Talking ‘Bout a R3volution

Possibly date-rapey WikiLeaker Julian Assange extols the virtues of the American libertarian movement, Paul père et fils and Matt Drudge:

Huh. And here I thought Rand Paul was a reproductive rights-restricting, austerity-humping, Civil Rights Act-deploring tea party loon who wants to gut Social Security to further enrich the Waltons and Koch Brothers. And I had written Drudge off as a has-been wingnut propagandist who runs a 1998 web design museum.

Turns out Paul is just a fluffy pacifist bunny who opposes taxes, the draft, drones and abortion because nonviolence! Who knew?

And thank dog Drudge broke the Clinton sploodge-dress story back in ’98 to shake the media out of its self-censorship trance. Otherwise, some prep school cheerleader legacy admission masquerading as a plain-spoken cowpoke might have come along to lie us into a calamitous war, with an online wingnut chorus babbling about “democracy, whiskey, sexy” every step of the way. Dodged a bullet there, we did.

[H/T: Commenter Another Bot Splainer]

218 replies
  1. 1
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    OK, I’m hoping that Ecuador realizes just what it is they’re sheltering, and decides that it’s time to toss him to the wolves.

  2. 2
    Burnspbesq says:

    If Assange gets elected to the Australian Senate, I may have to re-evaluate my position on the intelligence of the median Australian voter.

    Also too, Chunky Bobo wins the Twitterverse for today.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....c=nl_wnkpm

  3. 3
    Yatsuno says:

    Wait…when did Julian become a pacifist? I thought he was just anti-gubmint seekrits. Becuz info needs to be free.

  4. 4
    Soonergrunt says:

    (pops popcorn, opens beer)
    Well, THIS thread should be fun!

  5. 5
    Yatsuno says:

    @Soonergrunt: Inb4 Special Timmeh splooges everywhere. I’ll grab towels.

  6. 6
    burnspbesq says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    OK, I’m hoping that Ecuador realizes just what it is they’re sheltering, and decides that it’s time to toss him to the wolves.

    That’ll happen on the same day that the Mets rally to win the NL East.

  7. 7
    burnspbesq says:

    @Yatsuno:

    Lots of towels. And brain bleach, too. Don’t forget the brain bleach.

  8. 8
    Felonius Monk says:

    WTF — WTF — WTF. Oh, and by the way, WTF!

  9. 9
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Yatsuno: I’m not sure if Assange is being disingenuous about Paul or if he’s merely dumb. Paul made it perfectly clear he didn’t object to using drones to kill foreigners or US citizens overseas. He just doesn’t want them doing a domestic flyover to check out his scalp-tribble collection.

  10. 10
    Eric U. says:

    glad you finished up my work day with some comedy

    @Betty Cracker: thought it was ok w/Paul if we use dronze on a guy that just left a liquor store that he just robbed of $50.

  11. 11
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I admit I don’t follow Rand Paul too closely. On the Daily Show the other night, he seemed far more concerned with the gov’t infringing on people’s right to go bankrupt due to cancer or die in their apartments after a massive coronary. Has he said anything even remotely close to useful or even coherent about the NSA? I was glad to see Leahy step up.

  12. 12
    MomSense says:

    Wait until you see the portfolio of the person wikileaks hired to design their Snowden merchandise.

  13. 13
    MomSense says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Actually Rand doesn’t care if drones are used to kill a guy who robbed a liquor store here in the good ‘ole USofA.

  14. 14
    Another Bot Splainer says:

    The dudebro White privilege tour continues. Assholes !

  15. 15
    Hill Dweller says:

    @Betty Cracker: Paul has no problem using drone strikes against American citizens in the US if they “pose an imminent threat”. He is, and always was, to the right of the Obama administration’s drone policy.

    Paul, like all the other “libertarians”, is a charlatan.

  16. 16
    Soonergrunt says:

    @MomSense: Oh, yeah, the guy is a total teabagging wingnut. He sells a dartboard with President on it, forehead is the bullseye.

  17. 17
    MomSense says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    And his dad, Ron isn’t exactly against the war on terror. He just thinks we should outsource it to private contractors.

  18. 18
    Eric U. says:

    @Soonergrunt: I would definitely get a “Gore, World Dictator” t-shirt if I could make sure he didn’t make any money off of it.

  19. 19
    NCSteve says:

    @MomSense: Well, yeah. Because private companies have been totally shut off from the money spigot in the War on T’r so far.

  20. 20
    Keith G says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I’m not sure if Assange is being disingenuous about Paul or if he’s merely dumb.

    Does it matter? At this point, Assange is a side show and, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than click bait. He won’t influence American voters and he has no divisions.

    At this stage, he no longer provides value-added content.

  21. 21
    gussie says:

    Well, that does it. I’m not voting for him.

  22. 22
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Keith G: Excepting that Assange’s russian lawyers are spending a lot of time sitting with Ed Snowden.

  23. 23
    dedc79 says:

    @burnspbesq: Not sure why you had to drag the poor Mets into this….

    I think next season things are going to come together. And I haven’t thought that in about a dozen years.

  24. 24
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    What is it about the Pauls that gets so many people all moony-eyed, many of them otherwise intelligent? Are they secretly hypnotists? Do they know how to slip subliminal commands into their speeches, like in Illuminatus or whatever that book was? Whatever it is, I remain immune.

  25. 25
    MomSense says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    I kinda like the “Socialists. Spreading the wealth since 1917” magnet.

  26. 26
    MomSense says:

    @NCSteve:

    Poor companies like Haliburton and Bechtel, are barely scraping by bless their hearts.

  27. 27
    gussie says:

    @Spaghetti Lee: They give greedy bastards something to mumble when trying to prove that avarice is principle.

  28. 28
    ruemara says:

    Did you actually want consistency from our civil libertarian betters? When you understand that it’s all about protecting the rights, freedoms and privileges of White Males and ensuring that Not-That-White and Not-That-Males are properly kept in their place, you understand. Snowden was quite conservative before Barack Obama became president and failed to create the enlightened, free society he was supposed to do within 2 hrs of warming his backside behind the Resolute Desk. The argument that “Barack Obama is fine with sending DRONES AFTER AMERICANS ABROAD” was laughable, when you consider you’d have to think vacationing with the Baader Meinhof is what all Americans do. None of this is a surprise. Why else do you think they’re so goddamned silent on the assault on voting rights and women’s rights? Assange is strangely quiet on Russia’s attack on the lgbt community. It’s not really about rights, it’s about THEIR RIGHTS to not be impacted by anything or constrained by anything. You think they care about anyone else? It takes a heck of an ego to think that several hits collected by a search is the equivalent of spying and then to think that means someone is listening to your bullshit life.

  29. 29
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @MomSense:

    1917? Guy’s never heard of Emma Goldman or Eugene Debs or Joe Hill, all of whom did most of their work before 1917? Does he think all left-wing economic ideology is Communism, and it all burst into existence, fully formed, in the Russian Revolution? What a moron.

  30. 30
    Keith G says:

    @Soonergrunt: So?

    How is that going to affect the successful implementation of universal medical coverage, or stem the widening of the crevasse between the rich and the poor in America?

    Snowden can dance the Tango naked with Putin and it will not change the path of my life – or that of hundreds of millions of others.

  31. 31
    Roger Moore says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    He just doesn’t want them doing a domestic flyover to check out his scalp-tribble collection.

    But domestic flyovers to blow up blah people are A-OK in his book.

  32. 32
    realbtl says:

    @Eric U.:
    Not that I would ever recommend such a thing but I’ve heard it’s possible to save the image and use transfer paper to make your own Tee.

  33. 33
    gussie says:

    @Keith G: Doesn’t matter. Click-bait. But click-bait is fun!

  34. 34
    Butch says:

    I had not known until recently that at one point the elder Paul was telling Americans that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for $25,000 and was an ideal way to evade taxes. True story.

  35. 35
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Burnspbesq:
    Assange is running for Senator? Hmm. He’s going have a problem filing his nomination papers while holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Then he has to campaign and, if he wins, take his oath of office and attend sessions in Canberra. I wonder if he’ll even be allowed to run by the Aussie election authority.

  36. 36
    MomSense says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Does he think…?

    Nope.

  37. 37
  38. 38
    Burnspbesq says:

    @dedc79:

    I think next season things are going to come together. And I haven’t thought that in about a dozen years.

    I don’t know about next year. I want to see D’Arnaud prove he’s a legit major league catcher, I don’t know where Flores plays when Wright is healthy, and 1B, SS, and closer are major areas of concern. But I like Legares, and Harvey and Wheeler are the real deal.

  39. 39
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Exqueeze me, but actual history is not what these people refer to. An imaginary past that meets their current ideological needs is what they have.

    These are the people Orwell warned us about.

  40. 40
    LT says:

    This place is a like bad DKos way too often.

  41. 41
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @ruemara:

    when you consider you’d have to think vacationing with the Baader Meinhof is what all Americans do.

    Well, if the Baader-Meinhof Gang was running some spiffy Caribbean resort with a choice of cracked crab or lobster claws with champagne for lunch (why not both?) on a glorious white sandy beach facing Jamie Lee Curtis in a bikini on a sailboat, well, yeah.

  42. 42
    Burnspbesq says:

    @LT:

    No one is holding a gun to your head and requiring you to be here.

  43. 43
    LT says:

    @Burnspbesq: Oh gee thanks.

  44. 44
    Knockabout says:

    Because the Zandar Method states “The best way to rob your political opponents of relevancy is to relentlessly mention them.”

    I’m sure just a few thousand more posts on how awful the Pauls, Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald are will banish them from the American political discourse forever.

  45. 45
    Roger Moore says:

    @burnspbesq:

    That’ll happen on the same day that the Mets Cubs rally to win sweep the NL East World Series.

    FTFY.

  46. 46
    LT says:

    @Burnspbesq: I’ve got as much right as anyone to say this or that about BJ. ABL, Zander – they’re lead weights on a good balloon. Don’t know Cracker much, but this reeks of the Glenn Greenwald hate club, which, fortunately, even John goes after.

    ABL, just by the way, is right now doing the high-five thing with Charles Johnson and Bob Cesca on how the latest NSA story is a great big nothingburger. Yay, Balloon Juice, huh?

  47. 47
    Burnspbesq says:

    OT: if you’re a Time Warner Cable subscriber and you were planning you watch all the EPL matches tomorrow via the NBC Sports Live Extra App, you’re fucked.

  48. 48
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Knockabout: I’m sure just a few thousand more posts on how awful the Pauls, Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald are will banish them from the American political discourse forever.

    As often happens, you’re confusing blog comments with “the American political discourse”

  49. 49
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    Paul, like all the other “libertarians”, is a charlatan.

    They’re also neo-feudalists.

    Which is why the ideal way to deal with them is to place their heads on pikes at King’s Landing.

  50. 50
    Yatsuno says:

    @Amir Khalid: Last I heard not only was it allowed, he was ahead in the polls. It would be a dream for him because hello diplomatic immunity.

  51. 51
    Roger Moore says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    1917? Guy’s never heard of Emma Goldman or Eugene Debs or Joe Hill, all of whom did most of their work before 1917?

    But apparently he has heard of Karl Marx, whose picture is on the thing. I publishing The Communist Manifesto in 1848 doesn’t really count because Marx never accumulated enough power to do anything.

  52. 52
    Burnspbesq says:

    @LT:

    Yes, you do, but my point stands. If you think this place is a cesspool, why waste your time here?

  53. 53
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: ABL and Zander, eh?

  54. 54
    Botsplainer says:

    I just want Greenwald and his husband to fly to Russia to visit Snowden in his new paradise of nonsurveillance and freedom, considering how much Snowden has done for Greenwald’s career. They can have a cozy dinner somewhere all romantic and cuddly.

    Why Greenwald? Because he’s on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a major bundler for wikileaks. And we also know that Greenwald is very racist/anti-semite friendly, given his weird level of support for Gluteus Maximus Matthew Hale.

    https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/organizations

    Anybody know if Russian cops taze you before they beat you, or is it vice-versa? Because it needs to happen to GleGre.

  55. 55
    me says:

    @Yatsuno: Diplomatic immunity doesn’t work that way. The host country has to grant it.

  56. 56
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Keith G: To the extend that it’s knowable (and I’ll grant you, that’s limited) I think it’s important to understand the beliefs and motivations of people who are driving policy and debate. It’s not that a libertarian or a rank dumbass (pardon the redundancy) can’t make a valid point or contribution. But if they’re filtering info through their political agenda and I’m aware of that possibility, I may be more skeptical, and rightly so.

  57. 57
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Keith G:

    How is that going to affect the successful implementation of universal medical coverage, or stem the widening of the crevasse between the rich and the poor in America?
    Snowden can dance the Tango naked with Putin and it will not change the path of my life – or that of hundreds of millions of others.

    Leaving aside that they are off-topic and utterly fucking irrelevant to the subject at hand, I don’t know about you, but I can do more than one thing at a time.

  58. 58
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Yatsuno: Doesn’t diplomatic immunity need to be granted by the host country to the individual? Would it apply to any office holder, I’m unsure.

  59. 59
    LT says:

    @Burnspbesq: Well gee sheriff…

    Honestly, I make one criticism of the place, and your response is this?

  60. 60
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: What does that mean?

  61. 61
    Roger Moore says:

    @LT:

    I’ve got as much right as anyone to say this or that about BJ.

    And we have a right to tell you you’re a jackass for continuing to come here even though you hate it. See how free speech works?

  62. 62
    Botsplainer says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    They’re also neo-feudalists.

    That’s always been the way they headed. They want to weaken the power of the Federal government to impact their redneck baronies or to enforce the Bill of Rights – which would sound pretty, but be worthless. They would use the combined weight of their baronies and the gerrymander to choke out the more numeric urban voices on a national basis, and then combine the baronies to establish a unified national Dominionist set of governmental policies.

    They came really close to unstoppable momentum during Schiavo.

  63. 63
    boatboy_srq says:

    @Betty Cracker: The thing about the modern incarnations of libertarianism is that the left-wing looks so much like the right-wing it’s often hard to tell them apart. Thus the left-wing ones “like” the right-wing ones, even though the latter vote so often against the former, and vice versa. The “Ron Paul Revolution” of a few years ago is much easier to explain this way, since so many Paulbots hailed from the different camps without realizing it.

  64. 64
    LT says:

    @Roger Moore: That would make sense if I’d said I hate this place. Since I didn’t, it doesn’t.

    See how that works?

    P.S. You don’t know what “free speech” means.

  65. 65
  66. 66
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: You made the point of singling out ABL and Zander, I believe the burden is you.

  67. 67
    Soonergrunt says:

    @LT: I’m sorry we’re not kissing your ass sufficiently by posting stuff that gives you a warm and fuzzy.

  68. 68

    @Spaghetti Lee: The Pauls sound good if you only hear or read about 5% of what they’re saying.

    It’s when you start reading about the other 95% of their beliefs that you realize they’re occupying the heart of crazy town.

  69. 69
    burnspbesq says:

    @LT:

    It’s not you. That entire line of inquiry passed its sell-by date some time ago.

    This place is what it is. Deal, or don’t. But don’t whine about things that aren’t going to change. That’s a waste of bandwidth.

  70. 70
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: But you’re wrong.

  71. 71
    LT says:

    @Soonergrunt: Thank you. But don’t be too hard on yourself.

  72. 72
    David Koch says:

    Looks like it’s a bad day for the emo-left.

    Turns out Weiner had his lover on the taxpayer payroll.

    Boy they sure can pick ’em.

  73. 73
    LT says:

    @burnspbesq: Hey, I stopped saying anythign about it a LONG time ago. I only made my one little comment just now because I dropped by and saw this eye-roller of a post.

    Forgive me?

  74. 74
    Betty Cracker says:

    @LT: Unfortunate in your conjectures, sir/ma’am; I don’t hate Greenwald (though I think he can be a thin-skinned dick sometimes, and lord knows he requires a heavy-handed editor, deficits GG himself might actually own, if asked), and Cole is quite chummy with him!

  75. 75
    burnspbesq says:

    @David Koch:

    Thank you so very much for that.

    There’s always this to comfort me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QyW6P_JBbA

  76. 76
    burnspbesq says:

    @LT:

    We’ll just pretend this never happened.

  77. 77
  78. 78
    Knockabout says:

    “Zander”.

    Never stops being funny how much everyone here hates the guy.

  79. 79
    Yatsuno says:

    @LT: Your choice of FPers to complain about is…interesting.

  80. 80
    burnspbesq says:

    This seems apropos. Plus it’s a great song.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAbYsxd3ADg

  81. 81
    Nethead Jay says:

    @LT: Haha, I’m betting there there’s a lot of things you don’t know much about. Even if you yourself think you do. Also, I’m kinda curious why you shortened Betty Cracker’s full nym.

  82. 82
    Anoniminous says:

    Speaking of General Stupidity …

    Judge says Chubby Checker can pursue lawsuit against HP over penis-measuring app

    A federal judge has ruled that Chubby Checker can move forward with his lawsuit to sue Hewlett-Packard (HP) over trademark violations regarding his iconic name.

    Earlier this year, Checker—whose real name is Ernest Evans—sued HP and its subsidiary, Palm, over an app that purported to measure a man’s penis based on his shoe size.

    Guess the doofus has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

  83. 83
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @LT:

    They’re saying you’re racist, because those are our two black FPers. Confirm/deny?

  84. 84
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Yatsuno: I thought so.

  85. 85
    Gravenstone says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Alarm bells, no?

  86. 86
    Anoniminous says:

    Oops. I used the “p” word.

    Can someone take my poor little comment (#82) out of moderation?

  87. 87
    LT says:

    @Betty Cracker: Sir.

    I apologize. I did say I was not sure, but this post – oy. You don’t have to, and I’m sure don’t, give a rat’s ass what I think – but aren’t you actually saying something youre’ not saying out loud by doing this Assange post? And “date-rapey” That’s fucked up.

    Same with GG. The people who say thing about oh he just so thin-skinned and all the other crap are in almost all cases actually saying something else. It’s so far fucking gone with a lot of them I dont’ know if they even know it anymore. It’s just a stew of resent that forgot what it was resentful about. If Glenn Greenwald cured cancer there’d be endless threads here about how good rapid cell division is.

  88. 88
    LT says:

    @Spaghetti Lee: I have no idea what Zander’s race is. Never seen a pic of him, dont ‘read his posts. I can guess now.

    People saying that can kindly or unkindly fuck themselves.

  89. 89
    Gravenstone says:

    @Knockabout: I think you’ve stepped far beyond mere psychological projection when you ascribe to everyone else what is solely your own viewpoint. Tell me, what is life like, being a dedicated stalker to someone who hasn’t even posted to the thread?

  90. 90
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: I’m sure Betty will love being called sir.

  91. 91
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Burnspbesq:

    I can’t speak for LT, but a major way good blogs become unreadable shitholes is by refusing to listen to any differing opinions and getting all defensive whenever they come up. And defending the blog’s culture by saying no one has to read it is a lazy way to excuse it. If you want a good place to have discussions, you need to make it a place people want to read. If all you want is a place to confirm what you already think, well, have fun. Given the many many times people bring it up about Kos or FDL not being able to hear a damn thing outside their own sealed echo chambers, I’m surprised no one notices when it happens here.

    I don’t think this place is an unreadable shithole by any means. But there sure seem to be a lot more loudmouthed, quick-tempered assholes than there used to be.

  92. 92
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I was ansering her question about ma’am/sir to me.

  93. 93
    Knockabout says:

    @LT:
    Or if Greenwald successfully informed the world that there’s zero difference between Obama and Bush on civil liberties.

    Why, if he did that, people would instead infer he was a serial date-rapist, traitor, and racist scumbag.

  94. 94
    Roger Moore says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    The Pauls sound good if you only hear or read about 5% of what they’re saying.

    And there are people who are inclined to do just that. They are, for some reason, considered respectable enough to get significant attention from the press, and they’re among the few “respectable” people who are saying that stuff. So if you really want to hear that little bit, you’ll pay attention to them. And, of course, if you’re among the distressingly large part of the population who doesn’t object to most of the other 95% of what they say and still like the 5%, you’re going to love them.

  95. 95
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: Carry on.

  96. 96
    Keith G says:

    @Soonergrunt: I think it’s wonderful that you can multitask. I am still wondering why it is a significant issue who Snowden is meeting with and what role Assange is playing in this played out soap opera.

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    You made the point of singling out ABL and Zander, I believe the burden is you.

    For saying that two of the weakest writers here are…weak writers? FWIW, depending on the post they might rank a bit above Eric Cain, or not.

    Edit…. or is it Kain? Never kared.

  97. 97
    Gravenstone says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Given the many many times people bring it up about Kos or FDL …

    Is this intended as irony? Given that LT’s first post on this thread (which quickly drew the scorn of the commentariat) was to render an unflattering comparison to KOS, without offering anything else by way of meaningful engagement. Said engagement is now being slowly, tortuously being teased out of him, but c’mon. Those “outside the echo chamber” voices might wish to make at least a smidge more effort.

  98. 98
    taylormattd says:

    <3 Love you Betty.

    Thank god there is one front page poster here who doesn't feel the need to tongue bathe Assange.

  99. 99

    Interrupting the lively debate to report that Editor Kitteh has made it to the first page of ICHC/lolcats

  100. 100
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @LT: Same with GG. The people who say thing about oh he just so thin-skinned and all the other crap are in almost all cases actually saying something else

    Are we indeed? What are we saying?

  101. 101
    taylormattd says:

    @LT: Fuck off and post at FDL.

  102. 102
    Knockabout says:

    @Keith G:
    “Weakest writers” is putting it mildly. They are shitty hacks, pure and simple.

  103. 103
    Another Bot Splainer says:

    @taylormattd: Seconded !

  104. 104
    David Koch says:

    Civil liberties is defined as “civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights.”

    U.S. Sen. Rand Paul mocked President Obama’s decision to publicly support same-sex marriage by saying, “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

    The comments by the Republican lawmaker from Kentucky drew big laughs at a gathering sponsored by the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.

    Rand Paul infamously opposes the individual rights of women, gays, and minorities — so how can his tiger-beat supporters claim he’s a civil libertarian?

  105. 105
    taylormattd says:

    @Knockabout: Gee, what a shock. The RAGE is always reserved for the (whispers)black(/whispers) posters.

  106. 106
    LT says:

    @Keith G: That people feel comfortable to this blithely accuse someone of being a racist – wow. That is deeply fucked up. In a sane blog world that would be a bannable offense.

    Plus: The thing I think about mostly regarding ABL is that she accused John of laughing about the issue of rape. Why he invited her back after that I will never understand. I am totally down with the forgiveness aspect – but writing here after that? Meh.

  107. 107
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Gravenstone:

    Fair enough, but the response he got-i.e. “fuck off”-wasn’t much more effortful. Sure, nothing wrong with insulting someone who insulted you, but I’ve seen the ‘fuck off’ reflex on many more detailed and well-put criticisms as well, and it seems to be getting more common.

  108. 108
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Keith G: You do get the part about this post being about Julian Assange, right? Cause the video of Julian Assange talking, and Betty having put his name in the body of the post ought to be dead give-aways. I mean, you don’t have a head injury whereby you read the front pager’s post and then forget the editorial content by comment #16 do you?
    And if you don’t, well then you aren’t reading anything that bothers your beautiful mind, are you?

  109. 109
    LT says:

    @Gravenstone: Are you actually acting like a comment like my very first one is a grave sin? The kind of jab that doesn’t happen here as a matter of course? I think this is s shitty post. Sue me. Betty seems pretty able to deal with things like that.

  110. 110
    David Koch says:

    Maybe before the xombie cult begins erecting Greenwald statues they can take up a collection and pay off his back taxes.

    Rule of law for thee, but not for me.

  111. 111
    gogol's wife says:

    @LT:

    Could you please explain in rational terms why you don’t like this post? Is it inaccurate? Does she incorrectly analyze the source material?

  112. 112
    eemom says:

    What a glorious clusterfuck of commentary for a summer Friday evening!

    Post itself is splendiforous though, Mrs. Betty. Also too, you should take it as a compliment that Zandar’s very own personal ultra-creepy ass troll “Knockabout” is making an appearance on your thread.

  113. 113
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    the xombie cult begins erecting Greenwald statutes

    Maybe they can put them next to all the statues of Saint Ronnie.

  114. 114
    srv says:

    @Spaghetti Lee: The grouchy geriatric John McCain’s of the Left have made BJ their porch and will not tolerate those people on the lawn.

    As John sobers up and begins his descent into angry progessivism, they’re going to be in for some wild swings as he slaps them with the welcome mat (lovingly, of course).

  115. 115
    Gravenstone says:

    @LT: If you thought the post was sub-standard, then try posting something substantially to that effect, rather than dropping some broad turd that basically calls the entirety of the community into question. See how that might work?

  116. 116
    Keith G says:

    @Soonergrunt: I understand what the thread is about and I still wonder why a relatively small group of humans think Assange is still worth the pixels.

    And I love it went a grunt gets snarky. I used to date one…Memories!

  117. 117
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @srv:

    Funny thing is, I used to be on their side much more. In 2010-11 I was much more ‘fuck off, emoprog.’ Honestly I’m not sure what changed.

  118. 118
    mclaren says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    What is it about the Pauls that gets so many people all moony-eyed, many of them otherwise intelligent? Are they secretly hypnotists? Do they know how to slip subliminal commands into their speeches, like in Illuminatus or whatever that book was? Whatever it is, I remain immune.

    The Pauls seem to be the only members of the American political establishment speaking up against pre-emptive murder of U.S. citizens by drone without charging said citizens with a crime, against illegal wars of aggression like Iraq 2003, against panopticon surveillance and against turning America into an East-Germany-style stasi police state.

    The fact that the Pauls are protesting because they want to shut down the IRS and get rid of the FDA and OSHA and make it legal for ordinary citizens to mint their own coinage doesn’t seem to occur to the people who admire them.

    Versailles on the Potomac, in short, has gotten so mired in lala-land as of 2013 that any time an even marginally sane policy position dribbles out of the mouth of someone inside the Beltway, it ignites the kind of enthusiasm previously only seen for Robert Kennedy in 1968. Unfortunately the sane policy positions espoused by the Pauls are basically foam packing peanuts for a giant shipping container full of batshit crazy. But their enthusiasts don’t seem to notice this.

  119. 119
    Knockabout says:

    @taylormattd: Zandar makes long pulls from articles with grade C snark pop-culture comments and Hipster Capitalizations Of Words. He adds precisely nothing to this blog. The ironic thing is his relentless bashing of Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, who at least can write more than 100 words in a post.

    His race has nothing to do with his “flunked out of college” level writing and his dismal tendency to post things just to piss off the BJ audience through attention-seeking hackery, usually done to try to escape ABL’s shadow.

    ABL on the other hand has so much emotional baggage that she’s a minefield, taking ridiculous offense at everything she doesn’t like, turning everything into the next Armageddon. She’s flown off the deep end so many times it’s now accepted that she’s going to eventually accuse every FPer of being a repressive tool of the Patriarchy. Everything devolves with her into how oppressive you’re being towards her.

    Me, I’m waiting for the day Zandar and ABL turn on each other. They deserve each other.

  120. 120
    gelfling545 says:

    @Keith G:

    Snowden can dance the Tango naked with Putin and it will not change the path of my life

    Well, except that it could cause me to die of choking on inhaled coffee and now I have this horrible picture in my head that won’t go away.

  121. 121
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @David Koch: Never fear, most of them will turn on him the instant he cranks out his first ‘Hilary Is Worse Than Bush’ post. You can take that one to the bank.

  122. 122
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    What is it about Betty’s post that has people so angry at ABL (haven’t seen her byline here in weeks) and Xandar (one post in the last month or so, I believe)?

  123. 123
    Botsplainer says:

    I’m going home to drink heavily and post on this thread later, when it’s up to about 300 or so.

    Should be a blast.

  124. 124
    srv says:

    @Spaghetti Lee: Drinking less?

  125. 125
    LT says:

    @gogol’s wife: In rational terms?! Do you even KNOW me???

    Ahem.

    I don’t like this post:

    1) Because it’s about Julian Assange the person, in such a way as to insult, take down, belittle, demean, etc. said person, which, by itself, is MEH, but should and must be seen in the context that it is a tactic that has been used since the very beginning of the WikiLeaks story to take down the WikiLeaks stories. It has been done in this disingenuous fashion so many times it is a meme. And I believe it is being done in this fashion here in this post, too.

    2) There is no 2.

    3) It’s a dumb post because Assange said “[I] am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues…” and Betty has disingenuously turned that into ‘SEE EVIL LIBERTARDIAN DERPDERPDERP!” Which is dumb. And boring.

    4) There’s a post on the Daily Kos rec list right this minute that is basically the same as this one, and it’s generating the same kind of anti-Assange, anti-Greenwald, etc. comments as this one.

  126. 126
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Yatsuno:

    “Bettah get a bucket”

    /Mr. Creosote

    @MomSense:

    I found that out reading over at LGF. Also discovered another word I like: “Emotarians”…lol!

  127. 127
    Knockabout says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Because this post comes dangerously close to Zandar-level awfulness, and many of us are wondering why the hell he’s a FPer at all?

  128. 128
    Barentw says:

    I for one would like Greenwald and his Brazilian husband to visit Lord Snowden in “The World’s Most Free Nation Except Sorry About The Gays.” More PDA, Glenn!

  129. 129
    mclaren says:

    @Knockabout:

    Zandar consistently pulls diamonds from the mainstream media shitpile. Jennifer Rubin, meanwhile, couldn’t write her way out of a pay toilet, and fellates the billionaire thugs who are trying to turn America into a new Confederacy so hard the back of her head is about to cave in.

    If you’d redirect some of your outrage to the Julius Streicher types like burnspbesq who actually deserve it, that’d be great.

  130. 130
    The prophet Nostradumbass says:

    It must be awful to be so completely consumed by a grudge.

  131. 131
    Matt McIrvin says:

    This is my surprised face.

  132. 132
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @The prophet Nostradumbass: Or a drudge.

  133. 133
    mclaren says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    What is it about Betty’s post that has people so angry at ABL…

    Nothing Betty has posted AFAIK. Anti-liberal Black Lady wore out her welcome when she began running Senator Joseph McCarthy-style smears against Glenn Greenwald and Naomi Wolf and everyone else who points out America is getting rapidly turned into a police state. It’s clear to everyone who can read that Anti-liberal Black Lady is a neocon plant. At some point in the future, documents will undoubtedly surface connecting the dotted lines twixt Anti-liberal Black Lady and Karl Rove’s mountain of 501(C)3 dirty money.

  134. 134
    Another Bot Splainer says:

    @Knockabout: Nope, your dudebros have been caught out as admirers of the great racism engine that is Matt Drudge and the ridiculously stupid and evil Pauls. You needed to change the subject. The OP explained quite succinctly why this is relevant.

  135. 135

    @Keith G:
    I have an answer for this. It is because supposedly civil libertarian individuals have been repeatedly taken as trustworthy sources by regular liberals. Assange may not currently have much influence, but he had it, like unto a god. GG is still widely trusted. Snowden’s revelations are still being taken at face value. It is important whenever it comes out that one of these major voices actually doesn’t care about civil liberties at all, and supporting the Pauls certainly proves that. It is important that liberals learn to take these revelations with a grain of salt, because these untrustworthy ‘civil libertarians’ pass along badly misleading or just plain wrong information that is taken as fact. Sufficient pointing and laughing at people like Greenwald or Assange is the best tool to teach people to be skeptical of the next snake oil salesman.

  136. 136
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @mclaren: You know something, even for the internet, you’re kind of weird.

  137. 137
    burnspbesq says:

    @David Koch:

    Maybe before the xombie cult begins erecting Greenwald statues they can take up a collection and pay off his back taxes.

    For libertarians, tax evasion is the height of civic-minded behavior. That’s precisely why they will erect the statue of Greenie.

    I thought you knew that.

  138. 138
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @srv:

    I’m a teetotaler, actually. Maybe it’s sunspots or something. Yeah, I’ll go with sunspots.

  139. 139
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @mclaren: I love how “police state” is blithely tossed around by people who have never set foot in, say, the Cold-War-era USSR or GDR.

  140. 140
    LT says:

    I present this comment as evidence:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    I have an answer for this. It is because supposedly civil libertarian individuals have been repeatedly taken as trustworthy sources by regular liberals. Assange may not currently have much influence, but he had it, like unto a god. GG is still widely trusted. Snowden’s revelations are still being taken at face value. It is important whenever it comes out that one of these major voices actually doesn’t care about civil liberties at all, and supporting the Pauls certainly proves that. It is important that liberals learn to take these revelations with a grain of salt, because these untrustworthy ‘civil libertarians’ pass along badly misleading or just plain wrong information that is taken as fact. Sufficient pointing and laughing at people like Greenwald or Assange is the best tool to teach people to be skeptical of the next snake oil salesman.

  141. 141
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @mclaren:

    At some point in the future, documents will undoubtedly surface connecting the dotted lines twixt Anti-liberal Black Lady and Karl Rove’s mountain of 501(C)3 dirty money.

    Undoubtedly! Well, that’s pretty strong language. I don’t get this compulsion to assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is being paid off, without any proof. How do you go through life, shoulder-to-shoulder with all sorts of people who disagree with you, and assume they’re all in on some grand bribery scheme? Without going totally bonkers, that is?

  142. 142
    burnspbesq says:

    Slay the fatted calf and bring out the good wine, y’all.

    The long-awaited frabjous day has arrived.

    Mark the date: August 16, 2013. We shall celebrate this day forever.

    For this is The Day Mclaren Made Sense.

    ETA: for exactly one comment, before reverting to mean.

    Julius Streicher? Seriously?

  143. 143

    @LT:
    …that Greenwald is a known liar, and should be discredited at every turn until people stop believing him? Sure, I’ll own up to wanting that to happen. Absolutely. I can’t stand how lies float around in politics unchallenged.

  144. 144
    eemom says:

    @burnspbesq:

    For this is The brief fleeting instant of time between #117 and #132 that Mclaren Made Sense.

    fixerated.

  145. 145
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Knockabout:

    and many of us I, Crazy McStalkerGuy, am wondering why the hell he’s a FPer at all?

    Because he annoys you. And whatever flaws Zander may or may not have, keeping him around to annoy you is totally, totally worth it. Because you are worthless, sir. As completely worthless (or more so) as you claim Zander is.

    On topic, I think this is important because it notes that while perhaps Greenwald, Assange, and Snowden appear to be for liberal causes, it’s not for the same REASON as actual liberal people. They’re like the Pauls that way.

  146. 146
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Knockabout: You are so fucking done.

  147. 147
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @burnspbesq: Bit early to start drinkin’ Burnsy.

  148. 148
  149. 149
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @A Humble Lurker:

    Important to note, sure. But I thought the battle cry around here was ‘work with who you have to to get done what you can get done, because coalition-building is a necessary part of politics,’ with stuff like ‘my reasons are purer than your reasons, even though we both want the same thing’, and ‘I will never ever ever work with X to accomplish Y, because of unrelated reason Z’ more what people here made fun of other blogs for? I mean, lots of people here seem to realize that and then completely forget it when it comes to Glenn Greenwald in particular. We all know that the liberal base is not big enough to go toe to toe with the security state on its own, right? Alliances will have to be made, some with unsavory people. Maybe one of the reasons that nothing ever gets done on that front is that no one can stand making those alliances.

  150. 150
    burnspbesq says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    Would be if I drank. I can’t use that excuse.

  151. 151
    ruemara says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Those durned black people mind controlled Betty into posting this. Or something to that effect.

    @mclaren: Share that spliff next time, son.

  152. 152
    Yatsuno says:

    @Botsplainer: In the name of the immortal TBogg (pbuh) I demand we get to a TBogg unit on this thread. I think it’s doable people!

  153. 153
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:
    Endgame. It’s one thing to think ‘okay, we stick with so-and-so to get the battle won, and then we argue about what to do with our victory’ and another to argue with your less-than-savory ally about what victory actually is.

  154. 154
    Marc says:

    @LT:

    And “date-rapey” That’s fucked up.

    Yes it is.

    Oh, wait–you weren’t referring to Assange’s behavior, were you?

  155. 155
    Baud says:

    I don’t support Drudge or the Pauls.

    Unfortunately that apparently needs to be said.

  156. 156
    geg6 says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think I’ve ever advocated making any sort of common cause with racist misogynists for any reason, even in the area of the security state. If I’m gonna do that, I might as well advocate working with Louis Gohmert. I don’t think you gain a thing by validating such people. Libertarians are my enemy, no less than your most crazed wingnut GOPer. If they want to tag along with Dems in areas like this, fine with me but they aren’t my allies and I give them no credit.

  157. 157
    Keith G says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: I do a response to this, but there is a problem. A fast-moving thunderstorm with 60 mile an hour plus winds is moving through Houston. The rain is coming down hard and trees are shaking and the electricity and internet just went good bye. Everyone seems to have jumped on their mobile devices as things are moving so slow. Plus my phone is not a good BJ interface. So I hope you catch you later once CenterPoint Energy which breakers to flip

  158. 158
    aimai says:

    @LT: You are remarkably sensitive about other people’s feelings. ABL is a friend of John’s. Who are you to decide who he has as a front pager?

  159. 159
    mclaren says:

    @LT:

    burnspbesq isn’t very bright, so his only fallback position in a debate is a laughably foolish fallacy like the fallacy of the excluded middle (EITHER we must never criticize anyone on balloon-juice OR if someone does they’re haters who considered NJ a “cesspool”). Thre is no possible middle ground between these two extreme positions.

    This is classic Republican scrambled thinking. “EITHER we must turn America into an East Germany-style police state OR ZOMG terrism! Nucular mushroom clouds! Dogs and cats, living together!” There is no possible middle ground between these two wild extremes.

    Exactly what you’d expect from a tax lawyer too ignorant of the law and too incompetent at the bar to do anything but help billionaires avoid taxes.

  160. 160
    Betty Cracker says:

    @LT: Wow, dude, even I was rooting for you to make a better showing than that, just to keep it interesting.

    1) He said it. Sorry he disappointed you.

    2) Nice try. Busted, though.

    3) Unfortunately for your point, Assange specifically name-checked the points I mentioned, i.e., abortion, drones, taxes, etc.

    4) Don’t read Kos, so whatevs.

  161. 161
    LT says:

    @aimai: I’m nobody. But are you saying us commenters can’t comment on it?

    And I am sensitive to it, but if you write publicly you have to be able to take criticism.

  162. 162
    Emma says:

    @Keith G: Because Assange is driving the news cycle through his aiders and abetters in the media. And if you don’t believe that the media can damage a politician and/or a campaign and/or a policy beyond belief you haven’t been paying attention.

  163. 163
    Emma says:

    @Knockabout: I’m waiting for the day you start your own blog and dazzle us with your brilliant prose.

  164. 164
    LT says:

    @Betty Cracker: That you didn’t even speak to WikiLeaks says something, no?

    What’s your opinion on WikiLeaks, Betty? And Manning? And Snowden? Let me guess that it’s a warmed over version of, “I approve of these things being discussed, but THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!”

    Just a guess.

  165. 165
    Emma says:

    @mclaren: Whoa. Speak for yourself. Until Cole kicks her out she’s welcome.

  166. 166
    karen says:

    @Botsplainer:

    Greenwald isn’t Jewish? His name sounds it.

  167. 167
    LT says:

    @karen: Yes, he’s Jewish. The anti-Semite charge is just another all purpose one for the Hategasm crowd.

    http://www.alternet.org/speake.....hating-jew

  168. 168
    Joey Giraud says:

    It’s disappointing that Betty is repeating this smear against Assange. The details of the rape allegations make the whole business highly questionable, and after what happened to Scott Ritter it would be best to withhold judgment.

    It’s also disappointing that a serious issue so often devolves into snarky name-calling here, but we’re all getting used to that.

  169. 169
    gussie says:

    LT, you’re right, this is completely weak. It’s just saying, ‘Assange is a cretin,’ and deniably implying all sorts of things about his political actions without having to actually make the case. It’s the same level of argument that say that Gandhi beat his wife. But on the other hand, who cares? Assange is a cretin. Sure. Let people knock themselves out with that, if it makes them happy.

  170. 170
    Betty Cracker says:

    @LT: Again: unfortunate in your conjectures sir. That’s okay, though. No one can reasonably expect you to familiarize yourself with someone’s actual views before flinging the handiest turd, amirite? Carry on.

  171. 171
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: Ah, that’s not the reason that Botsplainer was talking about. The reference was to Greenwald defending an anti-semite as an attorney. I really don’t bash an attorney based upon his clients.

  172. 172
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @LT: I don’t like this post:

    Or

    3) He’s a libertarian and libertarians are utter lying scum.

    Do keep in mind that many of the bloggers and regulars here are ex-Libertians and known all to well how phony that entire movement is.

  173. 173
    LT says:

    @gussie: Sure. Fair enough to cal them out on it, though.

  174. 174
    LT says:

    @Betty Cracker: Why won’t you speak to it?

  175. 175
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I don’t get you. Calling him “anti-Semite friendly” is calling him anti-Semite.

  176. 176
    patroclus says:

    I don’t know if Assange is a cretin, but that interview certainly doesn’t present him in a particularly good light. The irony of his praise for Matt Drudge is that Drudge made his name by smearing people (particularly the Clintons) with all sorts of slimy innuendo and that is exactly what Assange claims that his critics are doing to him. And praising the Pauls – especially in light of Ron’s decades long race-baiting newsletters – is just ill-informed and bizarre. I’m guessing that holing up in the Ecadorean embassy hasn’t allowed Assange much access to real information about the Pauls and their real attitude towards civil liberties.

    I just wish that Assange had the courage to confront the charges against him – if they are bogus, then he should be able to beat them in Swedish court and he would come out looking like a hero. As it is, he looks like a coward and a possibly guilty one at that. And his views on American politics – as evidenced by this interview – are bizarre.

  177. 177
    mclaren says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    I don’t get this compulsion to assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is being paid off, without any proof. How do you go through life, shoulder-to-shoulder with all sorts of people who disagree with you, and assume they’re all in on some grand bribery scheme? Without going totally bonkers, that is?

    Lots of people can disagree with me. You have on occasion, geg6, Yutsano, plenty of folks. The problem arrives when Anti-liberal Black Lady starts smearing the only people who have been sounding the alarm about America turning into a police state.

    Anti-liberal Black Lady has publicly called Glenn Greenwald a ‘grifter.’ Proof, please. Show us the evidence that Greenwald isn’t doing what he’s doing because he’s an idealist.

    Let’s be clear here: Glenn Greenwald worked in New York City as a civil rights attorney. He was pulling down some serious scudi. He could have continued to do that. He was not starving. Instead of pulling down several hundred bucks per hour as a lawyer, the guy chose to give that all up and work as a journalist.

    Is that the hallmark of a `grifter’?

    And let’s also bear in midn that none of these personal attacks by people like Anti-liberal Black Lady began until Greenwald began publicly criticizing Obama. When Greenwald was hammering on George W. Bush for his unconstituional outrages, for the torture, the extraordinary rendition, the repression of free speech by coordinating with DHS and state police in Minneapolis to pre-emptively arrest demonstrators at the 2008 Republican National Convention on trumped-up bogus terror charges, you guys were right there with him. You loved Greenwald. You were cheering him on.

    Then, the moment Greenwald began criticizing Obama for continuing many of Bush’s unconstitutional policies and even in some cases extending them (Obama signs off on the NDAA instead of vetoing it, he tried to peddle a legalization of extraordinary rendition before the press and the entire Democratic party tore him a new one, he signed off on the warrantless wiretapping in violation of his campaign promises, he expanded Dick Cheney’s assoassination teams running around the world murdering people pre-emptively, he fired up squadrons of drones to blow up wedding parties and then come back to murder the people who tried to rescue the survivors, and Obama even ordered the murder of U.S. citizens without even charging them of a crime)…

    …Why, then, you people go berserk. You start hurling every insult you can dream up at Greenwald. He’s a `grifter,’ he’s an `egomaniac,’ he’s a `nut case,’ he’s `only in it for the publicity,’ and on and on.

    This smacks of bad faith.

    What I’m not hearing is one iota of evidence that Greenwald is doing this for the money. What’s I’m not seeing is anything but the standard siwftboating smear tactics beloved of Karl Rove — avoid facts, attack personalities instead of policies, talk about the “tone” with which people like Greenwald speak instead of about what he says.

    This is all classic disiformation Nixonian ratfucking.

    And what gives the game away is the fact that the people attacking Greenwald just don’t have any facts. No evidence. Nothing. Just a lot of name-calling. So you throw shit at him frantically, in the hope that some of it will stick. Straight out of the classic Nixon playbook (as you recall, Karl Rove started out as one of Egil Krogh’s volunteers in the 1968 ratfucking operation to smear Democratic opponents).

    Given the pattern of classic Republican smears and the utter lack of facts damaging to Greenwald, I think it’s high time someone started to ask some tough questions about the motives of the people like Anti-liberal Black Lady. When you get this level of disinformation about literally the onlyhigh-profile journalists who have been speaking out publicly against America’s slide into a police state, it’s entirey justified to start asking if there’s a hidden agenda here.

    Is it just a coincidence that people like Anti-liberal Black Lady happen to go right along with Karl Rove’s agenda of diosmantling the constitution while handing increasing amounts of the economy over to the billionaires and their corporate overloards, the better to pre-emptively undercut the buliding populist explosion?

    I’m not the only one who sees a social-economic explosion coming as the middle class gets crushed and everyone under age 60 finds it increasingly impossible to do basic things like pay rent for a typical apartment or buy enough food to eat or pay for gasoline in the car they need to commute to work. Charles Stross is seeing it too:

    I have a new speculative hypothesis to stand alongside the Martian invasion and the bad dream. It is this: the over-arching reason for the clamp-down on dissent, migration, and freedom of expression, and the concurrent emphasis on security in the developed world, constitutes the visible expression of a pre-emptive counter-revolution.

    The fuse for a revolution was lit by the global financial crisis of 2007/08, in a process that looked alarmingly close to triggering the Crisis of Capitalism (a hypothesized event which is associated with an ideology to which the current political elite of the USA and EU are for the most part highly allergic, for anyone aged over 50 spent their formative years under the bipolar tension of the Cold War). It sputtered briefly in the west in the form of the Occupy and related movements, but truly caught fire in 2009 with the failed Green revolution and in 2010-11 with the Arab spring—which were inflamed by the spike in global food prices caused by capital fleeing into commodities in the wake of the banking crisis. Meanwhile, the imposition of disaster capitalism in the west (as a purported “solution” to the debt-based spending bubbles various western governments embarked on during the boom years of the 1990s-2007) inflamed popular tensions in those countries, with results like this (undirected rioting) that never adhered to any political direction, but nevertheless terrified the ruling elite, leading to their retaliation via draconian punishments.

    The wave of revolutions has so far been contained within the Arab world (a part of the globe which—I don’t think this is any kind of coincidence at all—is suddenly becoming much less important to the energy geopolitics of the west, with the switch to fracking and renewables now under way). The policy of pre-emptive counter-revolution, facilitated by the imposition of the global internet panopticon, has clamped the lid down tight.

    So, in summary: I believe what we’re seeing is a move towards the global imposition of a police state in the developed world, leveraging the xenophobia that naturally emerges during insecure times, by a ruling elite who are themselves feeling threatened by a spectre. Controls on movement, freedom of association, and speech are all key tools in the classic police state’s arsenal. What’s new about this cycle is that the police state machinery is imposed locally, within national boundaries, but applies everywhere: the economic system it is intended to protect is transnational and unconstrained. Which is why even places that were largely exempt during the cold war are having a common police state agenda quietly imposed. There is to be no refuge, other than destabilized “failed states” where the conditions of life make a police state look utopian in comparison.

    This system has emerged organically, from the bottom up, and is not the result of any conspiracy; it’s just individuals and groups moving to protect their shareholdings in the Martian invaders, by creating an environment that is safe for the hive intelligences to operate in.

    Source: Charles Stross, Who ordered *that*?

    (Stross’ “martian invaders” trope is his analogy twixt corporations and martian invaders from H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. Corporations are inhuman entities hostile to the interests of the population that have colonized our world and are increasing taking it over. )

    When so many people are noticing and talking about this stuff (Stross, Greenwald, Wolf, myself and many others) for people to persist in attacking Greenwald and Wolf and myself on a personal basis, without providing any facts or evidence, it’s clear that something else is going on than mere disagreement. These kinds of Nixonian ratfucking tactics only get used in disiformation campaigns trotted out when corporate interests are at stake.

    And which corporate interests are at stake when Glenn Greenwald starts releasing very damaging information about the military-police-surveillance-prison-torture complex?

    Tons of corporate interests. Companies like Booz Allen and SAIC make untold billions from these kinds of security contracts. In fact, 70% of the American “global war on terror” has now been contracted out to private corporations — it’s a gigantic money trough, and the pigs are slurping up every dollar they can get.

    Robrt X. Cringely is now sounding warnings about this exponential growth of the cyberterror scam (there is no cyberterror threat) as yet another giant smash-and-grab looting spree by private corporations:

    Just as Eisenhower predicted, there were a series of events, each engendering a new kind of fear that could only be salved by more arms spending. I’m not saying all this spending was wrong but I am saying it was all driven by fear — fear of mutually assured destruction, of Chinese domination, of Vietnam’s fall, of the USSR’s greater determination, of the very fragility of our energy supplies, etc.

    Each time there was a new fear and a new reason to spend money to defeat some opponent, real or imagined.

    Then came 9-11, al-qaeda, and its suicide bombers. I had met Carlos, the Jackal — the 1970s poster boy for terrorism — and he wouldn’t have killed himself for any cause. This suicide stuff was new and different and so we took it very seriously, spending another $1 trillion (or was it $2 trillion?) to defeat shoe bombers and underwear burners and any number of other kooks.

    Al qaeda changed the game, bringing the action home to America for the first time since Lincoln.

    But now the trends that created the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act have somewhat run their courses. Bin Laden is dead and if the military industrial complex is to endure and even thrive in an era of sequestration, we’ll need a whole new class of threats against which to respond and throw money.

    Cyber threats.

    Washington is gearing-up for cyber warfare. We will conduct it against other nations and they will conduct it against us. As always nations will be served by corporate surrogates and vice versa. But where in the past there was always an identified enemy and a threat that could be clearly targeted, the nature of cyber warfare is that small nations can be as dangerous as large ones and inspired freelancers can be the most dangerous of all.

    And to the delight of the military industrial complex, this is one threat — one source of national fear — that is unlikely to go away… ever.

    Here’s how a friend of mine who operates inside the Washington Beltway sees it: “The big move here in DC – is to standardize cyber threats as a fact of life. Total integration of cyber fear into the fabric of the economy — cyber-insurance, etc. The building of the next cyber bubble is well under way. All of the beltway companies are embracing the opportunity with amazing haste. It is the ultimate business case for profitability and the profits will be astronomical.”

    Here’s the genius in this new threat: every country, every company, every technically smart individual can be seen as presenting a cyber threat. They’ll do it for power, money, patriotism, religion — the reasons are as varied as the ethnicities of the practitioners.

    Source: Robert X. Cringley blog “I, Cringley,” article “Eisenhower, Snowden and the Mlitary Industrial Complex.”

    It’s just Naomi Wolf’s disaster capitalism writ large.

    Wait for some disaster. Then the corporations swoop in, privatize everything, get the government to impose ‘special rules’ for the `duration of the emergency’ — rules like abolishing basic environmental regulations, minimum-wage laws, health and safety laws — then financed by governmnt loans, corporations turn the local economy into a giant strip-mine, socializing all their losses while privatizing their immense private profits.

    The Global War On Terror is just more of the same old disaster capitalism. Private contractors like Booz Allen hype imaginary threats (ZOMG! Chinese cyberterrorists! Snowden is a Chinese agent! PETA is an existential danger to America!!!) then gets fabulously lucrative no-bid contracts to provide ‘security services’ which turn out to conveniently target groups like living-wage organizers as “potential terrorists.” The politicians get to claim they’re waging a war against terror, the corproations get a giant river of gold, the top 1% of America get to repress dissent by targeting everyone who dislikes their agenda…everyone wins — except the bottom 99% of the American people.

    And who speaks up to relentlessly attack the only mainstream journalists blowing the whistle on this giant scam?

    Anti-liberal Black Lady.

    Coincidence?

    Pardon me for doubting it.

  178. 178
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: Please reread my comment. I said nothing about “anti-Semite friendly”, I spoke to legal representation.

  179. 179
    Keith G says:

    August in Houston is not the time/place combo to be without electricity.

    I blame Julian Assange.

  180. 180
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I know you didn’t. I meant I didn’t understand your comment. I thought you were speaking to Bot’s anti-Semite-friendly charge.

  181. 181
    mclaren says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    I love how “police state” is blithely tossed around by people who have never set foot in, say, the Cold-War-era USSR or GDR.

    Once again we get bad-faith neocon-style Nixonian arguments.

    This one is so ludicrously bad it practically debunks itself.

    So let’s see…what you’re saying is: “If you haven’t living in the Cold-War-era USSR or GDR, you are not entitled to speak out against gross violations of the constitution by the president and congress and the supreme court that are increasingly turning America into a police state where the individual citizen effectiveyl has no proviacy and no rights and no recourse if the state decides to turn its full powers against him or her.”

    And when we recognize that “no recourse” now means “you don’t get the right to a jury trial” and even “you don’t get the right to be charged with a crime before the U.S. government orders you murdered”… whoa.

    You may want to rethink that line of argument, buckaroo.

  182. 182
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Joey Giraud:

    The problem here is that the notion of a “rape smear” doesn’t seem to be supported by fact. It seems Mr. Assange imagines himself a cocksman, and a number of women have indicated that he has problems understanding a one syllable word: “No”.

    Then there are the various whispers that he’s lording about the Ecuadorian embassy like he’s some sort of diva, which lend to him an air of entitlement that parallels his seeming inability to understand that one syllable word, “No”.

    Now Assange goes and self-indicts himself as a serious fucktard, in declaring his admiration for utter scum like the Pauls and Drudge.

  183. 183
    mclaren says:

    @patroclus:

    Yes, Assange sounds like a nut job. The fact that he provided a useful public service by starting Wikileaks doesn’t change the fact that Assange probably is a flake.

    I just wish that Assange had the courage to confront the charges against him – if they are bogus, then he should be able to beat them in Swedish court and he would come out looking like a hero. As it is, he looks like a coward and a possibly guilty one at that. And his views on American politics – as evidenced by this interview – are bizarre.

    Please bear in mind that we are speaking about a guy being threatened by a country (the USA) which has asserted that it has the right to pre-emptively murder without warning anyone anywhere in the world it thinks presents some kind of nebulous undefined “threat” to itself.

    Seriously.

    Would you walk out of that Ecauadorian embassy knowing that drones are probably orbiting overhead armed with Hellfire missiles…?

  184. 184
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: I was saying that a lawyer may not agree with a client and still provide representation. Then again, sometimes they might agree with the client. I’m saying one can’t make a judgement about what a lawyer thinks based solely on who they represent.

  185. 185
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I get that, and agree with you, but what does that have to do with Bot’s ugly smear? Bot obviously doesn’t think that.

  186. 186
    LT says:

    I’ve gotta go make pancakes. Later.

  187. 187
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: Botsplainer may have additional data that leads Botsplainer to that conclusion.

  188. 188
    LT says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Again – I’m not getting you. You seem to be defending Botsplainer.

  189. 189
    patroclus says:

    One of the differences between the way Greenwald/Gelton (sp?) have handled the Snowden revelations and the way Assange handled the Manning document dump also doesn’t present Assange in a good light. Snowden and Greenwald have been selectively leaking certain things; with at least some editing involved as to what is disclosed and what isn’t. This at least arguably preserves a defense for Snowden should he ever come to a trial. Assange did virtually no editing and thereby left Manning out to dry as the recent trial has shown – dumping literally everything and anything with nary a thought as to any consquences. Although I don’t think Greenwald is that great of a journalist, he’s light years better than Assange; at least given their most notorious stoies of late.

  190. 190
    karen says:

    Libertarian philosophy can be summed up in one sentence. Freedom for me. None for you.

    I have no love for libertarians and even less so for people who talk about how wonderful they are.

  191. 191
    karen says:

    Libertarian philosophy can be summed up in one sentence. Freedom for me. None for you.

    I have no love for libertarians and even less so for people who talk about how wonderful they are.

  192. 192
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @LT: I’m doing neither. Botsplainer may have data that you and I’m not aware of, that could change one’s conclusion.

  193. 193
    patroclus says:

    @mclaren: No, he’s being threatened by a prosecution for a sexual allegation based in Sweden and he should have the courage to face those charges and clear his name or serve whatever time he gets sentenced to (if found guilty). And I have no idea if he’s a cretin or a nut-job although this interview makes him look very ill-informed about U.S. politics.

  194. 194
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @mclaren: I wish we were more in Church-commission days than PRISM/Clipper/etc. days myself. And certainly anyone is entitled to speak up about what they perceive as gross violations of the Constitution — and follow along carefully, because here comes my point — without worrying about being whisked off in the middle of the night and sent to a prison camp in Alaska never to return. Paul Hogan voice: *that’s* a police state.

  195. 195
    Kathleen says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: He has nothing worthwhile, useful, or coherent to say about anything and he never will. A pox on morally bankrupt Kentucky (primarly Northern Kentucky) barbarians who voted for him and the Snoborwald emo-progs who think he’s a hero.

  196. 196
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @LT:

    Judging from your quote, it’s evidence of the fact that the truth hurts emotarians? I agree wholeheartedly.

  197. 197
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @ruemara: “Share that spliff next time, son. “

    I think it’s laced with PCP.

  198. 198
    Betty Cracker says:

    @LT: Speak to WHAT? FFS, man, I don’t think reticence is the issue.

  199. 199
    burnspbesq says:

    @mclaren:

    This is me laughing at your feeble attempt to drag me down to your level.

    Not happening. Not today, not ever.

    You can libel me out of ignorance and frustration, and I’m not taking the bait.

    You’re not worth the time or the effort.

  200. 200
    Botsplainer says:

    @LT:

    The jackass went much further than mere representation when he described Hale’s victims families as “vile” for having the audacity to sue his buddy Hale for his role i killing their kids.

    Yeah, Glenn, you shanda, I’m fuckin’ calling you out, schmuck. I assume you’ve got a fair chance of spotting this.

  201. 201
    different-church-lady says:

    @LT:

    This place is a like bad DKos way too often.

    Nowadays DKos is like a bad DKos way too often.

  202. 202
    Botsplainer says:

    @LT:

    The jackass went much further than mere representation when he described Hale’s victims families as “vile” for having the audacity to sue his buddy Hale for his role i killing their kids.

    Yeah, Glenn, you shanda, I’m fuckin’ calling you out, schmuck. I assume you’ve got a fair chance of spotting this.

  203. 203
    Yatsuno says:

    C’mon guys! We’re running out of gas here!

  204. 204
    different-church-lady says:

    @LT:

    If Glenn Greenwald cured cancer…

    The Greenwald version of curing cancer would be to not cure cancer and then write endless screeds about how the the administration of whatever president is in power at the time was the only thing preventing him from doing so.

  205. 205
    Botsplainer says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    Glenda went far beyond advocacy on Hale. He was snore and belittling to all the targets of Hale’s viciousness, even the murder victims.

    I’ve got 25 years in practice, and that is some inept shit in any courtroom I’ve stood in.

  206. 206
    Kay says:

    This is my favorite Rand Paul quote right now, but I’ll have better ones now that’s he’s running for President and talking so much:

    Rand Paul, the freshman senator from Kentucky, was speaking recently about healthcare, specifically the new healthcare law some refer to as “Obamacare.” Like many Republicans, Paul, the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), doesn’t like it. Unlike many conservatives, the “tea party” darling doesn’t like the law because it reminds him of slavery.
    “With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me,” Paul said recently in a Senate subcommittee hearing.
    “It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses,” Paul said, adding that there is “an implied use of force.”
    “If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to healthcare, you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be,” Paul said.

    Rand Paul is apparently unaware of the right to counsel, or he hasn’t thought this whole theory of his thru, so there’s that, but the best part is how it’s all about him.

    I wouldn’t go to his house under any circumstances, so he shouldn’t worry.

  207. 207
    different-church-lady says:

    @David Koch:

    …pay off his back taxes…

    [raises eyebrow] — eh now?

  208. 208
    different-church-lady says:

    @Knockabout: And, oddly, neither one of them wrote this post.

  209. 209
    different-church-lady says:

    @LT: 2) Put your junk in the box.

  210. 210
  211. 211
    LT says:

    @different-church-lady: Yes, right, because this NSA stuff has turned into a total dud.

  212. 212
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @mclaren: “Would you walk out of that Ecauadorian embassy knowing that drones are probably orbiting overhead armed with Hellfire missiles…? “

    If you truly believe this then you are a fucking nutjob, full stop.

    IOW, Full Metal Emotarian.

  213. 213
  214. 214
    I Heart Breitbartbees says:

    @Anoniminous: I’m sorry. Did someone check his chubby and find it wasn’t chubby enough?

  215. 215
    allheavens says:

    @ruemara: I think I love you.

  216. 216
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @David Koch: oh shit lol

    maybe he can move in with Glennjira and start a commune. It would be like The Odd Couple, fa fa.

  217. 217
    BruinKid says:

    As I wrote elsewhere, Rand Paul is great on civil liberties if you’re a well-educated straight white male. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

    I do find it hilariously sad that there’s still way too many people fooled by the Pauls into thinking they actually are good on civil liberties. They’re good on some. Hell, Gary Johnson was already MUCH better on civil liberties overall than either of them, just for being pro-choice.

    And yet the Ron Paul fans I know can’t seem to understand that.

  218. 218
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Joey Giraud: Perhaps using Ritter as an example undermines your point. I’m aware of Assange’s “honey trap” claims, and I’m also suspicious when someone who pisses off a powerful government is suddenly caught up in a personal character issue. But sometimes where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Assange has a pattern of creepy, stalkerish behavior with women.

Comments are closed.