Thursday, July 20, 2006

Blogs and media narratives

(updated below)

From Newsweek's BlogWatch item this week (emphasis added; h/t McJoan via e-mail):

Angered by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, prominent right-wing blogger nicedoggie.net calls for "Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required." Classy.

I wouldn't say that the principal problem with right-wing calls for Supreme Court justices to be hanged is that they lack "class," but this is certainly better than nothing. Projects get accomplished by baby steps. As treason accusations and calls for the imprisonment of journalists become ever more common among Bush supporters, I think journalists are going to have a hard time continuing to ignore these sentiments.

This is as important an election issue as any other. One of the primary reasons why checks and balances are so vital is because they are a unique safeguard against extremism. They force compromise and ensure that no political faction can operate without limits. By contrast, the type of one-party rule to which we've been subjected for the past four years -- and it's really been rule by the most radical strain of that party -- breeds extremism and corruption.

Precisely because of this lack of checks and restraints, the Bush movement has become nothing if not extremist. They have violated multiple laws because they claim that the President has the right to do so. While they have our military sitting in the middle of a true disaster in the Middle East, they're toying with the idea of still more wars in that region. They have spent the country into extraordinary deficits. And they have come to equate political opposition with treason, including open discussions about -- and the laying of the groundwork for -- imprisoning journalists because of stories they write about the Bush administration's legally dubious behavior carried out in secret.

The more that extremism is discussed and publicized, the better off the country is in multiple ways, including with respect to the November elections and the glaring need for some balance and limits to be imposed finally on this administration. George Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000 precisely because GOP strategists know that the country recoils from the type of hate-mongering rhetoric and radical impulses that exist in many of the most extremist precincts on the right. Bill Clinton's most potent weapon was the sheer ugliness of the fanatics who most obsessively opposed him.

But those fanatics haven't gone anywhere. They are the backbone of the Bush movement. Karl Rove has successfully engineered a face lift of the Bush-led Republicans to obscure many of the sentiments which truly fuel it, but its real heart and soul is this radical underbelly - the type who believes that the Leader has the right to act above the law because he is good; that journalists who publish stories embarrassing to the Commander-in-Chief are criminals; that those who are opposed to the war in Iraq are seditious extremists, even though most Americans hold that view; and whose rage and inadequacies drive them to seek more and more war as the only solution they desire or recognize to every external and even domestic conflict.

Bloggers and others spend a lot of time discussing the influence of the blogosphere. I think that the real impact blogs can have is to affect what Peter Daou refers to as media narratives -- how issues are discussed not by blogs but by media outlets, which issues they emphasize, how they understand the matters on which they are reporting. Very few (if any) blogs yet have enough readers, by themselves, to have a meaningful impact on that basis alone. The cumulative number of blog readers makes blogs a real collective force, but what matters beyond the number of people who are reading blogs is who is reading them.

Blogs have become a primary source of information, analysis and original stories for many reporters, pundits, news producers, congressional staffers, even high-level political officials. The influence of blogs is, in many ways, more indirect than direct. Blogs increasingly influence the way in which stories are reported, what stories are emphasized and what issues are given political attention.

Several months ago, blogs were one of the very few venues where discussion could be found of the radical theories of executive power, and the outright lawlessness, which characterize the Bush administration. Now, those issues are discussed prominently on an almost daily basis in the most prominent media outlets. Either directly (through their own readership) or indirectly (by those in the media and political power circles), blogs played at least a significant role, if not the predominant role, in forcing those issues into the open. Blogs have had a similar effect with regard to a host of other issues, because that is one of the things which blogs do best: relentlessly compile evidence and document claims so that they cannot be ignored or dismissed any longer.

The extremism and dangerous rhetoric on which the Bush movement so heavily relies is quite blatant and easy to see. The more it is documented and highlighted, the more it will seep into the narratives promoted by the national media. The reason the Bush presidency has become so extreme is because those who compose it and support it, in large part, are themselves extremists. Far greater media examination of that dynamic is warranted, and one thing which blogs can do is force those issues to be examined.

UPDATE: Tom Tomorrow writes an open letter to a contact of his at The New York Times, reporter David Carr, explaining why media coverage of the extremism in the right-wing blogosphere is long overdue:

The thing is, David, that while your colleagues focus on the occasional swear word or internecine pissing match on left wing blogs, they mostly ignore what’s happening on the right half of the blogosphere. And it’s a fever swamp over there, it really is. Accusations of treason, made in utter seriousness, are routinely levelled against journalists who have the audacity to report the facts, and against Democratic Senators who have the temerity to oppose the president.

To their credit, Newsweek’s Blogwatch column this week notes a prominent right-wing blogger responding to the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision with the comment “Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required.” (A similar sentiment, aimed at journalists, can be found on the site of a t-shirt company that frequently advertises on right-wing blogs.) Here’s one question: if such rhetoric can be laughed off by your colleagues as mere hyperbole — particularly when they are frequently the suggested target — why on earth do they get so worked up over a few allegedly foul-mouthed liberals?

Tom's whole letter is highly worth reading, particularly if you are a journalist.

150 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:46 AM

    Off-topic, but everyone should go and read Gregory Djerejian's piece today on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict. It's probably the most insightful commentary on the administration's careless attitude on the whole situation that I've read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:47 AM

    Nice rebut to the allegations. I wait to see what accusations they allege next.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:50 AM

    what does Ellison think?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:55 AM

    I have just one question for you Mr. Greenwald. Where were you on Christmas day in 1969? Were you in Cambodia or not?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:59 AM

    Stop stealing our act !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:01 PM

    Actually, I think the Newsweek snarky dismissal of Misha's insentience is precisely what we need more of from the media. For too long, they've treated the Coulter, Limbaughs and Malkin types as credulous voices and all of whom have said exactly the same kind of thing as Misha.

    Show them as the idiots they are and show readers exactly what you think about them, loudmouth jackoffs. Its dismissing them without ignoring them, an important step to finally marginalizing their lunatic schtick.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:13 PM

    Another adjective that opponents of the Bush Movement should use frequently, besides extremist, is subversive. Some people and organizations on the far right (not all) have been actively working to subvert our constitutional government. While there had been hints of it earlier, the late 2005 revelations of the eavesdropping brought it into the open. As Glenn points out in his book, that forced the Bush Movement to come out and shamelessly defend their monarchical aspirations, raising the question of how long scheming for this kind of subversion has been going on out of view, and where.

    A year or so ago there was a piece in Harpers about a megachurch, in Colorado Springs IIRC. As one who remembers the Red Scare propaganda when I was a teenager in the 50s, and who has subsequently from time to time read memoirs and histories pertaining to the 20th century Marxist-Leninist movement, I found the similarities in the megachurch's cellular membership structure and thought control tactics striking to say the least. More (much more!) should be made of these parallels.

    Then there are all the propaganda mills er I mean "think" tanks funded largely by inherited wealth. Like the churches, they seek to do their political activities under the radar. These people and movements seek to avoid the light of day because they know that thier views will not fly in an open marketplace of ideas. The Bush Movement opponents need to start calling this what it is: SUBVERSION.

    If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, call it a duck.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:14 PM

    Glenn: Bit OT and I might have asked this before, but you have spent considerable time in your blog documenting the extremism of Bush, his immediate group (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, etc), and the happy-to-follow Congressional Republicans. Now, in your book you say in the intro/preface (paraphrased as I do not have it in front of me) that you thought things were going fine because our system of government would keep the two *extreme* groups (Dems & Reps) in check (and balanced).

    What I would like to know is (1) who did you have in mind when as extreme Democrats in Congress and (2) who do you have in mind now? Or have to come to the realization that there is only *one* extreme group in Congress: the Republicans?

    (If you have addressed this, sorry to bother you and could you point me to where you did.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. GG- Blogs have become a primary source of information, analysis and original stories for many reporters, pundits, news producers, congressional staffers, even high-level political officials.

    Erm, what? I'd certainly like to see some supporting evidence for that assertion. Reason being, I'd like to believe it. Unfortunately, as worded, it could mean that extremist pols and extremist press are feeding off of extremist blogs, as opposed to what I'd like it to mean, and what I'd presume Glenn meant- that the MSM & Dems are picking up on what's going on in sane blogistan. (I'll posit that left and right blogistans and sane & unsane blogistans do not have the same, or even constant, borders.)

    That blogs were the first places where discussion of radical executive power were discussed, followed by discussion of it in the MSM does not, in and of itself, imply a causal relationship. So, unless you've got emough examples of high level pols, reporters etc. citing blogs as a primary source to justify the use of the word 'many' above, color me tepid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:15 PM

    Glenn:

    As treason accusations and calls for the imprisonment of journalists become ever more common among Bush supporters, I think journalists are going to have a hard time continuing to ignore these sentiments.

    The backlash for disclosing the Swift program was so widespread that the NYT and LAT actually spent a great deal of time trying to rebut charges that they broke multiple laws.

    However, the media's general SOP is to ignore the issue because otherwise they might have to substantively address it.

    This is as important an election issue as any other.

    You bet. Rove is successfully changing the theme of this election back to national defense like he did in 2002 and 2004.

    The so called "culture of corruption" ended up in the deep freeze along with $90,000 in cold cash found in Congressman Jefferson's freezer.

    The Donkeys have yet to come up with their version of the Contract with America to tell people what they believe.

    Now, they are running on the minimum wage, which is hardly the stuff of political realignment.

    In September, Congress is going to vote on bills ratifying the NSA Program and setting up military commissions for terrorists reversing most of Hamden.

    The issues about which you feel so passionately will be front and center before the voters on the eve of the election.

    I have no fear at all allowing the Congress to get their views down on the record and then allowing these members to defend their record to the voters.

    I have no fear putting my positions on these issues before the voters.

    Do you?

    To paraphrase jao...

    Tell it to the Voters!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bill O'reilly is worried about "character assasins" and "smear websites" are dangerous because they can defame a person, lie about the person, then give out the person's home which puts people in physical danger, intmidating people from entering the public arena.

    Which is why he denounced Media Matters.

    The Hatter is here, it's time for tea.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous12:21 PM

    Ueberscheisse said...
    GG- Blogs have become a primary source of information, analysis and original stories for many reporters, pundits, news producers, congressional staffers, even high-level political officials.

    Erm, what? I'd certainly like to see some supporting evidence for that assertion.


    Billmon. This post was read by David Igantius and contributed to his piece in the WaPo. It's a fact. Glenn knows whereof he speaks.

    Another piece in the post actually stole his title for an earlier post. The Guns of July.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What I would like to know is (1) who did you have in mind when as extreme Democrats in Congress and (2) who do you have in mind now? Or have to come to the realization that there is only *one* extreme group in Congress: the Republicans?

    I never said I thought there were extremists on the left in Congress. I think all political ideologies breed extremists at some point - it is the nature of political ideologies to do so - and the question is whether the extremists are marginalized or predominant. In my view, the Republican Party - and most importantly, the White House and Congress - has largely been commandeered by the extremists on the right, who I don't consider to be conservative for reasons I've talked about many times - and that is why I focus on them.

    Erm, what? I'd certainly like to see some supporting evidence for that assertion. Reason being, I'd like to believe it. Unfortunately, as worded, it could mean that extremist pols and extremist press are feeding off of extremist blogs, as opposed to what I'd like it to mean, and what I'd presume Glenn meant- that the MSM & Dems are picking up on what's going on in sane blogistan.

    Well, in large part, I'm talking from personal experience, as I know that there are numerous such people who read my blog and other blogs.

    I don't want to use names because it doesn't matter, but the following episode really highlighted the point for me about indirect influence. A television news host with a large audience e-mailed me several times and claimed to be an avid reader of my blog. One day, I wrote a post on the SWIFT banking transaction story which contained substantial documentation and evidence. That night, purely by coincidence, I watched that person's television program and saw him slam two pro-Bush guests with exactly the material - verbatim - which I included in my post. I later asked if that came from my blog and he said that it did, that he often uses my blog and others as his primary resource for the interviews he does.

    So that was an instance where maybe 20,000 read what I wrote on my blog, but another 750,000 people or more heard my arguments and evidence indirectly. That happens frequently with congressional staffers and other pundits and journalists. That's a significant avenue for blogs to exert influence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bless your dogged hide for doing this. In an evolving sense this reminds me of what the Dems should have been doing for Cllinton, "We've got your back"; what the Dems should be doing now as the opposition party and a dirty but necessary role for the left blogosphere to tackle. This radical fringe on the right has taken "we've got your back" to the extreme of we'll also destroy anyone in your path. It won't do any good for Dems to retake the Congress if they will be effectively Swiftboated and negated by these spinmouths. There's alot of work to be done and the sidetracks of their work certainly won't grease the wheels of progress/repair.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous12:28 PM

    This is just one example. There are many others. Murray Waas for instance. Guns of July. Unattributed and uncredited of course. No I don't have the Wapo links. Look up the WaPo stories yourself. I only read blogs. I usually know before the papers put it in print. Most "reporters" get their "news" off a newswire or aggregator anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous12:32 PM

    I saw that, HG. Dr. Laura basically implied Loofalafel boy was a weak-kneed wimp. I laffed my ass off. Good times!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous12:38 PM

    bart: To paraphrase jao...

    Tell it to the Voters!


    Jesus Christ, are you a partisan. That's all you care about.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous12:45 PM

    Glenn writes:

    The extremism and dangerous rhetoric on which the Bush movement so heavily relies is quite blatant and easy to see. The more it is documented and highlighted, the more it will seep into the narratives promoted by the national media.

    Countering the extremist narrative, as you demonstrate, is what blogs can do best.

    I tend to wonder about the effects in the long term. Will countering the rhetoric force the extremists to further hights of depravity? I think we can reasonably predict that an individual or some extremist group will be acting on these calls for violence against people they disagree with. The true test of our society will be how we react at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous12:48 PM

    Prunes:

    Jesus Christ, are you a partisan. That's all you care about.

    Quite to the contrary.

    I expect a heavy bipartisan majorities to ratify the NSA Program and to reverse Hamden to set up military commissions because there is heavy bipartisan support among voters for intelligence gathering and military commissions among the voters.

    It's called democracy and yes I am a proud democrat with a small d.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous12:49 PM

    Greenwald's sockpuppets:

    http://www.patterico.com/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous12:56 PM

    I'm with you on this, Glenn. The violence directed at those of us who don't think exactly like the Bush supporters is unacceptable and should be fought every day. I have been in the process of moving; but, as soon as the computer is hooked up, I will start doing my part. You serve as a good example of what needs to be done. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous1:04 PM

    That post on the Idiot Rottweiller obviously had its effect and the media took notice.

    I watched in horror in 2003 and 2004 while LGF and its clones started pushing their undiluted racism and everybody (including the liberal blogoshere) seemed to ignore it.

    I'm glad someone's decided to take on these people. Time to get out the credit card and buy 5 or 10 copies of your book and start handing it out to friends.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous1:13 PM

    I'm still waiting for an answer, Mr. Greenwald. Were you or were you not in Cambodia on Christmas day in 1969? And how did you really get those Purple Hearts?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous1:15 PM

    I tend to wonder about the effects in the long term. Will countering the rhetoric force the extremists to further hights of depravity?

    That would be "depths of depravity". They can't get much lower. If they had one testicle between the whole lot of them, they'd be in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous1:17 PM

    One thing I've noticed from the right lately is a complete dearth of anything resembling verifiable fact or truth.

    It seems most of their arguments are premised on hyperbole, mischaracterization or outright lies. I think it's because they're defensive and desperate. If they could defend their beliefs and policies, they wouldn't have to rely on lies and distortions to make their points. They're clearly aware of this fact. Besides, what do you expect from a group of people who want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them (including innocent Muslim children), but climb up on their high horse and start screaming about anti-Semitism in the liberal ranks when one dares to criticize Israel.

    Whatever the case, productive discourse is hard to find right now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous1:20 PM

    bart said...
    Prunes:

    Jesus Christ, are you a partisan. That's all you care about.

    Quite to the contrary.

    I expect...ZZZzzzzzzzz


    Bart's a contrarian and anti-liberal.

    He also expects the Second Coming and thinks Jesus will bear a striking resemblance to himself, not George Bush. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous1:34 PM

    Quick point:
    Freedom of speech. I can say I want to kill someone, but it's pretty rude.

    But in a political context, the right wingers want to call out what's OK and what's not. Freedom of speech for the NYT? No way!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous1:36 PM

    Maybe, as the next post on this website suggests, its because it wasn't GG. Maybe, as the post suggests, its because his spouse has various handles. What is the point? Are two or more different people not allowed to use the same computer anymore? Is this truly earth shattering news to you, nog?

    ReplyDelete
  29. HWSNBN sez cluelessly:

    Rove is successfully changing the theme of this election back to national defense like he did in 2002 and 2004.

    Newsflash for HWSNBN: They dropped the colour code.

    As for "national defense", they've been trying to milk this for all it's worth, but it's wearing thin; witness the abandonment of the colour code.

    While Dubya plays guitar, the Middle East blows up ... and Gil Gutknecht, one of the most RW members of Congress is publicly appalled at the disaster that is Iraq.

    Yes, Rove will try the ol' "nash'nul defence" once again (there's not a whole lot else left in the bag of tricks), but I'm not so sure it's quite what it used to be....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous1:45 PM

    Excellent post and analysis, Paul Rosenberg. Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "the nog" said:

    So no word yet on why Glenn was posting under different names as proven by his IP address showing up?

    Learn to read, bozo.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  32. From an observer at ground zero:

    Please inform the Grand Dragon that his targeting computer seems to be functional, but the annointed have apparently forgotten to install the warheads. We're getting a lot of noise on target, but there's no visible damage to the Antichrist or any of his minions.

    More alarmingly, I can hear what seems to lusty and prolonged laughter through the haze produced by our holy detonations.

    I fear this doesn't bode well for the righteous, your awfulness. Shall I remain in my hole here, and await further pronunciamentos, or retreat to LGF Central?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous1:51 PM

    But Glenn, Fox News and hate-spew radio has shifted notions of "extremism" for all media. How can they call out bloggers for hate-speech when Ann Coulter is on the Tonight Show getting laughs with the same material?

    -- WinSmith

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous1:52 PM

    Yes, Rove will try the ol' "nash'nul defence" once again (there's not a whole lot else left in the bag of tricks), but I'm not so sure it's quite what it used to be....

    I feel less safe now than I have, well, ever.

    We all need a t-shirt that says, "I gave up my civil liberties, and all I got was this lousy increase in terrorism and violence."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Glenn,

    Thanks for the response.
    Appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous2:09 PM

    I fear this doesn't bode well for the righteous, your awfulness. Shall I remain in my hole here, and await further pronunciamentos, or retreat to LGF Central?


    Lizard Minion 1 to Lizard Minion 2. Lizard Minion 1 to Lizard Minion 2.

    Moonbats have dug up old usenet posts where we've expressed interest in three way sex with Kirk and Picard. Damage extensive. Send relief now. I repeat. Send relief now.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Having recovered my gravitas after a lusty and prolongued bout of uncontrollable laughter, may I say that the benefits of opposition research have been grossly overstated? Incompetent management of same may be a partial cause here, I admit, but then look who's pulling the strings.

    Patterico, is it dark where you are? Are you on the very brink of feeling the earth move for you? Ooooh...I know, I know. Still, I'd caution you to take heed of that old adage: Plaisir d'amour, ne dure pas un moment. The self-defeating nature of orgiastic politics is well described in the literature, you see. Perhaps you should take a peek.

    And if the French bothers you, I know a little German as well, although it's hard to find a quote from the NSDAP that speaks with any authority of love.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "The Nog" said:

    So no word yet on why Glenn was posting under different names as proven by his IP address showing up?

    I've seen no evidence that it was GG's IP on those comments only that comments from three different names (all in support of GG) were logged to an identical IP and therefore "must" be GG. Pretty weak considering how easy it is to spoof an IP and use that IP to discredit someone. Weaker still, how easy it is to manipulate screenshots.

    The morons GG took to task had their asses handed to them and given their long track record of BS, I have no inclination to believe their so-called evidence is substantiative of anything. Indeed, I expect further puerile horseshit from their cheetos-stained fingers.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous2:18 PM

    Coulter Jokes to Reporter About Mailing White Powder to 'NY Times'

    By E&P Staff

    Published: July 18, 2006 11:30 AM ET

    NEW YORK According to a published report, Ann Coulter has (in jest, we assume) claimed to have sent that mysterious white powder to The New York Times.

    Reporter Jacob Bernstein, in a "Memo Pad" item in today's Women's Wear Daily, wrote that he received a message from a New York Times source saying that Friday's powder mailing -- which included an Xed-out Times editorial and what ended up being corn starch -- "makes all of Ann Coulter's comments a little less funny. I wonder if she considers herself at all responsible when lunatics read her columns and she says that we should be killed."


    Coulter, whose column is distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, has "joked" that maybe terrorist Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the Times building and that maybe Times Executive Editor Bill Keller should be executed.

    "Memo Pad" sent an e-mail to Coulter's AOL account and according to Bernstein, received a reply claiming that she was the sender of the mysterious powder.

    "'So glad to hear that The New York Times got my letter and that your friend at the Times thinks I'm funny,' she wrote back. 'Good luck in journalism and please send me your home address so we can stay in touch, too.

    "P.S. If we get hit again, don't forget to ask the NYT if they consider themselves responsible since they have repeatedly exposed classified government programs designed to prevent another terrorist attack.'"

    Bernstein concluded: "'Memo Pad' declined to send Coulter its home address."

    ReplyDelete
  40. Glenn: One day, I wrote a post on the SWIFT banking transaction story which contained substantial documentation and evidence. That night, purely by coincidence, I watched that person's television program and saw him slam two pro-Bush guests with exactly the material - verbatim - which I included in my post. I later asked if that came from my blog and he said that it did, that he often uses my blog and others as his primary resource for the interviews he does.

    This is precisely because, as I said in a comment in your previous entry, you have been a uniquely expert and credible voice in the blogosphere. Blogs only have as much "influence on the the influencers" as their substance provides. What I am saying is that the unnamed TV host used your material because it was potent and on-point, as opposed to the usual self-referential garbage we often get on many blogs.

    Blogs are no doubt relevant, and can be instruments of great reform or terrible damage. I only hope, as I said in the OT, that you will stick to the cogent material that caught the eyes of the influential in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous2:25 PM

    Military Reports 40% Increase In Daily Baghdad Attacks...

    U.S. military reports 40 percent spike in Baghdad attacks. “U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said there has been an average of 34 attacks a day against U.S. and Iraqi forces in the capital over the past five days. The daily average for the period June 14 until July 13 was 24 a day, he said.

    Blames Glenn Greenwald and the NYTimes (not really).

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous2:34 PM

    IN OTHER BLAME Glenn Greenwald, NYTImes and the angry left GAME NEWS...

    Iraq PM Maliki supports Hezbollah

    Glenn and the NYTimes blamed.

    Republican election message: Iraq is Bush's fault, not ours

    Blame the whole "angry left blogosphere" for pointing out the obvious.

    Reed Blames McCain for Loss

    McCain is really a lefty.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What I am saying is that the unnamed TV host used your material because it was potent and on-point, as opposed to the usual self-referential garbage we often get on many blogs.

    DCLAW - I have read and digested your comment from the other thread, in which I find much accuracy and wisdom, and really appreciate it.

    Blogs have great potential to become an important medium, but can also easily suck people into its baser and more scurillous black holes -- either out of human competiveness, an attraction to rank gossip, or even just base entertainment. It's important to resist its destructive temptations in order to maximize its value, something about which, as you wisely suggest, I need to be a little more vigilant.

    ReplyDelete
  44. One of these days, there will be some issue that splits apart the GOP coalition, and the wackos will take out their ire on their creators-- the Roves, Bushes, Reeds, DeLays, et. al. It almost happened with the Dubai Ports fiasco. You can't hold this angry tiger by the tail for long.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous2:45 PM

    Aaron in NM,

    Excellent points.

    It seems like Dems and liberals spend an inordinate amount of time correcting the dishonest rhetoric of the right. ("No, I don't love terrorists, because I think the US should be responsible for its actions!" "No, I'm not Anti-Semitic, because I think Israel should be responsible for its actions!")

    We need to set the dialogue, and Glenn is working towards doing just that. I hope he's right that the media is catching on.

    My local paper, which usually spends all its time kissing up to Arnold, had a front page story about Bush's stem cell veto being a miscalculation today. More progress!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Poor, Dear, Deluded Bart, tries to spin away unpleasant truths and realities more to his pollyannaish liking

    bart said...

    "The backlash for disclosing the Swift program was so widespread that the NYT and LAT actually spent a great deal of time trying to rebut charges that they broke multiple laws."

    REALLY? Please do tell which laws were obviously broken and why no one's been charged as such regarding this already well-known information

    And I notice you conveniently left the Wall Street Journal off that list-If the WSJ didn't break any laws, then neither did the LA Times, as they both ran the story after the NY Times did

    Consistency is obviously an impossible concept for you to contemplate, try again

    Bart: "However, the media's general SOP is to ignore the issue because otherwise they might have to substantively address it.

    "This is as important an election issue as any other."

    RIIIIGHT

    Make up your mind

    You consistently deride the Bush Leaning Mainstream media as both "donkey media" and irrelevant when it comes to the political and social mainstream, yet are willing to claim the same media you bash somehow is able to inflict real-world damage on Dear Leader W-as opposed to the damage W does to himself with his clearly illegal actions to build an Imperial Presidency

    I'm sure you're HOPING that disclosing an already well-known program will come back to bolster the President, but seeing as how his approval ratings are still on a downward spiral, one would think, logically, that overwhelming public fury at this story would have clearly bolstered W's fortunes by now

    Guess the "donkey media" just isn't reporting that obvious bounce regarding this issue

    Bart: "You bet. Rove is successfully changing the theme of this election back to national defense like he did in 2002 and 2004."

    Right, that's why Republicans are now trying to disassociate themselves from the Administration's Rose-Colored Glasses foreign policy fiasco regarding the Iraq occupation and supposed War On Terrorism

    Of course, the fact that the CIA unit devoted to bin Laden was shut down last year is something Benedict Rove and his Imperial President probably won't be campaigning on much, nor will the issue of Halliburton's previous no-bid, no oversight contract in Iraq finally getting yanked get much GOP play either

    Of course, the ongoing carnage in Iraq itself, the Administration's constant screwing of the US troops-in terms of being DELIBERATELY sent into battle without enough effective body & vehicle armor-and the inability of the President to give more than a 5 minute "Heads Up" to the Iraqi PM on his last "thief in the night" trip to the Green Zone kind of blow Rove's blather out of the water

    Maybe a better way to prove Rove's braying would be for W to give a speech to the Iraq Parliament, then wander around outside the Green Zone, lightly armed with no security detail, you know, the same way the Iraqis have to live

    But that would require courage, a quality so many in this Administration, and it's media whores, know absolutely nothing about

    Bart: "The so called "culture of corruption" ended up in the deep freeze along with $90,000 in cold cash found in Congressman Jefferson's freezer."

    And which politicians came out with a major hissy fit against the FBI's legal search of Jefferson's office?

    Why, that would be GOP pols Dennis Hastert and John Boehner, politicians who had a problem with a legally conducted search via valid warrant, but have no problems with warrantless spying on the vast majority of US citizens and purely domestic communications

    And what was the main reason Ralph Reed got his ass kicked in the Republican primary for Georgia's LT Gov race again?

    Oh, that's right, because of his deep, established ties with now convicted felon Jack Abramoff

    Oh yeah, in case you missed it, this press release-with independently verifiable facts, a concept this Administration and it's rapidly dwindling number of starry-eyed True W believers hate-kind of puts to rest your blather about "Culture Of Corruption" being a nonissue

    CREW FEC COMPLAINT AGAINST REP. DELAY PAC – ARMPAC – RESULTS IN $115,000 FINE

    "Last night, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released a conciliation agreement reached with Americans for a Republican Majority political action committee (ARMPAC) stemming from a complaint Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed against the PAC last August. As a result of CREW's FEC complaint, ARMPAC has agreed to pay a $115,000 civil penalty and go out of business. ARMPAC was created and led by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)."

    Yep, DeLay's pac being put out of business, as well as his current indictment and legal woes, sure bears out your assertion that corruption will play NO part in the November elections

    And any arrests and indictments of GOP politicians, operatives or lobbyists leading up to the November elections-pay attention Bob Ney-will further disprove your fervent wishes otherwise

    Bart: "The Donkeys have yet to come up with their version of the Contract with America to tell people what they believe."

    Considering just how much of the "Contract With America" is still in force and unrepudiated-unlike the temporary GOP fervor for term limits until they would hurt GOP politicians-that's probably not a bad thing

    But I agree that there needs to be more strong opinions voiced by Dems other than Feingold, Murtha, Conyers, etc, as being timid-the normal course of affairs for the Dem party at the national level-is no way to show strong leadership about anything

    Bart: "Now, they are running on the minimum wage, which is hardly the stuff of political realignment."

    Right, as opposed to more foolish tax cuts-at the expense of those not already wealthy in this society-for those already at the very top of the economic ladder

    Sure Bart, it did wonders for the GOP's approval ratings when they voted themselves yet another Congressional pay raise at the same time they blocked a vote on raising the minimum wage

    And of course, the fact that there was such a hue and cry about cutting wages for those workers hired to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after Katrina that W actually had to reverse himself, just further bears out your point of this being a nonissue

    So, tell me, just how has this Administration's economic policies actually lifted more people out of poverty?

    Oh that's right, they haven't, as the number of people below the poverty line has increased EVERY year since W's been in office

    Bart: "In September, Congress is going to vote on bills ratifying the NSA Program and setting up military commissions for terrorists reversing most of Hamden."

    Yep, and the fact that W himself has actively obstructed an investigation into his warrantless spying on purely domestic communications will be an unpleasant truth the Administration would rather not deal with

    And since the Hamdan decision hasn't yet resulted in policies more to W's liking, that tells me there aren't enough GOP votes to override that decision, otherwise it would have been voted on and done already

    Bart: "The issues about which you feel so passionately will be front and center before the voters on the eve of the election."

    They sure will, and it seems Rove's former golden touch is now shot to hell, seeing as how he hasn't been able to get the GOP on point since he wasn't indicted regarding outing Valerie Plame for purely political purposes

    Wasn't Rove was going to put everyone in their proper place when he was able to completely focus his attention on keeping the GOP in control of Congress come November

    Seems like nothing more than more wishful thinking on Rove's part at this point

    Bart: "I have no fear at all allowing the Congress to get their views down on the record and then allowing these members to defend their record to the voters."

    Right, that's why most GOP pols are trying to show their differences, rather than their agreements, with the Administration

    Bart: "I have no fear putting my positions on these issues before the voters."

    One thing-Are you running for office?

    It's easy to express an opinion as a voter, not so easy as a politician running for office

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous2:56 PM

    Blogs have great potential to become an important medium, but can also easily suck people into its baser and more scurillous black holes -- either out of human competiveness, an attraction to rank gossip, or even just base entertainment.

    Being able to mouth off on the Internet without consquence is an addiction. For people who get really hooked into flaming, it's a lot like being the drug addict who needs a bigger and bigger dose of whatever he's addicted to. You need to say more and more extreme things to satisfy your need to feel as if you've hurt someone emotionally.

    Thus the Idiot Rottweiller and Deb Frisch. Both of them experienced this feeling of power knowing you could damage someone with your words. In the end it just becomes like caffeine addiction. You wind up staring at your monitor, bug eyed, unable to sleep, trying to get that rush you had when you did it the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Glenn is on the right track here, although it should be obvious even to a casual observer that he doesn't need any of us to confirm it.

    The way to defeat nonsense, even malicious nonsense, is to plant your feet and speak the truth, as in:

    I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard.

    This, ultimately, is the the only form of advocacy that has any lasting consequence, and it can be as effective today as it was 150 years ago.

    In my own lifetime, I've seen the plain truth of this not once, but twice. Opponents of segregation brought about a change not only to the law, but to public opinion as well. Opposition to the Vietnam War was the position of a reviled minority in 1965; by 1975 it had become the position of a majority of the American people.

    Thanks to Glenn and others, I have some hope of seeing this transformation once more before I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thank you, Glenn, for being open to my suggestions. I have no doubt you'll keep giving us readers the hard-hitting content we've we've become addicted to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. anonymous:

    We all need a t-shirt that says, "I gave up my civil liberties, and all I got was this lousy increase in terrorism and violence."

    You could set one up at cafepress.com if you want. I'd buy one. :-)

    You might put Glenn's blog URL and/or a mention of his book on it too.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous3:14 PM

    I am sure that most Americans just want things to go back to the way they were when they (the middle class) had more power over their lives, with a few required adjustments for current world conditions of course.

    I think the gipper would have agreed that the imperial stupidity and arrogance which favors no stem cell research over a risky and foolish war is extremism.

    ReplyDelete
  52. shooter242, clueless as ever:

    So let me see if I have this straight... you folks think, you are going to ride into office, because of imprudent language from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler?

    Nope. Nice "straw man", though.

    ...

    Do you folks not understand that recent hyperbole on the right is news precisely because it is so rare?

    Ummm, the point was not that it was rare, but rather that it was pervasive.

    See if you can do a better job of "[getting] it straight" next time, 'kay?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous3:26 PM

    From shooter242 at 2:56pm:

    you folks think, you are going to ride into office, because of imprudent language from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler?

    No. We know we're going to ride into office because your idols have proven incapable of doing anything right, just, ethical, or even remotely constructive.

    Meanwhile the left has bombs lying about that have been forgotten because they are all too many.

    That's the best you can do? A two-sentence paragraph by Senator Byrd making it clear the US is the opposite of Nazi Germany, while at the same time warning against hubris and majoritarian autocracy?

    May I suggest a remedial English course, so you can actually understand what it is you're reading?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous3:40 PM

    David Broder's column in the WaPo today is on Barney Frank's July 13 speech reaffirming Congress's independence from the executive branch and criticizing the administration's power grabbing. Though Broder says Frank "separated himself from the strident voices on the left -- frequent in the world of blogging" -- I guess he couldn't resist -- nevertheless, Frank made the speech, and Broder writes about it in his MSM syndicated column, so maybe the issues are finally coming to the forefront. At last. Thank you, Glenn.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous3:47 PM

    Glenn said: I never said I thought there were extremists on the left in Congress.

    Sorry for misrepresenting your view(s) and thanks for correcting me.

    I would like to point out (to others) that there are a number of good groups who have been documenting what you recently came to realize such as: Theocracy Watch ( http://www.theocracywatch.org/ ) and People for the American Way ( http://www.pfaw.org/ ). Thanks for the great book Glenn!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous3:49 PM

    Right. Since when is liberal rag Newsweek the authority on who is or isn't a "prominent right-wing blogger" ??

    Dare I suggest that that liberal rag would parrot what unhinged liberal nutjob Glen Greenwad asserts ?

    What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous3:53 PM

    From anonymous at 3:49pm:

    What a joke.

    Then, pray, what is the punch line? The fact you have no point to make in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  58. For a good time, use the email function of Tom's cartoon to send it to your favorite clueless journalist and/or "ombudsman".

    If they can't figure out the words, maybe some pretty pictures will help them.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous4:33 PM

    From paul rosenberg at 4:18pm:

    What more do you want?

    Bush's letter of resignation from the Presidency, along with the same from Cheney, Rummsfield, Gonzalez, and every other member of the Cabinet, the Speaker of the House, and the President Pro Tempor of the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous4:34 PM

    JaO and Paul Rosenberg -- You're right, but baby steps. Some of the facts may be wrong, but maybe a few dozen people thought today for the first time, gosh, maybe the Prez is going too far if David Broder's talking about it. And slowly the idea spreads.
    OT I would like to see Buffy take on Karl Rove.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The Broder piece, as well as the snippets he quotes from the Frank speech, are interesting as much for what they deny as for what they assert.

    For example, from Broder: Frank began by separating himself from the strident voices on the left -- frequent in the world of blogging -- that accuse Bush of subverting American democracy.

    And from Frank: This remains, in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, a very free country.

    Both of these statements asre arguably true, but in several important respects, irrelevant to the real issue.

    If the President's Article II assertions are, in fact, a radical usurpation of powers not granted him by the Constitution, and if his assertion of those powers remains unchallenged by either Congress or the courts, this "very free country" may not continue to be anything like as free in the future as it is today. Frank strives to reassure us that the Congress and the courts are waking up now, and that everything will be okay. That may be the case, but there is abundant, if not yet compelling evidence, that this is not the case, and it can't be trivialized by simply by referring to the concerned citizens who point to this evidence as "strident voices on the left."

    If this really is just a matter of honest men with an abundance of self-confidence, and a pressing concern about the attacks on us, cutting a few legal corners just to be on the safe side, we probably have few long-term worries, unless, of course, we are Muslim citizens with relatives in certain countries.

    If, instead, what we are witnessing is the end product of a sustained assault on democratic institutions which are inconvenient in a world supposedly so changed after 9/11, then we have every reason to be alarmed.

    I have my own, not altogether charitable opinion which of these interpretations are true, but for the sake of argument, I'll admit that the jury is still out.

    Mr. Broder and Mr. Frank aren't fools or liars, but then neither is Glenn, nor is there anything strident about the way he's made his case. Tut-tutting him, or the rest of us, doesn't sit well with me, whatever the merits of Broder's and Frank's position.

    ReplyDelete
  62. One thing I'd point out is that most of the folks following the rightwing line aren't extremists... or rather, they wouldn't be, without being helped along.

    It takes a nasty extremist to talk about hanging folks at first. If there's a bunch of jokes about hanging folks already out there, it doesn't take an extremist to throw out one more joke about it. Ditto for talk about treason and a whole bunch of other rightwing nastiness.

    In this sense, Coulter serves a useful purpose for the right wing. Anyone can get away with a lot as long as they're not as bad as she is (and she has her defenders who insist that she's sensible, rather than admitting she's a hatemonger who gets off and gets paid by peddling hatred).

    Thankfully, with the Republicans facing a tough November, we can hope that the hatred becomes more visible, because once it gets visible, people see how ugly it is, and start to reject it.

    The next step, creating a powerful alternative, can be tougher. It's one of the reasons I'm so upset that the Democrats have let the Republicans get away with so much.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous5:03 PM

    What narrative will the media make out of Ann Coulter sending fake anthrax to the New York Times?

    Can someone explain to me why this doesn't count as actual terrorism? Doesn't this step over the line? Why isn't she arrested?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous5:13 PM

    Big Dog said...
    Glenn, you probably believe everything the Southern Poverty Law Center puts out, don't you?


    So you're saying everything they wrote about you is a lie?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous5:24 PM

    shooter242 said:

    Meanwhile the left has bombs lying about that have been forgotten because they are all too many. Like this one from the esteemed Dem Senator Robert "sheets" Byrd....

    And don't forget the great SockPuppetGate scandal of 2006.

    :rolleyes:

    ReplyDelete
  66. celo: and don't forget the great SockPuppetGate scandal of 2006

    Please, please let's do. The signal-to-noise ratio has only recently returned to normal, and It'd be nice to keep it that way for a while, Lord willing and the sewers don't overflow again.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous5:41 PM

    I'm pleased as ever to see the immature trolling of shooter242, who takes peculiar delight in "shooting down" other people with vicious negativing. I'd hate to be that cat's shrink, it would be a long sisyphean battle to get him to come to his senses and admit he has serious anger and envy issues.

    And it is starting to appear that "william timberman" is a cheap knock-off of shooter242, with presumably the same issues of self-hatred, envy, and anger.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous5:42 PM

    KingCranky II said...

    bart said: "The backlash for disclosing the Swift program was so widespread that the NYT and LAT actually spent a great deal of time trying to rebut charges that they broke multiple laws."

    REALLY? Please do tell which laws were obviously broken and why no one's been charged as such regarding this already well-known information


    The Espionage Act and the COMINT statute.

    Justice hasn't charged yet because the President does not want to go to war with the press and give the Donkeys tens of millions of additional free campaign ads posing as news during an election year.

    And I notice you conveniently left the Wall Street Journal off that list-If the WSJ didn't break any laws, then neither did the LA Times, as they both ran the story after the NY Times did.

    I was not making a complete list of perps. I was pointing out the ones which were defending themselves. The WSJ editorial page actually jumped all over their news division for this disclosure and has not made an attempt to raise a defense.

    Bart: "However, the media's general SOP is to ignore the issue because otherwise they might have to substantively address it.

    "This is as important an election issue as any other."

    RIIIIGHT

    Make up your mind


    My friend, the first statement concerning press silence on this issue is mine, the second about this being an election issue is Glenn's. The two statements have no relationship to one another.

    You consistently deride the Bush Leaning Mainstream media as both "donkey media" and irrelevant when it comes to the political and social mainstream...

    Bush leaning media? You can count those outlets on one hand - Fox News, WT and WSJ are the only ones which immediately come to my mind. If you include the NYT or the LAT as "Bush leaners," you need serious mental health counseling.

    Bart: "You bet. Rove is successfully changing the theme of this election back to national defense like he did in 2002 and 2004."

    Right, that's why Republicans are now trying to disassociate themselves from the Administration's Rose-Colored Glasses foreign policy fiasco regarding the Iraq occupation and supposed War On Terrorism


    Disassociate themselves? Do you pay attention at all to current events?

    The Elephant Congress has been putting up all the Donkey cut and run plans up for votes, unanimously voting them down and getting the Donkeys to divide over the issue. The Elephants will do these same thing with the NSA Program and the military commissions in September.

    Bart: "The so called "culture of corruption" ended up in the deep freeze along with $90,000 in cold cash found in Congressman Jefferson's freezer."

    And any arrests and indictments of GOP politicians, operatives or lobbyists leading up to the November elections-pay attention Bob Ney-will further disprove your fervent wishes otherwise


    We shall see. Ney is leading in his district and there haven't been any indictments after months of cooperation by Abramoff. Cash n Carry Harry Reid has received far more money from Abramoff indian tribes than Ney ever dreamed of.

    Playing in the mud on the Hill is a bipartisan exercise.

    Bart: "The Donkeys have yet to come up with their version of the Contract with America to tell people what they believe."

    But I agree that there needs to be more strong opinions voiced by Dems other than Feingold, Murtha, Conyers, etc, as being timid-the normal course of affairs for the Dem party at the national level-is no way to show strong leadership about anything


    Awww... We Elephants LOVE having Murtha, Feingold, Pelousi and Conyers being the face of the Party of Asses.

    Bart: "The issues about which you feel so passionately will be front and center before the voters on the eve of the election."

    Seems like nothing more than more wishful thinking on Rove's part at this point.


    By all historical measures, the Donkeys should easily take enough seats to control both houses in the sixth year of the administration of a President with poll ratings supposedly in the 30s.

    If this ends up being a status quo election with maybe the loss of a few seats and the Elephants retaining control, then Rove's strategy has won another election.

    In reality, the only Elephant seats in any danger according to the individual race polls are the few remaining in Blue districts. I'll wager that the Elephants lose between 4-6 House seats and 1-2 Senate seats in 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous5:52 PM

    It is interesting to imagine what the reaction will be by the first non-blogging print-media journalist to stumble across a typical LGF or Freeper comment thread, when it finally happens.

    Death threats, bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc. are a staple of the comraderie these extremists share. They lost any serious policy readers long ago, so absent these backslappers they would wither and fade.

    I thought Tom's letter was fantastic, though I'm sure it seems a little redundant to anyone who has been following his cartoons.

    ReplyDelete
  70. liquified viscera: And it is starting to appear that "william timberman" is a cheap knock-off of shooter242, with presumably the same issues of self-hatred, envy, and anger.

    Being William Timberman and no other, I can attest that the image coalescing in front of you like Banquo's ghost isn't me. If I had to guess, I'd say shooter242 wouldn't recognize it as having anything having to do with him either, given that we apparently share few opinions about politics.

    Might I inquire what's convinced you that I'm such a terrible fellow?

    ReplyDelete
  71. liquefied viscera:

    And it is starting to appear that "william timberman" is a cheap knock-off of shooter242, with presumably the same issues of self-hatred, envy, and anger.

    I have no idea where you get that idea. I think you're wrong. Care to explain?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous6:03 PM

    You could set one up at cafepress.com if you want. I'd buy one. :-)

    You might put Glenn's blog URL and/or a mention of his book on it too.


    Arne, thanks for the idea. I'm working on the artwork now. I will definitely plug Glenn's blog and book to go with it. And, I'll let you know when they're for sale!

    --Kristin

    ReplyDelete
  73. HWSNBN repeats his same ol' tripe for the thirty-seventh time:

    [HWSNBN]: "The backlash for disclosing the Swift program was so widespread that the NYT and LAT actually spent a great deal of time trying to rebut charges that they broke multiple laws."

    [KingCranky II]: REALLY? Please do tell which laws were obviously broken and why no one's been charged as such regarding this already well-known information

    The Espionage Act and the COMINT statute.

    "Objection. Asked and answered."

    Justice hasn't charged yet because the President does not want to go to war with the press and give the Donkeys tens of millions of additional free campaign ads posing as news during an election year.

    HWSNBN is trying to pass of with a straight face the notion that Dubya would not enforce national security laws in the face of an obvious and serious breach because of the political "costs" in an election year. Well, if HWSNBN is going to maintain that Dubya's such a craven political animal, who am I to dispute him.... ;-)

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous6:08 PM

    The government slowly eroding our civil liberties apparently isn't enough for them, they now want to delve into telling you how you can spend your money. Another loss for freedom.

    The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill earlier this month that would prohibit most forms of Internet gambling and make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.

    A similar bill is pending in the U.S. Senate, where supporters are scrambling to win passage before an August recess.

    Once the precedent has been set will they start telling us which stores we can shop at by requiring the banks to withhold payment from certain stores that the Government disapproves of.

    It is after all supposed to be our money to be spent as we see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  75. prairiew: an ultra-left to match the ultra-right. Is it out there somewhere?

    The simple answer is yes.

    A more complex answer is that the radical left has little real influence in American politics at the moment. That hasn't always been the case, though, if by ultra you mean hermetically sealed, violent, and dedicated to overthrowing most of the institutions we take for granted.

    The Weathermen, an offshoot of a fairly benign Jeffersonian leftist organization which I used to belong to years ago, The Students for a Democratic Society, is probably the most recent example.

    They had no real political influence, as there probably weren't ever more than 50 or so of them, at best. They did, however, have this nasty habit of bombing things and attacking the police, which quite naturally made them notorious.

    ReplyDelete
  76. HWSNBN:

    The WSJ editorial page actually jumped all over their news division for this disclosure and has not made an attempt to raise a defense.

    Rrrrrrrriiigghhht. They're going to march on down, turn themselves in, and plead guilty.

    But it is true that the editorial page folks are a bunch of RW flacks and sycophants, totally divorced from the actual news folks there ... so what the editorial page says has as much to do with the tea in Sri Lanka here as HWSNBN's "criminal prosecutor" career does.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous6:37 PM

    Bart said:

    Awww... We Elephants LOVE having Murtha...

    See, this is why conservatives can win elections but can't govern.

    Murtha has become a synonym for "treasonous coward" amonst those who, you know, never actually served in the military, but who are certain they know best when it comes to military matters.

    Which, of course, never entails actually talking to knowledgable military sources and trying to suss out what's actually going on. Because that might be detrimental to the ideological certainty that wingers value so.

    So wingers choose to be "tough" even when "tough" bears no realtion to reality.

    Result: Iraq.

    But the wingers don't see it. It can't be because they fucked up, though it is. No, there has to be some other explanation.

    They were stabbed in the back! Yeah, that's the ticket...

    So making fun of Murtha feels good.

    But what if Murtha knows whereof he speaks, which he clearly does?

    All part of the emerging meme: Republicans have been strong. But they haven't been smart.

    And Bart is here to show us that they aren't about to start now.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous6:53 PM

    Shooter242...LOL. If you can't handle a blonde in a cocktail dress, you sure can't handle anything like Hezbollah.

    Valerie Plame is a blonde in a cocktail dress and she was handling Hezbollah and our enemies with designs on acquiring WMDs just fine until you morons, (who don't know the difference between a blonde in a cocktail dress and a cheap strumpet in a tawdry black leather mini-skirt peddling her wares on 46th street and 8th avenue) outed her. You really all should shut up, every one of you. Every time you express yourselves, "Yo, Mama!" is all that comes out. You sound like the "loser of the free world".

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous7:04 PM

    William -- take a peek at liquified's blog profile for your answer. He hasn't commented here before to my knowledge, and if he has, he doesn't seem to get that lots of different points of view are tolerated, even encouraged. That he attacked you right out of the gate should indicate something -- I can only speculate as to what.

    I enjoy reading your comments BTW.

    Back on topic -- I think -- I was inspired by Glenn to start my own push to get a local (chron.com) reader blogger's commenters to stop calling people traitors. It didn't take that much, but I have had some success. I've also tried to promote another reader blogger with a different point of view at the same site. Here's her link.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous7:06 PM

    William Timberlane... Might I inquire what's convinced you that I'm such a terrible fellow?

    Bizarre, but what about "liquified viscera" isn't, regardless of politics? Not making any judgement there, Gooey Guts, just noting the bizarre choice of name.

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

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous7:20 PM

    Dorita... He hasn't commented here before to my knowledge,

    He has, infrequently, but I have seen him before. Why he chose to single out william based on a few comments made in a single thread is beyond me. I'd chalk it up to total inability to gain any insight into a commenter's character and psyche based on his comments. Unlike myself, who is able to see deeply into any Pooty Poot's soul over the internets. My own "issues of self-hatred, envy, and anger" come with great powers, keen abilities and great responsibility.

    Shooter,

    You should read the original E&P story. If she in fact did send the letter, which no one believes, she would be prosecuted. She knows this, she used to be a prosecutor. This is why we all know she was kidding, if she in fact did send the e-mail in question. It would be like her to put a confession to something like this she did not do in writing. She cannot be prosecuted for false confessions that are obviously false. No one can. You are not taking my advice and shutting up. Go put your cocktail dress (mini-skirt), pumps and blonde wig on. Stand in front of the full length and preen quietly, please.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous7:24 PM

    Mercy me. He said "pissing".

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous7:24 PM

    prairiew, I think that would be me. I'm pretty sure I'm not actually your neighbor (I live in a predominantly lower middle class hood), but that lefty boogie person is me. . . oh, and my roommate (!) and my friends who also live in the same city (it's the biggest one in Texas -- native here).

    We are not nearly as scary as we're made out to be. We disagree, too. However, I've been labeled the meanest pacifist progressive anyone has ever met.

    Hope this has helped :)

    Stick around -- this is a great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous7:27 PM

    ej said...

    YES!!!

    Judge Denies Government and AT&T Motions to Dismiss NSA Case


    Before you start celebrating, you might want to read this long, detailed and very well reasoned opinion.

    I will address this opinion in more depth later on, but the court has only held that the suit cannot be dismissed out of hand to avoid the disclosure of the existence of the program because the general contour of the program has been disclosed or admitted to by the government or AT&T.

    However, the court is quoting the government's arguments extensively and several cases of applying the state secrets privilege to dismiss the case in detail. In contrast, the court did not even mention any of the plaintiffs' arguments. This is not a good sign at all for the plaintiffs.

    The court expressly reserves the right to rule on the government's other motion to dismiss based on lack of evidence. In doing so, the Court cited two previous decisions where the Court dismissed the cases after some preliminary discovery once it became apparent the evidence needed to establish a prima facie case was privileged.

    Finally, take a look at Section D of the court's opinion (p.24-27). The Court describes in detail how the disclosures like those made by the NYT assist the enemy. Sounds an awful lot like the case I laid out for criminal charges against the NYT.

    ReplyDelete
  86. dorita: William -- take a peek at liquified's blog profile

    Mmm...profession: angry man. So somehow, I managed to paint a bullseye on myself. Well, I'm in good company, I guess. Unlike me, Glenn goes out of his way not to give offense, yet he still gets savaged by hordes of people who sound completely deranged to me.

    I'm sure there's some sort of syndrome involved, but I'd be hard pressed to understand what it is. I suspect that our high-velocity society hamstrings, frustrates and belittles a far greater number of people than we've suspected.

    The concerted effort to reduce everyone to nothing more than a consumer of goods, and of the media to shout slogans at everyone 24/7 doesn't help either, I'd guess. It's as though the mental development of huge numbers of people -- men, anyway -- had been arrested at the age of 13.

    How one explains Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, though, I have absolutely no idea at all.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous7:32 PM

    Shooter,

    Cocktail Dress.

    http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&rls=SUNA%2CSUNA%3A2006-15%2CSUNA%3Aen&q=black+leather+mini+skirt

    cocktail weenie

    I hope that clears it up.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous7:33 PM

    Shooter,

    Cocktail Dress

    black leather mini skirt

    cocktail weenie

    There. That should clear it up.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous7:35 PM

    Thanks for the catch anon.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous7:35 PM

    That Glenn Greenwald is simply the coolest, smartest, awesomest, grooviest, honest, bravest, funniest guy I have ever met in my life.

    ReplyDelete
  91. dorita:

    One other thought. I know shooter's been around recently, and since I can't imagine him not being offended by LV's insults, I wonder why he hasn't replied in some fashion.

    Maybe it's okay, 'cause he's decribed as the original, while I'm merely the cheap knockoff. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anonymous7:38 PM

    Shooter,

    For the full length cocktail weenie effect we know you crave.

    ReplyDelete
  93. prairiew:

    THIS should get you started:

    Maoist Roundup

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous8:04 PM

    William: Of course there has been an ultra-left. But who are they now?

    Define ultra-left. The majority of the functioning post-industrial democracies on the planet are decidely social democrats or democtratic socialists. That politics, in reality, is middle of the road, centrist. Not that you'd know it by living here.

    Leiter is an academic in Texas.

    The Myth of Left-Wing Harvard

    ReplyDelete
  95. Here is a something that I heard yesterday in the extreme comments on Right Wing radio.

    The clip below is from Lee Rogers, Melanie "Hang 'em" Morgan's co-host on KSFO (an ABC/Disney station)
    The tactic is to offer up a person who performs an atrocious act (in this case the act was allegedly done by a Lebanese man) as representative of the "kind of people we are dealing with" so then it is required for us to KILL ALL of them because of the atrocious act that this one person may or may not have committed.

    Lee Rogers: "We're going to have to kill these scum to the very last bleeping one. We're going to have to do it. We may not relish the job, but we are going to HAVE to do it. "

    Melanie Morgan: "Yeah."

    Tom Benner,"Officer Vic.":
    I believe you're right but I don't believe we have the will. I don't think we have the population, I don't think we have the education, we don't have the proper info inserted in the minds of most Americans to get this done."

    Lee Rogers calling for the death of all Lebanese on KSFO broadcast radio,


    Gee we don't have the WILL to commit genocide? Good for us! I guess Officer Vic is really looking for a Triumph of Will or something. (Now where have I heard of that before?)

    Of course then he refers to me as someone who might question his sources. Well yes, especially since the story was from Cybercast News Service (formerly Conservative News Service) and they are apart of Brent Bozell's empire and I believe a replacement for Talon "Jeff Gannon" News as the source of choice for conservative radio hosts.

    Cybercast News Service story quoted by Lee Rogers as source for his call to kill all the Lebanese ,


    Of course notably Lee Rogers called for the AP reporters to all commit mass suicide.
    Rogers calls for AP reporters to commit mass suicide,

    And, not that he is making that connection (but of course Tony Snow did) Helen Thomas is of Lebanese decent.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous8:12 PM

    William Timberman said...
    prairiew:

    THIS should get you started:

    Maoist Roundup


    Now you will confuse him.

    Find out what he considers ultra-left, first. Mao was an authoritarian and Maoist China was a privately owned state like Czarist and Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Wingnuts and even smarter folks will begin to howl objections, but those are the facts. Wingers who know better still say Henry George was a socialist and that's patently false, not that I, or the rest of the sane world, have ever had a problem with social democracies or Democratic socialism in some form s and degree.

    ReplyDelete
  97. spocko: Helen Thomas is of Lebanese decent

    I wonder if anyone pointed out that Danny Thomas was as well. (The comedian, for you younguns.)

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous8:17 PM

    Shooter242...On the other hand, I think you have a tight, literate, and occasionally droll writing style leading me to believe that not only are you exceedingly handsome, but kind to small children and dogs as well.

    Aside from a misguided political sense, it's a comparison that's better than most.


    Shooter just described Ted Bundy to a "T".

    Ted was a conservative Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anonymous8:18 PM

    prairiew, you got it! I love Texas. (I regularly offer to move all Bushes out of the state -- can't they go with Tom?)

    William, let's see if I can to this -- you are to shooter as arne is to bart.

    (not really:)-- I kep typing shouter -- go figure -- shooter is bart's boy -- arne is the man on rebuttals. You are, too, but in a different way.

    BTW, I live with a former SDS member. I have lived with him for years. It was only in 1996 that I got him to finally vote in an election. Since then I have dragged his sorry ass to every little election. He no longer complains :)

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous8:20 PM

    I should add that Ted was still a conservative Republican at the time of his execution. As in all things Bundy did, he was nothing if not consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous8:22 PM

    William Timberman said...
    spocko: Helen Thomas is of Lebanese decent

    I wonder if anyone pointed out that Danny Thomas was as well. (The comedian, for you younguns.)


    That makes "That Girl" a Lebanese as well. And Klinger, Jamie Farr, of MASH the TV series. And John Sununu and ....

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous: Mao was an authoritarian and Maoist China was a privately owned state like Czarist and Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany

    Well, perhaps. It's debatable, anyway. Maoists, however, generally are not any of those things outside China proper. (Note the Marxist-Leninist, or anti-revisionist qualifiers most of these parties tack on to the ends of their names. These monikers have a historical meaning not quite lost in the mists of time.

    I'm not about to pose as a historian of Marxism-Leninism and its schisms, but Marxist-Leninists are still considered leftists by people who're supposed to know about such matters, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous: Shooter just described Ted Bundy to a "T"

    Omigod, now I'm really in trouble.

    I'm not handsome, not, you understand. I cop to being kind to children, but I only tolerate dogs. (I don't want people comparing me to Hitler, either, see?)

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous8:31 PM

    Spocko @ 8:07,

    I have been following your battle with KSFO. Have you got any stats on their ratings, number of listeners, etc...

    Are they actually making money or are they just a bought and paid for by Scaife money propaganda mill in the heart of the Bay Area, Enemy territory? Keep after their sponsors until they have none.

    ReplyDelete
  105. dorita: Since then I have dragged his sorry ass to every little election. He no longer complains

    All we need is love.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous8:39 PM

    Revolutionary theology is an example of people who moved from one logical point to another.

    I don't want to turn this thread into somthing it is not, so I will go back to the original post.

    Note the threats in the blogs you read. Confront them. If necessary shout them down with your reasoned argument. If they go digging, stay firm, stay who you are.

    Did I get any of it wrong?

    Glenn, I admire you, more than I did, which is a lot.

    Thank you again for your work, consistancy, and mostly for your heart.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous8:45 PM

    William Timberman said...

    Omigod, now I'm really in trouble.

    I'm not handsome, not, you understand. I cop to being kind to children, but I only tolerate dogs. (I don't want people comparing me to Hitler, either, see?)


    Now this sounds like W.C. Fields. And although he said he liked children... boiled, to my knowledge he never actually ate any, but then, he wasn't necessarily a Republican or a serial killer, either. He wouldn't caught dead voting for against a Democrat for a Republican today.

    Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against.
    W. C. Fields

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous8:48 PM

    In Hepting v. AT&T, the Court order postponing ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss this civil suit against the NSA Program offered this section (p. 25-26) rejecting the "terrorists knew all about the program" argument offered by the plaintiffs. This reasoning could be used just as easily in a criminal prosecution of the NYT:

    In determining whether a factual statement is a secret for purposes of the state secrets privilege, the court should look only at publicly reported information that possesses substantial indicia of reliability and whose verification or substantiation possesses the potential to endanger national security. That entails assessing the value of the information to an individual or group bent on threatening the security of the country, as well as the secrecy of the information.

    For instance, if this litigation verifies that AT&T assists the government in monitoring communication records, a terrorist might well cease using AT&T and switch to other, less detectable forms of communication. Alternatively, if this litigation reveals that the communication records program does not exist, then a terrorist who had been avoiding AT&T might start using AT&T if it is a more efficient form of communication. In short, when deciding what communications channel to use, a terrorist “balanc[es] the risk that a particular method of communication will be intercepted against the operational inefficiencies of having to use ever more elaborate ways to circumvent what he thinks may be intercepted.” 6/23/06 Transcript at 48:14-17 (government attorney). A terrorist who operates with full information is able to communicate more securely and more efficiently than a terrorist who operates in an atmosphere of
    uncertainty.


    It is, of course, an open question whether individuals inclined to commit acts threatening the national security engage in such calculations. But the court is hardly in a position to second-guess the government’s assertions on this matter or to estimate the risk tolerances of terrorists in making their communications and hence at this point in the litigation eschews the attempt to weigh the value of the information.


    http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/
    NSA_Motion_Denied.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anonymous8:48 PM

    dotita said...
    Revolutionary theology is an example of people who moved from one logical point to another.


    Liberation Theology

    Gun-toting, revolutionary Priests.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anonymous8:52 PM

    I might have voted for Fields.

    As with Fields' animus against the IRS, his hatred of Prohibition had a personal basis, but a more general philosophy of liberty emerges in his comedy as a whole. The great enemy in Fields' films is the busybody, the person who in the time-honored American puritan tradition tries to tell you how to live your life. It may be your boss, your wife, your mother-in-law, the snoopy neighbor, a temperance preacher, a policeman, or an agent of the federal government. But in each case, someone tells you what is good for you and it never turns out to be what you yourself want to do--whether it is drinking, smoking, or simply going to the wrestling matches in the afternoon. Fields evidently was struck by how much time and effort some people devote to interfering in other people's lives for no reason beyond the pleasure of exercising power over them.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous 8:31 PM

    I'm not in the radio industry but according to Talkers Magazine they are not in the Heavy 100 (a subjective ranking)
    and their audience appears to be under a million, bur that is from last fall.
    http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

    Last year I believe they were number 7 in SF which is a 4th biggest market http://www.stationratings.com/ratings.asp?market=9

    ReplyDelete
  112. bart: But the court is hardly in a position to second-guess the government’s assertions on this matter

    As a matter of law, this may be so. From the point of view of a citizen, however, the government's national security argument as described here is sui generis, and as such, suspect.

    If the government has a verified tendency to lie about national security, and in my judgment the present one has, it isn't wise for a citizen who may be subject to injustices at its hands to trust its assertions about how the uses to which a new technology is being put comports with existing law.

    Data mining is very new, and as far as I can tell, not being a lawyer, what may or may not be done with it by the government or by businesses, individuals, etc., is not yet settled law.

    What say you, bart?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous9:28 PM

    my bad, you are of course correct anon -- my SDS fact checker was sleeping when I typed that :)

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anonymous9:47 PM

    William Timberman said...

    bart: But the court is hardly in a position to second-guess the government’s assertions on this matter

    As a matter of law, this may be so. From the point of view of a citizen, however, the government's national security argument as described here is sui generis, and as such, suspect.

    If the government has a verified tendency to lie about national security, and in my judgment the present one has, it isn't wise for a citizen who may be subject to injustices at its hands to trust its assertions about how the uses to which a new technology is being put comports with existing law.

    Data mining is very new, and as far as I can tell, not being a lawyer, what may or may not be done with it by the government or by businesses, individuals, etc., is not yet settled law.

    What say you, bart?


    I agree with most of what you posted.

    Data mining is new and will require some thinking because it is a very broad spectrum analysis. So long as it is data being analyzed is available to the marketplace, I am not overly worried about 4th Amendment concerns.

    I am not much of a privacy purist because I know that the concept of privacy is generally a joke given how many companies already have my information and are selling it to others. My belief is that you should assume that the government and half the marketing agencies in the world know everything you have done in public.

    I think data mining and the like is a policy matter to be hashed out between the congressional intel committees and the executive with some closed session testimony by experts.

    Courts are very poorly equipped to make policy decisions and should generally remain out of this unless the President exceeds his power as previously established by the Courts.

    Finally, I do not trust any government, not just this one in particular. However, I know from experience as an Army intelligence officer that intelligence gathering requires security to succeed. Therefore, I have to trust that the political parties will keep tabs on one another on bipartisan intelligence committees out of partisan interest.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Anonymous9:55 PM

    As Greenwald continues his faux outrage over a joke a conservative blogger made about Supreme Court justices, one notices he will not tell his readers of the fact that one of the Left blogs (called Sadly, No!) he was linking to as they both made these condemnations was at that very moment and for weeks beforehand selling numberous items of merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, etc.) bearing a message that called for conservatives to be hanged by their necks until they are dead, along with a KKK-esque image of a hangmand's noose.

    Greenwald has failed to respond to this revelation of his hypocrisy. I can understand why, and his credibility will suffer a blow for it. As always, he's a shameless slimeball.

    ReplyDelete
  116. anonymous is behind the times:

    As Greenwald continues his faux outrage over a joke a conservative blogger made about Supreme Court justices, one notices he will not tell his readers of the fact that one of the Left blogs (called Sadly, No!) he was linking to as they both made these condemnations was at that very moment and for weeks beforehand selling numberous items of merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, etc.) bearing a message that called for conservatives to be hanged by their necks until they are dead, along with a KKK-esque image of a hangmand's noose.

    Lies. How utterly surprising.

    Ya'd think the trolls might read a bit before shooting off their mouths ... but you'd be wrong.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  117. bart: Therefore, I have to trust that the political parties will keep tabs on one another on bipartisan intelligence committees out of partisan interest

    So do we all, I think. Still, given what we've seen in Congress so far, this may turn out to be a forlorn hope.

    I'm particularly concerned about two things:

    1) This administration is asserting that no one may look at what it's up to. Whatever you may think about a President's Article II powers, I can't imagine that, as a defendant, you'd feel comfortable facing a government which asserts that it doesn't have to tell you or your attorney what the specific charges are, that you aren't permitted to see the evidence against you, or confront your accusers, that the proceedings will be held in camera and the court records sealed, and that the place of your incarceration will be secret.

    2) Although the product of data mining may be general in each instance, with combined databases and use of the proper algorithms, combined with the sheer speed of distributed processing, a qualified investigator can reveal virtually everything about not only a national security "person of interest," but political opponents as well. (I once did work similar in nature to this, although not in government, so I'm pretty confident about the technological assessment here.)

    Remember also that there is a long history of just such abuses of national security data under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Is nebulous Congressional oversight, fought tooth and nail every step of the way by the executive, a real protection or remedy against such abuse?

    Worth pondering over, I believe. In fact, to me, it seems a clear and present danger.

    ReplyDelete
  118. william timberman:

    If the government has a verified tendency to lie about national security, and in my judgment the present one has, it isn't wise for a citizen who may be subject to injustices at its hands to trust its assertions about how the uses to which a new technology is being put comports with existing law.

    Ahhhhh, the grand strategy. "If the government has a verified tendency to lie...", even the Terra-ists can't trust 'em. It's all an elabourate ruse; tell 'em you're not snooping AT&T today, but tomorrow, surprise 'em. Tell 'em you are snooping Verizon, but spare youself the bother, because you want your resources somewhere else, now that every one of 'em is afraid of Verizon. Seems to me that misinformation, if believed, is better than uncertainty. The Man Who Never Was was one such effort. But then you have to get them to believe the misinformation. If they don't trust you, you're back at square one. ;-)

    I'd note that the only question of whether the gummint can snoop the Terra-ists is whether they can do it without a warrant. I suspect the Terra-ists don't give a fig about whether there was a warrant or not....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  119. Arne:

    Catch-22 is also instructive in this context, to whit:

    They can do anything to you that you can't stop them from doing.

    And I might also say, pace Glenn and the rule of law, that the law itself can never be more than a partial shield against the doing.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anonymous10:43 PM

    Arne: No it is not lies. In fact, the Sadly, No! blog you're such a fan off told lies to cover it up, and also attempted to delete the evidence. Par for the course in that blog's circles. Since you're a fan of both them and Greenwald, I suppose you wouldn't be one to mind lies and hypocrisies. But at the link below are the screenshots of what was being sold, and of how that blog tried to cover it up. The Sadly, No! blog was joining Greenwald in condemning the conservative blog and Greenwald was linking to them. Amazingly, Greenwald is shameless enough to continue on as a hypocrite, secure in the knowledge that people like you are not interested in the truth.
    http://patterico.com/2006/07/18/4886/in-which-i-condemn-glenn-greenwald-for-failing-to-condemn-some-stuff/#comments

    ReplyDelete
  121. Oy, will no one rid us of this turbulent anonymous?

    See, see -- leftylib death threats!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anonymous10:52 PM

    William Timberman said...
    Anonymous: Mao was an authoritarian and Maoist China was a privately owned state like Czarist and Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany

    Well, perhaps. It's debatable, anyway. Maoists, however, generally are not any of those things outside China proper.


    Which is why I'm not a Maoist.

    Pure communism is as rare as pure, unrestrained as capitalism. Ideology rarely translates well to real world situations and practice. My point was that social democracies are the "political center" in most of the world. Here in America, they call that the "radical ultra-left". That's just nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  123. anonymous (not the Patterico attack dog anonymous): My point was that social democracies are the "political center" in most of the world. Here in America, they call that the "radical ultra-left". That's just nonsense.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  124. anonymous:

    CafePress ain't SadlyNo.

    As SadlyNo explained, they were spoofing you guys. The worst crime you can accuse them of is stealing your idea while poking fun at you. Pretty revolting, I have to admit, but they did it with a good heart.

    Guess you can dish it out, but you can't take it. How unsurprising.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous11:03 PM

    William Timberman said...

    bart: Therefore, I have to trust that the political parties will keep tabs on one another on bipartisan intelligence committees out of partisan interest

    So do we all, I think.


    Unfortunately, most here do not share that thought, nor do they really care about national security. They want Bush impeached for partisan reasons.

    I'm particularly concerned about two things:

    1) This administration is asserting that no one may look at what it's up to. Whatever you may think about a President's Article II powers, I can't imagine that, as a defendant, you'd feel comfortable facing a government which asserts that it doesn't have to tell you or your attorney what the specific charges are, that you aren't permitted to see the evidence against you, or confront your accusers, that the proceedings will be held in camera and the court records sealed, and that the place of your incarceration will be secret.


    You are not speaking here about an American civilian criminal defendant, you are speaking about a foreign illegal combatant captured during a war.

    I am not overwhelmingly concerned about the "rights" of foreign illegal combatants. So long as we do not actually torture them, I don't give a damn if they live out their lives in solitary while their brothers in terror continue to war against the US. They played a very dangerous game and lost.

    Nor would I expect any more if I were acting outside of the Geneva Conventions as an American soldier. If I were a special ops soldier who was captured during a war in civilian clothing, I would be more than thankful if I received the benefits and treatment Americans give captured terrorists.

    Fighting disguised as a civilian, I have no rights under the Geneva Convention (presuming the enemy who captured me follows it). I can legally be held incommunicado, tried in absentia and executed.

    Realistically, I would be tortured until they were satisfied that I spilled everything I knew, then they may brutalize me more for fun. They would not bother with a trial. They would kill me unless they thought they could trade me for something.

    Tough old world.

    Try reading Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNabb about what the Iraqis did when they captured an SAS patrol during the Persian Gulf War for a sample of what real torture is about. Waterboarding would have been a reward in an Iraqi prison.

    2) Although the product of data mining may be general in each instance, with combined databases and use of the proper algorithms, combined with the sheer speed of distributed processing, a qualified investigator can reveal virtually everything about not only a national security "person of interest," but political opponents as well. (I once did work similar in nature to this, although not in government, so I'm pretty confident about the technological assessment here.)

    I agree. You can also do this by illegally reviewing FBI files or through wire taps. You cannot abandon the technology simply because it can be misused. That is what elections for President, congressional oversight and whistle blowers are for.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anonymous11:04 PM

    Sadly, No! is described as a liberal/progressive humor site based in Germany...

    The site's main running joke is in finding embarrassing slips or untrue statements by conservatives and linking to a refutation, saying, "Sadly, No!" Other running gags include posting pictures of conservative columnists on Internet dating sites, battling with a "singing troll" who sends homemade songs deriding the site's contributors and commenters, and doing line-by-line putdowns of columns by Christian evangelists and other right-wingers. Sadly, No! also occasionally publishes phony columns at right-wing sites, and engages in other pranks.

    Current contributors include site founder Seb, a French-Canadian financial analyst living in Germany, Brad R., a graduate student in Boston, Gavin M., a writer in the New York area, and Retardo Montalban and Travis G., both Southern writers.

    Sadly, No have had blog dust-ups with Dean Esmay, Little Green Footballs, and other right-wing sites. More recently they have taken on liberal blog Americablog.





    The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
    is a conservative satirical blog founded by an anonymous author "Misha", centered on issues as American politics, terrorism, illegal immigration and international issues. It is one of the top conservative blogs according to the weblog awards


    Odd that the entry on TAIR dates only to May of this year, isn't it? It's just recently a satirical site. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  127. anonymous:

    Arne: ... In fact, the Sadly, No! blog you're such a fan off [sic]..."

    And you know I'm a fan of Sadly, No! exactly how?

    But FWIW, they have done some good stuff on the occasions I traipse over there. To quote Jack Nicholson. "You can't handle it...." WATBs.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  128. anonymous:

    Since you're a fan of both them and Greenwald, I suppose you wouldn't be one to mind lies and hypocrisies.

    First off, neither I nor Glenn have ever said you shouldn't be able to market whatever sicko crap you guys want to market. We're free speech advocates, the both of us. That doesn't mean that we can't comment on the mindset of the folks that spout off. Just as I support free speech for all including the Klan, I can still say they're a bunch of dangerous scumbags.

    Secondly, you'll find that I'm not nearly as polite as Glenn. Try me and see. So you can just FOAD with your charges of "hypocrisy". Fair
    'nuff? As for charges of lying, hate to say it, but you have yet to make any such substantiated allegation. If you do, I'll deal with it then. Not very pleasantly; I take my reputation fairly seriously.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  129. Anonymous11:19 PM

    Fuck off to Freeperville and die, Bart. You are just so much hot air and no one here cares one jot what you have to say. William is new. He's a very intelligent and well-spoken gentleman who will reach this sad but true conclusion in his own good time.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anonymous11:21 PM

    Arne, OTOH, enjoys slapping you around. Some of us like to watch.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anonymous11:25 PM

    Great post! Another high quality effort from the man who has been quoted by senators and has a book on the NT Times bestseller list!

    You inspire me, Glenn! Thank you for just being you!

    ReplyDelete
  132. bart: Unfortunately, most here do not share that thought, nor do they really care about national security. They want Bush impeached for partisan reasons.

    Arguable, in fact I expect Arne will argue with you again on this point.

    bart: You are not speaking here about an American civilian criminal defendant, you are speaking about a foreign illegal combatant captured during a war.

    I seem to remember that one or two of these folks were, in fact, American citizens.

    But no matter. I'd submit to you that once the President can assert such powers in any circumstances without contradiction, he can define other crimes as dangers to the republic in other circumstances as well. Even now, if I happen to be swept up in a raid in Iraq, and I speak Arabic, what's to prevent him making enemy combatant assumptions about me? Use a little imagination here, bart. Mmm...on second thought....

    ReplyDelete
  133. Anonymous11:34 PM

    I'm going to admit something that I find rather embarassing to prove a point. I did not vote for Bush, but my vote doesn't matter in presidential elections anyway, it's a blue state. I actually found myself thinking that Bush may just be headed towards an historic presidency after 9/11. Boy, was I mistaken. What a disappointment. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. The clown is an abject failure and a disgrace to the nation.

    "There are no great men, just great circumstances, and how they handle those circumstances will determine the outcome of history".

    Admiral Bull Halsey

    ReplyDelete
  134. anonymous: William is new...who will reach this sad but true conclusion in his own good time

    I'm not that new, anon. To Unclaimed Territory, perhaps, but not to the world of disputation.

    bart and I have an understanding, it seems. We treat each other like honorable people, and try to behave as honorable people in order to justify that treatment.

    It's not easy to come here and cross swords with people who disagree with you so vehemently, and bart has held his own pretty well. Have you noticed that he doesn't intentionally insult people who don't insult him?

    I agree that he has a pretty low opinion of our take on life and politics, and not much grasp of who we actually are, which leads him to insult us unintentionally sometimes, but who among us has never been guilty of that transgression?

    I'll say also that he takes it as well as he dishes it out. Recently I called him a Starship Trooper. He didn't bat an eye. In short, he plays fair.

    No, it's unlikely that I'll ever share your opinion of bart, although I'll no doubt want to tear out my hair sometimes. (Oh, wait, I don't have any hair. I guess I'm good, then.)

    Peace. Peace to all. What was that phrase our fundamentalist friends use so frequently, something about doing good to them who despitefully use you? Works for me.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Ah, found it:

    Mathew 5:44 -- Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

    God bless google, and all the little googles, and good night.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Anonymous12:56 AM

    That doesn't mean that we can't comment on the mindset of the folks that spout off.

    I don't know if you're playing dumb or are just dumb. Greenwald was using the "Rope. Tree. etc" joke as the prime example of the "mindset," and the Sadly, No! blog chimed in in agreement, and Greenwald linked to them to pat them on the back, and all the while the Sadly, No! blog was selling numerous items bearing the same "Tree. Rope." joke, but directed at conservatives plus a KKK-esque image of a noose. Greenwald certainly saw this revelation before making this latest post but pretends that he does not. Hopes that it hasn't been noticed by many people. Hopes he can continue in his B.S., shamelessly unconcerned by his lack of honesty. Because he's a phoney, as are you.

    you'll find that I'm not nearly as polite as Glenn. Try me and see.

    Ohhh, big threats on the Internet. What are you gonna do? Use stronger language? I'm trembling. I already know what you are so nothing you can say can bother me or hurt me.

    So you can just FOAD with your charges of "hypocrisy". Fair
    'nuff?


    You're a hypocrite. The screenshots and proof of an attemppt to cover up the evidence is all at the link I provided. You've already seen it and you do not care. Because you're a liar.

    As for charges of lying, hate to say it, but you have yet to make any such substantiated allegation.

    The substantiation is at the link I provided. You are a liar. Greenwald's post above is a bunch of B.S. But perhaps he'll break out his sock puppets (or his partner) to praise himself for it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Anonymous2:33 AM

    Assholierthanonymous...I don't know if you're playing dumb or are just dumb. Greenwald was using the "Rope. Tree. etc" joke as the prime example of the "mindset," and the Sadly, No!

    It became a joke retroactively. Backdated, like stock options.

    Assanonymous...Ohhh, big threats on the Internet. What are you gonna do? Use stronger language? I'm trembling. I already know what you are so nothing you can say can bother me or hurt me.

    Please don't make us rub your nose in the shit stains in Lord Spatula's diaper when he was offered the chance to "bring it on" by Rev. Mykeru. He couldn't get it up. I'm so tired of posting that link. Run along now. I'm sure there are lots of flies around you. Go pull some wings of off them. It's true they outnumber you but bug to bug it's a fair fight.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Anonymous2:42 AM

    BTW, William, Glenn no longer responds to Bart. I don't remember where the comment was when he told Bart why he no longer answers his questions but it was pretty good. Egomaniac was a term I definitely remember. To some here he is just a convenient punching bag.

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

    ReplyDelete
  140. anonymous said [to William Timberman]:

    Glenn no longer responds to Bart. I don't remember where the comment was when he told Bart why he no longer answers his questions but it was pretty good.

    Basically, he said that until Bart started actually taking on and addressing the arguments of others instead of repeating the same ol' pap over and over, he wasn't going to bother. Which is why I try to limit myself to simply pointing out the errors and logical fallacies of Bart to the passers-by.

    Bart once complained that I posted five or ten comments per post of his; I replied that I'd be glad to post only one correction per post of his if he'd be kind enough to limit himself to single error per post.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anonymous4:17 AM

    bart said...

    Prunes:

    Jesus Christ, are you a partisan. That's all you care about.

    Quite to the contrary.

    I expect a heavy bipartisan majorities to ratify the NSA Program and to reverse Hamden to set up military commissions because there is heavy bipartisan support among voters for intelligence gathering and military commissions among the voters.

    It's called democracy and yes I am a proud democrat with a small d.


    Horse shit. You, Bart, are the very definition of an authoritarian follower. Read Dean's book and then look in the mirror. You are absolutely kidding yourself. You aren't kidding any of us but you are kidding yourself. Wake up!

    ReplyDelete
  142. Anonymous6:04 AM

    True, Arne.

    But he expressly used the term egomaniac and a few other choice descriptors that were unusual for Glenn to employ but considered and on target, as is usual for Glenn.

    Bart is the most dangerous type of extremist in my view. He could get a job in a public school, not that he ever would, hence William's observation that he is "fair" and more moderated. True enough, but a moderate he is not.

    I like my extremists loud and obnoxious and marginalized and lacking the social graces, like Misha. Not carefully polished, with a veneer of social acceptability and suitable for prime time Fox News.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Anonymous9:47 AM

    What I find most disturbing is when the ballast of certain societies (not the deadweight kind but the stabilizing kind) are manipulated by the expert manipulators into moving against perceived enemies who are not really their enemies. And all the variations thereof. Hopefully these manipulators are not a mutation.

    ReplyDelete
  144. brave li'l anonymous still is missing the punch line:

    [Arne]: That doesn't mean that we can't comment on the mindset of the folks that spout off.

    I don't know if you're playing dumb or are just dumb....

    I've get no difficulties there. I conclude you are dumb.

    ... Greenwald was using the "Rope. Tree. etc" joke as the prime example of the "mindset," and the Sadly, No! blog chimed in in agreement, and Greenwald linked to them to pat them on the back,...

    No. He linked to them (and others) as a compendium of evidence for his claims of the behaviour of the right (and not just of 'lynching' allusions; Jeff Goldstein take note). Makes the material available, but keeps his post short and to the point.

    BTW, it wasn't a joke. It was satire.


    and all the while the Sadly, No! blog was selling numerous items bearing the same "Tree. Rope." joke, but directed at conservatives plus a KKK-esque image of a noose. Greenwald certainly saw this revelation before making this latest post but pretends that he does not. Hopes that it hasn't been noticed by many people. Hopes he can continue in his B.S., shamelessly unconcerned by his lack of honesty. Because he's a phoney, as are you.

    Glenn explains a lot here. And he says this:

    "Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that."

    Whatever Sadly, No!'s level of modicum and restraint, or their taste in humour, Glenn doesn't defend their parody of a RW site. Maybe he thinks it's funny; maybe he thinks it's also over the line. But I don't think that he is under any obligation to think that Sadly, No! came up with that idea themselves rather that plagiarize it from the fine minds of the RW foamer battalions who first thought it up and did so not as a parody.

    Too bad you can't read. But the main point you're missing here is that the Sadly, No! page is a parody, a satire of you!

    They even tell you that:

    "You can see the never-sold, voted-down parody (of this T-shirt) that used to be in our store which hasn’t even opened yet, here."

    pointing to the page where it says on the top of the page:

    "If the wingnuts can have nasty T-shirts, then so shall we!

    RopetreeTSHIRT.jpg

    [beaming innocently]"

    Gawd, you're dense.

    [Arne]: you'll find that I'm not nearly as polite as Glenn. Try me and see.

    Ohhh, big threats on the Internet. What are you gonna do? Use stronger language? I'm trembling. I already know what you are so nothing you can say can bother me or hurt me.

    (yet you feel compelled to respond)

    How about ridicule? At least some of the other folks here enjoy seeing folks like you get this treatment, but I'm sure that you have developed thick skin (being such a scumbag, eedjit, and all), so maybe it won't faze you. But why do I keep thinking "WATB! WATB!" here? ....:

    [Arne]: So you can just FOAD with your charges of "hypocrisy". Fair
    'nuff?


    You're a hypocrite. The screenshots and proof of an attemppt to cover up the evidence is all at the link I provided.

    How so? If the posting of such, regardless of motives, is the metric, then maybe the left (and Glenn; he'd probably take issue with his being called a leftist) might be tarred with this rather broad brush. But then we enter into the realm of meta-hypocrisy, as you WATBs on the right are screaming about the rank uncivility of Sadly, No! when their idea came from you folks on the right. You're getting hypocritical about hypocrisy. Taking into account motivations, of course, then there's a difference between the bright bulbs that thought this "joke" up, and the Sadly, No! people that make fun of them but turning it around (and showing the originators of the idea as WATBs in the process).

    I really don't give a frig, to be sure, about the level of discourse (having been in contact with the RW foamer battalions for over a decade on the net, and expecting little different) and I'm willing to entertain you (or more accurately, others; I doubt you'll get the humour) at any level you choose to set. Calling me hypocritical is a charge without basis.

    ... You've already seen it and you do not care....

    "Asked and answered". You've gotten your explanation; you just didn't like it.

    ... Because you're a liar.

    Oh, really?

    [Arne]: As for charges of lying, hate to say it, but you have yet to make any such substantiated allegation.

    The substantiation is at the link I provided. You are a liar.

    You have yet to refute the page I pointed out (also linked above). You know, in the adult world, this "Mommy! Mommy!!! Johnny hit me baaaaccccckkkkk" whining just doesn't cut it as formal rhetoric. Let me know when you grow up.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  145. Anonymous12:26 PM

    Outstanding! Glenn, as ever you are 100% correct!

    I visit here for the insightful commentary as you systematically reduce the wingers' arguments to rubble.

    Of course they are no match for you. How many of them are constitutional lawyers with bestselling books who get quoted by senators?

    None, I imagine!

    Keep up the good fight! You inspire me daily!

    ReplyDelete
  146. Anonymous6:04 PM

    Oi!

    It seems I mistook one of shooter242's posts for one of william timberman's.

    mr timberman, I apologize.

    dorita -- if you did not realize that "occupation: angry man" is stated fully tongue-in-cheek, I can confirm for you here and that it is, it was, and it always will be.

    as to ability to divine a person's psyche through their posts, I pretend at nothing other than what I see in choice of words and angle of attack. the words chosen and attack angle used by the poorly-trained-scope of shooter242 make me think that if his posts reflect a _serious_ rendition of his psyche, I'm not far off. there is always the chance he's a troller with a dull sense of playing at "the other". I'd hope that he's not so disingenuous, but given that his posts seem so needful of superiority, perhaps the trolling would be best for all concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Anonymous10:33 PM

    no harm no foul, liquified.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous6:38 AM

    What really brought this post home for me was the knowledge that you are of such high moral fiber and are talented enough to have a NY Times Bestseller and influential enough to be quoted by Senators!

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete