Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The power of the blogosphere

(updated below)

In just one day, before it has been released, and with literally nothing more in the way of marketing and publicity than a handful of bloggers discussing it and a very committed and passionate blog readership here, How Would a Patriot Act? went to #1 on the Amazon Top Sellers List last night, and it sits there currently. Both thank you and congratulations are in order for everyone who helped make that happen, especially the regular readers of this blog and the other bloggers who have supported both this blog and the book, and I want to make a few observations about why I think this is so potentially significant:

(1) This book is a pure blogosphere book. The book's ideas and arguments were developed almost exclusively as a result of writing this blog. The research was done primarily by blog readers who worked with me on the book, and I discovered many of the arguments and much of the evidence that comprise the book as a result of reading comments here as well as the posts of other bloggers.

The publisher, Working Assets, approached me about writing the book as a result of their reading this blog. They were willing to commit to the book, first and foremost, because they were committed to publicizing the ideas and arguments in it. But the fact that the liberal blogosphere along with more independent and centrist bloggers would likely discuss and support the book enabled them to feel comfortable that the book -- just from blogs alone -- had a viable marketing base. They were obviously right about that.

There have been a few other recent blog-based books, including Markos and Jerome's highly successful Crashing the Gate, Get This Party Started by Chris Bowers, and Tom Tomorrow's recently released Hell in a Handbasket. Publishing books by bloggers, the ideas for which largely emerge from the blogosphere, is clearly a model that works and will only grow.

(2) That matters not simply because bloggers are new faces, but because so many of the ideas, so much of the analysis, and the underlying approach to political change which characterize the blogosphere is just different in nature than most everything else that comprises the standard national media discussions of the political issues facing our country. That isn't to say that the blogosphere is perfect (it definitely is not) or that it doesn't have disadvantages as compared to the national media (it does). But very generally speaking, the blogosphere is a fundamentally different way of talking about, thinking about, and being engaged in political matters, and all of that means that the content it produces, the ideas it generates, are substantively different than what gets produced elsewhere.

Whole books could be (and, I believe, have been) written on how and why the blogosphere is different. The collaborative nature of it is definitely one of the principal factors -- unlike some paid media pundit who talks only to a handful of like-minded and similarly situated pundits and others in the isolated elite political class, the blogosphere is nothing more than the aggregate by-product of mass, undiluted conversations taking place among thousands of highly motivated, engaged and well-informed citizens every day.

But beyond being just collaborative, the blogosphere is characterized by an independence and autonomy which is glaringly absent in the conventional national media venues. As Jane Hamsher eloquently observed the other day, there has to be some significant motivation for someone to go to their computer every day and do the work to maintain a blog, just as something has to motivate people to spend time at their computers every day reading and participating in intense, detailed political discussions.

Bloggers, their readers and commenters are mostly just citizens who are highly dissatisfied with the conventional media outlets and dominant political institutions, all of which have failed in so many ways. What is most significant about the blogosphere, in my view, is that it enables direct and immediate communication -- and coordination -- among huge numbers of dissatisfied citizens who want to force new ideas and arguments into what was previously a closed and highly controlled media and political dialogue. And, gradually and incrementally, it's working. I think we are at the very beginning of that process and the impact on our country's political processes will only grow, vastly.

Reading other blogs is what made me become much more attentive to the political crises we face, and is what then motivated me to start this blog. That happens over and over again, to thousands and thousand of people. That is just inevitably going to have a significant impact.

Given how broken and rotted our media and government institutions are (with some noble exceptions), fundamentally new ideas and different voices, no matter their imperfections, can only be an improvement. Our media and government are, on the whole, staid, depleted, corrupted, broken down china shops that could use some good, irreverent, aggressive bulls running through them.

(3) Specifically with regard to How Would a Patriot Act?, I can't think of anything that would be more gratifying and, in my view, more beneficial for our country than for the issues it raises to enter the public discourse, and I know that most everyone who reads this blog shares that view.

Whatever else one might want to say about this administration, it is simply indisputable that the theories of executive power it has adopted are radical, extremist and extraordinary; the policies adopted pursuant to those theories -- including the efforts to intimidate the media, stifle dissent, and prevent disclosure of its conduct -- are wholly alien to our most basic political values and traditions; and the entire approach to governing the country is unlike anything we have seen for a very long time, if ever.

Regardless of whether one thinks those theories and policies are justifiable, there is simply no question that allowing them to fester and become legitimized and institutionalized -- and we are well on our way to that destination -- will change our country in fundamental and likely irreversible ways. The changes will be not just to our laws and system of government but to our national character.

The absolute worst and most inexcusable thing is for that to happen without Americans even having a debate about those issues, really without even being aware that these things are occurring. But outside of the blogosphere, we haven't had that discussion -- at all -- because the media, for multiple reasons, just doesn't report it, pundits don't discuss it, very few people with any real public voice outside of the blogosphere have explained and opined about the fact that all of these scandals stem from a common source: the President's expressly stated belief that he has the power to act without restraints and outside of the law, literally.

I believe that so many people ordered the book yesterday, including many who ordered multiple copies, because there are huge numbers of Americans who want to find ways to force these self-evidently critical issues into the public discourse and will enthusiastically support any effective project designed to do that. I know it sounds borderline trite and naive, but I really do believe that Americans are not going to just sit idly by and let the government continue to assault our political values and radically undermine the political system that has made our country great, strong and free for more than two centuries.

Americans are instilled from an early age with a commitment to our political values and liberties, even if it buried by other distractions and life concerns, but that deeply felt commitment has been triggered and galvanized to great effect many times before in our history, and can be again. If the media fails to perform its central function to serve as a watchdog over the government and to ensure that citizens are informed about what the government is really doing -- and it has been failing in that function, dreadfully -- citizens who are committed to defending the principles of our country will find other ways -- will create other ways -- for that to happen.

That is what I think largely fuels the blogosphere, and I think it's also what explains why there is such impassioned and truly awe-inspiring support for things like How Would a Patriot Act? There are many, many people who see that this administration has created a genuine and profound crisis for our country; that the safeguards which are supposed to exist against those abuses have been co-opted, eroded away, and are largely useless; and that it is therefore incumbent upon them to take matters into their own hands and find and create ways to force these facts into the light.

UPDATE: In a post about the unique virtues of the blogosphere, I would be remiss, as several commenters pointed out, if I did not mention the truly pernicious threats to the neutrality and independence of the blogosphere posed by various proposed regulations which would vest telecommunications companies with greater power to control access to Internet sites. Matt Stoller has been leading the effort to ward off these threats, and Digby adds some insights regarding the havoc which some of these proposals would wreak on the blogosphere.

178 comments:

  1. Bravo Glenn ! Thanks for all your good work.

    The effectiveness of the blogosphere is a great thing, but it also guarantees that the powers-that-be will be doing everything they can to restrict our access to a free and open Internet. We're going to have to fight like demons on that issue to preserve our rights.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:11 AM

    Frist! And Way to go Glenn!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:20 AM

    The pre-sales success of the book might be attributable to the fact that it is coming out in paperback. That was a good move on your part. There might be a psychological barrier to buying a political book in hardback because of cost. But $12.00 is pretty affordable for most people, guaranteeing that more people will buy it, read it and recommend it to their friends.
    Cool!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The pre-sales success of the book might be attributable to the fact that it is coming out in paperback. That was a good move on your part.

    All of that credit goes to Jennifer Nix. She said everything you just said. If the idea of the book really is to get those arguments and ideas into as wide a circulation as possible - and that was the overriding goal for every person who worked on the book - you want to make sure that there are no price, page length, or other barriers for people to get and read the book.

    A couple of days at the top of Amazon is just a couple of days at the top of Amazon, and there is a lot more to do to ensure that the book receives attention outside of the blogosphere. But it is obviously a great start, and I really think a huge part of it is that so many people who participate here ordered the book, including many who ordered multiple copies for their friends, family, representatives, libraries, etc., and I think that is going to play a huge role in determining the impact the book will have.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Congratulations Glenn, the one-day meteoric rise of a book not even published yet is truly stunning. Especially since it is totally blog-driven. I’m pleased not just for you, but for all the other blogs and people working to help promote these ideas. It is a very hopeful sign – one that we most desperately need.

    I agree with you that “Americans are not going to sit idly by and let the government continue to assault our political values” – I think we are beginning to see a sea-change in that regard, and I’m seeing many “non-political” people becoming angry and upset with what they are seeing. It’s become so obvious they can’t ignore it anymore.

    Looking forward to reading your book. Congratulations again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:34 AM

    Glenn said:
    What is most significant about the blogosphere, in my view, is that it enables direct and immediate communication -- and coordination -- among huge numbers of dissatisified citizens who want to force new ideas and arguments into what was previously a closed and highly controlled media and politicial dialogue. And, gradually and incrementally, it's working. I think we are at the very beginning of that process and the impact on our country's political processes will only grow, vastly.

    It may be working now, but it is also threatened. The bill working it's way through Congress to kill net neutrality is designed to stop the conversation Glenn wants us to have. The small coterie of fascists who are consolidating power consider their own citizens to be potential or actual enemies because those citizens might prevent them from completing their designs. Their opponents have only information to fight with; deny them that and the means to disseminate it, and the fascists have "information dominance" - as Rumsfeld calls it. That is the purpose of the bill to kill net neutrality as well as to criminalize "unauthorized" (i.e., non-official) leaks. Theirs will be the only story told and the conversation Glenn wants us to have will be stopped. Both bills are aimed at us; we need to be sure both are rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:41 AM

    Congratulations Glenn and mad props to your publisher -

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10:47 AM

    Gee glenn, you have shown us that the "circle of links" is a powerful marketing tool.

    I do believe that you maintain a more meaningful, humble blog than most; actually advocating important issues in a consistent way.

    But the way the circle of links limits discussion and the way that the faux "advertise liberally" crowd steals the heritage of the "L" word bothers me.

    Hope you can sell a bunch of "t-shirts" and other crap too carving out the "glen greenwald" brand from the faux "advertise liberal" circle of links.

    You guys all think you are way too important...

    And FDL? LOL -- 24/7 fitzmas that is wrong virtually all of the time. Like that condenscending attitude is going to build any coalitions while denying any economic basis of the "liberal" tradition's tradisional success.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:48 AM

    well-deserved congratulations.

    the weblog world is the home of human parallel processing,

    involving not computers, but minds with knowledge and experience to share.

    and a cheap and effective way to share it.

    the free university of the weblog world.

    let's keep it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Congratulations Indeed Glenn, you are such a great force to have on our side when it comes to Constitutional Protections, and in a story that should cheer almost all here-except the usual Dear Leader W trolls, the 4th Circuit just gave a major smackdown of President Jr's Warrantless Wiretapping

    http://royallykranked.blogspot.com/2006/04/warrantless-wiretapping-gets-smacked.html

    I'm amazed the 4th Circuit repudiated the President, but considering how upset they were at being played when Jose Padialla's case was suddenly transferred from military to civilian custody, perhaps this was legal blowback the Administration should have seen coming

    Again, congratulations on your book's success, it gives so many of us real hope in battling an out of control President & his loyal retinue

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:55 AM

    one other comment on the book.

    i love the thought that there are going to be thousands of wigged out, right-wing super patriots who buy this book thinking it's their preferred type of reading.

    and then the fun begins.

    they are going to read it.

    think of it,

    your title alone may result in political conversions.

    what a pleasant prospect.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:00 AM

    Er, doesn't the ease with which your story is being told, both on the internet and now in print, sort of undermine its content? Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Congratulations, Glenn. I bought the book yesterday.

    I can't help but think this is an important development as the blogosphere struggles to find a viable economic model. The success of this book will hopefully open the eyes of other book publishers and prompt them to troll the blogosphere for talent and book ideas (as well as authors with a loyal audience of readers).

    We may be witnessing the emergence of a viable economic model that will allow more bloggers to make a reasonable living doing what they love to do, writing. If so, that will be a very positive development.

    Again, congrats.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous11:18 AM

    "notherbob2 said...
    Er, doesn't the ease with which your story is being told, both on the internet and now in print, sort of undermine its content? Just sayin'."


    What does this even mean?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous11:22 AM

    I really enjoyed watching the book shoot up to #1 last night. Congratulations.

    On 'blogs': I appreciate the sentiments, but I think you are significantly over-simplifying. And the resulting narrative is dangerous because it provides a completely erroneous populist narrative to people like the Powerliners. They do not come to blogging like FDL and emptywheel. Bloggers are all coming from different places Markos, for instance, and Glenn Greenwald are not essentially underwritten by their employers in the manner of John Hinderaker (Faegre & Benson) and Scott Johnson (TCF Bank).

    Nor are Kos and Glenn employees of political orgs. like Judd Legum, David Sirota, or Steve Clemons or journos like Wolcott and Josh Marshall.

    In the same manner that the appreciation of art is absolutely intertwined with the artist's biography, so it is with individual blogs. If Kos and Glenn = Johnny Cash, Hinderaker and Johnson = work for hire Muzak players. There is a material difference.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Please post this link of Pelosi asking for support for her bill to ensure net neutrality:


    http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/issues/net_neutrality_/netthanks.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/
    /issues/net_neutrality_/netthanks.cfm

    Re: the book

    Next stop, the Daily Show.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you for your point, lest we forget that the blogosphere is a gift for all who participate. My box was full this morning of emails from friends who got my emails yesterday encouraging them to get copies and get them in the hands of book clubs. Full steam ahead. We all must remain mindful as we watch Kos & TPM yesterday having access to their sites being "censured" that the blogosphere will need all of us to protect it. Every day, every blog, every post kicks that door open a little wider and we must expect hardball resistence. Thanks Glenn!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous11:43 AM

    'Hope you can sell a bunch of "t-shirts" and other crap too carving out the "glen greenwald" brand...

    Anon - come on. This is totally uncalled for. Sour effing grapes.

    'You guys all think you are way too important...'

    That I agree with. The political b-sphere is only a tool - a very useful one - (not some kind of revolution), same way pamphlets were for Tom Paine. It's the discourse, not the tool, people are responding to. The tool helps with the distribution of ideas, what people are responding to in Glenn's writing is leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous11:48 AM

    Congratulations Glenn!!

    Off topic: Bush Impeachment - Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell

    The resolution being proposed cites the President's commited felony, among other things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. On 'blogs': I appreciate the sentiments, but I think you are significantly over-simplifying.

    Point taken. I tried to insert the phrase "generally speaking" several times in what I wrote because - as I myself have argued in other contexts - it is impossible to talk about the "blogosphere" as some monolith and to ascribe generalized attributes to it based upon isolated examples.

    I was describing the value that I see in it and what I think drives those who create that value. That definitely doesn't mean that every person who blogs contributes that value or shares those motivations - many don't.

    But I think that the ultimate impact and significance of the blogosphere will be generated from the characteristics I described. But it is difficult to talk about blogs without generalizing to the point of inaccuracy. That is why caveats are so important.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous12:07 PM

    Congratulations and many thanks, Glenn, both for the book and for the blog.

    The power of the Internet and the blogosphere truly is breathtaking. The Chinese and other repressive governments certainly realize that, and have acted accordingly. We here in the West MUST see to it that our governments don't pull the same routine. Cheap, open, instant communication is likely to become the only bulwark against totalitarianism. And don't "they" know it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. >i love the thought that there are going to be thousands of wigged out, right-wing super patriots who buy this book thinking it's their preferred type of reading.<

    As well they should. Patriotism is after all about not only loving your country, but participating in its governance and accepting responsibility for its actions. If our country's actions don't reflect our values, then we have a responsibility to try and bring about change.

    I think more and more people are realizing this and are waking up to notice that our values are NOT being reflected in our governments actions.

    I'm actaully holding out hope that more Republicans will also realize that civil liberties are not a partisan issue but rather affect us all and will help to pull us back from the precipice.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous12:11 PM

    I've long believed that the Internet is the most significant advance in human communication since the printing press. And we all know what came out of that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous12:14 PM

    The pre-sales success of the book might be attributable to the fact that it is coming out in paperback. That was a good move on your part.

    Yes, thank you for that, Glenn. With the current state of my finances, that made the difference between me buying the book vs. waiting to get it from the library.

    ReplyDelete
  26. phd9: I'm actaully holding out hope that more Republicans will also realize that civil liberties are not a partisan issue but rather affect us all and will help to pull us back from the precipice.

    This statement contains some interesting assumptions. What is it that Americans care about most? One answer is that they care about their privacy most, and they expect govt., no matter which one, to protect that privacy. It seems that they don't even care much what the govt. does to protect privacy, trusting that the "experts" in the govt. will do their job, because that's what we pay them to do.

    You have to wonder how many people are even aware that their "civil liberties" are in jeopardy by recent activities of the govt. Indeed, how many people really know what a civil liberty is? Recent polls of college students show that they'd restrict press freedom because the press is "too" free and jeopardizes the nation's security, ie, the govt.'s ability to protect their privacy.

    I wonder how much of the recent disapproval of the Pres.'s policies in foreign policy are motivated as much by moral and ethical concerns over those policies. Instead, the concern by the public is about how well the admin. is protecting that private world of consumer fantasy we value so much.

    Protecting privacy in this context means that the death and destruction in Iraq are getting too real and upsetting the warm cocoon of fantasy that the private world of consumerism promises.

    Perhaps the nerve that Glenn and Feingold have hit with the concern over NSA spying is this very special attack that this program poses to our privacy. The more this point can be emphasized, perhaps, the more successful their campaign against this abuse of executive power (which the public doesn't care about much) will succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous12:32 PM

    Anonymous said... @ 10:47 AM

    Troll, very nervous troll

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous12:35 PM

    Anonymous said...
    I've long believed that the Internet is the most significant advance in human communication since the printing press. And we all know what came out of that.

    12:11 PM


    With blogs... everyone owns their own printing press.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous12:36 PM

    Congratulations, Glenn. It may be just a limited slant of sunlight, but waking up this morning and rushing to check out Amazon and seeing your book at #1 sure does feel like a beautiful Morning in America.

    My own persespctive is that what has distinguished you from everyone else from the moment you arrived on the scene is the combination of your passion and your purity.

    I think everyone, even your critics, realizes that, which is why they write snarky comments like this:

    Hope you can sell a bunch of "t-shirts" and other crap too carving out the "glen greenwald" brand from the faux "advertise liberal" circle of links.

    Goodness itself seems to really eat away at these types, as well as being something somewhat uncomfortable and foreign to them which motivates them to seek to destroy it.

    Of every single sentence I have read on the Internet since I first arrived late last year, the one sentence that got to me the most, outside of this blog, was, unfortunately, a quote I can no longer find and therefore cannot remember the exact phrasing. (Cynic? Can you find it?)

    It was something to the effect "Those who do not move do not feel their chains."

    I believe the whole reason that Bushco has continued to be so inexplicably supported by its base is because, with the protection that is afforded one who is not presently under attack, they have not yet had to "move" in a way that would expose them to the tugging of any chains.

    Only dissenters, in a sense, start to "move", and when they do, they discover they are in chains which become more and more unbearable the more that they try to move.

    But things can shift. The day could come when the very people who are now unaware of the chains which this Administration is in the process of putting on the citizens of this nation also try to "move", for one reason or another, and it is only then they will discover they too are in chains.

    So when we fight, we do so on behalf of those who have already started to "move", but the liberties we fight for also protect all future "movers", which eventually would be almost everyone except those at the very top who are in control.

    The very antithesis of freedom is being in chains. We all have to be able to move freely.

    So....Could someone please explain to me what the effect would be on the Internet if one of those two bills you are all now discussing were to be enacted?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous12:40 PM

    jay, here's that link:

    Net neutrality

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous12:45 PM

    So....Could someone please explain to me what the effect would be on the Internet if one of those two bills you are all now discussing were to be enacted?

    Here you go, Ms. Garbo... it's time for your close-up.

    Good Fences make bad broadband

    Just keep watching the dailies

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous12:45 PM

    When Bart, notherbob2, gedalya, and I get together for a book burning party your's will at the top of the pile!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous12:48 PM

    Anonymous said...
    When Bart, notherbob2, gedalya, and I get together for a book burning party your's will at the top of the pile!

    12:45 PM


    I doubt if the four of you could get enough wood to start a fire. Call Bob dole, he's always got lead in his pencil, at least he does now.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous12:49 PM

    Hey Glenn,

    Since you're so admiring of Jane Hamsher, what do you think of her effort to recruit people who had never read Kate O'Beirne's book to trash it on Amazon, in the express hope of driving down its sales? Would you mind if some prominent conservative blog used the same sleazy, no-holds-barred tactic on your book?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Congratulations.

    A book about the principles of patriotism is exactly what we need now. A goverment justifying unprincipled action based on worst fears is not. Mao once said politics comes from the barrel of a gun. I have always thought that politics comes from ideas that can convince someone to pick up a gun -- or more importantly lay it down. Your clear exposition of principled ideas is hopefully a part of a movement to have a country once again acting on principles and not fear.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. anon @ 12:45pm: When Bart, notherbob2, gedalya, and I get together for a book burning party your's will at the top of the pile!

    Could you be stupider than a stone? Even if you consciouslyharbored Nazi sentiments, would you want anyone to know? You must be so unconscious of your fascist leanings that you shamelessly parade them for all to see!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous12:53 PM

    Northerner said...
    Hey Glenn,

    Since you're so admiring of Jane Hamsher, what do you think of her effort to recruit people who had never read Kate O'Beirne's book to trash it on Amazon, in the express hope of driving down its sales? Would you mind if some prominent conservative blog used the same sleazy, no-holds-barred tactic on your book?

    12:49 PM


    No sentient being could survive a reading of that withered old bag's drivel. It was self-preservation. Surely you are in favor of that. Enough so that you would support pre-emptively nuking iran, right?

    ReplyDelete
  39. norhterner: Would you mind if some prominent conservative blog used the same sleazy, no-holds-barred tactic on your book?

    c'mon, what kind of disingenuous BS is this? You'll probably be heading the effort. Does a small dog piss where the big dog goes? So, I imagine, you little pups will try and piss on Glenn's puddle.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous1:03 PM

    the cynic librarian said...
    anon @ 12:45pm: When Bart, notherbob2, gedalya, and I get together for a book burning party your's will at the top of the pile!

    Could you be stupider than a stone? Even if you consciouslyharbored Nazi sentiments, would you want anyone to know? You must be so unconscious of your fascist leanings that you shamelessly parade them for all to see!

    12:52 PM


    Finally seeing the light, eh? And that light is coming from a pile of books being torched. This, too is your America and it has been like this for some time, and what has roused Glenn and so many others is not his "passion or his purity" it's the naked way these same morons have grabbed power and gone to extreme lengths to keep it. In my continuing attempt to educate Ms. Garbo, and break her cherry, let me add this from Wikipedia citing:

    Kahin, George McT. and Kahin, Audrey R. Subversion as Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia. New York: The New Press, 1995.

    A massive manifestation is held in Jakarta two days later, demanding a ban on the PKI. The main office of PKI was burned down. On October 13 the Islamic organization Ansor holds anti-PKI rallies across Java. On October 18 around a hundred PKI are killed by Ansor. The systematic extermination of the party had begun.

    Over a million Indonesians accused of being members or supporters of PKI were killed in riots and witch hunts. Lists of suspected communists were supposedly supplied to the Indonesian military by the CIA. A CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that "In terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century..." [1].

    It must also be noted that the CIA was not the only party to the issue, and there was also British involvement in the events.

    Time Magazine presented the following account on December 17, 1966 : "Communists, red sympathisers and their families are being massacred by the thousands. Backlands army units are reported to have executed thousands of communists after interrogation in remote jails. Armed with wide-bladed knives called parangs, Moslem bands crept at night into the homes of communists, killing entire families and burying their bodies in shallow graves."

    "The murder campaign became so brazen in parts of rural East Java, that Moslem bands placed the heads of victims on poles and paraded them through villages. The killings have been on such a scale that the disposal of the corpses has created a serious sanitation problem in East Java and Northern Sumatra where the humid air bears the reek of decaying flesh. Travellers from those areas tell of small rivers and streams that have been literally clogged with bodies."

    Amongst the worst affected areas was the island of Bali, where PKI had grown rapidly prior to the crackdown. On November 11 clashes erupt between PKI and PNI, ending in massacres of PKI accused members and sympathizers. Whereas much of the anti-PKI pogroms in the rest of the country were carried out by Islamic political organizations in the name of jihad, the killings in Bali were done in the name of Hinduism. Bali stood out as the only place in the country were local soldiers in some way intervened to lessen the slaughter.

    On November 22, Aidit was captured and executed.

    In December the military proclaimed that Aceh had been cleared of communists. Simultaneously, Special Military Courts were set up to try jailed PKI members. On March 12, the party was formally banned by Suharto, and The pro-PKI trade union SOBSI was banned in April.

    Some of these tumultuous events were fictionalized in the popular novel and film The Year of Living Dangerously (1982).


    Yes. We all have blood on our hands. Capitalists, communists, libertarians and socialists and fascists and patriots, Americans, Russians, Germans, British, Japanese, Chinese....etc. It's the human condition.

    Rove's testifying today before the GJ.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous1:09 PM

    America. Love it or leave or change it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous1:24 PM

    Glenn, hopefully your book will do better than KOS' book and Air America: This just ot today from the Drudge Report:

    'PROGRESSIVE' MEDIA STALLS: 'AIR AMERICA' IN AUDIENCE PLUNGE NYC, 'DAILY KOS' BOOK SELLS ONLY 3,600 COPIES
    Wed Apr 26 2006 11:39:51 ET

    Left-leaning new media has hit turbulence at the marketplace, newly released stats show.

    A book hyped by major media as documenting a progressive revolution of "blogs" and political power, DAILY KOS 'CRASHING THE GATE,' has sold only 3,630 copies since its release last month, according to NIELSEN's BOOKSCAN http://www.bookscan.com/about.html.

    [NIELSEN claims only 2,062 copies of DAILY KOS have been purchased at the retail level; the rest coming through 'discount' outlets.]

    Meanwhile, the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience -- in the past year!

    Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

    During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  43. anon @ 1:03 pm: I don't know who you think you're preaching to. In some ways, I imagine that I'd join your choir, if I thought that it wasn't nihlistic at heart. But perhaps further clarification on your part will dispel that impression.

    Be that as it may, following up on some comments about Eisenhower, it might prove no surprise to you that Ike liked jihadism way back when. He saw it as a way to stem the spread of commienism.

    My take on this historical fact is to ruminate on Malcolm X's statement that what we see happening in the Islamic world vis a via the US is the chickens coming home to roost.

    Americans--encased as many are in a lack of historical consciousness--are appalled at such statements, believing that the past is dead and NOW is all. Many in the rest of the world don't have that luxury. Instead, they're the ones who have suffered from the slouching tread of the American empire in its march toward Jerusalem.

    But they do remember--and perhaps they can and will forgive, but only when the US begins to treat them with respect and full realization that the are indeed worthy of rational and reflective debate.

    ReplyDelete
  44. lex: What came out of that at first was Bibles, primarily. Not that that's a bad thing -- it made the Reformation possible, just to start, and that template, if you will, of putting knowledge in the hands of common people as well as a dominant elite, set the stage for all manner of other reform as well.

    Yes, but even this wouldn't have been possible without those oh so hateful Humanists and their textual analyses, educational reforms, and ethico-political writings.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous1:36 PM

    Glenn--I faxed a copy of the Amazon page with your book #1 to my Senators. Although you are modest about it, it's an objective measure of where voters are spending their dollars. Kate O'Beirne is sitting around #1500.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I re-present from a previous posting suggestions for what you can do to help promote Glenn's book:

    1) Write a review of the book and send it to your local newspaper. Alternative newspapers are most open to reviews from new writers, but more traditional papers can be persuaded to either run your review or get a regular reviewer to write it up--depending on how persistent you are.

    Don't be put off by doubts that you can't write a review. Just think about those book reviews you had to write for class!

    2) Write letters to the editor citing the main points of Glenn's book. Be sure to cite it by title and author.

    3) Take advantage of the email forwarding function at Amazon.com. Forward the book description to as many friends, acquaintances, etc. you can think of.

    4) Find an online review of the book (when one shows up) and forward it to friends, acquaintances, etc.

    6) Start/join a reading group. Include Glenn's book on the reading list.

    7) Write the top Sunday morning news shows asking that they consider Glenn as a guest/commentator. Again, remember the comments above about targeting the person who makes the decision about these guests/commentators.

    8) Contact your local mega-bookstore, as well as small bookstores, and ask them to stock Glenn's book. Those in major markets might also wish to coordinate a book-signing thru these stores. Believe me, the stores are more open to this idea than you think.

    NOTE Many of these bookstores also sponsor book reading groups. You could get on their schedule, running a reading group of Glenn's book. Maybe title it Threat to Democracy: The War on the Constitution by the Bush Administration or some such catchy title.

    NOTE 2A point about contacting the media: always target your communication with them as close to the source as possible. That is, if you want the books editor at a newspaper to review glenn's book, be sure you get an email or phone call to THE Editor.

    Generic and non-specifically addressed communications with these news outlets get filed in the round file quite easily, since they're usually overwhelmed with such requests. This another reason why you might want to follow an email up with a phone call. Continue this in non-harassing way until they run a review.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bought one this morning, Glenn Greenwald, on the recs fom Atrios and Crooks. I better be smarter when I'm done, damnit. 8}

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous2:05 PM

    'PROGRESSIVE' MEDIA STALLS: 'AIR AMERICA' IN AUDIENCE PLUNGE NYC, 'DAILY KOS' BOOK SELLS ONLY 3,600 COPIES
    Wed Apr 26 2006 11:39:51 ET


    Well, Dog, we'll see what we shall see.

    Maybe people are not as thrilled with socialism as certain quarters of the Left seem to believe that they are.

    Maybe people don't really like wanna be capitalists pushing socialistic concepts at them.

    Maybe people don't see that much difference between the old "James Carville" type "marketing" of political candidates and the new "Markos" kind of marketing for essentially those same candidates.

    Maybe people don't like polling, in fact.

    Maybe they just care about reclaiming American Values from a bunch of delusional madmen run amok.

    Maybe people are less concerned about how marketing is done, and more concerned about the message being marketed.

    Maybe people don't like it when a Daily Kos is dismissive of a Vichy Dems because thersites2 wants to work to put the right kind of Democrats in office and not just operate out of partisan loyalty.

    Maybe socialists don't even buy books, because what they really want is for things to be given to them for free because of their sense of entitlement.

    We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous2:09 PM

    Just bought two-one to read and one to lend.

    Susan in New Mexico

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous2:12 PM

    cynic, thanks for those excellent suggestions. Will do.

    You write: This another reason why you might want to follow an email up with a phone call. Continue this in non-harassing way until they run a review.

    I have to smile because this makes me think of Patrick Meighnan, one of the great follow uppers of all time, whose persistence and patience are truly inspirational.

    If we could clone enough copies of him and set him loose on Glenn's book, it would probably outsell The Da Vinci Code.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous2:31 PM

    northerner: I agree with you about disapproving of Jane's tactics about Kate's book.

    On the other hand, Kate O'Beirne
    is a dangerous bitch.

    No, just kidding. I don't even know who she is. Jane is entirely wrong in what she writes. I am surprised at her. This is just another example of someone doing the exact thing you would expect that person would be against.

    The idea is not to try to prevent someone else from being heard. The idea is to come up with your own ideas and persuade others to your position because you are right and because you make your case articulately.

    Anyway you will never find Glenn urging his readers to do anything like that, as I am sure you know, so please don't hold Glenn responsible for the actions of others.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous2:36 PM

    phd9 (12:09p)

    eloquently put.

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous2:47 PM

    One could broadly define the thread as dealing with media, hence my comment. A favorite topic on leftist blogs is the rank hypocricy of those on the right. And some few (mostly those who call themselves “classic liberals”) on the left admit that there is plenty of it on the left as well. It’s easy to spot it on the other side; tough on your own side. Case in point: “United 93”.
    Liberals of my acquaintance at first act like they haven’t heard of it. Then, when I “inform” them, they nod wisely and say something like: “Oh, a movie about that is not particularly interesting to me, but I might see it.” A classic example of “nothing here to see, move along now.”
    Of course, I know that they are dissembling. Maybe the herders up on Brokeback haven’t heard of this movie, but everyone else certainly has. So why wouldn’t a liberal want to see it? And why lie about it? Yes, some would normally avoid it because of the violence portrayed. And some go only to musicals, etc. But why will the overwhelming majority of liberals never see this movie?
    Because everyone except the lunatic fringe agrees that it tells the truth about 9/11.
    And most liberals have mouthed statements about 9/11 that will be brought back by this truth, to haunt them. Most liberals are more or less in denial about 9/11 and prefer to continue in that mode, thank you very much.
    It is a free country and liberals are free to avoid any truth that they wish to. What excuse are you going to use for not seeing this movie?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous2:54 PM

    The power of the blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous2:58 PM

    My apologies, Dog. You got there first.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous2:59 PM

    Glenn: "The changes will be not just to our laws and system of government but to our national character."

    Wonder what a Roman citizen thought when the Republic was turning into the Empire?

    And why are the right-wing bedwetters (like the "dog" poop)attracted to this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  57. The blogs are our think tanks.

    Not only are we seeing the leading edge of a wave of progressive blog based books but we are also seeing a surge in progressive bloggers as regular guests on the talking head shows.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  58. notherbob2: And most liberals have mouthed statements about 9/11 that will be brought back by this truth, to haunt them. Most liberals are more or less in denial about 9/11 and prefer to continue in that mode, thank you very much.

    Great points. I wonder, however, what you thik of Salvoj Zizek's comments on Flight 93, which he says is the defining moment in a post-911 world. In one version of his essay on 911, "Welcome to the Desert of the Real," he writes:

    One of the heroes of the Shoah is for me a famous Jewish balerina who, as a gesture of special humiliation, was asked by the camp officers to perform a dance for them. Instead of refusing it, she did it, and while she hold their attention, she quickly grabbed the machine gun from one of the distracted guards and, before being shot down herself, succeeded in killing more than a dozen officers... was her act not comparable to that of the passengers on the flight which crashed down in Pennsylvania who, knowing that they will die, forced their way into the cockpit and crashed the plane, saving hundreds of others' lives?

    For another version of this essay see here.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous3:23 PM

    Wonder what a Roman citizen thought when the Republic was turning into the Empire?

    I wonder what the Roman citizens thought when they were too fat and effete to fend off the barbarians. Has anybody on the Left said a word about this or this or this?

    Is there anybody out there? Is there anyone who cares? Hello?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous3:28 PM

    From notherbob2 at 2:47PM:

    "It is a free country and liberals are free to avoid any truth that they wish to. What excuse are you going to use for not seeing this movie?"

    First, I would hardly call the movie in question a "truth", either in the absolute or subjective sense. It may be a fair and balanced enactment of what happened on that flight, or it might be an overblown bit of jingoistic entertainment; I resolutely hope it is the former.

    Second, and speaking only for myself as a resident of NYC, I am not inclined to see the movie not out of ideological objection to the subject matter, but out of respect for the dead. 9/11 is still very much an open wound for us here in the City, and so *any* movie dealing with that subject matter specifically will not be as readily received. My wife, a native of Brooklyn and firm Bush supporter, doesn't even want to hear the screening times for it.

    Call it avoidance if you wish. I prefer to call it respect for the dead and no desire to re-live that particular day.

    ReplyDelete
  61. hidden imam: I wonder what the Roman citizens thought when they were too fat and effete to fend off the barbarians.

    Actually, scholars are still debating why the Romans fell. You're aware, no doubt, that by the time the western empire fell (the eastern continued into the 15th century), it was run by barbarians.

    So, in fact, the fall was between one barbarian tribe versus another. My own take on it is that there's still something to Gibbon's view that it was the rise of Christianity that undermined the empire. All for the good, as far as I am concerned...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous3:56 PM

    The narrative of flight 93 is that despite trillions of dollars spent and the most powerful standing army in the world we are only protected by the will and courage of individual citizens.

    The idea of the militia of flight 93 is a story that neither political party is comfortable with.

    ReplyDelete
  63. eyes wide open:

    northerner: I agree with you about disapproving of Jane's tactics about Kate's book.

    But when the RW is doing "astroturf" and also going in flocks to rate stuff "five stars" despite not having read it, it's hardly any distortion to "balance out" the RW yahoos so that those that don't know about the RW Mighty Wurlitzer aren't taken in by faux popularity and "bandwagon" effects....

    I'd approve whole-heartedly if Amazon was to put in a test to see if you had actually bought the book you're rating, and keep such reviews in a separate list. That might give people a better idea of which are the "astruturf" somments and which are serious (although for written reviews, you can pretty much tell).

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous3:59 PM

    The Dog ...

    'PROGRESSIVE' MEDIA STALLS: 'AIR AMERICA' IN AUDIENCE PLUNGE NYC, 'DAILY KOS' BOOK SELLS ONLY 3,600 COPIES
    Wed Apr 26 2006 11:39:51 ET

    Never a link from the right.... I wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous4:01 PM

    The Hidden Imam said...
    Wonder what a Roman citizen thought when the Republic was turning into the Empire?

    I wonder what the Roman citizens thought when they were too fat and effete to fend off the barbarians. Has anybody on the Left said a word about this or this or this?

    Is there anybody out there? Is there anyone who cares? Hello?

    3:23 PM


    Unless it's a moron like the hidden floormat, whose first link goes to little green snotballs and who cares where else after that...

    How's Iron Fist? Back at the Red Lobster?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous4:02 PM

    If we get out of this mess we're in, Glen Greenwald will have a spot in the political history of this period. Glenn is the first person I read who was willing to call this criminal administration for what it is, in clear, concise language, with no gratuitous invective or insult or flowery language. It is serious work and Glenn takes his work seriously, and we're lucky to have him on our side.

    Keep up the good work Glenn and congratulations on your book.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous4:03 PM

    Markos' response is here

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/26/144354/599

    People who rely on Matt Drudge - particularly unsourced, unlinked assertions of his - have a level of integrity roughly equal to their level of intellect, I'd say.

    And, as Markos notes, how come Drudge didn't provide figures for Glenn Reynolds or Hugh Hewitt's books?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous4:07 PM

    Since you're so admiring of Jane Hamsher, what do you think of her effort to recruit people who had never read Kate O'Beirne's book to trash it on Amazon, in the express hope of driving down its sales?

    Of course, Kate O'Bierne's legion of conservative fans could purchase her book and send it to #1 in sales on Amazon, just like Mr. Greenwald's devotees did with his book.

    Or not.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous4:10 PM

    the cynic librarian said...
    anon @ 1:03 pm: I don't know who you think you're preaching to. In some ways, I imagine that I'd join your choir, if I thought that it wasn't nihlistic at heart. But perhaps further clarification on your part will dispel that impression.

    Be that as it may, following up on some comments about Eisenhower, it might prove no surprise to you that Ike liked jihadism way back when. He saw it as a way to stem the spread of commienism.


    The "America" we have become, the one some claim was founded by "libertarians" (I'd say more like librarians) has been using anything and everything in it's arsenal to "just leave people alone," unless of course they don't wanna play ball, or happen to be communists or socialists, then they will use anything to slaughter them. It's been that way for awhile. That's why I laugh my ass off at the laissez-faire capitalism of Ayn Rand, as do most scholars, or any person with half an ounce of Tom Paine's common sense, as well they should.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous4:14 PM

    When I see a true laissez-faire philosophy of leaving people alone adopted by this country and it's government, I may even join your choir, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Blogger seems to like to eat the ends of long links.
    /2006/4/26/144354/599

    is the balance of the Kos link

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous4:17 PM

    lex, re the printing press:

    "No, we probably don't ALL know what came out of that."

    More's the pity. Of course, beyond the literal, what came out of the printing press was

    " ... that template, if you will, of putting knowledge in the hands of common people as well as a dominant elite, [which] set the stage for all manner of other reform as well."

    Exactly. What you had then was prescient individuals protesting, "We can't let them have the information!" And what you have now is prescient individuals protesting, "We can't let them talk to each other!"

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous4:19 PM

    "notherbob2 said...
    One could broadly define the..."

    You are an idiot. Not only was your post irrelevant to the topic (no matter what you say, it is irrelevant), but it is a broad generalization based on limited liberal friends of yours.

    I have a friend who is conservative who claims not to know of Claude Allen. Should I then, from that experience, make a broader generalization that conservatives are hiding from the truth that their party is full of crooks, liars and hypocrites who claim they are religious because they go to church when they aren't robbing Target and lying about it.

    I am a liberal. I am going to see Flight 93 and I remember that day. I also remember that Osama Bin Laden did it and we captured Saddam instead! My conservative friends argue Saddam was linked to 911, what broad brush should I apply to all conservatives based on that?

    And to Hidden Iman, citing LGF, I didn't go to your links, but i'm sure they are, "Christians hunted like dogs by muslims," "Finland orders release of all muslims from prison and the castration of all christians," and "member of 'religion of peace' is threatening me by just being alive." We get it, you're scared! If you stay in the basement, you'll only have to worry about your mom not calling you to dinner. You'll be safe from everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This is really excellent. Just keep in mind that this isn't the real test. We already knew that lots of blog readers would buy it. Yesterday's sales, while very impressive, are not an indication of how well this book will be selling in June or July. As great as the blogosphere is, Glenn will need MSM appearances as well. Lots of people--correctly--suggested The Daily Show. I think that should be the top priority. Yesterday I suggested Oprah because of her influence over what women read, buy, and think. The other people that suggested Olberman and Colbert are right on as well.

    Maybe Glenn could do book tours at college campuses in the fall?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous4:22 PM

    What excuse are you going to use for not seeing this movie?

    I already know the ending.

    Seriously, though, what is it with wingnuts and their insistence on politicizing every single work of art? What earthly concern is it of anyone's whether or not, or why, I see a particular film?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous4:23 PM

    but it is a broad generalization based on limited liberal friends of yours.

    What makes you think notherbob2 has friends, liberal or otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous4:26 PM

    Anonymous said very well ... Exactly. What you had then was prescient individuals protesting, "We can't let them have the information!" And what you have now is prescient individuals protesting, "We can't let them talk to each other!"

    4:17 PM


    very well said...

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous4:28 PM

    Two words, Glenn:

    MOVIE RIGHTS

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous4:29 PM

    PhD9 said...
    Blogger seems to like to eat the ends of long links.
    /2006/4/26/144354/599

    is the balance of the Kos link

    4:17 PM


    Have to learn html code. I'm lazy. I open another window at a site that has HTML code shortcuts and use their comment window to encode, then I copy and paste. I am a slow typist.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous4:32 PM

    """""What makes you think notherbob2 has friends, liberal or otherwise?"""""

    You are correct, I made an assumption and I was clearly wrong. After reviewing his post, notherbob2 was very clear to point out that they were not his friends, just "[l]iberals of my acquaintance..." I'm sure he wouldn't want liberals as friends, considering he thinks they are traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous4:33 PM

    Disenchanted Dave said...
    Olberman and Colbert are right on as well.


    That will get him noticed... you also mentioned Oprah, I think it was you, and that would be tremendous, but as I said before, I wonder how a controversial political topic like this would be received by her company, which is, after all, a huge media corporation. That's not to say it's not possible... It's worth a shot. We here propably don't watch her... that's the point, millions and millions of folks that don't read Glenn do watch her.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous4:36 PM

    And to Hidden Iman, citing LGF, I didn't go to your links, but i'm sure they are, "Christians hunted like dogs by muslims," "Finland orders release of all muslims from prison and the castration of all christians," and "member of 'religion of peace' is threatening me by just being alive." We get it, you're scared! If you stay in the basement, you'll only have to worry about your mom not calling you to dinner. You'll be safe from everything else.

    No, actually. Perhaps you should read the links before spewing your filth. They were stories of American capitulations to Muslims out of their fear of violent retaliation. My point was that no one on the Left cares about this stuff. Keep it up. Besides never winning an election, you'll go down, once again, as history's imbeciles.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous4:44 PM

    Maybe Glenn could do book tours at college campuses in the fall?

    4:20 PM


    Absolutely, and I think radio like Air America, Pacifica Radio Network. Glenn could do a podcast. NTodd is a regular at Atrios and does podcasts. Brad Friedman, whom Glenn has linked to, does radio and for certain Amy Goodman at Democracy Now does radio and TV. These are smaller markets, but that's where the buzz starts in the AV media.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous4:45 PM

    The Hidden Imam said...
    "No, actually. Perhaps you should read the links before spewing your filth. They were stories of American capitulations to Muslims out of their fear of violent retaliation."

    So where do you fall on the capitulation issue? I mean, so they didn't publish it because of fears of muslim retribution, but now they should publish for fear of LGF'ers and their trust fund master's retribution?

    And, I think you should be honest about whether people on the left care and why you care. There's two different groups who want to publish the cartoons; those that believe in freedom of the press and those who's goal it is to piss off muslims. I find it interesting that many on the right, of which you obviously are, argue for freedom of the press here, but not in many of the current news items. So obviously you fall in the side that just wants to piss someone off.
    I'm all for publishing the cartoons, and I'm not seeing how any of the examples provide show any restriction on society. All the links you cite are about private companies not wanting to display or publish the cartoons, not the government telling them they could not. As the links you provide illustrate, there are many places to still find those cartoons.
    Seems like a concern of private companies based on decisions regarding their bottom line (ie. the market's sorting it out).

    how's that filth for you?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous4:46 PM

    Case in point: “United 93”.
    Liberals of my acquaintance at first act like they haven’t heard of it. Then, when I “inform” them, they nod wisely and say something like: “Oh, a movie about that is not particularly interesting to me, but I might see it.” A classic example of “nothing here to see, move along now.”
    Of course, I know that they are dissembling. Maybe the herders up on Brokeback haven’t heard of this movie, but everyone else certainly has. So why wouldn’t a liberal want to see it? And why lie about it? Yes, some would normally avoid it because of the violence portrayed. And some go only to musicals, etc. But why will the overwhelming majority of liberals never see this movie?


    How fucking typical.

    For the 40,987 time, you and your tough guy republican bedwetting friends don't own 9/11.

    I don't believe you have actually asked any "liberals" about this movie, and I don't believe that if you had, that they would have responded with some Michelle Malkinesque cliche like "oh ahem yes well I wouldn't find that interesting I'll go see a musical instead."

    I sat in a university break room on 9/11 with all my crazy communist liberal friends and raged and cried and felt the body blow of that day as we all watched the skyscrapers in OUR city fall to the ground.

    Unlike you most of us are still trying to recover from that and right the world. You on the other hand decided long ago to use it as a convenient excuse to make all of your wet dreams dating back to the Reagan era come true.

    To be honest I don't believe YOU really want to see this movie. Why? Because you decided long ago that blowing up Arabs was the answer to the world's problems, regardless of what reality might throw at you. What's in it for you? Do you think you can cannibalize the grief of that moment some more in order to injure more foreigners or Americans? Still a few tears to squeeze out of that rock?

    Me and my kind, we got hit by 9/11 and it changed us all, and we're still dealing with it. We need to see more of it, we need to explore it artistically to understand it. You and your kind, you fucking woke up the next day rubbing your hands together thinking about all the people you'd wanted to off for so long, all the "liberals" you could unseat in elections, all the fear and confusion you could exploit in your fellow citizens for your own short sighted goals. And the only reason you bring up this movie here with your smug little comment is that you think it's going to help you win another election and invade another Arab country.

    You're disgusting, and wrong. This country has had enough of your cynicism. You had your moment, now back down to the dungeon where you belong you prick, see you again in another 30 years.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Anonymous4:46 PM

    Hidining under the floormat said.... No, actually. Perhaps you should read the links before spewing your filth

    Bwahahahaha! I'd rather watch paint dry. So would most people, little man.

    ReplyDelete
  87. anon: Seems like a concern of private companies based on decisions regarding their bottom line (ie. the market's sorting it out).

    I know... it's called customer service. But for hidden imam and his ilk anyone who accords Arabs/Moslems any modicum of civility only rubs their chitinous, jelly brains as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    There's always a conspiracy afoot when the exterminator is lurking around the corner. As their insectoid brand of hate-filled groupthink loses legitimacy, no doubt they'll swarm and buzz ever louder about supposed verminous others, trying to distract from their own vermin-infested ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous4:58 PM

    Eyes Wide Open said...

    The idea is not to try to prevent someone else from being heard. The idea is to come up with your own ideas and persuade others to your position because you are right and because you make your case articulately.


    Unfortunately, no. That's why whatever Jane is doing it's fine with me. Don't think the other side doesn't do it, and worse. Politics is not a contact sport, they wear protective gear in those. It's a bloodsport.

    Google "partisan brain" and you will see what I'm talking about. For some, it will never happen, the development of an awake and aware political concsciousness.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous5:07 PM

    the cynic librarian said...
    anon @ 1:03 pm: I don't know who you think you're preaching to. In some ways, I imagine that I'd join your choir, if I thought that it wasn't nihlistic at heart. But perhaps further clarification on your part will dispel that impression.

    Be that as it may, following up on some comments about Eisenhower, it might prove no surprise to you that Ike liked jihadism way back when. He saw it as a way to stem the spread of commienism.


    Precisely... and so did Reagan. We are dealing with a beast our own failed foreign policy created. Why? Just because we didn't like communism? This is better?

    I thoroughly enjoy your posts. You are a real librarian or at least extremely well read. I learn much from what you have to say. I have high expectations of you. You are almost there. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous5:09 PM

    Glenn [Emphasis added]: "I really do believe that Americans are not going to just sit idly by and let the government continue to assault our political values and radically undermine the political system that has made our country great, strong and free for more than two centuries."

    There are several problems with this statement.

    Americans do not like to be reminded that they could not solve it themselves. They loath those who offer solutions, for it reminds them they could not do it on their own.

    American inertia is for war crimes. We see little evidence something new or magical will show up to change the momentum. We’ve entered the 6th year of war crimes, and the American legal system continues to yawn, and the Congress continues to appropriate funds for illegal purposes.

    The track record of Americans is poor. We see little evidence something new is going to inspire them to act. More fundamentally, we question the basis of this belief – that Americans will act, despite inertia – when those who might be inspired are trashed.

    Do not ask the world to be inspired by an idea, only to associate yourself with those who work at odds with that idea – they may say one thing about community, but are silent as others trash those who take the “rallying flag” seriously. Utter hypocrisy, especially when “justified” by false charges, fabrications, and unsupportable diversions.

    Bluntly, I do not believe you are serious. If you were, you would affirmatively state that you will rebuke anyone who fails to communicate, or fails to stand by the words they use to inspire others. It is absurd to have a hope and faith in an idea, all the while working closely with those who do not believe that others are genuine in their desire to assist.

    You betray your good name and your word when you say things, but you associate yourself with those who are not serious about what they say. Rather, it is hypocritical to wave a rallying flag, all the while associating yourself with those who take action to undermine those who might be inspired, going so far as to spread non-sense about what others are or are not doing. This is an integrity issue, especially if you are not serious about publicly asserting affirmatively you will distance yourself from those who allow their reputations and names to be the cover for those who want to spew forth non-sense and misleading statements. It is fine to share sweet words; quite another to take action by associating oneself with those who refuse to believe others might be inspired; but a tragic betrayal when those who are inspired and rely on these words are trashed for manufactured reasons

    If you truly believed that this statement is true, then you need to publicly assert that you have no connection or ties to anyone who dares to throw a wet blanket on anyone who takes action to see this ideal come true. You need to distance yourself from those who say the same, but throw a wet blanket on those who take these "calls for action" seriously. Do not ask the world to be inspired for a cause, then turn around and support those who are abusive to those who are so inspired.

    Until you assert you have distanced yourself from this, your words are more of the siren song of hope, not matched by any serious desire to see that hope translate into novel ideas, genuine desire to assist, or persistent action to lift the spirits of those who may have lost hope. If there is no “loss of hope” then we should already have the outcome you imagine; obviously we do not have that result, so what is to be said of Americans: That they are unaware of their “loss of hope,” or simply unwilling to face their loss of hope?

    Bluntly, until we publicly see something that resembles an unequivocal statement of, "I refuse to interact with anyone who refuses to be open to new ideas," I look at this statement as merely a statement, without anything to back it up.

    . . .

    2. Putting aside the hypocrisy of the statement, let's look at actions. What miracle is going to occur to make this occur? We've had this many years, and plenty of evidence, but no change: What is the "magic wand" that is going to "suddenly bring" this awakening, and not simply a desire, but a real solution backed by a commitment to take lawful action?

    America relies on the myth of 9-11 to justify abuses against Americans and other citizens around the world. Despite the well documented abuses, America spreads its illegal use of power into Iran.

    Even if Americans were to oppose what is going on -- as is happening -- the law and popular will is not something these war criminals see as a barrier. Rather, they look at it as an excuse to inflict more harm.

    From this perspective it is not naive to have hope; but it is naive to believe that something "will be done", all the while throwing a wet blanket on those who dare to believe that something can be done. You may have hope, but you have no hope of inspiring others so long as you associate yourself with those who trash those who take their rallying cries seriously. This is a credibility and integrity issue – one to be addressed, not explained away. To have integrity, one’s actions and words must be consistent. Nice words, but the actions and choices need attention.

    If you have no connection with anyone who says one thing, but does something else, then so state: “There is no basis for these statements; I have no association with anyone who says one thing, but does something else; and I fully stand by all public statements about who I associate with. I fully support all efforts to spread a word of hope, and inspire others to believe; and I will distance myself from anyone who inspires others with words, but is not willing to stand by what they say, or does anything to permit others so inspired to be trashed by others.”

    Until you say and do that, there is no reason to believe your words will be matched by actions, nor matched by a sincere desire to offer hope going forward. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude the opposite: That anyone who may be inspired -- by relying on your words -- should not take your words as serious; rather, they are merely things that sound nice, but you are not willing to stand by those and support them when they seek to reach out to others. Rather, it is more likely those who take the bait to support this endeavor, if they dare point to solutions that address what could be done, will likely be ostracized as “self-promoting.” You and your community miss the point: To win, you must inspire; to prevail you must win with actions and results, not simply talk.

    I do not believe you are serious about working with all people with novel ideas; rather, you appear to be more serious about working with those who are willing to believe in words despite actions to the contrary. Those who embrace words, but ignore the contradictions are in a cult -- no different than those Americans are supposedly “inspired” to lawfully defeat.

    Provide a basis for your belief – that Americans will suddenly do something despite the years of inaction and betrayal; and show that your actions – and choices with whom you associate – are consistent with that belief. I do not see the consistency, but a contradiction -- an integrity issue.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous5:14 PM

    So what if these are private companies? The point is that Muslim violence is working in silencing people.

    This is not about wanting to piss people off. South Park, as everybody knows, is an equal opportunity offender. But now, because of fear of Muslim violence, they were censored by Comedy Central. THAT is newsworthy. Moreover, the Mohammed scene in that episode was not even offensive -- especially when compared to everything else Parker and Stone lampoon. This is a dangerous trend and it demands a public response.

    But you won't get that from the Left. Why? Personally, I think it's because to the Left, the entire enterprise of countering Islamic violence is associated with the person of George W. Bush. The Left hates him so much, it sees George W. Bush everywhere. Mention the word "Islamofascism," and the Left goes into spasms. The hatred runs so deep, that the Left fails to even recognize that there is an enemy, as we frequently find in the comments here.

    Bush's many flaws and responsibility for polarizing this country notwithstanding, this is a critical flaw of the Left. And it is the Left's responsibility to correct it, for both the health and electoral success of the Left, and more importantly, the good of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  92. >You get a taste for how hidden imam and his fellow Islamophobes think of Arabs and Muslims.<

    I know that's how they think, but I'm just at a loss as to how best to combat it. It is, after all, human nature to catagorize things and then make judgments based on the categories. But when the judgement is "sub-human" then we've got a big problem.

    When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" he was of course neglecting women, slaves and native Americans. In that sense, we've made great strides forward. But when I see people on the threads right here refer to people a "savages" and talk about our "enemies" as if they even had a clue as to who our real enemies are, then I realize that we've taken a huge step backwards in less than 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anonymous5:24 PM

    Great work, Glenn. Now you must think like a rock star. Your recorded work is complete, and the next step logically is that you must take it on the road!

    It would be great if you could travel some to bookstores around the country and speak about your book. Not just Austin or Boulder or NYC, but more red cities like Phoenix or Salt Lake where you'd go over well.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous5:31 PM

    anonymous @ 5:09 said... Provide a basis for your belief – that Americans will suddenly do something despite the years of inaction and betrayal; and show that your actions – and choices with whom you associate – are consistent with that belief. I do not see the consistency, but a contradiction -- an integrity issue.

    5:09 PM


    With some suspicion I skimmed thru that whole thing... let's cut to the chase. Glenn has stated what his goal is and I see no need to restate it. He speaks for himself and you, one would think, can read and comprehend for yourself. The action Americans can take? vote in 2006 to put a Democratic majority in the house and senate. Then fasten your seat belts as Conyers takes over with the subpena power.
    As a poster on another thread at another blog put it...
    The Democrats control Congress with veto-proof majorities by this time next year. Which means that the subpoenas will start flying from the House Judiciary Committee, which will be chaired by John Conyers.
    Which just might be enough to save this country.


    We'll have to worry about the other stuff later, like whether the revolution will happen and be live-blogged. First things first.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous5:36 PM

    The Hidden Imam said...
    This is a dangerous trend and it demands a public response.


    You are a dangerous trend and require that the public responds. Tar and feathers and a ride out of town on a rail is too good for you.

    ReplyDelete
  96. phd9: I know that's how they think, but I'm just at a loss as to how best to combat it.

    I think SSalman Rusdie's comments in a recent interview with CNN are balanced and wise. His comments show up some important things: 1) it's a war within Islam that we're seeing played out, and 2) Islam is nowhere near as monolithic as the Islamophobes would have us believe:

    But I also think -- I mean, one of the people coming to the PEN Festival, the great Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. And his new book, "Identity and Violence," shows, gives, I think, the part of the answer, which is that when we define our identities very narrowly -- whether religion or race or class, whatever it may be -- when we define ourselves at [sic] only one thing, it becomes much easier to adopt an adversarial position to other one things.

    And I think that is one of the great curses of our time, that we see ourselves as Muslim or Christian, or Eastern or Western. And these very simple definitions make collisions much more likely to happen.

    [CNN reporter] GORANI: One quick last question, and this is a very general question and it's very difficult, clearly, to answer in one minute, which is the time we have left, but is this really a clash of civilizations between the West and the Muslim world or is it something different?

    RUSHDIE: I don't believe it is entirely. I mean, clearly there is an aspect of radical Islam which is on a collision course with a kind of Western culture that it dislikes. But there is also an enormous battle taking place inside the Muslim world between, if you like, more open and more closed descriptions of the world.

    Kashmir, for example, which I wrote my last novel "Shalimar the Clown" about, is a place in which tolerant, mild, almost mystical Islam is under extraordinary pressure from radical, intolerant, brutal Islam. So I think the battle inside the Muslim world is almost more important than any battle between the Muslim world and the West.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anonymous5:51 PM

    That whole comment from Phoenix Woman is at a thread over at Atrios about Rove's testimony before the GJ today and the weird spin it's getting from various sources. Why is this worth noting? Lot's of damn smart people, educators, lawyers, etc., read Atrios and Glenn and other blogs, left and right, (but not like the trogs over at blogs like LGF who troll here). This is what is at stake and why the trolls are getting a bad case of diaper rash and chafing so much.

    As Atrios notes, Rove’s people (who have lied to the press repeatedly) are saying that Rove was asked back by Fitz, whereas David Shuster’s legal sources are saying that Rove himself asked Fitz to let him come back to testify a fifth time.
    Why is this important?
    Because if Fitz asked Rove, it likely means that Fitz needs more data before he can indict anyone — but if Rove ASKED Fitz to let him testify again, then it means that Fitz has Rove by the short hairs on both obstruction AND perjury, and Rove needs to do some fancy talking to avoid the orange jumpsuit.
    The thing is that Rove’s boxed in. He can try the perjury route again and hope that Fitz can’t catch him at it before the elections in November, but that’s highly unlikely now that Fitz knows Rove’s pattern and practice. The only thing that can save him from prison is if he can provide Fitzgerald with people whose hides Fitz wants more than he wants Rove’s. There are only two people in the world who fit that bill: Bush and Cheney.
    And I don’t think Cheney alone will be enough for Fitz now. He’ll want to take ‘em both out.
    And if Bush tries to short-circuit this with pardons, the Democrats control Congress with veto-proof majorities by this time next year. Which means that the subpoenas will start flying from the House Judiciary Committee, which will be chaired by John Conyers.
    Which just might be enough to save this country.
    Phoenix Woman


    I have no idea whether this analysis is right, but it's better than this...

    KAGAN: John King in Washington, D.C. An important story, one that has a lot of interest, but one people that a lot of people don't know very well. And you definitely do. So thank you for your perspective and new information. John King, thanks.

    which is the way Limbaugh's ex-girlfriend treats it.


    The only way to save this country now, (without violence and bloodshed), may be to put the adults back in charge, and even then, the fight goes on.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Time for another round of buying folks. Glenn's book just dropped 40% in price. I am guessing it is due to the high volume of sales. Is that the case Glenn?

    Basically - according to the publisher, when a book starts selling many units, Amazon starts promoting it and slashing the price, to make sure that the book is bought from Amazon. That's why booksellers hate Amazon, but it's also why they are so effective in moving units (that all comes from my publisher, not my personal knowledge).

    I am much more interested in the number of units sold than the purchase price - that means more people will read it, it will receive more attention, it will have a better chance to make other national bestseller lists, etc.

    The publisher priced the book relatively low in order to move units, so if Amazon thinks it can move more by reducing the price (they discount the price for almost every top selling book they have), so be it.

    As for this:

    I do not believe you are serious about working with all people with novel ideas; rather, you appear to be more serious about working with those who are willing to believe in words despite actions to the contrary.

    This is the second day in a row this person has come here and said things like this and I would like to respond, but can't, because I honestly have no idea what he's talking about. It's not only irresonsible, but just outright weird, to come and launch these incredibly vague though serious attacks on someone's integrity and honesty without providing even a single specific claim so that others can know what you are talking about, let alone any actual examples or documentation to provide support for the accusations you are hurling.

    But please don't interpret that as an invitation or request to try again.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I see our new troll is back (5:09) with the same nonsensical gibberish questions and conclusions that are now leveled at Glenn, but have put to several others here in the same form, and same way. Maybe there’s a software programs that spits this stuff out. At first, it sounded real, but after a few of times of the very same thing, it’s obvious that it isn’t.

    To have so many disrupters, distracters, and disingenuous trolls is really a sign of this blogs success – it must worry them greatly.

    The effort they put into commenting here is proof of that. I wouldn’t think of bothering to try to disrupt some right-wing blog. It’s one thing to take up an issue in a serious manner, but to intentionally try to disrupt is another matter entirely – and that’s what we see here frequently.

    Ah, the price of success.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous5:57 PM

    the cynic librarian said...
    phd9: I know that's how they think, but I'm just at a loss as to how best to combat it.


    Good choice of words... "combat it".

    There is probably no way to combat it. The only thing you can do is marginalize and minimalize it, instead of encourage it and give it a megaphone, like some cynical people do for poliitcal and economic reasons that don't even benefit the morons who echo and trumpet this drivel. That's life in a free society.

    That's why I kind of like people Che. He'd put them up against a wall and shoot them, but so would Ambrose Bierce. So would I, but only as a last resort.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous5:59 PM

    Mister Greenwald, congratulations on reaching an audience outside the internet. I hope it's received as an antacid to the 'best sellers' of Coulter, Malkin and the like.

    I've always thought the blogosphere was the futuristic equivalent of the heady days of posted mail.

    You know, back when letters of copious pages and ideas flashed back and forth between individuals. The introduction and speed of having a steady delivery service for information, available to anyone able to pay the stamp costs is very similar (at least to me) to the writing leaping back and forth across the electronic landscape today. Add to that, small press publishing such letters for even further dissemination and I see a distinct connection between past and present. Isn't that how the Founders of the US worked their stuff?

    I expect this is a comparison made by others long before this. I just hope that the neutrality and mandate of the Post Office in its national/international service might have some bearing on the decisions about the neutral use of the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Someone above was mentioning potential media appearance plugs for Glenn. I suggest that people consider sending an email to Bill Maher's show. Glenn could appear as either a panel member on that show or make a one-on-one appearance, following the format of the show.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous6:11 PM

    I know it's just a blurb at Amazon, but when I read this...

    Then came September 11, 2001. Greenwald’s disinterest in politics was replaced by patriotism, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. He also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt over his decision to invade Iraq. But, as he saw Americans and others being disappeared, jailed and tortured, without charges or legal representation, he began to worry. And when he learned his president had seized the power to spy on American citizens on American soil, without the oversight required by law, he could stand no more. At the heart of these actions, Greenwald saw unprecedented and extremist theories of presidential power, theories that flout the Constitution and make President Bush accountable to no one, and no law.

    ... I thought it was talking about me. and I suspect it was talking about 70% of the country's population. This book will be widely read if the word gets out. College profs, liberal, conservative and independents, will include it as req'd reading for their courses.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous6:17 PM

    Niles said...
    Mister Greenwald, congratulations on reaching an audience outside the internet. I hope it's received as an antacid to the 'best sellers' of Coulter, Malkin and the like.

    I've always thought the blogosphere was the futuristic equivalent of the heady days of posted mail.


    The pamphleteering of Paine and Franklin during the founding of this country, but today, we all have access to the printing press and the means of distribution. Those with merit, something important to say and a way with the written word, get noticed. This frightens certain people in power who get elected appluading these things out of one side of their mouth while doing everything in their power to squelch and nip it in the bud from the other side of the mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous6:17 PM

    Glenn --

    Given how the central theme of this blog is to condemn the "win at all costs" ethic of certain conservatives, it is odd that you have managed to attract an audience that espouses the same ethic.

    Specifically: I asked you whether you condone your friend Jane Hamsher's thuggish tactic of recruiting non-readers to post one-star reviews on Amazon to drive down the ratings for a book that she didn't like.

    In response, exactly one person agreed with me (Eyes Wide Open), while FOUR others explicitly or implicitly endorsed Hamsher's thuggery (cynical librarian, Arne (no surprise there), Mr. Ziffel, and Anonymous).

    Would you mind taking just a moment to rebuke your friend Jane and her fans for the attempt to deluge Amazon with fraudulent "reviews"? Might be worthwhile, especially if you would object to someone using the same tactic on your book.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous6:27 PM

    Northerner said...
    Glenn --

    Given how the central theme of this blog is to condemn the "win at all costs" ethic of certain conservatives, it is odd that you have managed to attract an audience that espouses the same ethic.


    Not really, and if you really are a northerner, when did you move north? Is that you, Confederate Yankee? Not that all southerners are like you. Colorado and Idaho and the southwest have their fair share. We even have them here in CA. It's the weather. It attracts the homeless, too, though I'd rather the wingers left so the homeless had their homes. Anyway, I didn't bother reading your blurb, but it all depends on what you are fighting for, dude. It's the difference between WWII and every other waste of time since. The south found that out once, already. Looking for a re-match? As your hero would say, "Bring it on."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous6:31 PM

    Would you mind taking just a moment to rebuke your friend Jane and her fans for the attempt to deluge Amazon with fraudulent "reviews"? Might be worthwhile, especially if you would object to someone using the same tactic on your book.

    Glenn's a little busy right now. People are interested in what he has to say. Can we take a message? Why don't you do your own rebuking? You just did! Good! Get your own audience and megaphone. Good luck with that, K?

    Buh-bye!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous6:38 PM

    Glenn -- you also attract some commenters who don't seem to have anything coherent to say, but who seem to be upset about something or another. But that's par for the course.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anonymous6:41 PM

    northerner,

    I will stand with you on your criticism of Jane Hamsher. I found her behavior on this issue juvenile and no different than shouting down an opponent you don't agree with. What I found truly despicable was urging her readers to find "racist" postings in the message boards of certain blogs in order to "prove" that the bloggers themselves were racist.

    At the same time, what you are posting here doesn't seem to be any different of a technique than what I am criticizing.

    ReplyDelete
  110. northerner: ...endorsed Hamsher's thuggery (cynical librarian, Arne (no surprise there), Mr. Ziffel, and Anonymous)

    It's cynic librarian. There's a difference, doncha know? A cynic was/is not necessarily cynical, as that term has come to be denote. A cynic, of Diogenes' the Cynic type for example, was not cynical, since he believed in honesty--something he said he could not find in his time. Someone who is cynical, as I understand it, casts aspersions on every virtue, even the notion that honesty exists.

    You might also be aware that the cynics of the Hellensitic era in Rome also fomented a rebellion against Roman tyranny, an incident we know little about, however, thanks to the ever-oppressive Romans and their Orwellian historians.

    There have even been some recent historical-Jesus researchers who've suggested that Jesus was a cynic. I personally do not subscribe to this view, but I see how someone might think it.

    As to your point, I never condoned the policy you say Ms. Hamsher does. I did, however, suggest that you were being disingenuous in your suggestion that Glenn call off his attack dogs--assuming 1) that there are such attack dogs, 2) that he could--should they exist--restrain them, and 3) by unspoken implication and association (by Glenn's "friendship" with Hamsher) suggest that Glenn in some way condoned Hamsher's political tricksterism.

    I'll let Glenn speak for himself, as he does so well. I, on the other hand, want to go on record and say that I find Hamsher's style not my own style. I think such tricks are childish. But then I'm not Karl Rove, nor (thank heavens) was meant to be.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous6:46 PM

    Some wise words on winning at all costs depending on what you are fighting for... I'm sure there is a moral in there... The south didn't listen... much to their dismay.

    On hearing of South Carolina's secession from the United States, Sherman observed to a close friend, Prof. David F. Boyd of Virginia:

    "You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!

    You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...

    Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.

    You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."


    I'm sure these same people, like northerner, think the U.S. Army is about to reverse 150 years of history, right a grave wrong, and enforce secession and slavery too.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Anonymous6:46 PM

    Nobody reads dog so keep up the good work.

    Truth be known, I've been skipping Dog for about a month now. No content.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous6:49 PM

    Northerner said...
    Glenn -- you also attract some commenters who don't seem to have anything coherent to say, but who seem to be upset about something or another. But that's par for the course.



    That's the same type of smear Tony "Snowflake" Snow made about our president before he got his new job.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anonymous6:49 PM

    This is a tough article to read.
    Defininging Democracy Down

    In 2001, NED quadrupled its aid to Venezuelan opponents of elected president Hugo Chavez, and NED heavily funded some organizations involved in a bloody military coup that temporarily removed Chavez from power in April 2002. After Chavez retook control, NED and the State Department responded by pouring even more money into groups seeking his ouster....

    The International Republican Institute, one of the largest NED grant recipients, played a key role both in the Chavez coup...

    Though Bush perennially invokes spreading democracy to justify the invasion of Iraq, suppressing democracy was one of the first orders of business for the U.S. occupation authorities. Three and a half months after the fall of Baghdad, military commanders “ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders,” the Washington Post reported. Many Iraqis were outraged to see Saddam’s former henchmen placed back in power over them.

    U.S. viceroy Paul Bremer feared that the chaos that followed Saddam’s fall would not be conducive to electing positive thinkers: “In a postwar situation like this, if you start holding elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to win.” And the U.S. military presence would likely be one of the first things freely elected Iraqis would have rejected.

    The early suppression of popular government helped turn many Iraqis against the U.S. occupation.... The repeated delays of elections were partly the result of the Bush administration’s lack of enthusiasm for Iraqi self-rule—as well as its fear that pro-Iran Shi’ites would win an honest election. The Bush administration only agreed to hold elections after Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the most powerful religious leader in Iraq, sent his followers into the streets demanding an opportunity to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Anonymous6:51 PM

    Ender,

    There are many more anonymouses here than just one. I look for content and style to identify commenters. Anyone can steal a nick.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anonymous7:02 PM

    Zack writes: I see our new troll is back (5:09) with the same nonsensical gibberish questions and conclusions that are now leveled at Glenn, but have put to several others here in the same form, and same way.

    You are correct. I'm pretty good at recognizing voices, and that is the same one that tried to engage you and librarian in "debate" after leveling inscrutable but angrily stated accusations. This person is a troll, now taking on Glenn, and ought to be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Anonymous7:14 PM

    What excuse are you going to use for not seeing this movie?"

    Oh. Are we taking a poll of reasons?

    Here's mine. The shameless exploitation of human tragedy for propaganda purposes and for personal profit.

    I always buycott such efforts, whether it's an interview on Oprah with someone whose family member has just been murdered, a "movie of the week" or an actual movie.

    I find it repugnant that so many people are so insensitive that they view others' tragedies as just another form of entertainment.

    The Romans were big on that.

    I have never been a fan of "based on a true story" type entertainment.

    I prefer Aristotle's version of what art should be: to instruct or to delight.

    There's no "instruction" in a story which has been told a million times before, and anyone who would be "delighted" by such a film has a screw loose.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous7:29 PM

    To: Eyes Wide Open

    Very well said.

    To the gay blade or whatever your handle really is who said:

    And why are the right-wing .... attracted to this blog?

    Why preach to the choir when its the ill of mind and spirit that so desperately need to hear what for them are voices in the wilderness of their minds. Not as vulgar or simple minded as your usual tripe posts, but maybe you can get someone to explain it to you.

    To Blud:
    Glenn is the first person....with no gratuitous invective or insult or flowery language.

    So you don't really read Glenn's posts I take it.

    To Maryite:

    KOS' response doesn't DENY the truth of the facts asserted by Drudge. He merely diverts and talks around those facts, but NEVER does he deny them in what you posted. And your comments about no links or backup show you need to re-read what I posted from Druge because the links to the backup and sources are plainly listed. Go back and try to find these links in the post: "according to NIELSEN's BOOKSCAN http://www.bookscan.com/about.html"

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anonymous7:38 PM

    Here's an update on net neutrality from mcjoan:

    Update [2006-4-26 16:25:40 by mcjoan]: The Committee just rejected the Markey amendment to preserve net neutrality, 22-34. Democrats Rush, Green and Gonzales all voted no. Since we couldn't squash this telcom give-away in the House, next we'll focus on the Senate. We did manage to flip quite a few Democrats, however, so that's the good news, that and the Senate looks to be friendlier to us on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anonymous7:44 PM

    To Eyes Wide Open:

    The repeated delays of elections were partly the result of the Bush administration’s lack of enthusiasm for Iraqi self-rule—as well as its fear that pro-Iran Shi’ites would win an honest election.

    LMAO, what a load of crap. Who wrote that nonsense. What a tremendous feat of history re-writing. It was John Kerry, Harry Reid, the entire MSM, all saying and chanting as though some mystical religious right the following:

    1. Bush must delay the turnover of sovereignty. Kerry loved to run around repeating there is no one to whom to turn sovereignty over. Bush said no delays the Iraqi democracy must move forward on schedule. Bush was right, Kerry and liberals all no sufferring from amnesia were against it.

    2. Must delay the first elections. They won't vote. It can't be done. Must delay. Must delay the liberal naboobs of demented pessimisim yelled. Bush said no delays, and the elections were a spectacular success.

    3. The constitution can't be adopted; it will be rejected by the Sunnis it will never pass. It must be delayed was again the refrain from the left wing moonbats. Bush said no delays, Iraqi democracy must move forward. Bush again was right.

    Now somebody has the nerve to criticize Bush for NOT moving democracy forward fast enough in Iraq? Give me a friggin break. What a sad bunch of uninformed brainwashed masses could live through the last 3 years and swallow that crap. I know the left, John Kerry, and the leaders of the democrapic party were all for not delaying Iraqi democracy before they were against it. That's the only explanation that could explain any sentient being posting that crap about Bush delaying Iraqi democracy.

    LOL,

    I've had it for today. That was just too funny. I'll have to wait and come back tomorrow.

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  121. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anonymous7:58 PM

    anon: at 5:09

    Here's my "take" on your long post, which contains many of the same ideas you have posted on this blog before.

    You write excellently. Many of the things you say are fascinating, some quite brilliant.

    But after one finishes reading this type post of yours, I, at least, am wondering "But wait, what is he talking about?"

    The reason for that is that you do not give specifics.

    Without specifics, one cannot evaluate the truth or falsity of what you say as relates to any particular case.

    It becomes merely an abstract argument, better suited for students of political theory than for Patriots in a crisis.

    If you were to say, "Glenn, when you had dinner with Sally, you communicated the idea that you believe x,y,z or whatever."

    Or "Glenn, when you wouldn't have dinner with Sally, you communicated the idea of x,y,z."

    We need specific charges from you, or it is impossible to spend too much time evaluating your arguments.

    Specifics Names. Specific Events. Specific Statements. Specific Actions. We need specifics.

    Suppose I go up to Charlie and say
    "Hey, Charlie, you say one thing and do another so I can't associate with you anymore."

    Then I go into a long diatribe of why it's wrong to say one thing and do another.

    Charlie says "What? How do I say one thing and do another?"

    I say "Never mind, you just do, and it's wrong to say one thing and do another because... (insert 25 paragraph argument.)"

    This is a classic failure of communication.

    If you are going to charge a specific person with a specific crime, state exactly what that crime was.

    Don't write a book on crime and expect anyone will read it and put the accused in jail.

    Others have asked you this before, but you consistently refuse to give specifics.

    Why?

    Unless you state exactly what your beef is with Glenn and why, I will continue to find no real value in your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anonymous8:08 PM

    With all due respect to Atrios, if he said this:

    The only thing that can save him from prison is if he can provide Fitzgerald with people whose hides Fitz wants more than he wants Rove’s.

    then that is precisely the kind of thinking that has led us to be where we are in this country and in the world.

    It's the stubborn insistence that 2+2 might equal 5, and then basing one's entire world view taking into account that possibility.

    If a person has such a complete inability to understand human nature, both in the general and the specific, that person is never going to come up with the logical answer.

    The chance that Karl Rove would turn on Bush to save his own skin is less than zero. Far less.

    That's the first axiom. It's a given. All analysis must go from there.

    2+2=4.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The chance that Karl Rove would turn on Bush to save his own skin is less than zero. Far less.

    There is also Cheney, don’t forget.

    Since I live in Chicago I couldn’t help but notice how Fitzgerald works. He started small, and turned one witness after another until he reached former Republican Governor George Ryan. Who was just found guilty on all counts.

    Now Ryan’s chief of staff, and his staunchest defender, was the last person you’d think would turn against him but, at a late date, he completely contradicted his earlier testimonies, and fingered Ryan.

    When asked why, he responded, “basically, you guys got my head in a vice.”

    If Fitzgerald has Cheney in his sights, it’s not that unimaginable. The same is true of Scooter. We don’t know what Fitz knows, nobody does, but there should be no reason for optimism or confidence on the part of the White House at this time.

    Rove’s attorney’s words mean nothing. I’m not ruling anything out.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous9:05 PM

    When asked why, he responded, “basically, you guys got my head in a vice.”

    Reminds me of that scene in Casino when Nicky, (Joe Pesci) really does have a guy's head in a vice.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anonymous9:15 PM

    Hidden in Plain Sight

    Not long after the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian/UK that the United States Government itself sponsors terrorist training - at the U.S. Army School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA.

    A documentary by director John Smihula says that these horrific stories have been "Hidden in Plain Sight" (website for the DVD), and culpability is strangely obscured despite a trail of evidence linking U.S. foreign policy to the bloodstained history of Latin America in the 20th Century. 'Hidden' gives interviews of both SOA supporters and critics, and shows flinchworthy footage of soldiers and victims. This film has debuted in more than 40 U.S. cities and has featured a national and international film festivals - including the Istanbul and Amnesty International film festivals. This month, 'Hidden' will screen at the International Documentary Festival in Amsterdam.

    Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and Eduardo Galeano all give equally damning testimonies for ways in which U.S. imperialism and military intervention have worked against the Latin American poor, the workers and the indigenous, and benefited the large corporations who have taken advantage of cheap labor and compliance from regional leadership.

    Christopher Hitchens distributes the blame and much more widely: "I think that the SOA reminds people in a very blunt way that Americans too can be collectively responsible for torture, for murder for dictatorship and not just for defending these things or for covering them up, or being complicit with them, but actually teaching people how to do them, which is more than complicity, it is direct responsibility."

    Is it a stretch to say that U.S. taxpayers keep the school open? Is it feasible that through our oil dependency and consumptive behavior we give an implicit nod to U.S. foreign policy, consenting to whatever means are necessary to keep gas prices low? Silence is acceptance, and ignorance is no excuse.

    Moreover, the U.S. war on terror and oil imperialism connects the dots from the Middle East through Ft. Benning to Central and South America. Petroleum-rich countries like Ecuador and Venezuela take heed: if Plan Colombia is any indication of how the U.S. intends to secure South American oil, the continent is certainly in for more trouble. Plan Colombia has funneled millions of dollars toward anti-narcotics efforts, attempting to quash the thriving coca industry, and has been denounced by human rights groups as a war against the people of Colombia. This funding is not used for social welfare but to protect oil pipelines, train soldiers, fumigate civilian areas with toxic chemicals, and supply weapons for "protection."

    U.S. culpability in crimes against humanity is overt in the eyes of many Latin Americans. In 'Hidden', El Salvadoran death squad member tells an American reporter, "We learnt from you. We learnt from you the methods, like blowtorches in the armpits, shots in the balls." Their victims died unspeakable deaths, and those who lived carry the weight of remembrance, like Ana Chavez Fisher whose husband was killed in El Salvador. And like Hector Aristizabal whose brother was tortured and killed in Colombia. And like Sr. Dianna Ortiz who survived torture in Guatemala

    For them, the existence of the school at Ft. Benning, GA is indefensible.

    Yet 'Hidden' takes another look at the situation, soliciting views from proponents of the renamed-SOA.

    One supporter, Congressman Mac Collins (R-GA) takes stabs at the largely Catholic "School for the Americas Watch" movement, saying that of all institutions, the church should be willing to see the good in people working for, as fellow supporter Colonel Glenn Weidner says, "peace in the hemisphere." Led by Father Roy Bourgeois, a Maryknoll priest and himself a victim of torture in South America, SOA Watch has maintained a vigil outside the gates of Ft. Benning every November since 1990 to commemorate the murders committed by graduates of the SOA of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter, committed by graduates of the SOA.

    Card-carrying Amnesty International member and Ft. Benning Base Commander Maj. Gen. John Lemoyne, who has been implicated in the "Highway of Death" massacre in the 1991 Gulf War, claims that "Amnesty has reviewed this school and said it was the best institution to help our Latin brothers." Paul Paz y Mino, an Amnesty International representative, counters: "General LeMoyne's statements are completely false. No one in Amnesty has ever or would ever make such a statement endorsing any military training, even though we don't oppose it officially."

    LeMoyne's military career underscores the claim that even at the highest levels, those associated with the SOA act with impunity, sending implicit messages to the soldiers who train there that they are beyond reproach. With testimony from critics and even supporters, 'Hidden' still paints a bad picture of the school.

    Latin Americans have suffered under two silences, one in the climate of fear and repression under their own governments, and another in Americans' lack of awareness or capacity to believe that the U.S. could be involved. Generations of Americans grew up believing that citizenship meant supporting one's country, right or wrong. Perhaps this is the only real explanation for the degree of convincing required to help a country see the forest for the trees, that which has truly been 'Hidden In Plain Sight.'

    Leah C. Wells is a freelance journalist and peace teacher with a degree in Linguistics from Georgetown University. She may be reached at leah@peaceed.org.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Anonymous9:17 PM

    Please.
    It was a shot at the trolls!


    I thought it might be a parody troll. But I liked my return fire just the same. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  128. While I don’t rule anything out, and I’d love to see Rove indicted, I don’t think it likely that he’d turn on Bush. I’m afraid that even if he does get nailed Tim F. has put his finger on the most likely result:

    …anybody who does eventually go down will spend a year and a half appealing the verdict and then walk off with a presidential pardon. In the following ten or twelve years Lewis Libby and whomever else will collect ideological welfare checks from some partisan thinktank, and then when a suitable number of news cycles have come and gone they will find a happy home Elliot Abrahams-style in some future administration. Being disgraced is not much of an impediment for people who do not feel shame.

    Sigh. And Rove, obviously, has no shame.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Good luck, man. We have your back.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anonymous9:54 PM

    First, in regards to the whole School of the Americas thing, I have really appreciated learning this story over the last few months somewhat randomly.

    Although I am a little confused about how the whole SOA topic came to be brought up here on this particular day.

    Now:

    Congratulations, Glenn. I am glad you finished your book. From your postings here about the process, it certainly seems like a project you have invested yourself in. I look forward to reading it for your passion and eloquence about a topic I also hold dear.

    I am somewhat befuddled by the "popularity contest" aspect of this post, and the ensuing commentary, however. I mean, Stephen King has sold more books than Tolstoy, but even Doc Doom himself will tell you who to read for quality.

    I think, to date, the highest selling albums of all time are: The Eagles Greatest Hits, Michael Jackson's Thriller, Pink Floyd The Wall, Led Zeppelin IV, and AC/DC Back In Black.

    Does anyone think that these albums represent the apogee of achievment in Western Musical composition? (well, Back in Black does kick some serious ass, but...)

    I am happy to see that others seem to care enugh about these issues to want to purchase the book, and in the sense that the #1 slot gives the whole issue added notoriety, ... atta boy!

    But otherwise, all you people talking about buying multiple copies just to drive up the sales - STFU. Please.

    just my deux cents, je pense.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anonymous9:56 PM

    Zack,


    And that's just the kind of attitude and thinking the right loves to hear and wants us to have. That's why the fight goes on, bare-knuckled and as down and dirty as it gets. It's the human condition.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Anonymous9:59 PM

    Nick,

    If you think about it, the SOA is the story we are talking about here. How would a patriot act? What would a patriot do about the SOA?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Anonymous10:01 PM

    Just thought this story should get some notice:
    prisoners no more

    ReplyDelete
  134. Anonymous10:04 PM

    anon(9:59) -

    well-played -

    Just to be clear - I don't have any problem with the SOA thread of the discussion, just never really seemed to grasp where it fit in with the rest of the posts going up. But any chance to make mention of Charlie Liteky is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous10:05 PM

    Ender,


    I checked amazon. Nada. I did find this, however. Not sure if it's still "fresh".

    I suppose you can ask them in an E-mail.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Anonymous10:05 PM

    {Tongue firmly in cheek} Sorry for the multiple posts {Tongue Out}

    ReplyDelete
  137. Anonymous10:07 PM

    Nick,

    Fix that last link... the one you want to get more notice, and thanks for the first one. That was a new one on me.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "northerner":

    while FOUR others explicitly or implicitly endorsed Hamsher's thuggery (cynical librarian, Arne (no surprise there), Mr. Ziffel, and Anonymous).

    Ummm, here's "thuggery". Or you might think about this. Maybe if you opened your eyes, you'd figure out what "thuggery" is amongst Netizens (of course, we know from Abu Ghraib and the beating deaths of prisoners what "thuggery" is within the maladministration). Then there's DeLay's goons....

    All I suggested was that us folks on the left don't let the RW spam polls, reviews, and LTOEs and get by with it. Now tell me why you have a problem with that.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  139. Anonymous10:20 PM

    Nick,


    The question, I guess, that Glenn poses is this: Are you loyal to the enduring ideals and values and constitution that this country was founded on, or loyal to a temporal office of the presidency when that office is occupied by a man who views those ideals and values and constitution as impediments to his presidential power. I just think we can pose this question about many more things this government condones and has done under any number of presidents.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Anonymous10:25 PM

    Arne,



    That kind of ugliness needs a much wider audience. These were new to me. Did you come across these at Orcinus?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anonymous10:28 PM

    Arne,

    I meant that first one in particular, about the young girl in Ala.? I had seen Digby's post and even linked it here on another thread.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Anonymous10:36 PM

    Michaelgalien;

    Have the American Bookstore on the Kalverstraat in Amsterdam special-order a copy for you. They are very fast.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "The Dog" piddled:

    [EWO said]: The repeated delays of [Iraqi] elections were partly the result of the Bush administration’s lack of enthusiasm for Iraqi self-rule—as well as its fear that pro-Iran Shi’ites would win an honest election.

    LMAO, what a load of crap. Who wrote that nonsense. What a tremendous feat of history re-writing. It was John Kerry, Harry Reid, the entire MSM, all saying and chanting as though some mystical religious right the following:

    1. Bush must delay the turnover of sovereignty. Kerry loved to run around repeating there is no one to whom to turn sovereignty over. Bush said no delays the Iraqi democracy must move forward on schedule. Bush was right, Kerry and liberals all no sufferring from amnesia were against it.

    [and reams more crap like that]


    Ummm, sorry, I missed it. When did Dubya abdicate and turn over the reins of this country to Reid and Kerry, much less Iraq?

    You mean that Dubya just did what those Islamofascist-loving Dummycrats told him to do (assuming for purposes for argument only that there's a shred of truth in your accusations)? Maybe that's why SnowJob thinks that Dubya's such an "embarrassment"....

    ROFLMAO.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  144. anonymous:

    That kind of ugliness needs a much wider audience. These were new to me. Did you come across these at Orcinus?

    Not sure where (probably via Digby or ThinkProgress). But there's just a ton of stuff on RW thuggery and if you read a lot you'd see these turds floating by....

    Gotta love the "Rope. Tree. Journalist" one. Their true colours are showing. The vicious attacks on the little girl are just appalling, and maybe deserving of a visit from John Law.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  145. Anonymous11:07 PM

    Anon at 5:09

    If you truly believed that this statement is true, then you need to publicly assert that you have no connection or ties to anyone who dares to throw a wet blanket on anyone who takes action to see this ideal come true. You need to distance yourself from those who say the same, but throw a wet blanket on those who take these "calls for action" seriously. Do not ask the world to be inspired for a cause, then turn around and support those who are abusive to those who are so inspired.


    I hesitate to even ask, but what exactly are you trying to say?

    Who "throws wet blankets" on anyone who takes action to see things through? You mean "the man" as he puts environmental activists in jail or some such thing?

    You want Glenn to publicly proclaim he will never throw wet blankets on people who take action, or have anything to do with those who do throw wet blankets on people who take action?
    What the hell are you trying to say? Do you have some action in mind? Know somebody who does? Fear you'll have wet blankets thrown on you?


    I'm not sure what to make of you. You've been around here for a few days now breaking things down for people, trying hard to seem smart or something. But you didn't make much of an impression so you decided to challenge Glenn about his 'hypocrisy' in areas of integrity, but your communication skill are so poor you made it very tough for anybody to understand what you're even talking about. I'm tempted to be dismissive but you seem to have something on your mind. Best to just say it, whatever it is, and take your chances. I'm going to guess you're young.

    As John Lennon said

    If you're talking 'bout destruction, dontcha know that you can count me out.

    Or in, depending on which version of the song your singing.


    Glenn's book #1. Wow is alls I can say.

    I haven't had time to look very closely at today's comments, but this anon stood out at first scan, so i'll toss out a line and see what I get.

    I did catch EWO's take on the new movie comin down the pike. You're right on it. I will never go see it either.

    Blud, I think was the name I saw with that great post about it. Good stuff there.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Anonymous11:36 PM

    Glenn--

    I haven't read as much here since you disappeared to write the book, but the troll fraction is significantly higher. And the whole zoology seems to be here, from the bad spellers to the nonsensical to the scrollers. (And I'll say, though I'm sure opinions differ, to me Bart is not really a troll.) If I were you I'd look on it like a badge of honor.

    To others--

    I wasn't crazy about the Amazon review wars, but a reminder: the procedure is called "freeping" for a reason. And to call it "thuggery" is beyond the pale. Thuggery is when you arrange to have the other side threatened with physical assault and death. (Yes, Ms. Magalang, I'm talking to you.)

    ReplyDelete
  147. Anonymous11:56 PM

    arne writes:
    But when the RW is doing "astroturf" and also going in flocks to rate stuff "five stars" despite not having read it, it's hardly any distortion to "balance out" the RW yahoos so that those that....


    Arne, this is an issue which has long ago been settled. As we all learned in kindergarten, two wrongs don't make a right.

    I agree that Amazon's methods are completely unfair and ill thought out, and the suggestions you make and others would do much to promote their own credibility.

    They have the right to do whatever they want, however, and we have an opportunity to have many people try to contact the right people at Amazon to make the case that it would be to the ultimate benefit of Amazon and would establish their credibility more if they would make certain changes in their rating and review systems.

    Perhaps Glenn's publishers would be good people to get involved in that effort, as they are behind Amazon's present #1 selling book.

    However, if once advised Amazon refuses to make any changes, everyone, customers, publishers, etc. have the right to explore other options such as maybe trying to work with someone like Barnes and Noble, an already established book seller who is perhaps more attuned to a logical argument.

    As for their dropping their price to capture more of the market, what a novel idea! 'Making it up on volume' sounds like an idea which could have legs. [smile]

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous12:14 AM

    I posted a link at 6:49 and some paragraphs from that article, but sorry, I forgot to put the quoted sections in italics.

    Those paragraphs (and the link above) were from here:

    April 24, 2006 Issue
    Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative

    Defining Democracy Down

    Bush’s meddling in foreign elections undercuts his stated principles.

    By James Bovard

    ReplyDelete
  149. Anonymous12:17 AM

    LOL!!!!

    THANK THE LORD ALMIGHTY!!!! NO BART IN THE THREAD TONIGHT!!!!!!

    Do ya think that the moron finally realized that he was pissin' in the wind pastin' chimperor talking points into the threads.

    Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzz

    Glenn's book hit's #1, a REMARKABLE FEAT!!!! and chimpy has the support of less than 1/3 of America!!!!!!!!! AND FITMAS IS COMING!!!!!!!!!

    LOL

    Clearly, the lies are losing their tractions and more and more people are ready to reconsider what it means to be a patriot and stand up for AMERICA!

    It is a glorious day!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  150. Glenn, can't wait to read your book.

    I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this already, but I like the fact that you didn't put your face on the cover like you are some sort of attention whore like Coulter or Franken! Way to stay true to the blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Anonymous12:19 AM

    EWO said...
    Arne, this is an issue which has long ago been settled. As we all learned in kindergarten, two wrongs don't make a right.


    I don't know how old you are and that's your business but the older you get the more you see obvious exceptions to any rule, not to mention the greyer things become. That's why this whole fire of a debate Glenn has waded into is taking place. What would a patriot do? How would a patriot act if he knew his government was engaged in illegal activities like the ones Glenn has chosen to address, and... up to and including, torture, murder and terrorism?

    You sound like you may have a problem with moral relativists and situational ethicists. I have a problem with moral absolutists. Personally, I doubt they actually exist in any practiacal sense more than theory and in some folks own minds. I would use or condone certain extra-legal or "wrong" methods in furtherance of some good cause, depending on the urgency and what was at stake, in situ, but not as some abstract argument to do all measure of such things all the time, as is the case now. I'm probably not being clear about a very complex position I espouse but to grossly over simplify, it just isn't always so black and white. SOA and what it does is black. To use some nastiness to prevent genocide in a place like Darfur is more of a shade of greyish white in my book. Sorry if I am being unclear. It's been a long day.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Anonymous12:25 AM

    Jane Hamsher's thuggish tactic of recruiting non-readers to post one-star reviews on Amazon to drive down the ratings for a book that she didn't like.

    Jane is a thug and a mental midgit that can't argue her way out of a paper bag.

    They blogged 24/7 at FDL about FITZMAS last fall, wrong virtually ALL OF THE TIME!!!!!!

    ...and they have no more integrity or insight now.

    They are just part of the circle of link, the snarky crowd that is all about self-promotion, creating a fake "liberal" brand.

    They are actually just as responsible for demonizing the "L" word as the repugs -- after all, FDL shouts down anyone that mentions the economic issues that have traditionally defined liberalism.

    At FDL and much of the faux "advertise liberally" crowd, being "liberal" is just a fashion statement. It certainly isn't about dialog, insight, or even truth.

    Great blog glenn -- you bring together diverse opinions and actually seem to flourish with it. This makes you a unique voice -- thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Anonymous12:27 AM

    "the Dog" said...

    "Why preach to the choir when its the ill of mind and spirit that so desperately need to hear what for them are voices in the wilderness of their minds."

    A voice in the wilderness is right dog. I visited your blog and your most popular topics had a grand total of "2" responses and most had none at all.

    Looks to me like you either have no choir to preach to or they all ran away from your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Cassidy said...

    I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this already, but I like the fact that you didn't put your face on the cover like you are some sort of attention whore like Coulter or Franken! Way to stay true to the blogs.

    Do NOT call my Al Franken an attention whore!!! Or say anything bad about hime AT ALL!!!

    I love him and he's funny.

    P.S. Way to go Glenn!! I am so very PLEASED!!!

    ReplyDelete
  155. Anonymous12:33 AM

    This is just another example of someone doing the exact thing you would expect that person would be against.

    Obviously haven't been reading FDL for long...

    ....very egotistical, self-centered, intolerant folks.

    Proclaims they have all the answers, just diss everyone that won't worship them.

    Postures as if an important "leader" of truth, but actually ALL BLOG AND NO ACTION!

    Like talking down to people in KS and across America will do any good and they absolutely refuse to discuss real economic issues.

    Course, guess if you don't have to work and just play an expert online all day, you don't really have anything meaningful to add to a discussion about socio-economic issues, do ya?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Anonymous12:41 AM

    Hey EWO - I did get a good night's sleep - thanks ;)

    I must say, I'm simply in constant amazement of the trolls attracted to this blog. I'm totally with Hypatia on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Anonymous12:41 AM

    Let me illustrate my position a little better if I can. Have you seen Saving Private Ryan, or the excellent series Band of Brothers (Same Speilberg-Hanks collaboration)? In Ryan there are definitely cases of violations that I would not raise a fuss about, and they most certainly actually happened, like the depictions in the film of shooting German combatants who had been overrun and had surrendered. During the initial landings at D-Day there was no way that large numbers of prisoners could be taken. Dealing with too many POWs could have threatened the success of the entire operation. It was a desperate gamble and touch and go. This is wrong done in the furtherance of a greater good as dictated by situational exigencies. In the movie, the one German soldier they let go, comes back to fight again, and kills some of those who had shown him mercy. He dies in the end. I know, that's fiction, but take my word for it, During the initial days of the invasion enemy combatants were shot where they surrendered, if they had no value to intelligence. That was wrong, but...

    Now these, OTOH, are an example of something Patton should have been tried as a war criminal for.


    Biscari Massacre

    Canicatti Slaughter

    I doubt this will convince you of anything, however, in the grand scheme of things, this issue of the Amazon freeping is a big debate about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Anonymous12:45 AM

    Above post is for EWO

    ReplyDelete
  159. Anonymous12:49 AM

    For the folks who trash FDL, or any blog,

    Blogs are like bars. If you go into a bar a stranger and act like a jerk, or just because you are a stranger, the regs will take you to task. Same dynamic at blogs. To be accepted you may have to work the room. Again a big to do about nothing really.

    Cheers:)

    (Bar joke)

    ReplyDelete
  160. Eyes Wide Open:

    [Arne]: But when the RW is doing "astroturf" and also going in flocks to rate stuff "five stars" despite not having read it, it's hardly any distortion to "balance out" the RW yahoos so that those that....

    Arne, this is an issue which has long ago been settled. As we all learned in kindergarten, two wrongs don't make a right.

    Yes, but the question is whether this is a "wrong". This is a battle, a duel to the death even, and they have long ago chosen the weapons. I have no desire to keep taking it on the chin. I'd personally prefer different methods, but you do work with what you've got. There's nothing illegal in rating books. Yes, it starts to stink when such as Ben Domenech (just to bring a recent incident to mind) start putting their imprimatur on "reviews" of things they haven't even seen when engaged as the erstwhile reviewer for a publication, and Ben's not the only "real journalist" who's been caught doing this kind of thing. Then there was the publishers making up(!) fake "reviewers" whose manufactured raves about books were printed on the jacket or end-notes.... In the grand scheme of things, rating a book anonymously on Amazon is hardly even a misdemeanour, and writing a review when you can't cover the content is obvious for what it is.

    I agree that Amazon's methods are completely unfair and ill thought out, and the suggestions you make and others would do much to promote their own credibility.

    I suggested (albeit, here) a possible new policy for Amazon. It's their problme, though. If they think their own reputation or business is at stake, they can change their policy. OTOH, they may think that their policy, >as is, is in fact useful or even valuable information for their customers ... and also, in the end, for them. But it is what it is.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  161. anonymous:

    Jane is a thug and a mental midgit that can't argue her way out of a paper bag.

    And you're an anonymous pipsqueak on Glenn's blog here, taking pot-shots at her from afar so that she (and everyone else) doesn't give you a psychic wedgie like she would if you were over at FDL. Boy, that was embarrassing for you when you were little, but I can just imagine how it would feel to have people keep doing it to you when you're "grown up". So I can understand your "predicament" in an abstract way....

    They blogged 24/7 at FDL about FITZMAS last fall, wrong virtually ALL OF THE TIME!!!!!!

    Oh, really. I suppose you had it pegged. Let's see the evidence (both of their "wrongness" and of your superior insight).

    Let me know when you get your law degree, 'kay?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  162. Anonymous3:29 AM

    Arne said... And you're an anonymous pipsqueak on Glenn's blog here, taking pot-shots at her from afar so that she (and everyone else) doesn't give you a psychic wedgie like she would if you were over at FDL.

    Thanks for the belly laugh before bedtime, Arne! :)

    ReplyDelete
  163. Anonymous4:45 AM

    Out of mercy, I'll put my responses to some of the comments all here to make it easy to scroll by in one fell swoop :)

    I found the quote I mentioned above:

    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.

    ~Rosa Luxemburg


    For some reason this one sentence gets to me in a way that nothing else does. I'll have to analyze that and figure out why :)

    It's the same way that the mere thought of a caged animal causes such anguish in me that I have to put it right out of my mind. I cannot even bear to think about it.

    l) Cassidy, you write "I have a problem with moral absolutists."

    I could respond to this, but what would really make me happy is if you would take the time to read this:

    The Cult of Moral Grayness.

    I happen to be a moral absolutist who believes in a black and white approach to the world and having given this tremendous thought, nothing is now going to change my mind. It's a considered position.

    One more thought about Jane. My opinion is that Jane has a first rate mind and a terrifically appealing style of writing. She has passion, humor and a good heart. Her being a somewhat unique person stylistically is a large part of both her charm and her effectiveness.

    Her actions which have been discussed here seemed silly, undignified, not effective and beneath her, which was why I objected to this particular position of hers.

    If it was a lifeboat situation that would be a different. But it wasn't even anything close.

    Some times we all need to just vent. If she rethinks what she wrote in a week or so, she may even change her own mind about it.

    I have to say that when I decided to participate in buying some more of Glenn's books yesterdayto help try to make it #1, I had some reservations and thought about it first.

    I decided that the book was an important enough event in this country that efforts to give it a good start out of the gate made a lot of sense. Not deceptive methods but rather a vote with one's dollar, such as donating to a political campaign. If I didn't believe in Glenn as totally as I do, I wouldn't have even bothered.

    Plus, it was fun :)

    Now that the book did reach #1, it seems traditional methods of making sure it reaches the widest possible audience can take over.

    I do think it's theoretically possible for Karl Rove to "turn on" Cheney (although I have almost none of the real facts) but to do so he would have to "get permission" from Bush, and that is why I limited my comment to talk only about Bush.

    There is no rational argument to suggest turning on Bush would ever be either required or beneficial to him.

    There are numerous rational arguments to suggest that the opposite is true.

    I also think that there is a sort of "unique" alliance between certain persons in this world which trumps all other factors. One will never, ever turn on the other. I don't think Brutus and Ceaser met this test.

    Ender, that was an amazing video.

    I was shocked and horrified. I can't believe SAO really exists. I initially thought that was just satire.

    And I also think that if the masses in South America equate "Capitalism" with what this country has done there, I am not surprised they would tilt toward socialism.

    Nobody is crazy enough to adopt a system of government which, in their minds, is responsible for the type of horrors which happened there.

    I am dismayed that an 'innocent' system of government was made to take the fall because of poseurs engaged in a masquerade.

    Finally to the anon at 12:41.

    You say it was wrong, but....

    Well to me there is no but. It was murder.

    There's a distinction between shooting a bunch of people who break into your house and are trying to kill you.

    Soldiers are a different story. Many don't even share the views of the Ruler who sends them to war.

    Especially soldiers who have been consripted. You can debate what is proper concerning enlisted men because they are acting out of free will.

    BTW, I didn't actually see those Spielberg movies because I think he is a totally corrupt, evil person and I therefore have a visceral dislike of him and wouldn't pay two cents to see anything with which he was associated.

    But that's another story.....

    ReplyDelete
  164. Anonymous5:08 AM

    I forgot to add that unfortunately I personally think net neutrality is a murky issue. For many reasons I am not at all confident these efforts to keep the net "neutral" will prevail or even should, as much as I would like to see the net stay neutral.

    People get the kind of government they vote for and tolerate, and bad forms of government produce bad results.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Anonymous5:29 AM

    EWO,

    Rosa Luxemburg was a Polish born German Marxist. I suppose that's some progress.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Anonymous5:42 AM

    EWO said ... I was shocked and horrified. I can't believe SAO really exists. I initially thought that was just satire.

    Your Eyes Opening Wide is obviously a work in progress...

    And I also think that if the masses in South America equate "Capitalism" with what this country has done there, I am not surprised they would tilt toward socialism.

    You can say that again. What would you equate it with? Freedom on the march? Spreading democracy?

    Nobody is crazy enough to adopt a system of government which, in their minds, is responsible for the type of horrors which happened there.

    Capitalism is an economic system. It is not a system of government. You keep confusing this issue and it's obvious to most of us why.

    I am dismayed that an 'innocent' system of government was made to take the fall because of poseurs engaged in a masquerade.

    Oh dear. It's late. I'm tired. Someone else will have to do this.

    You are a wierd person, Yossarian.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Anonymous8:24 AM

    That's why I kind of like people Che. He'd put them up against a wall and shoot them, but so would Ambrose Bierce. So would I, but only as a last resort.

    Well, lookee here! The murder fantasies of a commenter, just like the commenters on LGF which Glenn frequently rails against.

    And I noticed not a single word of condemnation.

    Glenn -- take notice. Your site has become, for many, a cesspool of hate.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Anonymous8:39 AM

    Anonymous said:

    "Oh dear. It's late. I'm tired. Someone else will have to do this."

    I think it may be a lost cause.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Anonymous9:06 AM

    I won't see the movie, and not because I am a liberals, but because I am a New Yorker.

    I escaped with my life that day. I have no desire to relive the horror of that day. Nor do any of the New Yorkers I know, whether liberal or conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Anonymous9:18 AM

    hidden imam said:
    Glenn -- take notice. Your site has become, for many, a cesspool of hate.

    I have noticed a few more rightwing shit-cannons around here lately...

    Incidentally, that post also garnered no attention outside of your post, perhaps because such attitudes are best ignored.

    OR MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THOSE HEALTHCARE-HUGGING LIBERALS ARE BLOODTHIRSTY, HATEFUL KILLERS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  171. Anonymous11:16 AM

    Rob said...
    "As Jane Hamsher eloquently observed the other day..."

    Have you noticed that the blogosphere is turning into the Algonquin Roundtable, er, planet?


    This would be a bad thing? Dorothy Parker was a hoot, and one of my favorite people, even if she did talk funny. Her elegant and incisive put-downs of fucknozzles like the GOP are legendary and finely crafted works of high art. I wish she was here today. We could use her.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Anonymous12:02 PM

    ktghjJames T said...
    hidden imam said:
    Glenn -- take notice. Your site has become, for many, a cesspool of hate.

    I have noticed a few more rightwing shit-cannons around here lately...

    Incidentally, that post also garnered no attention outside of your post, perhaps because such attitudes are best ignored.


    They are out in force, James T.

    That post garnered no attention because the part he took out of context was not the point of the comment (he's not as adept at this tactic as a David Horroshits), but I think you are right to ignore him as he's not interested in the serious debate, just trolling for attention.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Anonymous1:45 AM

    If you are mentioning bloggers who have successful books, why not mention MAddox with The Alphabet of Manliness and Tucker Max with I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell.

    The revolution is not limited to politics.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Anonymous7:55 PM

    Does the iran war has anything to do with the impending peak oil ?

    Here is a site I found interesting

    http://www.theviewfromthepeak.com

    ReplyDelete
  175. I guess I have the distinction of being EPU'd:

    Just for the record, you lunatics who trashed me for being as much of a hater as those on the Right:

    I never contributed to this thread last April.

    Never.

    Because, as you fatheads can plainly see, I have a fucking Haloscan account.

    I'll sit here arms akimbo and wait for the apologies to start coming in. One by one will be sufficient for purposes of orderliness.

    And I'm a considerably better writer than the pinhead who was mistaken for me.

    Although I honestly do think that Jane Hamsher cannot argue her way out of a wet paper bag. But that's coincidental.

    ReplyDelete