Friday, May 24, 2013

When Privileged, "Libertarian" Elephants Fight -- UPDATE

  1. I dream of the day when someone will engage this argument without first wildly distorting it beyond recognition
  2. Greenwald's blindness to the savagery at the heart of Salafism is very hard to understand, let alone forgive:
It is the grass that suffers.


The ref's have examined the instant replay footage and have declared Mr. Greenwald to have cleaned Mr. Sullivan's clock:
So self-evident was Sullivan's Friday night bad conduct here that, within hours, numerous people had harshly condemned it. Law professor Kevin Jon Heller wrote: "Sullivan distorts Greenwald's argument beyond all recognition; I can only assume deliberately." University of Chicago Professor Harold Pollack complained that he "shouldn't have to click past Sullivan's angry post to see that Greenwald labelled [the] beheading 'barbaric and horrendous'". One of Sullivan's readers wrote him a lengthy and very astute email, published in full here, explaining to him that "your fundamental misreading of Greenwald's column is succinctly stated in your sentence: 'How can that [U.S. history in the Mideast] legitimize a British citizen's brutal beheading of a fellow British citizen on the streets of London?' Greenwald never remotely said that."
Now we arrive at the broader points that I think are raised by all of this. Contrary to Professor Heller's suggestion, I actually don't think that Sullivan's flagrant misrepresentations of what I wrote were deliberate. I definitely do think that about Jeffrey Goldberg and other various neocon smear artists who spent the last couple of days endlessly and loudly accusing me of being a pro-Terror, US-blaming Terrorist-lover, Jew-hating Terror-apologist and all the other tired neocon clichés that have been hurled at anyone and everyone over the last decade who questions the Mandated Narratives about "Islamic Terror",
Although the best and most appropriate same-day response overall remains that of the Muslim Council of Britain:
"This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly.

"Our thoughts are with the victim and his family.

"We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country's Armed Forces, proudly and with honour.

"This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder. This action will no doubt heighten tensions on the streets of the United Kingdom.

"We call on all our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail."
Also this bit from Mr. Greenwald, who is not generally known for sparing the throat-ripping invective when someone disagrees with him,
What, then, accounts for the distortions and sustained rage that ensues every time I make these arguments - not just from Sullivan but generally?
I think the answer lies in the very first sentence Sullivan wrote when responding to my column: "I really have to try restrain my anger here." It's an intensely emotional reaction, not a rational one. 
 was too hilariously clueless not to mention.


Anonymous said...

Elephants don't tweet, not even privileged ones.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Thank god for Hope and/or Change, ehh drifty?

Lumpy Lang said...

Droneglass has finally convinced me! It's like he always says:

"Both sides do it!" and "Both sides are wrong!"

mahakal said...

Once again it is unclear what your problem is with GG here. Your personal animosity for the fellow seems to be greater than any actual differences of substance. Thus the grass suffers, not because GG takes on Andrew Sullivan, but because driftglass takes on GG again for no apparent reason.

Anonymous said...

The usual suspects are in and name-calling as usual.

Ormond Otvos said...

Is there anyone left who doesn't understand that ideologies always have their extremists?

A better use of time would be weaving ponchos from navel lint.

n1ck said...

Jesus God and Heaven Above!

The Glen Greenwald worshipers are quick and brutal about trolling someone who doesn't toe the line!

Congrats all around!

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Droneglass has finally convinced me! It's like he always says:

"Both sides do it!" and "Both sides are wrong!"

I am pretty sure he never says that. Do you moonlight as an overhead projector?

chrome agnomen said...

it's okay to detest both of these guys, right?

Anonymous said...

"The driftglass worshipers [sp] are quick and brutal about trolling someone who doesn't toe the line on reflexive GG hatred!

Congrats all around!"


n1ck said...

Hey Anonymous:

I was quick AND "brutal" in calling out the many, many Greenwald worshipers who came here to troll?

I don't remember being brutal, but hey, you have a demi-god to shill for, so spout your bullshit.

Also, I spelled worshiper correctly.

Welcome to the English language!

Hamfast Ruddyneck said...

Actually, when verbs such as "worship" add a suffix, such as "-ed", "-er", or "-ing", it is acceptable either to double the final consonant of the original word or not to do that.

I would provide a link, but, being an antique flatulence who did not grow up clicking mice, I don't know how to make links on Blogger's bare-bones, user-unfriendly comment threads. :P

Lumpy Lang said...

GG: "I think the answer lies in the very first sentence Sullivan wrote when responding to my column: "I really have to try restrain my anger here." It's an intensely emotional reaction, not a rational one."

Droneglass: "was too hilariously clueless not to mention."

Look what's happened here. Greenwald's point of substance has just been vindicated (in DG's own update), and Sullivan again exposed as a racist a-hole...

So DG (with his lame 'Elephants fighting' metaphor in tatters) reverts to channeling David Brooks: decrying Greenwald for 'throat ripping invective' (with no example provided, how typical).

Once again, Droneglass offers only a more sophisticated, leftish version of the "Both Sides" mantra. If the U.S. ruling class had any smarts left, they'd start paying him for his loyalty... though it still won't end up saving the putrefying empire.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Oh. I see your mistake LL. You are under some kind of impression that Sullivan and Greenwald are not working the same side of the street.

Oh, and let me tell you how clever I find the "droneglass" construction. When talking about someone who has never -- not once! -- expressed any support for the drone bombing program. no really! I've been reading driftglass since he spun off from Gilliard's joint, and if you can find an instance, I'd be shocked. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Hamfast Ruddyneck said...

@ Lumpy: If the misruling classes of the United States Of Fubarica had any smarts left, they'd be divesting themselves of the putrefying empire with all possible speed, as their British equivalents did after WW2.

Also, while I share your anti-imperial sentiments, I think your calling Drifty "Droneglass" goes a bit over the top.

I'm sure the man doesn't like blowing up swarthy kids as "collateral damage", but as long as it happens in a Dinocratic administration, his Windy City cultural reflexes will hobble his ability to denounce the carnage. I expect that he'll find his righteous anger again if the carnage continues under a Reptilian administration, assuming we ever have another one of those.

Lumpy Lang said...

"If [we are at war], what are we permitted to do when the people with whom we are at war have no capital city to capture and no leadership with whom peace treaties can be signed?"

He was more explicit in one of the podcasts in January or February of this year.

Several other commenters at the time (and since) called him on this more eloquently than I could.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

You consider that a defense of drones? It seems to me to be asking about how war is waged, not to mention pointing out that drones are merely a manifestation of airborne warfare. How are they different from bombing Cambodia?

in the end of that piece, driftglass asked what he termed a fundamental question: are we at war, and if so, with whom?

So in that, he actually agrees with you and Greenwald; if there is no war, the deployment of drone bombings, or military incursion, is kind of over the edge.

I think, as Greenwald said recently, you are reading into the post what you want, not what's there. And it seems that since driftglass disagrees with Greenwald on SOME things, he must oppose GG on everything, and so you coin a juvenile name for him.

Might as well start calling me Zombie Rotten McDronelover too, because I ain't a fan of Greenwald either.

Anonymous said...

There you go....bad mouthing Macgyver again...Patti and Selma always just waiting to pull the trigger.