Why not, then? I’ll have a go.
First: There is a reason I long ago stopped reading Greenwald. That would be captured by this joke. Greenwald does a real service when he points out the facts of the surveillance state. He does monumental disservice when his particular version of civil liberties purity leads him to make strongly imply/tiptoe up to the brink of a practical political judgment* — Paul over Obama — and his factionalism leads him to paint those who disagree with that judgment along the lines found in this image:
That kind of nonsense is how we let the worse angels among us bring in regimes like that of the 43rd president of the United States, objectively pro-torture (and much more) in a way that 44 is not.
As for Paul himself — I’m not even going to repeat what many here have said better: that Greenwald’s Paul fixation turns on fantasies. You don’t even need the racism to know that he would be a terrible president, that liberty in any practical sense for most individuals would diminish, and that the daily lives of most Americans would be harder under the bonkers gold-buggery and all the rest with which a Paul administration would wreck the economy. In that context, his race profiteering and his deference to the Lost Causers’ “liberty” to crush the rights of other Americans, just tells you that Paul is a pure waste of carbon, on top of the potential disaster he represents should he ever pull the levers of real power.
All of which is to say that I feel myself fortunate to have enjoyed my brother’s 50th birthday celebration over the last several days, ignoring the web, thus missing all the excitement. Had I been checking out my surroundings, I would have said that Greenwald is, IMHO, bluntly and blatantly in the wrong in this latest exchange — and that I hope ABL returns to posting here soon.
To which calming end let me offer up one photo (and a couple of bonus images below the jump) of a genre in too short supply around here lately.
Pets!
Here’s my cat, Tikka, thinking deep thoughts:
And for everyone who’s gotten a little too anxious to join the circular firing squad lately, may I suggest some personal time with your local version of my antidote to the long dark teatime of the soul? That would be, for me, almost any line where the shore meets the sea:
And last, lest the moment pass without at least a hint of political snark, let me offer one more treat, something I’ve been saving up for when we all need something nice. That would be this image, sent to me by some now-lost-to-the-‘tubes Samaritan, titled “Silly Putty Rupert Murdoch”
Perhaps you’ve all been wanting some more thread?
*Change made to satisfy those who feel that touting the virtues of Congressman Paul’s libertarian views, whilst condemning in the strongest possible language the moral and policy choices of President Obama does not constitute a direct endorsement.
Images: Fransisco de Goya y Lucientes, The Lamp of the Devil, 1797-1798
Kitten Tikka Masala, photograph by TL, Jan. 2, 2012
McClure’s Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore, photograph by TL, December 30, 2011.
Anon., Silly Putty Rupert Murdoch, early 21st century.
aimai
Ahhhhhhh. That was surprisingly restful. Thanks for that post, Tom.
aimai
aimai
Ahhhhhhh. That was surprisingly restful. Thanks for that post, Tom.
aimai
Kola Noscopy
Good god, Levenson, you should know better. This is the willful obtuseness GG-haters engage in on a regular basis.
As you already know but are pretending to not know, GG has not ever promoted Paul over Obama as a choice for president.
I suspect you like ABL posting here because her incoherence and neuroses make you seem even more serene and level headed in comparison.
Not a bad strategy but fairly transparent.
hildebrand
Saw this on the GOS today. Go check out the on-line Des Moines Register today. Pretty slick.
Corey
He objectively never said – and in fact specifically disavowed – the judgment of “Paul over Obama”.
Canuckistani Tom
You named your cat after a curry dish?
Mark S.
Ha! You’re not gonna bring any peace with that!
Tom Levenson
@Kola Noscopy: @Corey:
I’m with Edoroso here.
You can express support (and its opposite) in all kind of ways. Greenwald’s been pretty clear on this, at least as I understand his use of the English language. That he has given himself deniability I’ll concede…but it’s a wafer thin veneer.
Tom Levenson
@Canuckistani Tom: A spicy beast, he is.
Veritas
Only a few hours left until Romney takes Iowa and begins his inevitable, unstoppable march to Tampa and the Republican nomination.
BTW, notice what Romney did to Gingrich with his Super PAC negative ad blitz. It’s just a taste of what he will do to Obambi.
joes527
Did I miss something? The GG piece that I read didn’t say that at all. It very carefully and emphatically didn’t say that. Was there a follow up where he posted I <3 Ron Paul?
but yeah … the joke is apropos. If more folks just understood that it is about them too….
Culture of Truth
I might join the kitten Tikka cult.
JPL
That must have been some party and since when was Murdoch a treat. I don’t care if it’s just silly-putty.
Mark S.
@Kola Noscopy:
@Corey:
Yes, yes, we know. GG also doesn’t vote and barely lives in this country. He still feels passionate enough about the subject to write endlessly about how anyone who doesn’t support a white supremacist homophobic assclown over Obama is a hypocrite.
jeffreyw
It is comforting to know what your place in the world is.
Veritas
Glenn Greenwald will be irrelevant once President Romney comes to town.
Tom Levenson
@joes527: See change above (look for the asterisks.)
Jewish Steel
What did he say?
I think it was, “Blessed are the cheesemakers…”
joeyess
@Veritas:
really?
burnspbesq
@Tom Levenson:
For the record, Roy’s understanding of the relevant provisions of the NDAA is dead wrong. Anyone who doesn’t get that should go read the wonderful two-part post by Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck at Opinio Juris.
Mino
@hildebrand: Love the video. And Iowa is now the second largest producer of wind power in the nation. California is third.
Tom Levenson
@burnspbesq: Will do — but I was referring to his dissection of Greenwald’s claim of not supporting Paul, which is a different matter.
joes527
@Tom Levenson: I think that this kind of argument is what leads us into the crapper every time.
When X said Y what the _really_ meant was Z.
It doesn’t matter if it is GG putting words in ABL’s mouth, or Edoroso attributing to GG more than he actually said.
Once we move beyond arguing about folks actual stated positions and start arguing about what we THINK that they THINK – we are on the express train to nowhere.
Tom Levenson
@Jewish Steel: Indeed they are.
Villago Delenda Est
@Kola Noscopy:
Please find a fire to go die in.
Thank you.
rlrr
@joeyess:
I bet Veritas thinks spelling Clinton with a K is hilarious…
burnspbesq
@Tom Levenson:
I’m OK with Greenwald supporting Paul. It reveals him for what he truly is.
Mattminus
Am I the only one that keeps thinking of the dear departed GG Allin whenever I see those initials?
Marc
@Tom Levenson:
That’s the sticking point for me. You simply can’t write about Obama and Paul the way that Greenwald does and pretend that you’re not making a choice.
Greenwald has repeatedly written that people who disagree with him are evil. Quoting him isn’t putting words in his mouth.
Xanthippas
You really have to ignore what he explicitly says in his blog posts to think that he would necessarily prefer Paul over Obama as President. He’s said no such thing; at most he has argued that having Paul in the race is a good thing, to at least have someone willing to challenge the national security/civil liberties status quota.
And calling it “purity” is just annoying. Forget Greenwald; it’s offensive to people like me. None of my opinions about what the government should or should not be permitted to do as far as attacks oversees and the violations of the civil liberties of Americans and the human rights of those we kill and detain has in anyway changed from the Bush administration to now. Yet somehow those opinions, which were widely accepted and espoused at literally tens of thousands of blogs during the time in which Bush was in office, are now becoming “deleterious to the progressive cause” (and honest-to-God tweet, I swear) and an example of “civil liberties purity.” Now if I share these opinions with my Democratic friends I get a “Hey, but the air campaign in Libya worked out so why are you so worried about its legality?” or a “You’re being unrealistic; a Republican would be MUCH worse” or worse yet, actual DEFENSES ON THE MERITS of these actions. What’s changed? We have a Democrat in office, that’s what.
Anyway, so who’s on the list for exorcism next? Matt Taibbi? Near as I can tell the only differences between him and Greenwald are that he cares about issues closer to home (some that ostensibly, we liberals are supposed to care about) and he doesn’t get it arguments with people on Twitter.
Benjamin Franklin
Gawd
When did we enter Hell?
BGinCHI
That is a scary accurate likeness of Murdoch. So life-like.
Veritas
@joeyess: @rlrr:
Obambi. Obambi. Obambi. Mad? Pissed that I insulted your Lord and Savior?
Amir Khalid
@Veritas:
There’s more crap that sticks to Noot than Mitt could hope to make stick to Obama. And I’ll wager, as I’m sure many other commenters here will as well, that Obama will clean Mitt’s clock in any serious debate over any sphere of policy. Finally, do even Republicans, let alone Americans in general, like Mitt personally anywhere near as much as Democrats and Americans in general like Obama? I think not.
pete
Thanks for posting this. I too hope we’ll see ABL posting here again, because I think she brings up points that need to be made, and provokes thought as well as invective.
Greenwald has his good points, but his response to anything he perceives as criticism is not one of them, and his tendency to scornful ridicule does not sit well with his attempts to be educationally analytical.
Marc
@Xanthippas:
I’m with Roy Edroso here.
“but to be honest, my eyes were too filled with blood to read carefully after I saw my own point of view characterized thus: “Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason…”
Are you (or Glenn) truly surprised that people get infuriated if you tell other people that this is what they believe?
Really?
Schlemizel
Tom – nice try but you are wasting valiant efforts. Too many people with too much butthurt on either side to ever have peace. The principals burned those bridges with dishonest arguments and outrageous posts. Their tribes here have followed suit.
Better to put the terms GG and ABL into the moderation queue for a month.
Cute cat BTW
Benjamin Franklin
One of the things i hated when discussing Iraq with Republicans was their ‘end justifies means’ answer to every opposing view.
agrippa
@Kola Noscopy:
Greenwald, by his words, has demonstrated his worth.
Veritas
@Amir Khalid:
You mean liberals like Taibbi and Greenwald? Even the Kos Kiddez jumped off the Obambi bandwagon months ago.
Liberals are despondent and depressed. Conservatives are energized to kick Obambi’s dumb ass all the way back to Chicago where he belongs.
Dave
The problem with Greenwald is that he totes Paul as this anti-war “we should stop killing people” candidate when that’s 10 pounds of shit in a five pound bag.
Ron Paul wants the US government to pay mercenaries to go kill terrorists around the world. To the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.
If Paul was being honest, he would admit that he’s not against the government killing people in foreign lands. He just thinks that the free market can do it better.
For Greewald to push Ron Paul as some progressive dream of an anti-war candidate is bullshit. And fuck him for doing so.
SensesFail
@joeyess: Yeah, he’s probably like 8-years old.
agrippa
@Veritas: Obambi. Obambi. Obambi. Mad? Pissed that I insulted your Lord and Savior?
Lol.
Playing the fool again eh?
burnspbesq
@Xanthippas:
I probably agree with your views on the vast majority of civil liberties issues. But there is far too much at stake in the upcoming election for those issues to be determinative of whether you vote. This is truly a “you’re either with us or you’re against us” election. And anyone who sits it out because they blame Obama for Congress’ blocking his civil liberties initiatives is against us.
Schlemizel
as it has amply demonstrated the liar POS that calls itself truth can not be debated. PLEASE stop responding to it & maybe it will go away.
Emma
Kitten! Kittens, if we count Jeffreyw’s. And I love the beach…. and I’ll see your McClure’s Beach and raise you a Loch Lomond
The Moar You Know
If you guys keep ignoring our resident troll he’s going to flood this thread with bitter, bitter tears.
EDIT: Oh good, you’re starting to feed him. Don’t want anyone to go away hungry.
Veritas
Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Charlie Pierce, Michale Moore, Kos, they’re all deeply disappointed and apathetic (at best) towards Obambi.
agrippa
@Veritas:
keyboard kommando:
There is an election in Nov 2012.
Get away from the keyboard and do some real work for once in your life
Mark S.
At least Veritas has a better grasp of civil rights than Greenwald does.
He can say Obambi all he wants. His tears will be sweet in November.
Taylor
@Jewish Steel:
This isn’t meant literally, but refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.
schrodinger's cat
Is he Tikka because he likes chicken tikka, or because he wears a tikka? He is quite a handsome fella!
Roger Moore
@Corey:
And GWB objectively never said, and in fact specifically disavowed, torture.
Villago Delenda Est
@Benjamin Franklin:
Seemed to happen sometime last night.
Twitter really is not helpful at all.
My Truth Hurts
Yeah, GG has never written anything in support of Paul for President, just support of some of his views, which can be as progressive as some of them are regressive. He also does not support Obama for President, just like a lot of us, but that does not mean he automatically supports Paul or some other GOP POS, also just like a lot of us.
I know subtly is lost on some people like ABL, but you seemed much more able to understand that. John Cole gets it. I get it. You don’t seem to. I guess I was wrong about you.
agrippa
@Veritas:
Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Charlie Pierce, Michale Moore, Kos, they’re all deeply disappointed and apathetic (at best) towards Obambi.
so what.
I make my own judgements.
Tim F.
Blaming Obama is irrelevant in this case. Congress passed the bill with more than enough votes to override a veto. The same thing happened with respect to moving prisoners from Guantanamo to the regular court system. IMO too many Democrats took the coward’s route on Guantanamo and NDAA and should feel ashamed of themselves, but I do not see how the President caused either problem.
That said, President Obama should answer for two things. One, turning his back on torture crimes and the general criminal free-for-all that happened under Bush, and two, his terrorist assassination policy is far too casual with the rights of American citizens living abroad. I understand that he made the first decision so that he could fight for healthcare and the economy instead, and I would have to think whether I prefer the (too small) stimulus, the ACA and other accomplishments over the violent bitter war that a criminal inquiry into the Bush administration would have caused.
The Onion recognized on day one that the goddamned Republicans left Obama with a whole plate of impossible decisions. For that reason alone, though I hardly plan to forgive him, I would never miss a chance to vote for him against the blighted assholes who forced in that position in the first place.
Schlemizel
@burnspbesq:
And this is why Republicans have won. Between their vicious hatred of America and support for it from too many Dems it is impossible to demand better from the ones we do have simply because to do so is to support the Anti-American Republicans. Even when we get Dems in power the Republicans can continue to destroy this country from within.
Citizen_X
@Mattminus: At this point, I would prefer political commentary from GG Allin.
El Cid
The other morning on Up! with Chris Hayes there was a long discussion about US policy in Iraq, including Joe Sestak, Phyllis Bennis, an interview with General Sanchez, and more.
And the whole time, the actual subject matter was discussed, and US policy contextualized and/or criticized, often pretty bluntly in a not-mainstream fashion, and the subject was not reduced down to needing each discussant one way or another having to declare for whom we should all vote and whether or not if we didn’t like how something was now would we like it better under another President.
It’s a weird way of having a discussion, but it seemed worthwhile. I guess in some ways they imagined that the viewers were grownups and could apply those lessons on their own when relevant.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
At last, something on which you and I agree 100 percent.
Quaker in a Basement
I’m fairly certain that this post means you’re an awful, awful person, Tom, though I withhold my reasoning until such time as I see how the teams are lining up.
MikeJ
@Citizen_X: You would really see Santorum come from behind.
Tom Levenson
@Xanthippas:
I don’t mean to insult yours or anyone’s views on civil liberties or defense/national security/war issues.
But I do defend the use of the word purity here. This is the sense I hoped to make of that word. Paul — and Greenwald, when he praises these parts of Paul’s positions — argue for specific conceptions of what civil liberties involve. As a lot of people have written, Paul’s views are at odds with much of the apparatus of civil rights and of the social safety net. There are other ways of framing the concept of civil liberties that include much more of the rights of those for whom the federal government was the defender against the tyranny of states. Other ways that include FDRs Four Freedoms as essential to liberty — which necessarily involves constraints on individual action and the ability of private parties to strike and enforce contracts.
So yeah, Greenwald is a purist in the sense of having a narrow and disputable, but pit-bull-defened conception of liberty. My view diverges from his, and I think as a matter of practical living in a large and complex society, his are hostile to liberty as I understand the term. I could have used the word “fundamentalist,” and captured much of the meaning I wished to, but I did not want to use such a freighted word. Hence the, to-me, less fraught vocabulary choice.
So I’m sorry if you take offence, and I assure you none was intended. But I do not withdraw the term.
Donald
Set aside people’s hurt feelings about what that mean old self-righteous Greenwald said (is saying mean things about people one strongly disagrees with a new thing around here?), he’s right. Our political campaigns are mainly about shutting down thought. Paul is a racist and an idiot, but he’s well to the left of Obama on some extremely important issues and in a sane society we’d forthrightly admit that.
In this society we call each other names. GG is also guilty, of course.
Satanicpanic
Can we ignore the troll and get back to infighting? Thanks!
Redshift
@Jewish Steel: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
The Moar You Know
Keep up the good work feeding him, guys!
Corey
@Mark S.: He also did not say that.
You know why he doesn’t live in this country, and invoking that to score political points is, well, sort of hateful.
burnspbesq
@My Truth Hurts:
If Greenwald truly believes the things that he professes to believe about Obama, it logically follows that he would conclude that voting for Obama would be immoral. And it further follows that Greenwald (assuming he is still eligible to vote) must vote for someone else.
Neither you nor he can have it both ways.
MonkeyBoy
@BGinCHI:
For some reason it reminds me of this animated gif.
schrodinger's cat
tl@top
Bad TL, kittehs is friends not food. Plz not to be eating any kittehs.
agrippa
@Tim F.:
There was a long list of ‘must do now, if not sooner’ on the plate in Jan 2009. I knew full well that most of them would not be done; neither the Congress, nor the people had the political and moral courage to do them. I knew that, and I am sure that PBO knew that as well.
Such is the art of the politically possible.
Villago Delenda Est
@Veritas:
The projection from this asstard never ends.
slag
OK. Fine, Tom, since you brought it up. I have to say the most disappointing aspect of this whole affair is that–for the very first time, in my opinion–ABL was actually WINNING!
Her last post was relatively cogent, forward-thinking, and lacking the typical cutesy winks and nods that tend to make her writing so easily dismissed. I, for one, was hoping it was a sign that she was starting to move in a new direction with her writing. One that I am more interested in. One that I see being more influential in broader spheres.
But, alas, here we are again. We all have self-defeating attributes that keep us from achieving unalloyed victory. But rarely are they so spectacularly on display as with ABL. It’s too bad too. Because we need all the allies we can get.
Fuck. I guess that means now I have to put that airing of grievances on hold until after the election.
joes527
I’ve read the update now, and it still doesn’t really seem to honest assessment. I’m wondering if my base assumption colors how I read the GG piece. (The assumption that Ron Paul isn’t going to last out the month … that the idea of him capturing the Republican nomination, much less the presidency is absurd)
Using Ron Paul as a foil to explore the positions of a real candidate (Obama) is reasonable, and Paul is being used as a foil, and not as an alternative. There is no need to equally explore Paul’s negatives because – seriously – he isn’t going to be the president and Obama is.
From this stepping off point the GG piece reads quite differently that you characterize it.
Does this mean that I am reading too much into the GG piece or are you?
MikeJ
@Xanthippas: Taibbi is a fucking moron. I’ve been saying that here for years. His utterly casual attitude towards the truth makes him a complete waste of time. Much like GG.
Tom Levenson
@Roger Moore: I come from a tradition that prioritizes actions over words, and have found it useful to retain that view even as I have left more and more of my religious education behind.
In that context, I note that while Bush and some of his adminstration did disavow torture, they also redefined a number of acts as not-torture that just about everyone else, including prior US war crimes prosecutors, recognized as the real thing.
That actions-over-words approach is why I view GG’s claims that his work is not an endorsement of Paul with some caution, to put it mildly. However, in deference to that claim, you will note, I hope, that I have altered the text of the post above.
Litlebritdifrnt
Caught this proposed bumper sticker on Twitter today
“Republicans 2012
Keeping Millions Out of Work
to Put One Man Out of a Job”
I have now printed it and have it prominently displayed on the back window of my car.
In other news the damn Republicans in North Carolina have increased the gas tax by 4 cents a gallon. We now have the sixth highest gas tax in the US. So much for being the part of not raising taxes huh? Oh wait, the gas tax disproportionally hurts the working folks and the poor the most so its all good for the Repubs.
BGinCHI
@MonkeyBoy: That’s Murdoch’s son. Finishing the Boston marathon I think.
Corey
@Litlebritdifrnt: Raising the gas tax is a good idea, even if Republicans do it.
JGabriel
@Mattminus:
No, although I never think of Allin as “dear”.
.
The Reverend
With all due respect to the writer of this post….he may have stopped reading Greenwald for whatthehellever reason….but what Glenn said about many people who call themselves progressives defending Obama if he raped a nun….is spot the hell on…the fee-fees of some notwithstanding.
No one doubts that Obama claims power to assassinate U.S. citizens on his order..do they? And isn’t it also true that many progressives defend those actions, the assassination of Awlaki, etc? So, why wouldn’t those same alleged progressives not also defend Obama ordering the rape of a nun, you know, in order to keep us all safe?
Tom Levenson
@joes527: Could be both, you know. ;)
But if GG is simply using Paul as you suggest, the real problem is that the Congressman is such a flawed foil. Or perhaps, rather, that he’s so precise a manifestation of one of the major streams of American far-right craziness that you (a) associate yourself with a really awful tradition dating back to John Birch Society types and their even less savory fellow-travelers and (b) you actually devalue the genuine criticism that could and should be leveled at the present administration.
The real foil here is George Bush, IMHO: you look at the view of Presidential and state powers that 43 had, and then check to what extent 44 has or has not shifted that view. Then you have an argument to make.
shortstop
I haven’t read Greenwald for years and I never think about him.
Yeah, it’s actually possible.
Thoroughly Pizzled
@joes527: The Greenwald piece argues that Obama is an evil monster. He also argues that Paul takes the opposite position to Obama on all of the issues that prove Obama is a monster. If that’s not an endorsement, what is?
If a blogger noted that Paul was a deranged bigot with insane views on economic policy, and that Obama was opposed to Paul on all those issues, would that not be an endorsement of Obama?
shortstop
@BGinCHI: Last night I dreamed that your baby was born. Apparently not, unless you’re the worst father evah.
pete
I know that Greenwald is a real person, with genuine feelings, and (today) a hand bitten by a surprised dog. But I also know that, although by birth and upbringing an American, he lives in Brazil and I worry that he may think that what he learns from the satellite TV and the computer gives him a complete picture of the reality of the country.
I wonder about many of us here, too.
slag
@JGabriel: OK. Here’s one grievance I have no problem airing today:
Am I the only one who hates knowing that people like Mattminus exist? But even worse…that our society, in its present form, rarely punishes their existence?
Disturbing as all hell. We’ll never evolve at this rate.
Marc
@Donald:
Paul is not to the left of Obama in any way that the term is ordinarily defined.
“Agrees with me on making pot legal” and “agrees with me on ending foreign wars” does not equal “left”. Because they’re paired with “no civil rights or environmental protection” and “no help for foreigners dying from AIDS.”
geg6
@Corey:
But you still won’t apologize for lying about me. So you lie just like your hero, GG.
Benjamin Franklin
@Tom Levenson:
I. too see behavior as more revealing than the spoken or written word.
The semantics of the Bush Gang clearly gamed the controversy.
One thing;
Bush and Crew claim that torture saved lives. Is that justification
enough for the means?
BGinCHI
@shortstop: Due date is tomorrow. No arrival yet. This is the last calm before the stork.
Just recommended your favorite lentil soup on the previous thread. Your ears must have been burning.
Will make an announcement when the boy arrives. I’m sure it’s that tension of waiting that has everyone arguing about GG and ABL. Sorry everyone.
merrinc
@Litlebritdifrnt:
But they stood firm against continuing the 1 penny sales tax last fall because that enabled them to fuck over the schools. Bastards.
As for this ABL vs GG vs JC vs who-the-fuck-ever…will we be moving on any time soon? I missed the original dust up, read Cole’s final word on it and the first 150 comments in a 400+ comment thread and decided I didn’t care about any of it. You see, my New Year’s resolution was to remove as much negativity and drama from my life as possible.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
I would like to know Tom’s opinion on analogies involving rape.
FlipYrWhig
Greenwald has been offering narrow but zealous defenses of Paul for a long, long time. Now he’s graduated to the idea that anyone who defends Obama (on civil liberties, as Greenwald defines them alone) accepts dead children and would gladly explain away a rape. That’s going pretty far for a thought experiment.
Redshift
@Donald:
Really? Hundreds of comments by people who happen to disagree with you is “shutting down thought”? And if you’re demanding that in order to be considered “sane,” I must “forthrightly admit” that there are issues where Paul is “well to the left of Obama” and not just ones where his ideology that is well to the right happens to lead to a few outcomes that those to the left would like to see? And if the policies he favors to reach those goals are incredibly destructive to other goals of those to the left of Obama, should that also be “forthrightly admitted,” or is that considered to be of no consequence in this “sane” society?
Do tell.
Donald
“If Greenwald truly believes the things that he professes to believe about Obama, it logically follows that he would conclude that voting for Obama would be immoral. And it further follows that Greenwald (assuming he is still eligible to vote) must vote for someone else.”
No it doesn’t. It’s called lesser of two evils voting. Those of us on the left who despise the Democrats (or at least the ones who make it to the White House) are constantly being told that we have to be realistic and choose the Democrat because even if he or she is bad, it’s better than the Republican. If we vote third party we’re told we’re helping the Republican win. Now you turn around and say that we should only vote for Obama if we don’t think Greenwald’s criticisms are accurate.
I voted Nader in 2000 but for Kerry in 2004 because I was persuaded that lesser of two evils voting was my duty. (In 2008 it really didn’t matter because Obama was a shoo-in in my state and I can’t even remember if I voted for him or some third party nobody). Now you’re saying I should support a third party candidate?
As far as Paul is concerned, I’d never vote for him or give him money, but I hope he stays in the race for a long time and manages to get his antiwar views into the press. Frankly I’d like to see Democrats embarrassed by this. It doesn’t mean I want his Ayn Rand crackpot views to make it into the White House.
Incidentally, all this complaining about how rude Greenwald was about people who support Obama–well, that goes both ways you know. I can recall one or two unkind things that have been said about third party voters.
shortstop
@BGinCHI: I know it’s tomorrow, but I still dreamed s/he (I know which but will hold my tongue just in case you were planning on s’prising the crew here) came early.
Mmmm, ToL lentil soup. Is it what’s for dinner? It may be, it may be.
ETA: If I could READ, I would know that the gender is out of the bag, so to speak.
schrodinger's cat
@jeffreyw: How does Bitsy get along with Bea? And how is our handsome boy Homer?
Marc
@Benjamin Franklin:
The problem with the torture defense of Bush et al. isn’t that they’re making the claim that you have to do bad things to prevent other bad things. This can be actually true.
The problem is that the Bush calculus on torture isn’t honest. It ignores the moral costs of inflicting torture, it inflates the the value of confessions induced by torture, and it ignores the practical costs (for example, motivating people to hate you, and wasting resources chasing phantom threats from false confessions induced by torture.)
By contrast, killing people who are shooting guns at you has a different moral balance sheet even if you have deep moral objections to killing people.
Villago Delenda Est
@BGinCHI:
The kid is smart.
“I don’t want to leave here! It’s cold outside!”
Dave
@Donald: Except Ron Paul is NOT anti-war. He just thinks the free market is better at killing people.
BGinCHI
@Villago Delenda Est: Gonna be 50 on Friday!!
I’m riding my bike for a few hours, even if it means divorce. Or I’ll just pick up red velvet cupcakes on the way home. Works every time.
geg6
@Corey:
He doesn’t live here because he chooses to take the easy way out. I know plenty of people who have had to live separate from their partners and families for years and years. Some for the same reason as Glenn’s and other for other reasons. They chose to come back and fight for their partner’s rights. Instead, GeeGee sits in his penthouse in Brazil, throwing thunderbolts of RIGHTEOUSNESS! at everyone who doesn’t agree with his definitions of civil liberties, proper foreign policy, and the pleasures of pot smoking and insinuating that they are evil psychopaths because they disagree. And that’s without even getting into his blindly supporting his Dear Leader (at the time) W’s excellent ME adventure and not seeing any reason to vote in 2004.
Christ, he sucks worse than Nader and I really didn’t think that was possible.
Benjamin Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
Really? I’d be interested in reading that.
FlipYrWhig
@Marc: Right. Similarly, you can say you find drone attacks abhorrent because they lead to casual use and unacceptable amounts of dead bystanders. I don’t think that from that starting point you can then say that anyone who speaks up in support for a politician who has ordered drone strikes has no problem with dead bystanders and would probably explain away anything foul that politician ever did. That’s a ridiculous leap.
shortstop
@Villago Delenda Est: “Baby, it’s cold outside. Stay where you are for 72 hours.”
wrb
@Tom Levenson:
this
Marc
@Donald:
No, not even close.
Greenwald obviously hates Obama with a deep passion. If you read the words that he uses it’s extremely obvious. Again, read Edroso:
“Greenwald carefully stresses that he doesn’t support Paul, but when you read his description of Obama —
He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth…
And then read him on Paul —
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul.”
——————
If that isn’t an endorsement the word has no meaning.
Pray Tell
IMO, the Patriot Act & NDAA are bipartisan gang-violations (pick your metaphor/non-metaphor) of the highest order.
No participant should get a pass (especially one who passes himself off as a Constitutional ‘scholar’) and those who defend any or all of the violators earn my disdain, disbelief and ultimately dismissal.
I simply cannot bring myself to vote for fascists, and I think anyone who supports either or both of those measures are exactly that.
Evil is evil is evil.
p
@burnspbesq: “If Greenwald truly believes the things that he professes to believe about Obama, it logically follows that he would conclude that voting for Obama would be immoral. And it further follows that Greenwald (assuming he is still eligible to vote) must vote for someone else.”
Why are you lying, burnspbesq?
It does not follow from Glenn’s writings that voting for Obama would be immoral. He specifically disavows that in his writing.
“It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else.”
FlipYrWhig
Also, speaking of cats, my cat had a dramatic seizure a couple hours ago, the first time that’s happened in a year. She seems OK now. I’m glad I wasn’t so distracted by participating in the endless Greenwald threads that I didn’t notice.
Soonergrunt
@Corey: Bullshit. Invoking the reason he doesn’t live here would be hateful. Invoking the fact that he doesn’t live here, and the resultant effects on his perception of what the country really is, and his place in the world with respect to this country are fair game.
geg6
@The Reverend:
Well, first I’m not a progressive. I’m a liberal. I’ve been a liberal since I could first vote in 1976 and I’m still a liberal today.
And, yes, I have no problem with the killing of al Awlaki (sp?). He was a self-avowed enemy of the United States who publicly announced that he would attack anything and anyone from the US. And we have a convicted terrorist who has admitted that it was al Awlaki who was his handler. And al Awlaki bragged about it on line. And now he’s dead and I’m perfectly okay with that. Perfectly. And I have no doubt that FDR, Jimmy Carter, Thomas Jefferson or whatever Democratic president you want to name as your progressive hero would have done the same. Every single one of them.
kc
Oh, goodie! Another Greenwald-dominated comment thread!
Mum
@joes527: @Veritas:
Obambi? Seriously? Are you a third-grader?
Davy McBongo
The real question is who will defend Obama eating a baby?
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/27/president-obama-eats-baby-hand
Soonergrunt
@FlipYrWhig: As a matter of fact, I think we can say, without hyperbole or fear of credible statements to the contrary, that Glenn Greenwald supports Ron Paul for President.
All of his hosannas and paeans to Ron Paul combined with the pure invective and hatred for the President and his supporters are not credibly undone by a weak-assed denial.
Larv
@My Truth Hurts:
See, what many of us find confusing is that you really only get two choices. So if you don’t support Obama, and you don’t support the GOP POS, then who or what do you support? Is there some better choice available? Or are you talking about withholding your vote?
My views are pretty much in line with Tim F at #57. Obama has done things I disagree with, but I don’t see any potential alternatives who would be better.
taylormattd
@Kola Noscopy: Go the fuck away
TG Chicago
I think you’re confused about which person in that joke you exemplify.
Hint: you’re the one who is saying Greenwald is unworthy of reading since he deviates from your views on occasion.
Brandon
I have refused to enter into this morass until now because I think Tom made a good faith effort to speak from his heart and it is dispiriting to see others reflexively trash him. And my only point is this: while ABL may be an obnoxious drama queen who seems to prefer to use the internet for flame bait and point scoring, GG is just an insufferable, mumble-mouthed jerk and it is surprising to me that people both read his unreasoned ramblings and take him seriously. And what’s more, it seems a tad ironic that this self-styled champion of human rights produces such tortured prose on a regular basis. There are enough legitimate crusaders for the rights that we hold dear that I find no reason to give GG the time. As for ABL, it was unfortunate that her last post was probably the only one she’s written here that was not actually for the purpose of flame bait and it was actually a pretty decent post. She made her point clearly and concisely without needing to resort to the pettiness that has characterized probably all of her contributions here. I’d love her to resume posting if that’s what I could expect from her in the future, unfortunately though I suspect that should she return that she would just revert to type. Which is too bad.
taylormattd
@joeyess: Apparently Cole has attracted the PUMAs with his bullshit.
Dave
Sorry, Cole was right. ABL and co’s making this about rape victims when Greenwald was plainly challenging Obama supporters to reconcile their support for him with the results of increased use of drones was very reminiscent of the Right wrapping itself in the flag and claiming to protect the troops when the invasions were questioned. Deal with the bloody issues, people.
Paula
@Benjamin Franklin:
Ezra Klein and Dana Goldstein ca. December 2007 vs. Glenn Greenwald on Ron Paul.
http://prospect.org/article/against-ron-paul
http://prospect.org/article/full-paul
http://prospect.org/article/ron-paul-and-race
geg6
@Larv:
Oh, hell no. They could always vote for Ralph Nader. Hell, we have one here on this very thread, whining about how everybody gives him wedgies because he voted for Nader in 2000 and how unfair that is.
Mnemosyne
@The Reverend:
And this is why I can’t take Greenwald and his supporters seriously. Apparently al-Awlaki living in an al-Qaeda camp, making public statements on their behalf, and giving advice to the Fort Hood shooter was all just some kind of hi-larious misunderstanding and al-Awlaki didn’t really mean any of it. I guess that murder of a French engineer was all a misunderstanding, too.
Yep, al-Awlaki was so clearly a totally innocent guy that assassinating him while he was traveling in an al-Qaeda convoy was morally exactly the same thing as raping a nun.
p
Can we just not talk about ABL anymore. And no, her last post wasn’t good, it was dramatic and she did not present what happened in anything close to an objective way. If you are going to dramabomb about Twitter the least you could do is provide the actual Tweets in chronological order.
taylormattd
@Veritas: Ah, “Kos Kiddez”
Nice wingnut trolling. See John, you’ve attracted wingnuts with this move.
Soonergrunt
@p: So he wants it both ways then. Just like his thing with Ron Paul.
That’s intellectual cowardice of the highest order.
gwangung
@Brandon: Just for the record, this is a fair minded and quite defendable set of statements. I might disagree with your assessment of ABL–but only by admitting that you are stating a great deal of truth (and that I could be making a few errors myself).
FlipYrWhig
@Soonergrunt: I don’t think it’s quite that. I think he would support a hypothetical candidate who had Paul’s views on “civil liberties” without all the crackpot stands on every other issue. It’s just that he’s so aggressive in trying to police the terms of debate in order to screen out all the other stuff that makes Paul so crazy that he’s reduced to pretending that having a differing opinion about the implications of the NDAA is exactly the same as defending everything Obama has ever done concerning civil liberties, which proves that you haven’t thought things through, which proves that you aren’t worth talking to with respect. And he rides that slope like a slip n slide, time and again.
Paula
@Benjamin Franklin:
http://prospect.org/article/against-ron-paul
http://prospect.org/article/full-paul
http://prospect.org/article/ron-paul-and-race
joes527
@burnspbesq:
The fact that this can be said without irony depresses me no end.
I was alway opposed to the “you’re either with us or you’re against us” crew. Who knew that the problem with their position was simply that “they” were the wrong “us?”
Benjamin Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
Is this an indirect response to my request for links?
Just askin…
Dave
Ugh, god, liberals continue not to have any response to the fact that the U.S. is perpetrating atrocities daily. Really, it would be good for you to formulate a response. Otherwise, Greenwald is the only guy trying to make a persuasive case.
Jewish Steel
@Taylor: ♪ding! Well spotted.
Soonergrunt
@Mnemosyne: THIS. THIS is why anyone who goes on about that event like it was some attack on decency or morally wrong or illegal or whatever other bullshit they want to claim has forfeited their right to be considered intelligent or thoughtful.
The destruction of enemy command and control facilities and personnel is entirely within the President’s purview as Commander in Chief, and well authorized under any law you want to look at.
Capri
About that funniest joke – the first time I heard it Emo Phillips was using it in his act in 1987
See a very poor quality youtube off a TV picture here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJfy2x2T5E
I’m guessing he didn’t make it up, but you never know.
Guess there’s no such thing as a new joke
El Cid
It’s quite possible for someone to conclude that Obama was committing hideous evils (if he or she so concluded that) and then still choose to vote for Obama versus some other candidate because the amount or type of evil would be worse with the other, and the amount or type of good to be done would be better with Obama.
In fact, for plenty of people it’s the inevitable choice one faces if one is to vote for an American President.
There might be a lot of people who think that even considering that would be harmful cognitive dissonance which in turn would mean that anyone feeling that their preferred candidate would be committing continuing evils would be unable to rationally estimate the likely outcome of the real choice between the two candidates.
Spectre
Until it sinks in:
“Then there’s the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any critique of the President’s exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (I don’t understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you’re helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!). The premise takes hold for a full 18 months — increasing each day in intensity until Election Day — that every discussion of the President’s actions must be driven solely by one’s preference for election outcomes (if you support the President’s re-election, then why criticize him?).”
“no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite.”
Oh the illiteracy of the Greenwald haters, how it burns!
Spectre
Also, as mentioned in the other thread, notice how ABL’s stunt now paves the way for other Obama apologists like this guy to try and fill the gap.
geg6
@Dave:
Okay. Here’s where I stand on that.
I’m not very up on the drone issue, but I am all for any technology that saves more lives than it takes. Seems to me that drones do that compared to, say, the mission Jimmy Carter sent into Iran to try to rescue the hostages or Clinton’s Battle of Mogadishu. Since war is part of the human condition, I prefer that we limit the casualties, but, make no mistake, there WILL be casualties.
Since the Pakistan/Afghanistan mountains are basically impossible to invade, even with the world’s most enormous armies, it would seem to me that drone warfare is the only way to get to your enemies there. And, yes, I believe that al Qaeda and the Taliban (at least for now) are our enemies. Sadly, the people who are living around our enemies and some of whom are actively sheltering them will inevitably be a number of those casualties.
I also believe that the drone war is the least important important issue on our plate, as a nation. I really don’t care all that much about it. I care a hell of a lot more about my own countrymen and neither Glenn Greenwald nor Ron Paul do the same.
Happy now? Feel free to call me a monster. I welcome your hate.
gwangung
@FlipYrWhig:
Of course he would. The problem is that ALL OF HIS CRITICS WOULD, TOO.
Given that no such candidate exists, we’re left with the full set of Paul’s policy positions and some of us have made the decision that some set of his policies prevent us from considering him seriously as a candidate.
FlipYrWhig
@Spectre: Also, if you dare to disagree with Greenwald’s interpretations of what the president’s actions are, mean, or have been, you might as well imagine him raping a nun and killing some children, because that’s totally you.
FlipYrWhig
@gwangung: I agree, which is why I’m not sure why Greenwald thinks he’s so clever.
Mnemosyne
@Dave:
Greenwald’s “persuasive case” is “let’s listen to the guy who thinks we should issue letters of marque and reprisal to paid mercenaries to do our dirty work for us.”
Seriously? You think the solution to drone attacks is to let Blackwater do it instead of the CIA and the US Army? Because that’s what Paul’s solution is, and GG says that Paul’s solution is clearly morally superior to Obama’s.
Paula
@Benjamin Franklin:
OK, so BJ is holding me in moderation for, natch, too many links (there’s only three) but Google Ezra Klein (when he was still @ the American Prospect) and Ron Paul.
Here’s GG’s take, in December 2007, of Ron Paul and alleged racism:
http://www.salon.com/2007/12/22/klein_4/singleton/
Klein and Dana Goldstein got into a Twitter beef w/ Greenwald over Paul’s positions on anti-racist policy and abortion rights. The prospect’s blogs are a pain to link, to, but I’m betting all of the said posts are in December 2007.
EDIT: Which is not to say that GG is an unequivocal Paul supporter. Just that he’s been hammering on this drum for a while, take from it what you will.
Soonergrunt
@Dave: Which atrocity did we perpetrate today? Or yesterday? Specifics man! Because your hyperbole is pretty atrocious.
LT
That’s a monumental disservice to the truth right there.
Soonergrunt
@Paula: Your moderation is cleared.
For future reference, the spam filter tags any post with four or more links as spam. The reply button auto-generates a link to the original comment, so that counts against your limit.
burnspbesq
@p:
Ha. If you had even nominal reading-comprehension skills, you would know that what Greenwald has written provides no clue as to what he himself will do. And if you had even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty, you would admit that.
FWIW, I stand by my earlier analysis of Greenwald’s views.
Mark S.
@LT:
Then why doesn’t he just support Gary Johnson? Neither of them are going to be president, so at least he wouldn’t be supporting a racist.
Unless, as I suspect, that’s the real reason Glenn likes Ron Paul so much. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Paula
@Soonergrunt:
Ah, ok. Thanks … and now I must say sorry for the multiple postings of the same links.
pete
@Dave: It’s possible to do both. In fact, it’s necessary. Greenwald’s response was beyond the pale, and was absolutely inflammatory, in a way that was bound to distract and deflect the discussion; I do not believe that he didn’t know that, though I personally would have accepted an apology (which was not forthcoming) when he had time to cool down. As to the drones, the deaths of innocents, the lack of civil liberties … Ron Paul, given his record, does not have standing to complain, and to pretend that he does is disingenuous. I want us out of Afghanistan (I never wanted us to go in), and I see no credible Presidential candidate taking a position on that issue that I support. Therefore that issue is not all that critical to my choice. Sad, but true.
LT
@Tom Levenson:
That is just plainly dishonest. And disappointingly obtuse for you. Do you honestly pretend that you do not know that the central issue to Greenwald’s posts on this is Obama – the guy in charge right now, the guy making policy right now, including the actual drone wars, the actual issues of secrecy and whistleblowers, etc., and not the idiot from Texas who will neer ever be close the presidency of the U.S.?
You pretend this isn’t about Obama – and want us to take you seriously?
Darkrose
Here’s the problem:
All of Paul’s positions stem from the same central thesis: the Federal government is illegitimate.
To me, that negates anything else he says. If a candidate said that he believed the Bible was the literal, inerrant word of the Christian god, then he can talk about helping the poor all he wants–I’m going to think he’s a crazy person who shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power. Or, you know, Mike Huckabee. In the context of Greenwald’s defense of Paul’s racist links in 2007, I think he’s being disingenuous when he insists that he doesn’t support Paul.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
And yet GG still insists that Paul is the morally superior choice over Obama. Almost like GG doesn’t think Paul’s racism and continuing bashing of the Civil Rights Act is a moral problem at all.
Again, we’re not discussing a few newsletters from 10 years ago. Ron Paul is doing interviews TODAY talking about how the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, but apparently Greenwald cares more about civil liberties (as he defines them) than he does civil rights.
Soonergrunt
@Paula: De nada.
El Tiburon
@Marc:
Tell us, how has he written about Ron Paul? Has Greenwald posted actual quotes and videos of Ron Paul saying he would end the War on Drugs and Wars on Muslims and Drone Attacks, etc? In other words, what Greenwald has done is nothing more than present ACTUAL, FACTUAL words from this man on issues that we are supposed to care about. He has then contrasted those with more ACTUAL FACTS regarding Obama’s policies that contradict this.
Bottom line he is willing to present a more contextual presentation than: FUCK THE OLD RACIST AND FORGET HIM.
This I would love to see. Please.
burnspbesq
@Dave:
One person’s “atrocity” is another person’s “good-faith effort to fight an asymmetrical international conflict with a non-state actor while staying within law-of-war principles where the actual law of war is hopelessly outdated.”
If you sincerely believe that there is no meaningful difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations on these issues, then there’s no point in continuing this colloquy, because your mind is closed beyond reopening.
TG Chicago
@Dave: You said:
Do you have a link to Ron Paul saying this is what he wants? Thanks.
Benjamin Franklin
@Paula:
Thanks for the AP links, but I am not a Paul supporter. The Salon GG
link basically says Paul is a ‘useful idiot’ comparing him to Kucinich in regard to their ability to keep important issues above the radar and non-sacrosanct.
He’s pretty unequivocal about his distaste for Paul, in general. So, unless
you think he’s lying about his real intent, it’s clear.
p
@burnspbesq: GG thinks it would be reasonable to vote for Obama even if one accepts Obama’s record exactly as GG sees it. Evidently GG does not think a vote for Obama would be immoral, as I see reasonable and immoral as being exclusive terms. Why would it be the case “If Greenwald truly believes the things that he professes to believe about Obama, it logically follows that he would conclude that voting for Obama would be immoral.” even as his own writing says voting for Obama is reasonable.
In broader terms you would have a hard time convincing me that it would always be immoral to vote for someone of Obama’s record (as GG sees it) considering that there will be an election time choice and again the other candidate would be worse. You can think Obama is awful, think he’s better than the other guy, and vote for him as the lesser of two evils; I don’t see this as immoral even if either evil is awful.
LT
@Mark S.:
And why don’t you fuck my dog? Jesus. The entitlement that thrives in places like this.
And just to note – this isn’t about support. This is about Greenwald’s writings. He doesn’t “support” Ron Paul. His writings on this, as I said in another comment, are about Obama. If you are offended that he even allow “Obama” and “Ron Paul” be printed next to one another, as seems to be the case for a lot of people, well, I can only say – it’s about Obama. And very specific issues. maybe you could do us all a service by swerving he convoy back to that direction.
Benjamin Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
Oh, and…uh….big thanks to you, as well.
burnspbesq
@LT:
As the addressee of Tom’s comment, I fully understood what he was saying. Shame that you didn’t.
El Tiburon
You are not going to say it because you can’t. Hey, you got no problem writing long posts, so if you are here to attack the man, then do it. Name one of these fantasies that Greenwald is so fixated on.
And if you want a fixation, why don’t you turn click onto Balloon Juice and count the front pagers fixated on Greenwald and Ron Paul.
He does monumental disservice when his particular version of civil liberties purity leads him to make strongly imply/tiptoe up to the brink of a practical political judgment*— Paul over Obama
But nice of you to dip your toe in and scurry away.
FlipYrWhig
@Benjamin Franklin: Right, he pairs distaste in general with praise, however qualified, on certain particulars. But he sure does like to carve out some space for that praise.
FlipYrWhig
@Benjamin Franklin: Sorry, I couldn’t find it, and I was remembering something about Rand Paul too. Glad someone else picked up the slack.
gwangung
Then I think it’s a flawed strategy. A) The baggage of the other issues leads others to the inference that he favors the “important” issues over those other issues, and B) the underlying principles for those issues (people actually respond to the talking points version of his positions and not the whole complex of positions) are not being discussed to any great depth.
El Tiburon
woops hit submit too early
It is beyond me that you can’t see Greenwald is pointing out the hypocrisy in liberals and progressives.
Liberals: We hate War on Drugs. It’s a shame we can’t do anything about it.
Greenwald: Ron Paul hates it too, why not give him a listen.
Liberals: God Greenwald is such a raging asshole.
Dave
@geg6: @Mnemosyne: @Soonergrunt: I notice none of you is against U.S. drones killing people in lots of places. I’m sure you have good reasons for supporting such things, but at least cop to it when Greenwald (or whoever) brings it up.
Soonergrunt, my hyperbole is not atrocious.
Can't Be Bothered
jesus fuck. I’m leaving for awhile. I frankly don’t give a shit who was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. But there always seems to be one common denominator to these increasingly frequent dramatic blow ups: ABL. The fact that I think she’s a vapid, fact-straining (being charitable), shitty, unfunny writer probably doesn’t help. But the bottom line fact is that she is ALWAYS at the center of this TEDIOUS meta, high school, oppression outrage, bullshit. ALWAYS. I’m hoping she never comes back.
Soonergrunt
@Dave: No. I have no problem whatsoever with using drones to kill the enemy on the battlefield.
Benjamin Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
No problema……
LT
@burnspbesq: Was it actually hard to understand that I was addressing this part of the quote:
No. No it wasn’t.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: What if the nun was in an al Qaeda convoy? Would it then be okay to kill her, too?
FlipYrWhig
So, in general, this is the way Greenwald likes to argue about Obama and civil liberties. (let’s totally omit Paul)
1. Something is in the news. He doesn’t like it. Reads up on it, draws conclusions, writes a piece.
2. Someone else suggests that he didn’t reason it through correctly, or left out another context, and if you look at the issue that way, you’d come to a different conclusion.
3. He digs in, refuses to reconsider, deems any attempt to make him see his mistake a defense of the indefensible, sighs that he’s making arguments based on principle and you’re just looking for excuses.
4. If you try to reply, he repeats. He’s right, he already took your point into account, there’s no reasonable way anyone could say what you say.
It happens over and over again, on a range of issues. He just doesn’t
accept that anyone could ever look at the same facts he does and read them differently. As far as he’s concerned, the only reason anyone would ever think differently than he does is a deep moral deficiency. You don’t just disagree with him, you’re actively evil and/or a dyed-in-the-wool apologist for evil.
burnspbesq
@p:
Greenwald rarely, if ever, subjects his own writing to careful scrutiny. He either can’t see his logical flaw or is unwilling to own up to it.
Good to hear.
Paula
@gwangung:
From the article:
What’s funny is that GG makes a logical-rhetorical leap from Paul’s “anti-war” “pro-civil liberties” stance to pro-“lives of innocent muslims”. GG knows or should know that Paul’s ideas don’t stem from the idea of equality (given his lack of support for stuff like the Civil Rights Act or the Department of Ed). Government-sponsored welfare of his own people, much less Muslims half a world away, isn’t going to be a priority. GG might argue that a lack is better than the aggressive interference we have now, but that vacuum is going to be very quickly filled by opportunists inside of Paul’s own party.
Also, as someone who depends on government institutions, the logical leap being made is one that’s a little too far. Paul and those who support him can make that leap, I suppose, because they’ve never really been touched by what it means to have no other options.
stratplayer
Anyone who believes Ron Paul is a friend of civil liberties in this country needs to read, over and over, the money quote from Paul’s proposed “We the People Act”:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
And this is just the tip of the Neoconfederate iceberg. You can count on Ron Paul to do everything he can to empower the states to crush the liberties of their citizens, with no federal recourse. This man is not a libertarian.
TG Chicago
@Soonergrunt:
So Bush was being decent, morally right, and legal when he invaded the enemy (Iraq)?
Mark S.
@LT:
Keep fucking that chicken.
slightly-peeved
What definition are people using for ‘atrocities’ these days? Sounds like any case where civillians are killed is now an atrocity, as opposed to deliberate and wanton targeting of civillians like, say, My Lai.
Now all killing of civillians is bad, but it’s all part of war. Is the only true ‘anti-atrocity’ stance a pacifist one? If so, then people should be straight up about wanting a pacifist presiident. If not, then a bit more detail about what people consider atrocities and how the U.S.is perpetrating them would be useful. Is any attack on al-qaeda ouutside of a war zone to be stopped, even in areas where there is no means of apprehending them in a police action?
joes527
@Mnemosyne:
Where did he say this? Stop listening to the voices in your head and read the words on the page.
He dared (_dared_!) to say that weighing the positions of Obama against the positions of Paul is a moral question. And then didn’t have the common decency to tell us that of course Obama rulez!
You may want to argue that he harshed all over Obama, while at the same time soft sold Paul’s faults? Sure. I agree that he did. But this is entirely reasonable, since the one* is the president of the US of f’n A and the other** is an aging crackpot having his last twirl on the media dance floor before waltzing into oblivion. I know lots of aging crackpots and could go on at length about their faults. But I actually think an exploration of the President’s strengths and weaknesses is a more useful discussion. Yeah, his description of Obama was extreme, provocative, and probably objectively wrong in places. But rather than discussing a better (though still honest) assessment of the President’s weaknesses, all we get is: ZOMG!!! He wants Paul to be Prez!!!***
* Obama
** Paul
*** For all I know, he _does_ want Paul to be Prez. I’m not a regular GG reader, and I’m just going by that 1 piece where he absolutely didn’t go there.
LT
@TG Chicago:
This:
Following this:
is really fucking dumb. And an example of why most of us should really not bother with this crap.
wrb
Somehow I think you don’t realize how absurd this conclusion is.
And still wouldn’t if it were explained.
TG Chicago
@Soonergrunt: But what about innocent civilians?
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/u-s-drone-strikes-killed-775-civilians-since-2004-report/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/in-pakistan-drones-kill-our-innocent-allies.html
Benjamin Franklin
@Paula:
I agree that moral superiority is a crushing burden for Glenn. “Millions of innocent Muslims” is a form of strawman he thought would have more impact than say, the death of Al-Alwaki’s teen-age son.
TG Chicago
@LT: Bush decided Iraq was “the enemy”. So he invaded. Obama decided al-Awlaqi was “the enemy”. So he killed him. The difference being that at least Bush got Congressional support before his action. Obama acted alone.
Some people don’t believe the president should have the power to unilaterally decide who is “the enemy”.
LT
@Mark S.:
I realized that using the quotation marks might bring out some grubs. Oh well. He doesn’t express “support,” support, or support – of Ron paul.
different-church-lady
Greenwald’s Paul fixation turns on pissing off Obama supporters. Full stop.
Paco
jesus, this entire comment thread is f*ing retarded. i hate democrats so much it makes me want to punch myself in pennance.
Brandon
@Can’t Be Bothered: In fairness, it almost (which is not the same as) as crazy when EDK was posting here. It used to be the case that no one could make the comments erupt like EDK. Now we have ABL and things have reached a whole other level. While ABL is certainly responsible for a lot of that, I would be remiss to point out that there does seem to be some other elements at play as well. I won’t bother to guess the relative contributions of either.
jeffreyw
@schrodinger’s cat: Sorry! I was cooking chicken wings. Bea ignores Bitsy for the most part, but I have seen them play. Homer is fine and he and Bitsy play all the time.
joes527
@Soonergrunt:
Battlefield … battlefield … battlefield. Nope, sorry, not ringing any bells.
I suspect is is one of those words that once had meaning but no longer denotes anything, anyone, anywhen or anywhere in particular. My guess it is sort of like aether.
TG Chicago
@wrb: The question is: who gets to define who America’s enemies are? I don’t believe the president gets to do that by himself.
Do you believe Obama would be legally and morally allowed to order a drone strike to kill Ahmadinejad? He has used strong anti-US rhetoric just as al-Awlaki did. Would that be okay?
Larv
I notice a lot of GG supporters are making much of his claim that he doesn’t support or endorse any candidate, whether it be Paul, Obama, or whatever. I don’t read him often, so maybe he’s given a good reason for this that I haven’t seen, but it seems a very odd stance to take. He’s a blogger/pundit whose ouvre is political opinion and legal analysis, but he refuses to offer his opinion on the single most consequential political issue of the moment. What gives?
Satanicpanic
@TG Chicago: I get it, Bush is better than Obama! Well why didn’t you just come out and say so?
El Tiburon
@Larv:
I am not sure if this is true or not.
Darkrose
@El Tiburon:
I think it’s more like:
Liberals: We hate War on Drugs. It’s a shame we can’t do anything about it.
Greenwald: Ron Paul hates it too, why not give him a listen.
Liberals: Uh, Ron Paul doesn’t believe the federal government has the authority to run the War on Drugs–or anything else–and that it should be left to the states. This is the same logic he uses to argue against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and abolishing the Fed, so I’m not taking him that seriously.
Greenwald: LEAVE RON ALOOOOOOOOOONE!
FlipYrWhig
@TG Chicago: Paul believes in letting Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal. I’m no expert, but isn’t that equivalent to Congress declaring an enemy and targeting him? Is it better because it’s Congress? That sounds like a constitutional position, but not a particularly clear moral or ethical one.
Mark S.
@Larv:
He doesn’t vote. He just likes calling everybody else hypocrites.
FlipYrWhig
@Darkrose: First it’s “you love Obama’s drug war and everything Obama would ever do.” _Then_ it’s “leave Ron Paul alone”.
RSA
Nice, Tom. I do something similar to relax when my computer is at hand–the screen saver goes to travel photos my wife and I have taken over the years. Thoughts of good times past.
On current events, I’m with Tim F.
But Greenwald’s approach, which is basically, “Here’s this nutcase who is the only one in a position to bring these issues to public attention,” is just counterproductive. Why emphasize the messenger in that way?
les
@El Tiburon:
Well, you’ve learned demonization and non-sequitor from your master. The last line would be, if you’ve paid any attention at all:
Liberals: Well, I don’t give Paul a listen because he doesn’t actually hate the war on drugs, he only hates federal enforcement; the states are welcome to continue and enlarge it, in Ron’s view, along with segregation, forced childbirth, Jim Crow, draconian immigration policies, destruction of the social safety net in all its forms, etc. So your support of Ron’s policies is pretty much a malformed mockery of the notion of civil liberties, except as you have defined them into such a narrow purview that they only have meaning for wordy philosophers.
Kathy in St. Louis
A Paul presidency would make us long for these days of gridlock. The Republicans of the tea ilk would use his nuttiness to bring about total economic disaster, but after that the amount of gridlock as we explore such subjects as abortion, taxation, etc. would be complete. The one thing that we need to remember is that times must be really tough and the country must be near panic that we are even discussing a wack job like this in everyday conversation as if a presidency by someone of his philosophies could be considered. He’s nuts, and not to put too fine a point on it, so are 90 percent of the people who favor him.
Jonny Scrum-half
Let’s agree that Ron Paul (a) is not going to be President, (b) should not be President because of many of his ideas, and (c) at the least associated with racists and profited from racist statements in newsletters. For all I know he may have written some or all of those racist statements himself.
Nevertheless, he’s the only major candidate — maybe the only candidate, period — who is making the case for (1) ending the war on drugs, and (2) re-assessing our overly militaristic foreign policy.
If any attempt to praise Paul for positions (1) and (2) is immediately shouted down because of items (a), (b) and (c) above, then the war on drugs and our militarism are off-the-table, and won’t be the subject of any discussion in the upcoming election. I can’t get in Greenwald’s head, and I agree that he appears to have a problem accepting contrary viewpoints, but to me the best reason to validate Ron Paul’s candidacy is so that the above viewpoints will at least get an audience.
(By the way, Greenwald isn’t the only person on the Internet who has problems accepting opposing viewpoints, or who over-reacts with invective when challenged.)
les
@TG Chicago:
Can we kindly hold down the complete idiocy?
les
@Jonny Scrum-half:
If this were actually true, it might be worth talking about. Probably not, given the man’s total lack of sanity. When do the GG-ites acknowledge that Paul is making neither of those cases, he simply wants to out-source ’em.
stratplayer
@Jonny Scrum-half: Please, please read at least Section 3 of Ron Paul’s proposed “We the People Act” and then tell us how we can count on him to protect our liberties:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958:
People need to educate themselves about this guy. Ron Paul is not an authentic libertarian. He is a Neoconfederate, states’ rights absolutist and a clear and present danger to liberty in this country.
wrb
@TG Chicago:
I wouldn’t favor it.
Obama’s use has been in accord with congressional authorization, and has resulted in a great reduction in loss of life, both American and Muslim, that which would have occurred as result of the alternatives.
Look, I’d read Balloon-Juice for awhile, but the first time I was draw to post was during the pre- Afghan surge debate.
I posted an essay by Rory Stewart that had appeared in The London Review of Books that I had found persuasive.
Stewart accepted that complete disengagement in Af would be a mistake, eventually leading to a lot more deaths after AQ reconstituted itselef turned AF into the combinedMIT, Pentagon and Disneyland for wanna-be terrorists from around the world and burned down the region too.
However he argued that we didn’t need to hold the ground. We could achieve our interests- keep AQ ineffective- using precision weapons from over the horizon with occasional assistance from ground forces.
Far fewer would die, far less of our treasure would be wasted.
Well, we didn’t take that advice at that time,: we surged. However, it looks to me like the president has been moving toward Stewart’s prescription. Would that George Bush have prosecuted war against Al Qaeda as efficiently and with as little loss civilian life.
So yes, I completely support Obama’s use of drones. I think it is saving many lives.
wrb
@TG Chicago:
Please inform yourself
schrodinger's cat
@jeffreyw: No problem! I have been thinking of trying my hand at blogging about food, and I have a question for you, what is the secret behind the gorgeous photos you take?
Judas Escargot
@joes527:
It’s almost as if ‘battlefield’ were a quaint, ancient word from a simpler (and less technological) time.
Wannabe Speechwriter
Can’t believe no one posted this video-
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war
joes527
@wrb:
You do realize that the loss of life from Saddam giving al qaeda WMD would have far exceeded the bad stuff that happened when we invaded Iraq.
It is cool how you can say _anything_ in a counter factual.
Can't Be Bothered
@Brandon:
Sorry, but that’s a big no. With EDK it was a million people telling him his ideas were fucking idiotic and Cole would defend his right to his idiotic opinions. With ABL it has always been about her PERSONALLY being a victim of something, anything. Not ideas. Totally different things. And of course I flatly think it’s factually incorrect to say that the bullshit was as dramatic or as frequent with EDK. Not even close to the same as far as I’m concerned.
Anya
Kitten Tikka Masala is gorgeous. I am joining Tikka’s fan club. Also, too, you’re a mensch, Tom Levenson.
TG Chicago
@FlipYrWhig: I saw a link elsewhere in the thread. I agree it’s a troubling position. Thanks for calling my attention to it.
El Tiburon
@Jonny Scrum-half:
.
What contrary viewpoints is he not accepting? The contrary viewpoint espoused by many here that he totally secretly loves Ron Paul – even when he clearly states he does not?
On the contrary, it is people like Tom Levenson here and others who have a hard time with the very basic premise you laid out in the second part of your quote above.
You laid out in your comment what Greenwald is saying. But you see, you can’t say that over here because it proves you are a racist dick.
El Tiburon
@Kathy in St. Louis:
Then it’s a good think NOBODY around here, including Greenwald, are hoping for such a thing.
TG Chicago
@wrb: What Congressional authorization did Obama get to kill Awlaqi? If you say the AUMF, then who decided Awlaqi is covered by it? Why can’t he decide that Ahmadinejad or a nun is also covered by it?
bemused senior
@Dave: Are you a pacifist? I ask because the moral difference between using a drone and using a bomber or artillery shelling a position seems to come out on the side of the drone IMHO.
El Tiburon
@les:
Do you ever think on your own, or do you just digest and puke whatever you hear on the internet tubes?
If you go to the Youtube clip here
http://youtu.be/o8S8N2OG7sU
and listen to that, tell me what you find wrong with it. He is saying that the drug laws are unfair, especially to black people; that we should treat it like a disease.
Some of you act like some magical spell will force all states to enact draconian drug laws if the federal laws are relaxed. This is so stupid. It’s fucking stupid logic.
Again, fuck Ron Paul. But he is the only one with this message. But so many of you are so blinded by stupidity -nyuk nyuk state rights and shit nyuk nyuk – that you can’t even see it.
WaterGirl
@FlipYrWhig:
One of my dogs had seizures, and my state of mind definitely affected him.
My poor guy had 4 seizures the weekend my relationship with my ex was ending, after having been seizure free for quite a long time. Heart-breaking!
I don’t know what it’s like for a cat, but I would put my arms around him and lay my head on his chest, patting him and whispering in his ear the whole time he would have a seizure. I hoped that, at some level at least, my presence was a comfort to him.
El Tiburon
@RSA:
Because the MESSAGE IS SO FUCKING VITAL.
Do you hear yourself? It is more important to you to stifle the message on ending wars on muslims and drugs than the messenger get some attention? What kind of warped mentality is that?
wrb
It authorized it w/out ambiguity.
Are you saying that the executive cannot act upon their counsuls’ reading of any law or regulation. That they can never action with fresh, specific congressional authorization.
Note btw how the sequence I describe above differs from how GG insists those who support Obama’s use of the drones.
I opposed Obama’s surge.
I thought he should rely on drones instead.
I support his current policy, which appears to be the one I supported all along.
El Tiburon
@Soonergrunt:
Who is the enemy? How do we know if we are killing the enemy? If there is a 50% chance we are not killing the enemy and killing innocents as well as children and babies, you still cool?
Would you like to ride shotgun on that joystick? Maybe knock out a few bad-guys yourself? Just tuck it away in the mental lockbox that maybe an infant or little girl was in that tent or shack?
Maybe high-five the guy next to you when you see that missile hit and explode. Then go knock back a few brewskies and rejoice at the awesome kills you made? You got any problems with that?
Under the Aurora Freeway
Point Reyes. I knew that beach wasn’t anywhere in Massachusetts.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I would be interested to hear if GG thinks that there are any positive contributions to our political discussion that David Duke could make. Maybe even an opinion from him on any contributions that Joe Arpaio could make. I’m sure that if GG looks he will find something that he and they would agree on and if it trashes Obama at the same time then even better for GG.
Go with Arpaio GG, there’s probably some gold there!
vernon
Dr Levenson, I tend to admire your posts a great deal, and I am extremely disappointed with you here. The fact is you mischaracterize GG from start to finish.
GG said, in the column under discussion, “It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate”; he expanded greatly on this point and did so with tact and restraint; in light of which your application of the Guardian’s Baptist joke and Goya image is stunningly unfair.
Are commitments to peace and due process as peripheral to Liberalism as the Baptist-Whatever-of-1915 is to Christianity? Is that your point, really? And posting the Goya, in this context, absolutely screams Freudian projection. Sad, sorry stuff.
RSA
EDIT: Oh, never mind.
Quaker in a Basement
Your opinion is repugnant and an affront to right-thinking people!
(Hunh? Oh, nobody in particular. It just seems like the thing to say.)
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: “Ron Paul is to the left of Obama” is so fucking vital?
FuzzyWuzzy
@Mark S.: Funny. Why doesn’t he live here? That might illuminate your thought processes a bit. Why doesn’t GG live in the US? Maybe Google can help. Or is GG the only gay man liberals are allowed to hate during the appropriate two minute interval?
Freddie
I always wonder about red-baiters; do you enjoy it? Do you like being the sharp edge of the sword?
Take yourself seriously for a minute and consider in what possible world the left-wing critics of Obama are the eliminationists. Do you not read the comments on your own blog? Have you experienced a post around here where someone makes a left-wing criticism of the Obama administration?
Fifth columns and objectively pro-Saddam, here we come. 2012 already sucks.
JC
@vernon: Good argument, said lucidly, thanks.
Tom Levenson
@vernon: I have, for reasons I think pretty obvious, allowed the thread to wind its own way through what remains more-heat-than-light territory. But I thought I’d respond to you, both to thank you for your kind words about other posts, and to correct what I fear is a misreading of this one.
(BTW — I’m not a Dr. I hold no advanced degrees and don’t want to pretend to any titles I have not actually earned.)
First, I’m afraid you rather thoroughly missed the point of the Baptist joke, both in its original context and here. The issue in both settings is the danger and absurdity of factionalism in the context of shared goals. I do Greenwald the honor, I hope, of believing that his civil libertarian aims are harmonious if not wholly congruent with my liberal ones.
I.e. — I am a strong civil libertarian in my views, but I accept that there are constraints on liberty that can be justified in certain contexts — as does Greenwald, I believe. Our contexts may differ, but the point is that amidst zeal that (IMHO, again) confounds his aim (and aims), I think he makes many important and true arguments. At the same time I do not think that the choice between Obama and any Republican on offer, including Paul, is remotely close, and I think Greenwald does a disservice in the way he approaches that issue.
Hence the joke about factionalism: I don’t think Greenwald advances the actual cause he supports by the argument he makes from first principles. Maybe I am Polonius, but there it is.
As for Goya — I guess I’m chuffed to be all Freudian all of a sudden (news to my former shrink, who despaired of persuading me into analysis). But that was an explicit reference to Greenwald’s invocation of the concept of evil in suggesting that people like me, who support Obama, would excuse any evil if committed by the President.
Not projection, IOW. Illustration.
And with that, this thread is dead to me.
Richard
@vernon:
Is it rational, reasonable or moral to support the candidacy of a “baby killer” under any circumstance?
That’s one of the ways that Greenwald has characterized Obama. If you accept that characterization, how can you do anything other than vigorously oppose him?
Greenwald’s alleged “I’m not supporting one candidate over another” stance just seems laughable, given that sort of rhetoric.
JC
@Tom Levenson: Actually, a good reply Tom.
I guess the point revolves around the judgment about how much GG is really ‘pushing’, ‘hinting’, ‘hoping’, to influence people not to vote for Obama, but for Paul. Because I agree with you, that Paul as President would be a disaster that can’t be measured. Seriously. Paul is such a fanatic about everything he believes, and what he believes is in many ways insane, it would end up really effing up the world.
However, I can’t see it myself, in what he posts, that he is strongly pushing Paul. But I could be wrong. Certainly your opinion is valuable to this humble anonymous commentator.
Benjamin Franklin
I guess the thread ‘being dead’ to you means you are done commenting.
Unfortunately, the impression left by your absence in the discussion, is that you merely wished to exploit the detritus which has been extended throughout several threads.
I bow to your principles.
El Tiburon
Greenwald linked to this article on his twitter.
http://coreyrobin.com/2012/01/03/ron-paul-has-two-problems-one-is-his-the-other-is-ours/
Please someone tell me what is wrong with this statement.
JC
@El Tiburon:
Well, that’s not quite true – you have Bernie Sanders doing his very righteous thing, you’ve got Kucinich. There are some politicians. But yes, the main Democrats ‘go along to get along’, and are scared of losing any more support, they ‘shush and shame’ those who raise concerns. Full steam ahead to a 2nd term, we are all in the foxhole together, ignore the fact that we targeted a U.S. citizen for death, with no court justice!
For GG though, there is ONLY and FOREVER the issue of civil liberties. He is an idealogue, and consistent. He sees this in Paul, I think…
But, GG, being who GG is, he chose the dickish way to make his point.
CT Voter
I’m skipping over the very many comments. (And my fingers are twitching and twitching to respond, but I’m going to just go with the flow of the images you posted).
Tikka is lovely. And Point Reyes is one of the most serene places in the US.
Thanks for the interlude.
Benjamin Franklin
He’s not the only one………….
JC
@Benjamin Franklin: Yeah, well, this is the site for hot air and ill-considered banter. At least it used to be. :)
jncc
There’s no question that ABL and other mindless Obots will cheerlead for Obama while he incinerates lots of little brown children – you know, what the news calls collateral damage when a bunch of innocent people in a house are blown to bits by one of our drones.
That’s fine.
But to suggest that they would defend him if he raped someone – that is just beyond good taste.
Tom Levenson
@Benjamin Franklin: You know, I thought I was done, but this is just silly enough to evoke one more reply.
If you’ll look above you’ll see nine comments, a few of them fairly substantial, adding up to more than the length of the original post (I’m guessing — but I think that’s right.)
That’s not absence by any reasonable person’s definition of the term.
You will note a certain gap in my replies between 4:07 and 8:24. What might have caused that? Could it be finishing off an interrupted day’s work, cooking my son’s dinner, reading to my son (Salman Rushdie’s delicious newish kids tale), putting him to bed, and then, whilst my wife’s and my own dinner was cooking, finally getting back to four hours of thread?
Why yes, it could.
You have a very odd sense of indignation, is what I guess I’m saying. Which is me being much more polite than I’m feeling right now.
Tom Levenson
@CT Voter: My pleasure.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: Needs more allegations that to support Brother Obama and his Traveling Drone Nation Show means being AOK with nun raping and dead children because his fangs are red with gore. Because that’s how your boy likes to make points. Not with, you know, point-making.
cynn
@MikeJ: I’ll kick your ass! Yes, I am in fact an internet behemoth.
Benjamin Franklin
@Tom Levenson: @Tom Levenson:
Considering the acrimonious nature of the subject matter you insitigated; I remain polite, as well.
vernon
OK, if the thread is dead to Mr (sorry for the “Dr”—and thanks very much for the response, BTW) Levenson I guess he’s not reading this, but I do feel this point of his merits a response, if only to the cyber-wind:
Of course the point is “the danger and absurdity of factionalism”; that’s the only way to get the joke and is indeed the way I got it. (The joke in question is here, BTW.) But the very thing that makes factions absurd is their emphasis on the nonessential. The Baptist is funny because he’s all hung up on a triviality.
You’ll notice that the setup is not “Do you think the Ten Commandments are bullshit? Yes? Die, heretic!” or “Do you think Jesus Christ is actually the Devil? Die, heretic!” And if it were, it would not be at all funny. It would also cease to be a fable about the absurdity of factions. A Baptist who had a problem with either of these positions would not be representing a faction at all; he would be representing the most basic Xianity.
From here, it would take quite an effort to miss my point: that in urging the importance of the antiwar ideal, of due process, and of civil liberties, Greenwald is writing as anything but a liberal factionalist. These issues are essential and basic to Liberalism. There is no “absurdity” in GG’s evoking them.
As for the “danger”—what exactly is GG doing that’s analogous to pushing his comrade off a bridge and shouting “Die, heretic”? GG professes to be writing because he thinks we Liberals don’t pay enough attention to these issues. And lo and behold, the upshot of his post seems to be that … Liberals ought to pay more attention to these issues. I don’t hear anything that sounds like condemnation or anathema in his post. Maybe you (or if you’re not reading this, one of those who agree with you) could quote something I missed?
Benjamin Franklin
@vernon:
Whoa !
MBunge
1. I don’t quite get the need to defend the profoundly argumentative GG from Twitter or blog commentors.
2. One thing I’d like cleared up by the acolytes of The Last Honest Man is what exactly is his writing supposed to achieve and how is writing the way he does supposed to achieve it.
Mike
Snowwy
@vernon:
YOU should have written the article, rather than Greenwald, for what your deconstruction of Greenwald’s argument contains is the one and only thing that he himself blew off- persuasiveness.
GG thinks nothing of alienating potential and actual political allies. Anyone who cared about building a workable coalition would have shied away from accusing all Obama supporters of being willing to excuse rape and wanton killing (which would be the sense of his word “slaughter”).
As you did. In so doing, you make me understand what GG’s point was. Now can you understand why I thank you and hate GG for making it?
William Hurley
So, I can only conclude that in the joke you referenced, you see yourself in the role of the man on the bridge even though your post is the testimony of an Machiavellian wannabe whose fantasy regarding Greenwald’s fate and your influence over it are succinctly portrayed by the joke’s turn-coat.
How many innocent black and brown people must
diebe murdered by the President before it’s a crime? Or can I assume you subscribe to Nixon’s views on executive authority?Pakistan witnessed suicide/drone hit every 3rd day in 2011
Indefinite Detention, Endless Worldwide War and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
What yo endorse is winning the Charlie Sheen way!
Meadrus
I don’t have a problem with GG’s “honest line of reasoning.” He wrote:
(emphasis added)
What part of that am I supposed to disagree with? Those are the choices that are on the table. I’m still voting for Obama. It’s not like I have any other options — the third party pipe dream is just that, and not voting for the lesser evil only ends up helping the greater evil.
We do not live in a country where “not at all evil” is an option on the national ballot. Obama is terrible in many ways. Any Republican would be worse.
The only thing I could honestly object to, looking steadily into the mirror, is GG’s use of the phrase “willing to,” as though I were dictating the terms of the tradeoff. I would say I am “resigned to” my vote both enabling horrifying violations of some of my values and protecting other things I value, because that is how modern Imperial politics works.
Meadrus
Although GG’s characterization of Paul as “associated with racist views in a newsletter” is horseshit. Paul authored those articles, and for GG to pretend to think otherwise is dishonest and manipulative. Also the exact kind of parsing weaselling crap he frequently accuses his antagonists of hiding behind. Lame.
William Hurley
@Meadrus:
Primary challenges, 3rd parties, “Occupy” and, of course, primary challenges are all means to either support or create the options you seek. Given the institutionalized and incumbent benefits the 2 major parties enjoy, giving life to the options I list (and those I haven’t thought to list) requires more time, effort, energy, sacrifice and money from you – yes, you the individual – than simply “supporting” the Democratic Party which requires far less from you individually save your vote. But, in choosing the path of least resistance (a.k.a. minimal effort), you implicitly give energy to the politics of perpetual motion and the parties that benefit most from no resistance, no challenge, no interference and no reason to reform.