We were notified last night that How Would a Patriot Act? has made the New York Times' Best Sellers List, and will debut at #11
This is obviously going to be a huge factor in raising the book's visibility and enabling the arguments and issues raised by the book to reach a much wider audience. As we have discussed on this blog for months and months, the reason why the Bush administration's extremist theories of power and its systematic lawbreaking have not provoked greater controversy among Americans is because the national media has simply failed in its most basic duty to inform Americans about what its government is doing.
With rare exception (e.g., Charlie Savage at The Boston Globe), there has been virtually no discussion of what is clearly the most significant crisis our country faces -- the fact that we have a president who has claimed unlimited powers, including the right to break the law. I genuinely believe that once Americans are truly aware of how radical this administration is, and how contrary to the most core American values its views and actions are, that will have a meaningful effect on public opinion. A desire to find a way to bring these issues to light in order to help contribute to that outcome is why I wrote the book, and the NYT listing, in many ways, will obviously be very useful in pursuing those objectives.
It's a particularly noteworthy development because the book has not yet arrived in many, perhaps most, bookstores; it has not been reviewed in a single major newspaper or magazine; and the book tour hasn't even begun yet. All of that should change now, and as the book receives even the standard amount of attention received by any garden-variety book released by a corporate publisher, that should only raise the book's visibility that much more.
Finally, Jane Hamsher has been hosting a superb Book Club at FireDogLake. The selected book for last Sunday and this upcoming Sunday is How Would a Patriot Act? The discussion last week was thought-provoking and was attended by numerous people who had clearly read the book and had all sorts of things to say about its content. Now that many more people have received and had a chance to read the book, the discussion this Sunday - at 5:00 pm EST -- should be even better. I will attend and participate and hope that as many people as possible who have read the book will, too.
UPDATE: I've corrected the error I made above -- the book will debut on the list in the printed edition of the NYT on June 11, not this upcoming Sunday. Working Assets has uploaded a .pdf here of the best seller page sent by the NYT which will be published on June 11. Thank you to everyone who sent e-mails about the .pdf conversion. It sounded easy enough for me to think I could have actually managed it, but fortunately, Working Assets' posting has made it unnecessary for me to try.
Aside from the effect the book can have on bringing to light the Bush administration's lawless radicalism, I also hope -- and believe -- that it will contribute to the rising influence of the blogosphere. The more blogosphere products are successful and reach into mainstream circles, the harder it will be to stigmatize blogs and be dismissive of their quality and influence -- and the more opportunities there will be for bloggers to be heard beyond the blogosphere. That, in turn, will only elevate the profile of the blogosphere. The attempt to depict bloggers as crazed, fact-free rabble is based on pure myth -- it is a transparent demonization campaign by those who are threatened by the blogosphere -- and the more bloggers are seen and heard from, the harder it will be to sustain those distortions.
I am having a hard time getting to finish your book. I carry it to a coffee shop (or, on Sunday night, to Wolf Trap Center for the Performing Arts outside Washington, DC), and people see the book and ask me what it is about. A half-hour later, I've convinced a couple of them to read your blog and buy the book.
ReplyDeleteDo you have extra cover art for distribution? I'm not kidding: The art work and title draw people's attention!
Congratulations, and I'm looking forward to finishing the book one of these days (perhaps on the flight to YearlyKos....)
Big "congratulations" !
ReplyDeleteIt feels as if it were my book!
Infoshaman: That's is a great idea. I would look for places to post it.
ReplyDeleteBUMPERSTICKERS !
ReplyDeleteInfoshaman: Actually, color copiers do a great job these days. I will make copies of the cover and post those. (It may even be able to magnify?!)
ReplyDeleteGlenn--a crude hack in Windows is the following, basically screen-capturing the pdf.
ReplyDelete1. Bring the PDF up on the screen
2. Move the mouse cursor to the side so it's not on the PDF image anywhere
3. Hit ctrl-print screen (print screen is usually next to the function keys on top of the keyboard)
4. Open Windows Paint and paste (ctrl-V)
5. Use the Paint's "rectangle" selector to select the part of the screen image you'd like to crop out (i.e. the pdf image)
6. Hit ctrl-c to copy that rectangular image
7. Hit file->new in Paint
8. Hit ctrl-v to paste the cropped image into paint
9. Hit File->Save As and save it as a jpeg (using "save as type" option under the filename)
Paint is usually in the Windows Start Menu under Accessories.
There's surely a nicer way for pdf's, but this way works to make a jpeg of anything you can get up on your screen, so it's hacky but powerful.
Book tour dates/locs.?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Glenn.
ReplyDeleteSays the "Dog"
When some Democrats confirmed Hayden- the message was - spying is OK. We gotta get rid of these DINOs!!
ReplyDeletePowell's, the greatest bookstore in the world, shows that Glenn's book is available for order, and the in-store information shows that it's in the Catacombs (one of Powell's many warehouses), but no on-shelf stock.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll wander down there today to nag them to put some out on the shelves? I mean, if this book doesn't do well in Portland, OR, this country is in much more hurt than I thought! (Note: this is snark - the book probably sells so well that the staff can't keep up).
On so many hundreds of levels this is the best news to come along in a great while. Congratulations Glenn, Jennifer & Working Assets! Chalk up one for the good guys.
ReplyDeleteKovie: My local B&N had a print date of 5/28 and so didn't plan on getting it in until next week. You have to go up to the counter and tell them to put it on the short list and then "reserve" one for yourself. The conversation with the info desk can act as an advertisement for the book itself, lady behind me ordered one after she heard my rant, and BTW, don't forget to move CTG up to the front aisle. (yes, I was born a pest)
ReplyDeleteshooter242:
ReplyDeleteAny all contrarians have been banned from participating.
You misspelled "a$$holes". Look, it's the RW blogs that either don't allow comments at all or that vigourously purge any dissident voices, for the most part. That's just fact.
Cheers,
Congratulations - onward and upward! I just started it yesterday. I had pre-ordered it from Amazon.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Glenn. Maybe everyone should follow infoshaman's example and take Glenn's book with them whenever they go to places where people congregate. Public awareness and understanding of the seriousness of what is happening to our country is definitely needed.
ReplyDeleteJust so you know: the standard amount of attention a garden-variety book by a corporate publisher gets is precisely zero.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me. I've written three.
Keep up the great work.
ReplyDeleteFrom shooter242 at 1:06PM:
ReplyDelete"Any all contrarians have been banned from participating."
If true, how sad for FDL. Fortunate you Glenn has a firm policy of protecting you guys over here.
I think the FCC needs to go one step further nad force news companies (or any media) to tell the viewer/reader when they are reading a Press Release of any sort.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we making the distinction between a video press release and a written press release. Ihonestly believe that this is the #1 reason the media is is such an abysmal state...they are to lazy from mindlessly reading the countless press releases coming in over the fax machine. to them it must be news because the machine says so. Many of these news releases are little more than taknig the name of the original writer off and putting the name of an employed news writer in its place to make it look like real news.
Why else would the Republicans and Bush be paying the largest amount of cash EVER to PR firms if not to buy constant news coverage? Is it just a coincidence that they do this and the media always seems to be repeating right-wing talking points or the right-wing view/narrative/side of events? Is it a coincisden that the Dems/left, with a far inferior amount of PR dollars fails to get their message out or the media tot ake thier side seriously on any issue?
I have my doubts. The problem isn't a biased media that sucks up to Bush. At least not in most cases. The problem is the corporate media that only pays people to read Press Releases instead of paying the money for actual journalists who research and check facts. This is also why the media doesn't get the criticism aimed at it. They actually believe they are doing their jobs to the best of their ability. The fax machine doesn't lie, and if it is good enough for reporting stabbings and Paris Hiltons latest blunder, then surely it is just as good for reporting the Gov'ts doings to the people.
Already bought mine at Borders on Saturday.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations! Very nice. Ten more to go.
ReplyDeleteGlenn -- congrats. I just received my copy, but have not been able to start reading it yet.
ReplyDeleteI can convert your PDF if you want to email it to me.
Congratulations! Been reading pieces of the book when I can for the past several days. When I recommend it to those around me, it is in the most sincere, in the moment way. It's so damn good!
ReplyDeleteI hope the NYT best seller list is able to grow the book sales - America needs to read this book.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading this blog since the NSA spying story broke in December. I consider myself fairly well informed of the scandal's minutia. But as I read HWAPA I find myself repeatedly becoming visibly angry at the state of affairs chronicled in the book.
I think most Americans will react the same way when they learn of the truly radical nature of this president.
Thanks once again for the work you're doing to publicize the gritty truth of American under a monarchical president.
Congratulations on the good news. It is very gratifying to know that there are many people out in the real world who are interested in educating themselves to the political machinations you expose. Now that it is actually on the NYT 'Best Seller' list will the trolsl stop whining about us calling it a best seller? I think not, after all the NYT is well known for their left-wing bias and are probably inflating the numbers as part of the 'we hate Bush' movement. (For the 'humor impaired' the last bit is sarcasm) Now they'll have to find some other inconsequential argument against the book to avoid talking about the important points it raises for all true American patriots.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on the good news. I just ordered my copy yesterday, and look forward to receiving, and reading, it soon.
ReplyDeleteTruth,
Rob
When's the tour?
ReplyDeleteConversions: STFW.
ReplyDeleteGot the two copies I'd ordered and gave one to a friend. First comment: 'This guy's mad!'
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Glenn!
ReplyDeleteSee you in San Francisco.
If you have Adobe Acrobat installed (as opposed to Adobe Reader) use the Save as.. command, which will allow you to choose .jpeg, .png, or .tif as an alternate file format.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, optimise to suit, and voila.
Didn't Glenn offer copies of the book to several right wing bloggers for them to review, and they all refused?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think no one will express a contrarian opinion on a liberal blog, you have another thing coming. Looking at DailyKos there are dissenters in almost every viewpoint and posting. Shooter would love to believe the left is as insular and repititious as the right, but it simply isn't so.
The very definition of the word "liberal" demands one be open to new ideas. We may fail our ideals from time to time, but at least we strive for it. Better than one could say about other ideologies.
If you have adobe acrobat professional you can just open the pdf file and click "save as" and scroll down to jpeg and click on it
ReplyDeletethats all there is to it.
You may recall the Deborah Howell incident where she made the mistake of not sufficiently distinguishing Abramoff's personal and lobbying funds to Republicans and Democrats, which resulted in thousands, yes thousands of comments. Quite a few were responsible commentary, but more were just repulsive.
ReplyDeleteThis is, of course, demonstrably false. And the notion that right-wing blogs don't have comments because of quality of life is both laughable. In the early days, several of them did have comment sections, which were full of proto-fascist comments from mouth breathers. They were pulled as a result.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteWhile my post might be pointed, it didn't contain profanity or a personal attack.
You misunderstand the issue. I pointed out that it's behaviour, not POV, that tends to get you banned from left wing blogs (those that actually do such; Glenn doesn't, Atrios doesn't, Kos doesn't [although you can get troll-rated and have your posts disappear to most viewers], Drum doesn't, ThinkProgress doesn't, etc.).
OTOH, any leftie is banned almost as soon as discovered on LGF and Freeperville; and Instahack and Powerline allow no comments.
And a FWIW, Shooter:
I said that "a$$holes" get banned. I didn't mention you. Feel free to lump yourself in if you must, but just remember that I wasn't the one that "outed" you. ;-)
As for profanity, give it a rest. You don't like it, start your own blog, and then you can set the rules.
I'm sure you can imagine the bile bloviated at conservative sites, and quite frankly it serves no purpose other than to demonstrate how low one can go.
I could ... but it would only be imagination. Feel free to trot out actual evidence, if you want to rejoin us in the reality-based community.
You may recall the Deborah Howell incident where she made the mistake of not sufficiently distinguishing Abramoff's personal and lobbying funds to Republicans and Democrats, which resulted in thousands, yes thousands of comments. Quite a few were responsible commentary, but more were just repulsive.
Your evidence for this assertion?
Like I said life is too short for that and if some people can't go through life without uttering shockingly vile comments they can always go to liberal blogs where it's acceptable to be disgusting toward conservatives, but conservatives cannot register any sort of opinion at all.
Ummm, like you just did? Way to blow your whole thesis, SFB.
So if this is the kind of "well written" "contrary opinions" that FDL is missing out on, I can say most assuredly that they aren't missing anything significant at all ... outside of a few good chuckles.
Cheers,
I was reading The Valve, a lit crit blog that's OK if you are into that sort of thing. Scott Eric Kaufman was commenting on a recent blogospheric dust-up I needn't go into involving some familiar people and remarking how it was unseemly to use that kind of language. If Tommy Franks can call Douglas Feith "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" the people at The Valve are welcome to pull their thumbs out of their collective Ivory Towered asses and suck on them like the WATBs they and Shooter are. Lit Crit isn't going to save this country.
ReplyDeleteshooter242:
ReplyDeleteThat wasn' the point. The point is that you can't help yourself. No matter what, you are going to use profanity. Hate speech some would call it.
Nope. That wasn't the point either. Not to mention it isn't true. I use the langauge appropriate for the recipient and subject, and I post plenty without anything approaching "profanity" (and even when I use it, I tend to drop a letter or two or use alternative symbols [Thank G*d! ... or Y*hW*h ... or the Freakin' Spaghetti Monster, whoever it may concern]). Call it "hate speech" if you want, but that just shows you to be a raving loon. And that last observation ain't "hate speech". That's just a friggin' obvious fact.
I'm old enough to have learned that people who have no control over their language, don't have much control over anything else.
I'm old enough to control my language and I do it quite well. If it doesn't meet with your approval, that's your problem and not mine, and if I was to take a page from the Republican Civility Manual, I'd tell you to "go Cheney yourself", you "major league azo"....
Now time for you to change your diapers and get off the WATB kick of yours. Capice?
Cheers,
Sorry, shooter242. You've happened upon one of the many places in the blogsphere where your opinions can be freely expressed, which is exactly what you've been doing since you've first posted.
ReplyDeleteThe flip side of course is that other commentators can do the same, particularly those who disagree with you, and may use whatever colorful language they wish.
A more mature personality would accept the criticism, however bland or colorful, and move on. Probably explains why so few right-side blogs don't allow comments.
Incidentially, you have answered my original question.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteWell that certainly explains why they did an emergency shut down of the comments area. Kos may think there are only 42 bad posts but that wouldn't make much of an impression out of thousands would it?
Yes, they did get a very large number of posts. What is not true is that a majority of these were profane. As I understand it, Webcaps before it was taken down don't show any such thing. They took it down because they're almost as much thin-skinned WATBs as you are. And the primary reason for Howell's irritation seems to be that people called her on her malarkey.
Cheers,
Sorry shooter,
ReplyDeleteYou can't come here and accuse people of being terrorist supporters or unpatriotic for opposing the pathetic excuse for a president and expect to be respected. You and your fellow republicans are held in such contempt here mostly because you have no idea/have forgotten what it means to be an American. Free speech means that you WILL BE offended. You dont like the language, go somewhere else. You will not be missed. As for use of language as an education/intelligence indicator the president of OUR fucking country actually said, "I'm the decider!" I can't fucking believe it. Can you?
Another of those apocryphal quotes... Yamamoto probably never said: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
ReplyDeleteHe may have had similar thoughts. They would mirror the actual warnings of William Tecumseh Sherman to his friends in the south prior to the beginning of hostilities in the Civil War. It's a good thing for you, Shooter, that you right wing extremists, and other trolls, are good at playing a the victim individually and a "victimized minority" collectively, because in point of fact, you are a minority. If you are actually going to get victimized and marginalized again, it's none too soon. You deserve it and you brought it upon yourselves, as well as wreaked havoc on this country and the entire world. You are lucky to be Americans because in another country you might get rounded up and jailed, if not put up against a wall and shot. So, my advice to you, Shooter, is STFU and pay your taxes. Your party is coming to an end. We know you won't, you will just continue to whime about shit. That's all you fucking clowns ever do.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteAnd as an aside, please don't take any of this as protest. I measure my effect by the response and I am well pleased at the reactions. They are plentiful and imbecilic. Perfect. That tells me liberals aren't getting any smarter, a good omen for the coming elections.
So you admit to being a troll. OK, glad we got that settled. Say, why don't you take a page out of the Republican Playbook here and declare (complete with marching band): "Mission Accomplished!"
Then again, I may be wasting my time (except for perhaps amusing the lurkers and others here); you may not be subtle enough to catch on to that....
As you can see, there's plenty of ways to shove a boot up your ___ ... and profanity isn't always appropriate or necessary.
;-)
Cheers,
Congratulations! It's not only great to have a blogger in print like this, it's even better that the book is terrific! A real accomplishment...
ReplyDeleteI see that the pdf business is solved. Anyone wanting a larger cover picture, one is at:
http://1boringoldman.com/images/patriot.jpg
for downloading or linking [328x497].
LOL. I've been posting at WaPo for half a decade at this point, and I can say without qualification that it is still a liberal newpaper. Froomkin is testimony to that.
ReplyDeleteFuck you! I wish we still lived in a time when you could challenge someone to a dyuel!
Shooter... And as an aside, please don't take any of this as protest. I measure my effect by the response and I am well pleased at the reactions. They are plentiful and imbecilic. Perfect. That tells me liberals aren't getting any smarter, a good omen for the coming elections.
ReplyDeleteThe other day he was talking like a bad tenant facing eviction, yet gloating over the fact while still in posession of the premises he is able to continue to trash it. Now he's trotting out the same old tired rhetoric from the last two elections. You guys need some new material, Shooter. That crap probably isn't going to play well in Peoria today. The majority of you being plagiarists, that's hard to come up with, huh?
Then again, I may be wasting my time (except for perhaps amusing the lurkers and others here); you may not be subtle enough to catch on to that....
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, there's plenty of ways to shove a boot up your ___ ... and profanity isn't always appropriate or necessary.
;-)
Cheers,
You are always amusing, Arne. And if "Fuck you!" is good enough for our illustrious VP, it's good enough for me. Shooter, would you rather we challenge you to a "dewell" and shoot you in the face?
My current definition of a masochist is anyone still supporting the Bush administration. They must get off on pain and verbal abuse.
ReplyDeleteShooter, I don't get it. You clearly despise the people on this site (many of your posts are directed at "you people" as if we were all of the same stripe).
ReplyDeleteWhy do you hang out here? Is it just because we're such easy pickins' for your superior intellect? If so, what kind of sport is that for a gunslinger like you?
Seriously, animosity just oozes from your posts, many of which are written to be provocatively insulting. No wonder people respond to you with sarcasm and occasional profanity.
Even Bart gets treated with more respect because he attempts to keep a dialog going rather than just insult those who disagree with him.
Treat others with more respect and they will treat you with more respect (and your posts will be taken more seriously).
OTOH if you come here to deliberately throw brickbats for amusement, hey all I can say is it's your dime.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMy current definition of a masochist is anyone still supporting the Bush administration. They must get off on pain and verbal abuse.
You left out public humiliation.
...the more bloggers are seen and heard from, the harder it will be to sustain those distortions.
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting sign of the times to see Walter Pincus of the Washington Post cite the Secrecy News blog in a story that was published in the Post last Sunday about the Senate version of the 2007 Intelligence Authorization Act.
NobodySpecial said...
ReplyDeletePerhaps someday I'll be concerned about my language usage towards the jackals who stole my old party when they show obvious concern about their actions.
Amen. Eisenhower Republicans died with Ike.
Any word yet when your book tour will come to Boston?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations!
ReplyDeleteI just told my husband he should read it... that one doesn't need to be a Constitutional Attorney to understand the book.
Shooter, the problem isn't your ideas, which are easily refuted, its the fact that you are a pompous blowhard playing the victim game. That 'meme' won't work in this arena. Instead of endlessly regurgitating the Fox News 'fair and balanced' talking points that are your stock in trade get an original idea once in a while and then maybe you will be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteshooter242:
ReplyDelete[devoman to Shooter]: Why do you hang out here? Is it just because we're such easy pickins' for your superior intellect? If so, what kind of sport is that for a gunslinger like you?
[the superior intellect]: That's a fair question and as I am want to do, I'll try to give a fair answer.
That would be "... wont to do". You know, if you're going to use your "superior" language skills to try and impress people with your erudition, it helps to be able to spell those glib phrases that trip so lightly off the tongues of the true nobleman.
Some how I decided to try FDL and was banished.
Grammar cops nabbed you, eh? ;-)
It's not possible to see onesself [sic] as others do, but I can appreciate that I'm an aggressive writer.
You misspelled "poor". Not sure you "appreciate" it, though.
Now let me ask you..... is it more or less interesting to have opposing viewpoints, or would you rather be part of a choir?
Hey! Folks! Did any of you see an "opposing viewpoint" flying around here somewhere? We seem to be missing one. I've looked all over, and I can't find it....
As for you, Shooter, I don't think we're missing much. Once again, you're invited to go off and bless others more worthy with your "gifts".
Cheers,
Congratulations!!! You make a great spokesperson to illuminate the BushCo Power Monopoly.
ReplyDeletePlease don't forget your roots...right here at your blog where it all started....
Again, congrats
Maddox? Tucker Max?
ReplyDeleteYou've already missed the tipping point.
Ender... Seriously folks - we can not let this go on any longer. We must stop them and by any means necessary.
ReplyDeleteThey are pretty much stopped. They still have legal posession of the premises and will trash it as much as possible out of spite, but the Sherrif is on his way and about to evict the suckers for good.
Shooter...That's a fair question and as I am want to do, I'll try to give a fair answer
Stop pretending you are a semi-literate thug when we all know you are just an ignorant and weak minded bigot.
The expression is "As I am wont to do..."
And you have the audacity to question my intelligence and education? You are a fucking clown because that clown shoe fits. The bulbous red nose is a dead giveaway, too. Of course you might just be an alcoholic.
Actually they have illegal possession of the premises but I am glad you are confident they are going to be evicted. You will forgive me if I am not yet convinced.
ReplyDeleteWho is the Sheriff again?
You and I and 70% of the American people who aren't fucking clowns.
It looks bad. It is bad, but as others have said, and even you know, this too shall pass. I am as pissed as you are, trust me. I say let's not let it happen so easily ever again. That's one thing we can do for future generations since they will be the ones paying this total clusterfuck of a fiasco off for the rest of this century and into the next.
I saw that JFK Jr. RS article earlier today. I have never been shy about saying that since 11/3/04. Sadly, in English common law, posession is 9/10's of the law, until you can get a magistrate to rule otherwise. the lease is up soon, and who knows what 2006 will bring. I am concerned about vote tampering as well, but it won't be so easy for them in the future. If they pull that again, I wouldn't be surprised if rioting and violence happen. It isn't as easy to massage election results when the race isn't at all close. My gut instinct says 2006 will make the 1994 Republican takeover look small by comparison. As much because of the successful challenges to DINOs like Lieberman as to losses for actual repukes. It's like a pendulum, (or bipolar disorder). The country is moving to the left.
ReplyDeleteNow let me ask you..... is it more or less interesting to have opposing viewpoints, or would you rather be part of a choir?
ReplyDeleteOn this we can agree. That's why I like this blog; because of the many varied and opposing viewpoints. And because some people here know a lot more about some things than I do (e.g. the law, American history, etc).
For example, take the postings between Bart and the other lawyers on this site. I don't know if Bart interprets the law correctly or not, but by challenging them he makes them defend their interpretations.
Ant let's face it. Some postings on this site get 200 - 300 responses. That wouldn't happen if it was just the choir. We'd all grow tired very quickly of hearing, "right on brother". It takes friction to generate heat and then illumination.
And let's face it, we all enjoy the verbal sparring. I just wish it wouldn't go beyond the level of Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtain on Saturday Night Live. Jane, you ignorant....
Awesome JOB...and shows you how much these folks (and REAL American Patriots) DO Care about these fundamental, basic and check-and-balance issues of our government and system.
ReplyDelete:-D
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteMea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea maxima Culpa.
Who knew that spelling "wont" with an "a" would cause such heartburn in a group that obviously cares little for language.
Pretentious twit, ingratiating little sniveller, wounded WATB, offensive blowhard, ignorant RW foamer, not a single one of your adopted personae is appealing or even interesting.
You should at least learn to spell words before you attempt to use them, particularly when others that are within your abilities are available for the same purposes (and even more particularly when on-line dictionaries and other tools are a blue click away). And then maybe you can 'lecture' us on our "care[] for language". Hope that's clear.
Cheers,
The good news is that they are killing each other rather than concentrating on us.
ReplyDeleteShooter, this is exactly the kind of statement that invites ridicule or responses such as "your statements are easily refuted".
First of all, the Iraqis weren't killing us before so this statement really is complete nonsense.
Second of all, if you believe that all the terrorists elsewhere are being sucked into the Iraq vortex of violence, that's ridiculous also.
The fact is, our policies are manufacturing terrorists faster than we are killing them. Just ask yourself, how many suicide bombings did Iraq see annually before we invaded?
There is simply no reason to believe that just because there is a civil war going on in Iraq, that those plotting to kill us aren't sitting elsewhere still plotting to kill us.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteMy favorite responses have been someone saying "Well obviously I meant something other than what I said", and "Shoes for Peace" telling someone to go "F" themselves.
Little surprise there. You're not fond of the ones that just blow your little boat out of the water. Wonder why....
BTW, I just did a google on "shooter242" and "arne langsetmo" for Glenn's site just to refresh my memory on all you've 'contributed' here, and -- happy to say -- my memory is still in pretty good shape for half a century of abuse. You are consistently, nay, almost exclusively a non-contributer of any actual substance (unlike Bart, even given that 80% of his 'contributions' are repeated assertions of the SOS). You want my favourite contributions of yours? Well, there aren't any. But this thread and your behaviour on it (search "shooter" in page for the full picture) is all too typical (not to mention a prior slap-down on the Howell crapola you spewed once again here).
And you wonder why we don't appreciate you, much less like you....
Cheers,
shooter242 actually tosses out a subject (albeit sans substance):
ReplyDeleteStyle over substance? Actually though, Voter ID would be a very good topic around which the legal history and current issues would be interesting.
Yeah, we could look at things like "literacy tests", "poll taxes", and such, eh?
Needless to say, the controversy surrounding ID's can be easily solved by making them free and going to polling places with portable machines like those at the DMV.
And this "solves" the purported concerns exactly how?
There is no reason in an age where illegals make up a significant portion of the population, not to have a photo ID to vote.
Actually, there is (not that this would occur to you). You may not agree with it, but there is (at least) one. Let's see if you can pass the test and at least elucidate the chief objection. Go for it.
Just as a BTW, some of your more strident (read: "nutzoid") compadres on the right would be very opposed to a "national ID card" for various reasons, albeit folks on the left may also be opposed to such, thinking it smacks too much of the "pass cards" in the other "U.S.A".
It's a good thing that various people smarter than you have looked at the issues surrounding verification of voting, and have come up with better ideas (such as provisional ballots) that don't have the "side effects" (unintended or intended) of ID card requirements.
Cheers,
Congrats!
ReplyDeleteIf you are think of framing anything I think I would get an actual paper copy it might look better. You might want to hold off though depending on how high/long it stay there unless you want to go for a grouping at which point they can be framed individually.
OK, here's my opening.
ReplyDelete"Clinton did it too" is not a defense. The terrorists who targeted Americans are alive and well in Pakistan. The power vacuum we have created in Iraq has resulted in increased civilian deaths and ravaged infrastructure. Our soldiers have no clear mission and no particular "metric" that would indicate success. They have difficulty discerning combatants from civilians.
But we're all supposed to sit back and accept that our only option is to "Stay the course" because to do anything else is to cut and run which "emboldens our enemies". I would say our staying the course is doing a pretty good job of emboldening our enemies anyway.
Shooter... People here wouldn't kill each other over a small theological difference...
ReplyDeleteSince Arne has already taken you to task for being a pretentious and cartoonish Latin spewing twit, like Glenn "Tennessee Tuxedo" Reynolds, I'll just remind you that your ignorance of history is also stunning. Google religious or sectarian violence in America. And it's the Baptists and the Methodists who kill each other, the Presbyterians and other Protestants have always been at war with the Papists. Don't even mention the Mormons, that's above your pay grade. Shooter, I warned you once. stop pretending you are something other than what you are. If you want to be taken seriously around here. Be yourself.
I have to wonder if it is the label "good news" that brought this response.... it seems that no one here wants good news.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, as phd9 said, Clinton is not the subject here.
Nor are the mass murders Hussein committed. [Frankly, when someone brings that into the argument, it's often an indicator that their case is weak. I've never heard anyone, Democrat, left-winger, or otherwise, say they thought Hussein was a good guy who should have been left alone. And we clearly didn't invade Iraq to rescue the people from Hussein. So why do people on the right always bring this up like it's a trump card?]
And it certainly wasn't the phrase "good news" that triggered my response. [Could that be why you have such a poor opinion of left-leaning people: they don't really have the opinions you think they do?]
You've just tried to turn that simple statement into an argument I didn't make. Why is that?
If I took a throwaway line of yours and incorrectly took it seriously, then my bad.
What did set me off was simple. Your statement is very close to the argument often advanced by speakers on the right (including Bush), that we're fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here.
This is a completely specious argument and has been thoroughly debunked by many people. I don't intend to debate it here, we are already pretty far OT.
I certainly think it's good news that they are killing each other rather than US troops, you haven't mentioned why it isnt.
Well, the unfortunate fact is that they are doing both. And while civilian killings climb, US troop casualties haven't fallen as a result. They two are not an inverse function of each other, but rather a direct function of the number of people committing acts of terror and mass murder. And that number seems a lot greater now than it did a year ago.
Finally, call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't see any cause for celebration when an Iraqi insurgent blows up innocent men, women, and children.
In case you've missed this, the feds are officially invoking another boogeyman further to restrict our liberties. They intend to foce ISPs to keep 2 years' worth of records on YOUR internet usage. To aid in going after child pornographers, of course. BOO!
ReplyDeleteBut never fear. USAG Gonzalez assures us that the feds will be "mindful" of privacy concerns.
Troop casualties are significantly lower. So far this year 246, 2005 had 846 lost.
ReplyDeleteFor the same length of time?
I thought not.
It's going to be a long hard slog for the Iraqis and democracy. Up until three years ago the social structure was done for them and to them.
ReplyDeleteIf you actually beleive that then why are you not advocating that we draw down our troops and indeed let the Iraqis have at it as opposed to our continuing to "do the social structure for them?"
PS I'm not being snarky, I really want to know.
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteIf you have read this blog on a regular basis you have seen the rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, responses Bart and I have had, for merely speaking to our point of view.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, shooter, I never knew your sensibilities were so fragile.
But let's move on, God damn it- you had something to say about Glenn's book, and you were distressed about not being able to say it to those assholes at FDL? Well, your prim and proper statements are welcome here. No, let me rephrase- your statements are always FUCKING welcome here.
So, if you've actually read Glenn's book, and you have something to say about Glenn's book, spit it out.
I am shitting my pants in anticipation...
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteTroop casualties are significantly lower. So far this year 246, 2005 had 846 lost.
Wrong.
293 through the end of May U.S. casualties (316 total "coalition"). See here.
Compared to 332 U.S. for Jan.-May, 2005 (366 total "coaliton").
Down slightly, but not nearly as dramatically as his bogus numbers indicate. Off maybe 12% (for U.S.), which is pretty much in the statistical noise.
Shooter just makes sh*te up.
Cheers,
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteTroop casualties are significantly lower. So far this year 246, 2005 had 846 lost.
Wrong.
293 through the end of May U.S. casualties (316 total "coalition"). See here.
Compared to 332 U.S. for Jan.-May, 2005 (366 total "coaliton").
Down slightly, but not nearly as dramatically as his bogus numbers indicate. Off maybe 12% (for U.S.), which is pretty much in the statistical noise.
Shooter just makes sh*te up.
Cheers,
David Byron:
ReplyDeleteEven on the blogs Kos actually banned anyone who dared to suggest the 2004 election was stolen.
AFAIK, Kos doesn't "ban" anyone. What happens is that if you get "troll-rated" by enough people, your comments aren't visible to the casual viewer (they are still there, though). And getting "troll-rated" is a function of how much people think you're a troll ... or to put it in plainer terms, how obnoxious and repetitive you are. FWIW, while no one tells anyone how to "vote", you can rate people poorly for any number of reasons, but are admonished to save the "troll" flag for those that really deserve it, not just those that you disagree with violently.
Cheers,
When I said:
ReplyDeleteAnd while civilian killings climb, US troop casualties haven't fallen as a result.
I meant that US troop casualties haven't fallen as a result of the fact that civilian killings were climbing (as opposed to absolute numbers).
After all, we were discussing your statement that "The good news is that they are killing each other rather than concentrating on us."
This post actually returns to the main topic of this thread: "Good Book News".
ReplyDeleteFrom time to time, I donate a couple of hundred bucks or so to political campaigns I support. In the case of Kerry's campaign, what good do it do me? [Aside: this was a "pinch my nose" donation. I hold mostly left-leaning views, live in Massachusetts, and I can't stand the guy!]
Anyway, I just ordered two dozen copies of Glenn's book from Amazon. My plan is to write on them something like "Read and pass along" and every day take one to work with me and drop it off at either Starbucks or the train station or somewhere else where people congregate.
Maybe if others who can afford this do it in their towns and cities we can turn this into a "Common Sense" movement.
Remember, this isn't about being on the left or right, Democrat or Republican. This is about standing for the Constitution.
We were in Japan and Germany for 50 years, Bosnia for 9 years. On the other hand we are leaving Saudi Arabia. There are some things in life that just aren't plan predictable.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the detailed reply.
Its clear now why we disagree and why neither of us is likely to change the other's opinion. You seem to feel that because we have a powerful military, that the world actually belongs to us to do with as we see fit. You're advocating that we stay in Iraq for years in order to promote democracy. I'm not sure how having 140,000 foreigners with guns occupying a country, is going to promote democracy, but your free to beleive it.
History will eventually decide which of us is wiser.
Shooter ... Oh well, I have never had my own personal fact checker before, and I rather like it. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent people check their own facts you incompetent moron. Do you work for the "So Called Liberal Media"?
arne langsetmo:
ReplyDeleteAFAIK, Kos doesn't "ban" anyone.
I believe there was a purge at DKOs. It happened once because there were more than a few "disruptive influences" there and as you know, they actually do take honest discourse seriously over there. I'm sure that David may have been banned once. The difference is that sincere differences or even contrarian views don't get you banned, trollish behavior and outright propagation of right wing bullshit will.
Arne,
ReplyDeleteIf you google "Purge at DKos" you may find something more specific about it. I think it happened right around the same time, or just after RedBait.org had their purge. I read DKos but rarely post at my diary or comment.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDeletearne langsetmo:
AFAIK, Kos doesn't "ban" anyone.
Having been banned four or five times I can categorically say that is false propaganda by Kos and his buddies.
Talk about propaganda. This is what I meant by disruptive influences. There was a purge there. No one denies that, not even DKos. I'm not clear on why but I think it had something to do with conspiracy theorists about 9/11 and not about election tampering. I could be wrong, but I don't make assertions without checking my facts, which I invite you all to do, those of you who are grown up enough to do that on your own.
shooter242, you had something to say about Glenn's book? You've posted several times since I asked for your opinion, yet you still remain silent.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, did you really have anything to say about Glenn's book and were genuinely concerned about being muffled at FDL? Or were you just picking a fight? Hmmm...
Have you read Glenn's book? Remember, while you complain about not being able to post a contrarian view on FDL, you can always post your contrarian view here. What was your contrarian view again?
...crickets chirping...
Shooter... Let me make sure incorrect assumptions aren't floating around I don't think that having the world's strongest military entitles us to willy-nilly throw our weight around.
ReplyDeleteFor my part I agreed that we had to invade Iraq to stop the inspection games around WMD's.
Right! Because when the inspections determined there were no WMDs, which they would have, there would be no grounds for an illegal invasion based on lies. Your entire sociopathology and distorted world view is based on false and illogical assumptions. We no longer have the world's strongest military. In fact, we never have had the manpower to match the Soviets, or now the Chinese. You and your ignorance are a disruptive influence.
Markos' own words...
ReplyDeleteI have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.
So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteMarkos' own words...
"I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.
"So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge."
OK. My mistake. I didn't know this. Does a claim the election was stolen constitute a "bullsh*t conspiracy theor[y]" in Markos's eyes, d'ya know? Or might David Byron be exceeding the norms in other areas that have drawn the ire of the Powers That Be over there?
Cheers,
Cheers,
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteBut I'm curious, didn't it occur to you as odd that our 2005 number matched?
[Shooter]: "2005 had 846 lost."
[Arne]: "Compared to 332 U.S. for Jan.-May, 2005 (366 total 'coaliton')."
Yes, I'd definitely say it's odd that our numbers "matched"....
It's that ol' fuzzy math again. There you go....
Hope someone else is doing your taxes ... and counting your change for you down at the Wal-Mart.
ROFLMAO....
Cheers,
U all suck.
ReplyDeleteExcept David Byron.
He is brilliant.
It must be so 'cos I am anonimous.
Oh and he's 100% right about the dKos banning.
Trust me.
Arne,
ReplyDeleteI do not know, but it's Markos' dime and he is entitled to do what he likes. If he did ban folks over the election tampering issue, that's unfortunate in my view, and I wonder what his criteria are. coming from the part of the world he comes from, he is certainly more familiar with the U.S. government's inclination to tamper with elections. DKos is down for maintenance right now.
David, grow up. It's your tendency to exaggerate, blow things all out of proportion and addiction to drama that gets you into trouble, not necessarily your views.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad David is here. He makes me look less extreme, conservative even, and reasonable.
ReplyDelete:)
And as far as FDL goes, they did have a few comment mods who were a bit "overzealous" for a time. Some folks did get banned erroneously for an inability to detect snark on the part of the volunteers but Shooter probably got banned for his incessant assertion of total bullshit as fact. Free speech does have it's down side. When the little bell goes off on my BS detector, I stop listening. Some brave souls keep track of it all for us and I listen to it after it has been handled, picked apart and sanitized for my protection.
ReplyDeleteDavidByron said...
ReplyDeleteBullshit. It's usually me correcting others around here. Like Glenn's exageration that journalists had never been arrested in America.
You just wish I was exagerrating. There's a difference.
And get yourself a handle if you want to respond to comments directly.
David just gets banned for being David. :)
I want DB's babies!
ReplyDeleteDavid sweetie, there is enough correcting going on around these threads for simply everyone to share. I suggest browsing through the archives -- especially the early ones -- for some really hard-core correcting! What was that commenter's name -- geldylia or some such -- David, you nor Bart, nor shooter have anything on that one. IIRC (ha! -- someone will catch me if I'm wrong) that gedelyagedoodilydiddyia was the only one that Glenn asked to comment only once per thread.
ReplyDeleteRemember David, you are safe here :)
Shooter is happy that 293 soldiers were killed by May this year because the number is less than last year... Why does Shooter want our soldiers to die? Why does the right wing hate America so?
ReplyDeleteShooter is happy that 293 soldiers were killed by May this year
ReplyDeleteAhem --you forgot the word only.
Just look at the numbers. Oh and don't forget how many were killed before 2001. Shooter only cares about the numbers as long as they temporarily support his argument.
Shooter, it's all about the numbers. Iz moreguy can't you get that? IED's go off every day. What's your problem?
I am young enough/old enough to remember that there was a draft. There once existed in this country a time when all young men had to serve. My dad did. At that time there wasn't a velvety class that said "Let's Start a War" -- all were reluctant.
Shooter, Kosovo is not the same as either of the two front now facing this country. Tossing in the "9 years in Kosovo" is crap. As is the retort about Somalia. Just get this one thing in perspective:
We have spent a ton of money (can't compare with Kosovo or Somalia) on Bush's two wars. Neither is going well. Even Bush admits he has committed us to a long haul.
You allegience to him -- W -- is all just nonsense at this point.
You don't have to take the "other side" to admit it. Just recognize that people (no one you know seemingly) are dying. . . just so you can make a point about . . . how many have died. . . and that the number of those who have DIED can make your point on a blog.
Wait -- isn't shooter pro-military? Why would he use the number of dead to make a point?
I'll tell you: he had nothing to lose :)
No son, no daughter, no aunt, no uncle, no father no mother, no cousin, no niece, no nephew.
NADA
That's why he can argue numbers with Arne.
It's all he has.
Daphne said [re: Shooter242]:
ReplyDeleteThat's why he can argue numbers with Arne.
It's all he has.
I think you might have misspelled "an overactive imagination". Though one dictionary I have lists a variant spelling as "manufactured facts". See above.
Cheers,