into another one of the Bush children.
Here are just some of the headlines from those supposedly über progressive blogs that have spent the last 3 years trashing on the most liberal president in a generation.
From Salon.com – Justin Elliott on September 12, 2011
Obama poised to break Iraq pullout promise
This one was from May 11, 2011 from Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel
Iraq Withdrawal Date For U.S. Troops May Be Pushed Back Beyond 2011
There are many more where those came from. It’s been interesting to watch as these same people who were heaping blame and skepticism on President Obama’s promise to get all the troops out of Iraq are now failing to give him any credit for it. Glenn Greenwald and others are doing all sorts of contortions in order to avoid admitting that President Obama has kept another of his promises and has ended the Iraq War, which should send the likes of Greenwald into the streets in celebration. Instead, they are, in a round about way, praising President Bush for setting the initial timetable, which everyone met with skepticism as just a temporary measure that would be changed later on. That is why the Republicans are freaking out so much about it, they never intended on leaving Iraq at the end of 2011. Robert Parry spells it out in this piece called “Why the Left Won’t Accept Success”…(emphasis mine)
If you haven’t gone to iTunes and subscribed to the Bubble Genius Bob and Chez Show podcast, you are missing out on the best political analysis around and a lot of great laughs. You can find them at their respective blogs, Bob Cesca’s Aweseome Blog! Go! and Deus Ex Malcontent where they consistently tell it like it is.
I personally look forward to the show like a little kid looks forward to candy.
A few weeks ago, they did a show called “Stop Whining”, which I highly recommend you listen to, after you subscribe to them on iTunes. But in case you prefer reading or are at work and can’t really listen, I took the time to transcribe a large portion of that show for your reading pleasure. I think it exposes the true motivations and agenda of those who have become known as the “Professional Left” or the name I prefer, “Firebaggers”.
As with anyone, I don’t agree with everything they say, but damn near everything in this portion of the show. The one thing I disagree on is the characterization of the blog post by Deaniac83 from The People’s View that was the impetus for a lot of the discussion. Deaniac83’s post about the debt ceiling deal, as I saw it, was about how that deal wasn’t as bad as it was being portrayed by many on the left. I didn’t perceive it as approving of the deal, but rather that the President made the best of a bad situation. Contrary to John Boehner’s characterization that he got 98% of what he wanted, when you look at the deal from a wider perspective, President Obama “ate his lunch”. They quickly move away from that subject and on to an incredibly insightful analysis of the “firebaggers” — who seem intent on helping the Republicans take down our Democratic President Barack Obama. Enjoy and share widely!
Bob Cesca (B)- I don’t watch Morning Joe anymore, but I can guarantee you that they were talking about this, concern trolling about it on Morning Joe over the last couple of days, because they love to do that. Oh look, the president’s losing his base…when, we’ve talked about here, it’s not really the base. The liberal blogosphere is not the base of the Democratic Party, certainly not the Obama campaign. And it never has been…we’ve always been fickle, we were divided during the primaries in 2008. A lot of people were very hesitant to jump onboard, once President Obama became the nominee. But regardless, here’s the story. Backing up on this..”The Obama administrations point person”…this if from the Huffinton Post, “The Obama campaign’s point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the President’s position on the debt deal and bashing the Nobel prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the quote
Chez Pazienza (C)- interject for a moment, the vital, vital outpost of New Mexico
B- That’s exactly right, ah…columnist Paul Krugman..
C – Defending the frontier
B- Right, the quote unquote “firebagger lefty blogosphere”, On the evening of August 1st. dunt, dunt, duh duh…cue the dubious music for this. “On the evening of Aug. 1, just after Congress passed legislation to raise the debt ceiling, Obama for America (OFA) New Mexico State Director Ray Sandoval sent an email to supporters with the subject line, “Please take 5 minutes to read this, Please.” He used the magic word twice. “”I know many of you have raised frustrations, but please, I implore you, please take 5 minutes and read the article below. It does a great job of explaining the Debt Ceiling deal,” Sandoval wrote in bold text.” Now, that was all he wrote and then it proceeded to include this blog post from a blog called The People’s View and the blog post went on to, ah, criticize Paul Krugman as being a political rookie, it used the word firebagger, you know, which is sort of the colloquialism combining Firedoglake and teabaggers, which I use that a lot, It’s, I think it’s appropriate.
C – It is actually.
B – He even used the ah…
C- I try really hard, actually, not to do too much of the adjusting names because I’ve always thought that it’s kind of childish when you do like the, you know, the Rethuglicans….(crosstalk)….but firebagger admittedly works and of course I can’t let myself off the hook for calling them teabaggers so uh..
B – Well you have to…
C – That’s a joke that makes it’s own gravy
I’m not a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald. There are many reasons why I dislike the man and his writings, but the main ones are his dishonesty and hyperbolic rhetoric. I only read him when I’m tipped off to something particularly crazy.
I’ll be honest and say that when he was assaulting the Bush administration, I was cheering him on. But even then, I noticed that Greenwald played loose with the facts and exaggerated things beyond recognition (Warning, right-wing link). So even though it was aimed at Bush, it still left a bad taste in my mouth. Lying and misleading is a Republican thing, but of course, anyone who knows about Greenwald, knows that he is a libertarian (civil, LOL) and doesn’t vote.
I was searching Google one day and came across an article in The Nation titled “A Response to Glenn Greenwald“, written by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine. Of course, I had to click on it. In recent years, Greenwald has become an example of how — with the growth of the internet — people have been given platforms who don’t deserve it and don’t have enough integrity to wield such power. Glenn Greenwald has shown time and time again that he is vicious in his attacks on people and uses every sleazy rhetorical technique known to humans to push his narrative. He is completely anti-Obama, anti-government and anti-Democratic Party. He used to be anti-Republican Party during the Bush years and that is when he established some false credibility with the left.
I did a study of his posts on Salon.com for a period of just over a month. What I found was — out of 43 posts, 38 of them were anti-Obama and the remaining 5 were about something non political. There were zero posts that attacked Republicans. ZERO! I guess the GOP hasn’t done anything recently that has upset Glenn.
If you want to experience the full impact of Glenn Greenwald’s hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric, I suggest you read things in the order that I did. None of the articles are extremely long, with the exception of Glenn’s and his many updates, so it shouldn’t take that long. But you can certainly just keep reading here, too.
I first read the response to Glenn Greenwald from Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, the subjects of Glenn’s scorn. I then went and read the original piece they had written that upset Greenwald so much. And finally, I read Greenwald’s wild-eyed screed, laying into the two people who wrote the offending piece
Salon.com used to be one of my favorite websites. I would even promote it to my friends and family – back a few years ago. I was always a little annoyed by the ads I had to watch to get a day pass, but I tolerated it. I watched as the site gradually morphed from being anti-Bush to anti-Obama, in many ways they seem to have just replaced the names. I stopped reading them very soon after noticing this shift.
Well it has come full circle now and the main writers for the site are openly antagonizing Democrats and supporters of President Obama. Last night on Twitter, Joan Walsh and Glenn Greenwald both lobbed loaded tweets into the mix, apparently trying to goad some of us into a Twitter brawl. The funny thing is, the circle of folks I travel with on Twitter, for the most part, ignored them. We surmised that they were trying to increase attention and thus traffic for their failing site. Here is a tweet that clearly shows Ms. Walsh’s dislike for all of us who support our president…(emphasis mine)
@joanwalsh Funny to watch Obamalovers savage Frank Rich. He was one of his most ardent, earliest MSM defenders in 2008.
Personally, I think the “Obamalovers” word is a play on the “n” word version that I was called throughout my early life. My best friend and first “girlfriend” in grade school were black, I heard that slur many times in my young life. But others didn’t necessarily see her use of that word that way. Glenn Greenwald has also used “Obamalover” in referring to us Democrats who support the President.
The “defenders” comment leveled at Frank Rich, who has written a twisted piece of late on President Obama, is almost as bad. It contains that subtle implication that there is something that needs to be defended. A very presumptive framing that basically labels and dismisses the person in one fell swoop. I’m surprised it didn’t include “dear leader”, another favorite of the people on the left who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The following is a snippet from a great piece that I will probably revisit in future posts, it’s really good. It’s based on a post called “14 Propaganda Techniques that Fox ‘News’ Uses to Brainwash Americans”, except Marion at Addicting Info points the spotlight on the “professional critics” as I’ve been calling them lately. From Marion…(emphasis mine)
Meanwhile, we’ve seen Hamsher and her cronies on the FDL site refer to the President as “the Affirmative Action President,” “Bugaloo Bush,” and even “the house nigger.”
It’s not just the President for whom they’re aiming. Olbermann and Joan Walsh, inveterate Twitterers, regularly engage in punching down at followers from the Left who disagree with their opinions. Olbermann’s favourite tack is to address these people as “morons.” Joan tells people to “get help” or she opines that their lives must suck (to be so stupid as to dare disagree with someone so far elevated by appearances on television that they must know the subject about which they discourse).
In fact, quite recently, Joan reckoned that anyone who vigorously defended the President was actually a GOP troll, most likely paid by Andrew Breitbart, and that these people would do more damage to Barack Obama than anyone else.
The other day I Tweeted a snarky comment to Joan Walsh, more as an observation than anything, but I saw a title of a post that Joan Walsh had up at Salon about the death of Clarence Clemons. The title was “How big was the Big Man? ‘Too F-ing big to die.’ Bruce Springsteen remembers the great Clarence Clemons and their early interracial bromance”
Here is my Twitter exchange with the one and only Joan Walsh on the above title…
Me: So @joanwalsh just called Clarence Clemons and Springstein’s relationship an “interracial bromance”…WTF, why did she have to add race?
Joan Walsh: @ExtremeLiberal Because Springsteen (that’s 2 E’s) added race in his incredible eulogy, which you clearly haven’t read. Sad.
Me: @joanwalsh I see, so that makes it OK to call it an interracial bromance? He was talking about the racism that the Big Man suffered.
Me: @joanwalsh What is sad is your lack of self-awareness. At least you didn’t say you were punching down, I’ll give you that.
Me: @joanwalsh I just read your post, is there more? I could see using bromance, but why add the interracial part, isn’t that kind of obvious.
Joan Walsh: @ExtremeLiberal I see you still haven’t read the eulogy.
Me: @joanwalsh I just read the whole thing, still don’t see why you had to characterize their friendship that way? Why?
I really didn’t see it as that egregious, but was just pointing out that for some reason she had to portray it as an “interracial” bromance. I liken it to when people talk about someone and feel compelled to refer to them as black, whereas if they were talking about a white person, they wouldn’t feel the need to say they were white. It’s a subtle thing that annoys me and I make a concerted effort to never do it. Joan justified her use of it by implying that Bruce Springsteen had used it, when all he talked about in his eulogy was the racism “The Big Man” had suffered in the early days of the band. So apparently because Bruce talked about race, then Joan has permission to call it an “interracial bromance”.
I used to work for a video rental chain that I learned was quite racist. I was just out of college, working as an assistant manager and was asked to interview some part-time employees. A guy applied who was African American and I sent his resume and application to the home office in Illinois. They liked it and told me to interview him, which I did. I hired him. I never mentioned his race, why would I? Well I remember the first time my boss, the District Manager walked in and saw him. He was clearly irritated and asked me to walk outside with him. I didn’t play his game of innuendo and basically insulted him in a round about way.
It baffles me why these people at Salon, Firedoglake and others, who like to drape themselves with the “progressive” label, are fighting so hard against the most liberal president we’ve had since FDR. Joan Walsh’s out of the blue tweet disparaging us with “Obamalover” and “defenders” was clearly an attempt to goad us into a Twitter brawl or to create some controversy so that people will go to her website. Greenwald does the same thing with the titles of his posts, he’s trying to get traffic by insulting or riling up people who support President Obama. How pathetic is it that they have to rely on negative traffic to keep their advertisers happy.
Don’t give Salon.com or Firedoglake.com the clicks they so crave. Resist the urge to click when they try to lure you in to their lair. They are using you for your clicks and want you to link to their bullshit posts for even more clicks. Stop it!
Glenn Greenwald has been pushing the idea that President Obama has been waging an “unprecedented war on whistleblowers.” Yesterday on Twitter, he was fawning over a Jane Mayer magazine article on the subject. I see this as a perfect example of the rabidness of Greenwald and how simple his mind is.
To start with, the Justice department under President Obama has returned to the way it used to be, prior to the Bush years where it was micro-managed by the White House and Karl Rove. Career, honorable lawyers are back at the Justice department. I really don’t think President Obama is calling Eric Holder every morning to get details on every single fucking case in front of the Justice department and picking and choosing who to prosecute. Yet, every time Greenwald mentions any prosecutions, he HAS to directly blame President Obama. Maybe he’s just confused about what job Barack Obama has. Here is one example of how Glenn plays his game, because you know President Obama is so much like Dick Cheney, cough, spit, choke…this starts with a quote from James Risen and then Glenn injects his craziness…
Risen: I was told by a reliable source that Vice President Dick Cheney pressured the Justice Department to personally target me because he was unhappy with my reporting and wanted to see me in jail.
Greenwald: As it has in so many other instances, the Obama administration appears on the verge of fulfilling Dick Cheney’s nefarious wish beyond what even Cheney could achieve.
I guess in Glenn’s simple brain, Eric Holder should have dropped any cases started in the previous administration, just wipe the slate clean. Glenn really can’t be that fucking stupid, can he? He uses whatever he can to attack President Obama directly, taking every action of every person in his administration and blaming the President for it. Could it be that because of 8 years of Bush’s appointing of completely incompetent, agenda driven trolls, that maybe that has something to do with more leaking of atrocities perpetuated by the previous administration and thus more prosecutions? Could it be that more people are leaking than ever before? Could it be that with thumb drives being a dime a dozen and easily tucked in your pocket, that maybe it is easier for people to copy information and then distribute it with a click of a button on the computer? And could it be that in our information age where people have much greater access to information, that maybe that has something to do with the amount of leaks that have occurred.
One person’s leak is another person’s whistleblowing. Who gets to decide which is which? Is it Glenn Greenwald? Maybe the President should just check with Glenn every time someone is caught leaking information from our government. Or maybe we should just stop prosecuting all leakers, making our government secrets available to all, come one, come all. On the face, Glenn Greenwald and Jane Mayer’s assertion and assigning of motives to President Obama is completely naive to the way our system works. When a law is broken, the justice department investigates. They gather information and determine if they have a case and whether the law applies. It’s kind of like their job. If the Justice department didn’t pursue cases against leaks (whether they fit the whistleblowing criteria or not) they would be derelict in their duties. Since when does the justice department not prosecute people who have broken the law, even when they may have revealed horrible atrocities and like I said, who gets to decide what is a leak and what is a whistle being blown? Maybe Glenn can provide a service to the government and pick and chose which ones he thinks should be prosecuted, since I’m sure he is privy to all the evidence that Eric Holder and his dedicated team of prosecutors have access to. I’m sure Glenn, because he practiced law for sooooo long and was sooooo successful, is better able to make those determinations than these respected, accomplished lawyers in the Justice department.
Glenn Greenwald has an agenda and will use whatever he can get his hands on and twist it, exaggerate it, lie about it and assign motives to that bad man in the White House whenever anyone in his administration does anything that Glenn thinks can be used to attack. The man has some serious issues and I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it. The curtain is being pulled back on you Glenn.
In my morning perusing of my favorite blogs I came across several great posts taking on the Professional Left, so I thought I would share those links in case others like seeing their lies and innuendo exposed. It turns out to be the Glenn Greenwald edition for the most part. He’s the biggest and loudest blowhard in the bunch and has stepped in quicksand, going down quickly.
Angry Black Lady takes on one of Glenn Greenwald’s many lies, he’s been spewing multiple lies each day, it’s hard to keep up with his utter bullshit.
The People’s View takes on the man most responsible for me becoming a blogger, John Aravosis, who has been trying to drive a wedge between the gay community and the Obama administration since before the 2008 election.
The People’s View also goes after Glenn Greenwald on his utter stupidity when it comes to civil liberties and terrorists.
Rooted Cosmopolitan put this up over a week ago, but it nails Greenwald on some of his warped opinions on the death of OBL.
Comments from The Left digs up a some craziness from Bob Somersby at the Daily Howler who thinks birtherism and the extreme vitriol from the right has nothing to do with our President’s race.
Dana Houle at Rooted Cosmopolitan dissected Glenn Greenwald’s interview with Out magazine a few weeks ago, very revealing. It’s an oldie but a goodie.
I’ve posted many times about polls on this blog, having some schooling in the subject. Now the pollsters are polling about polls.
And if you missed our awesome President on 60 minutes, JM Ashby put it up here to watch. You really should watch it, much more reliable than the media filters.
All the discussion about Hillary in that Situation Room photo, well, how about we just remove her from the picture like this newspaper did.
I totally agree with this, why doesn’t Andrew Breitbart just get a job already.
Wow, is Bill Maher trying to get attention using a racial slur and stereotype?
Check out some more great photos from the parade and protest in Benton Harbor, Michigan on Saturday.
And last, but not least, what fun would a Monday be without calling out Glenn Greenwald on his bullshit?
I just found this post at Osborne Ink (Twitter link from him) about the Bradley Manning fiasco that Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher are using to sucker people into giving money to there PAC and clicking on their shitty blogs for even more click-money. Matt Osborne actually served in our military and signed papers saying he wouldn’t do what Bradley Manning did. His perspective is very worthy of reading, here is a small piece, go read the whole thing…
To whom Manning gave secrets, why, and whether Julian Assange asked him first are really not important questions here. When the military court convenes (and the delay is because his defense asked for it), the only question that will get answered is did Bradley Manning break the law? And the almost-certain answer is “yes.”
Giving away American secrets is against the law; the penalties are stiff. Manning knew that, but chose to give secrets away — and then got caught by bragging about it to strangers on the internet. That there are no other prisoners in Quantico accused of espionage is a happy accident: most American service members take their oaths as seriously as I did, and do. Manning didn’t. A justice system will adjudicate what that means, not Glenn Greenwald.
Put another way: there are something like 25,000 Americans enduring the same inhumane conditions as Bradley Manning, and while I would love to have a national conversation about prison reform this is not that.
As a newby to Twitter and because I follow Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher so I can torment them, :) , I get to see what they promote on their Twitter feeds. It’s a virtual Bradley Manning Wheel O’ Fun coming from those two hateful people. They’ve apparently found a small nitch of uber anti-government, anti-authority, anti-Obama, anti-whatever-works-for-clicks group of people who they throw red meat to on a regular basis. One of them was hassling me this morning and he reeked of being a Glennbot, same stupid logic, same stupid arrogance…maybe it was Glenn.
I learned a lot about Glenn Greenwald today with so many cool people writing great stuff and others sharing it on Twitter and blogs. I decided that I would compile all the great links I came across today as a way to gather the information in a unified place. I may update it too, feel free to contribute links in the comments or email them to me if you want to stay anonymous. I’ve compiled a lot of links on Jane Hamsher too, I may have to lay them out too…one of these days.
This one is about his most famous case as a lawyer, he’s said some interesting things over the years.
Apparently Glenn Greenwald didn’t have much of a problem with President George W. Bush.
Click Read More for much more Greenwald Fun!
If you don’t know the expression “Jump the Shark”, go here to get caught up. The last few days have been pretty wild in the left blogotubes. I’m just going to rant a bit, WARNING, PROFANITY TO FOLLOW, put the kids to bed. If you are offended by profanity, you may want to skip this post.
The Professional Left – I am so fucking pissed at these selfish, money-grubbing, petty asswipes who seem to be intent on bringing the Democratic party to their knees and elevating the fucking evil Republicans and Teabaggers to power. Maybe they need to come and visit Michigan, where we have one of the nuttiest fucking governors ever elected to the office, fucking over the poor, the jobless, students, children, senior citizens (he’s raising taxes on seniors) and he torpedoed a very successful film incentive program from our former Governor Granholm, who was awesome, considering the mess she was handed by our previous wingnut Governor John Engler.
Here are some of the responses from the REAL LEFT BLOGOSPHERE, mostly towards the whiny ass titty babies in the Professional Left…
Matt Osborne (Osborne Ink) – Firebaggers are all “I’m not specifically seeing my pony, ergo it’s a conservative Obot trick.” AND I often think of firebaggers as Monday morning QBs who think they know football better than their favorite team’s coach.
Angry Black Lady (Angry Black Lady Chronicles) – (to Jane Hamsher) you are a very petty person. Enjoy your irrelevance, Jane. You can drink to THAT.
Black Water Dog (The Only Adult In The Room) – (to Ezra Klein) Not a bad thing to actually wait to hear the speech itself, right? AND “the president we voted for”??? Go to hell, U didnt back him once in the last 2 years and you’ll turn against him tomorrow. U can’t fool us.
Johnny C (Motor City Liberal) – I unsubscribed to PCCC and told them they fuckin suck when I went to unsubscribe page.
Rick Klein – (The Note) to re-cap a bit more: President Obama took Paul Ryan’s plan off the table and then stomped on it for a while.
Oliver Willis (Oliver Willis) – Obama got so taken in during budget deal, Pawlenty now arguing versus the deal.
Melissa Harris-Perry – (Melissa Harris-Perry) And I think the Left has unsophisticated idea of how to hold the Party “accountable”
Bob Cesca (Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog! Go!) – All of the progressive freakouts about “Medicare being on the table” prior to the president’s speech today were, once again, a series of emo kneejerk overreactions.
Side note of trivia…one of my brothers played guitar on the song “Happy Days”, won a gold record for it. That’s where the “jumping the shark” reference is from, Happy Days.
And I don’t know about you, but I’m investing in fainting couches…Greenwald and Hamsher have to be going through them daily.
I had every intention of writing a post about the budget deal that went down last night, but in scanning my favorite blogs, I came across this post from Angry Black Lady at her most excellent blog, if you don’t have it bookmarked, there is something wrong with you. :)
My opinion of Joan Walsh (Salon.com), up until now, has been pretty neutral, I don’t usually read her articles and mostly just see her on MSNBC. For the most part, she didn’t seem as anti-Obama as others in the “professional left” who have been and continue to make money on the backs of liberals. They haven’t all cashed in yet, like Arianna Huffington, give them time.
While reading through the twitter fight between ABL and Joan Walsh, it became very clear to me how she feels. You can judge for yourself. It also shed some light on why Glenn Greenwald could get away with calling us supporters of POTUS “Obama-lovers” with no repercussions. “Obama-lovers”…did you catch that? Here is the meat of the exchange on twitter that Joan Walsh is desperately trying to spin…
@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of Dem party and ignore AA’s, we are even
@joanwalsh PBO is not your lap dog, thank god Gibbs called out the liars in the progressive media, u have done nothing but act like baggers
@truthrose1 Not saying white progressives are THE base; opposite. But I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE. Wrong.
@joanwalsh white progressive voices use the term “the base” carelessly that is my point
@joanwalsh AA’s are not the entire base, however, white progressive voices ignore us and act as if we don’t exist
@truthrose1 No, I don’t. That’s insanely unfair. Talk to a person, not your stereotypes. Please. Tiresome, really.
@joanwalsh history will show how the so called “progressive” wing of the Dem party was a toxic and deceitful bunch of back stabbers.
@truthrose1 You’re toxic, I’m sorry. Jesus. Get some help.
I’m addling a comment that just came in over at ABL’s site that I just loved.
Author: Kerry Reid
I generally agree, Ricky. But one thing I’ve found hilarious from the Firebagger set is that they can use the most vicious (and racist) invective against Obama — but if members of his administration should happen to dish it back even slightly, then they hit the fainting couches and clutch the pearls. It’s politics, kids. If you don’t have a Teflon ass, stay out of the kitchen. (Or mixed metaphors to that effect.)
I’m just awfully glad some of the Whiny White Professional Left set weren’t in charge of the civil rights movement or the women’s rights movement or gay rights or any of the other significant social movements of the last 50 years — movements that frequently found the participants and leaders taking nightsticks to the head, forced feedings, teargas, imprisonment, police dogs, firehoses, actual assassinations.
Apparently one needn’t use actual sticks and stones to break the bones of the Poutrage Set. Words are enough to crumple them into a whimpering pile in the corner.
Click on “More” to see a large portion of Joan Walsh’s quest to dig herself out of a hole.
I’m not going to copy and paste from this post by Shoq Value, it is worth reading the whole thing if you have any interest in the concept that the Bradley Manning controversy is being over hyped and used as a way to fatten people’s wallets by bringing attention to them and raising the number of clicks and donations to the “PAC of the Week” at Firedoglake. And of course you know Glenn Greenwald is in on Jane Hamsher’s PAC thing too, right?
Shoq Value has been taking on Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher quite a bit, I’m getting caught up on his posts but haven’t read this one and this one, which look like some fun weekend reading to me. Go take a look if you give a shit about all this, I totally understand if you pass on it. It gets pretty pettty…I like that, pretty petty. Tweet fights are the new slap boxing. I’ll be doing a little posting this weekend and I have a lot on the plate for next week. Have a good weekend, ya’ll.
I read this post over at Bob Cesca’s “Truly” Awesome Blog! Go! several days ago, which was about an exchange that happened in January between Paul Krugman and Glenn Beck, I mean Greenwald…sorry. So I decided to read it and follow the links. As usual, whenever I read a post by Glenn, I immediately start questioning his voracity because of his over-the-top rhetoric. I then follow his links and discover that he frequently lies, embellishes and mischaracterizes what the link says. It is maddening, this guy uses the exact same techniques as the wingnuts. I usually try to just stay away from his rantings, it’s just best that way…for my blood pressure.
The disagreement between Krugman and Greenwald was about a side issue, related but different from what I’m writing about. In this instance, Greenwald attacks, exaggerates and extrapolates nefarious motives to both the subject of the attack, Cass Sunstein and the Obama administration where he now works. It is about a paper that Sunstein co-wrote with Adrian Vermeule, a joint paper for Harvard University Law School and the University of Chicago Law School about how to counter false conspiracy theories. With the explosion of the internet, these conspiracy theories have multiplied exponentially in recent years. Greenwald’s mistake, as far as I’m concerned, was posting the link to the actual paper. If he is going to lie so much and mischaracterize, he should reconsider whether to put the link up or not. Here are two paragraphs that I will try to straighten out the truth in…the entire thing is loaded with it, but I was exhausted just doing those two paragraphs. From Greenwald’s hyperbolic post…(emphasis is Greenwald’s)
Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer.
Where to begin, where to begin. He starts out by calling the paper “pernicious” (causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful), which would certainly help get the reader in the right mindset for what was to come, lots of hyperbole. Good one, Glenn. He then gives us “U.S. government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to cognitively infiltrate online groups and websites.” But if you actually read the paper, it’s not quite the way Glenn describes it. First he says “employ teams of covert agents”…ooooo, so sinister, huh. The paper proposed a few different ways that they could try to neutralize FALSE conspiracy theories by presenting facts to the people spreading the conspiracies. The paper discussed whether it was better for the government not to do anything at all or whether they should do it covertly or whether they should hire people who believed the truth about the matter to inject the truth into the discussion. In all cases, it was to present facts to the people perpetuating the conspiracy. This was a scholarly paper that was looking seriously at the phenomenon of false conspiracy theories, not a nefarious plan for his “confidant” to do harm or to “infiltrate” anything. Like I said, It centered mostly on presenting facts to these groups to try to neutralize the false conspiracies. Now maybe Glenn likes him some false conspiracies and sees it as a direct assault on him.
When Glenn says “views that Sunstein deems ‘false conspiracy theories'”, to me, that really shows Greenwald’s bias towards one of the authors, Cass Sunstein. Maybe Glenn just isn’t aware that when writing a paper and studying a topic, one usually does set up parameters for the study and define the problem, in which case Sunstein or Vermeule, the authors, would have to define what they are writing about. I guess Greenwald had to somehow support his “pernicious” claim at the front end of his propaganda piece and how better do that than to cast aspersions on the author and taint his readers with more distortions of an academic paper.
He also says “This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.” Now once again, this paper was about dispelling “false conspiracy theories” with facts, not anything about “increase citizens faith” in government…he just made that up completely. Having read the paper and searched within it for the words “faith” and “government”, I found nothing even close to that. He just completely made up the “increase citizens faith…”, completely. Why would that be, do you suppose? I’m not sure I can trust a single word that assholes writes anymore? And if by dispelling a false conspiracy theory, it “undermines” one of these conspiracists…well, I guess the truth hurts, doesn’t it. Maybe Glenn just identifies so much with these false conspiracists…BECAUSE HE IS ONE HIMSELF!!!!
He keeps on going with “secret payments” to “so-called independent credible voices”. In reading the paper, I didn’t see anything about “secret payments”, the people would be paid and if they were doing it covertly, then yes, to the people in the chat room it would be a “secret payment.” I don’t really think that IF the government did this, that it would be covert CIA agents doing the infiltrating, but even if it were the case, I guess all CIA agents receive “secret payments”…ooooooo, spy shit.
Oh, there’s more bullshit….”to bolster the Government’s messaging.” Ah, Glenn, this wasn’t a paper about bolstering any message of the government. It was about false conspiracy theories and how to introduce facts into the dialog about them. It isn’t some nefarious…oh wait, EVERYTHING is nefarious with Glenn Greenwald…paper about how to spread propaganda or “messaging.” Nowhere in the entire paper does it talk about messaging or bolstering a message, nowhere, nothing, nada. Greenwald just lies through his fucking pie-hole about that too. Why in the hell would Glenn Beck….Greenwald, I’m sorry I did it again, want to shift the discussion to “messaging” instead of what the paper was about, dispelling FALSE conspiracies. I guess if you live in Glenn Greenwald’s world, you are constantly looking over your shoulder for the next infiltration or secret payment or guilt by association or guilt by omission…so he can be righteously indignant.
He clearly has a profound hatred for Obama and that has clouded his thinking and caused him to lose his ability to think clearly. How else can you explain such a blatant smear job, loaded with lies, exaggerations, innuendo and snark on top of it. Like I said before (in a different way), he’s an idiot to provide links to the actual documents. If he continues as the propagandist that he has become, he might want to make people work a little harder to find the links that refute his long-winded, constantly Updated, revised and over-defended posts. Salon.com ought to fire his lying ass, if you ask me. I have a lot of respect for Joan Walsh but can’t quite comprehend why she keeps this asshole around.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the President gets to pick the nominees for the Supreme Court, right? Did I miss some new law that makes Glenn Greenwald the person who gets to pick the nominees? Glenn Greenwald is one of those bloggers that often has very great stuff to say, he was particularly good during the Bush years but after seeing him on the Teevee recently and reading some of his writings about the nomination of Elena Kagan, I’m second guessing whether he was making shit up about Bush too. There are many examples of his misleading, mischaracterizing and in some cases lying about Elena Kagan’s record. I’ve gone out and looked at some of his stuff and found some pretty over the top hyperbole, here is one example…(emphasis is mine)
Well, I think that, to begin with, it’s very difficult to know what it would mean, because she’s somebody who has managed to avoid taking a position on virtually every single issue of importance over the last two decades.
That’s weird, because just since her nomination, I’ve heard all sorts of her positions and even more about her character and some pretty awesome references too. He goes on in the same paragraph with more…
And in order to know what the impact of a Supreme Court nominee will be, it’s important not only to assess them in isolation, but also relative to who they’re replacing. And there’s a very substantial likelihood that Kagan is more conservative than the justice she’s replacing, which is John Paul Stevens, which means even if she’s a relatively decent person and a good Democrat, the effect that she would have, very likely, is to move the Court to the right.
So let’s see here, “a substantial likelihood” that Kagan is more conservative…based on what? Is it just his opinion or is there some basis for it? From all I’ve read from Mr. Greenwald, I haven’t found his specificity on why he thinks she is so conservative or moderate or not perfect in his mind. He goes on to say that she would, “very likely”, move the court to the right because she’s replacing John Paul Stevens, WHO WAS NOMINATED BY A REPUBLICAN. More hyperbole from Greenwald…
But I think the real issue is, we know virtually nothing about what she thinks about anything. She’s managed to remain a totally blank slate. She has no experience, not even just not as a judge, but even in court, in a courtroom.
Now this is where Glenn crosses the line in my opinion and begins to act like he personally should have some say in who President Obama picks “we know virtually nothing about what she thinks about anything”…as if he were on the selection committee. He sure thinks highly of his own opinion, that’s for sure. In reading a lot of his writing, you would think that he was elected president in November of 2008 and was given the right to pick the supreme court nominees. Hey Glenn, when you get elected president (cough) then you can pick a supreme court nominee. Until then, quit acting like we owe you something, it makes you look like a whiny malcontent. I suspect that if he didn’t use over-the-top rhetoric, he might be more persuasive but as it is, he looks like a jilted lover or something. He was on Rachel Maddow last night and clearly has a lot of pent-up hatred, and based on his over-the-top rhetoric on health care reform, I would say he doesn’t care for Barack Obama. Here is some more over-the-top hyperbole…
Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration’s lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority.
Woe, now she is a “principle-free careerist” huh? I would say that given Glenn Greenwald’s stream of bullshit against Elena Kagan, that he is lacking in some principles too. I read on his wikipedia entry that he quit practicing constitutional law after 10 years because “I was bored with litigating full-time…”. So litigating bored him, huh, had to make a career change. So tell me why I should listen to a “quitter”? The only thing he keeps coming back to is a lack of information about her opinions, so apparently he just projects whatever the hell he wants on her and then hates her for it.
It’s even less surprising that Obama would not want to choose someone like Diane Wood. If you were Barack Obama, would you want someone on the Supreme Court who has bravely insisted on the need for Constitutional limits on executive authority, resolutely condemned the use of Terrorism fear-mongering for greater government power, explicitly argued against military commissions and indefinite detention, repeatedly applied the progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution on a wide array of issues, insisted upon the need for robust transparency and checks and balances, and demonstrated a willingness to defy institutional orthodoxies even when doing so is unpopular? Of course you wouldn’t. Why would you want someone on the Court who has expressed serious Constitutional and legal doubts about your core policies?
Ahhhhhhh, you see here where his head really is. He just plain hates Barack Obama, because he isn’t Hillary, I suspect. Claiming that Obama’s core policies are the opposite of Diane Wood’s, who was the horse he wanted in the race, is way over the top. It just reeks of “sore loser” to me. It’s so much like a jilted lover who sees everything through a veil of hatred towards that person. Like I said before, if he didn’t go so far over-the-top, he might be more convincing in his arguments, but he apparently lets his emotions take over…which lays waste to his arguments.
I don’t claim to know a shitload about Elena Kagan, but I do know a lot about the president I voted for, Barack Obama, and I certainly respect his intelligence and his respect for the constitution and I am very comfortable supporting whoever he picks to be on the SCOTUS. It isn’t blind faith, like I’m sure the trolls will put in their comments, but living in the real world where people vote, lawmakers make laws, presidents get to nominate people and sore losers get to whine like little children.