Saturday, June 22, 2013

You Know What You Don't Hear Much About Anymore?

The bailout of the American auto industry.

I guess the "Worse Than Cheney/Worse Than Nixon" bandwagon isn't flex-fuel.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, but "Worse than Cheney" doesn't come close to "Worse than Ford," and I mean Henry. Obama is a cocksucker PRECISELY because he sucks at the dick of the auto (or any) industry.

Anonymous said...

You know what else you don't hear much about? Obama's industrial policy.

Get over yourself!

Overclock speedy said...

The more I think about it the more I think Greenwald is going to end up destroying himself with this story.

See the thing is, I'm kinda like Snowden. I went to the military instead of going to college. I got out the military with a security clearanced and ended up working in IT for a DOD contractor. It ends there as I moved into the non profit world. But my point is I know a lot about IT, and I know a lot about security clearances and that world.

Greenwald doesn't, by his own admission as well. There have been more than a few instances where words like authority or sever have been thrown about where Greenwald claimed it meant one thing, but when we saw the slides or heard Snowden say it they would mean something completely different to an IT guru. This keeps happening as well, and Greenwald is keeping his cards hidden and leading the converstaion he just can't help himself it seems when it comes to screwing things up. He lacks the technical background to understand what the terms actually mean, instead he leaps to the conclusions he wants to be true and twists things up.

This is going to blow the fuck up in his face, Dan Rather style if not worse, he's wading into topics he doesn't know the first thing about and then trying to walk his way out of it by appeals to emotion and character. And oddly enough he might not go down in history as the guy who blew the lid off the US security and defense world, but the nitwit who fucked it all up so badly he enabled it to paint any and all who objected to it as raving lunatics with a personal vendetta to handle.

If Glenn reads this blog I'd have this advice....

Glenn, make no fucking mistake about this, you have a scoop but it's not the scoop you think it is. Right now I would hire a few IT people to parse through what you have and what Snowden has said. Not fuckers who agree with you and people in anon or those like them, corporate fuckers who understand the lingo, shit people who work at schools. We're all over the place, just get some eyeballs on what it is you have, you can't afford another “authorities” or “server” fuck up. Trust me, most of us geeks would love the chance to goof around with this sort of information, it's how we work... just for the love of christ hire some of us before you make a fool out of yourself again, you're well on the way to claiming 2+3 = 5 and not knowing that the issue was actually 1+2 and it = 3 because you don't know the lingo (stupid example I know, but tech heads will get it given the language).

Next, quit making this about you and Snowden, that's not the point. And honestly having worked in big IT with a security clearance in DC you're setting yourself up to get served a big one. A huge point of hiring ex military fuckers like me is that we can be hired “off the books”, aka we work for you, but the paper work is minimal. I don't know enough about Snowden to comment for sure, but enough has been said and come off a tad bit contradictory (claimed salary vs salary according to booze), that you know... a bunch of what he did and who he is might have been off the books, or regulated to classified and geek speak (which you don't know how to translate, you've confused a systems administrator with an analyst so many times, along with authorities and servers you're out of your depth here). But my point is, the more you make it about you and him the easier it is to slap this shit down, let the facts speak and then shut the fuck up.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Obama is a cocksucker PRECISELY because he sucks at the dick of the auto (or any) industry.

Yeah because letting over a million jobs wither on the vine would have done so well in 'heightening the contradictions' resulting in a Jill Stein Presidency, yielding unicorns shitting dollars and pissing beer for everybody.

"industry" =/= "bad".

Anonymous said...

Overclock Speedy

As someone with a similar IT background, those things are really puzzling as well. The problem is, Greenwald should have vetted the story with some techs..before, it went to print.
He sculpted the story to fit his narrative, not the other way around.
To me it looks like a bunch of people yelling that there is a Matrix and Green-Snow is revealing it to us. So I took the red pill, and all that happened was he showed me his cell phone and took me Chinese restaurant.
I just keep asking: What the fuck was that red pill even for?

Anonymous said...

Yes... but Obama is worse than... um... Hitler! In a three way with Henry Ford and Phyllis Schlafly and a tub of mayonnaise! Narrated by Alan Greenspan!

Christ almighty, you people.

We don't hear about the auto bailout because it largely worked. The republican base does not want information. They want their beliefs reinforced and they want their fear / power lizard brain stimulated. That is why every single fucking thing that Obama does has to be some Orwellian plot that costs a Million Trillion dollars and will result in the police state. (Notice we also don't hear about Obama's naval escort to central India that would cost triple this country's GDP?)

These are the people who, if you pin them down in a conversation, their "opinions" are nothing more than a words salad like, as I personally heard, "a war between Constitutionalism and Progressiveism in this Christian country."

No, I don't think I would like a lot of Obama's economic agenda. I also think Clinton screwed us over trying to "triangulate", and Bluegal made the excellent point that when conservatives talk about Clinton "bringing the Democrats to the 'center'," he implemented a lot of his mistakes that we are now trying to undo.

However, this has gone way past a "lesser of two evils" argument. Yes, there is a "property class" fighting against the working class. However, that is going on in the Democrat party. The Republicans have lost power to the howling golems they created. There IS NO SHRILL LEFT that has any real power. There is no wild radical communist left that wants to burn Bibles and disarm the public and mandate Sodomy Sundays. There is no "left" equivalent to superstitious evangelicals trying to poison education with creationism and an institutionalized anti-academic mindset. While some progressive education policies have been a bit lax, that does not equate to a corporate owned education system where only the wealthy are educated, and there is no one on the left who thinks people should only be trained to be laborers. There are nor has been no loud voices on the left saying that women should forsake owning property, voting, or having complete autonomy over their medical decisions. There is no one on the left saying that straight people should have their marriages dissolved, their children given to others, or their sex should be criminalized. There is no one on the left saying that science should be subject to the forces of marketing and public opinion. (How well did that work out for stopping carcinogens in cigarettes from causing cancer?) There is no one on the left mandating that everyone learn Spanish. There is no one on the left demanding that this country be founded on the Unitarian faith or that everyone become Atheist. The left doesn't have Communist scares of Sharia Law scares. As annoying and preening as Keith Olberman was he never lied as much or was a blatantly wrong as Bill O'Reily or Sean Hannity. The left DOES NOT HAVE a Rush Limbaugh. Code Pink is NOT Glen Beck. Queer Nation was fighting policy that was letting people die because the other side found talking about gay sex too revolting. The Tea Party is complaining about crushing taxes (which are at a record low), Sharia Law, and an "urban", "inner city", "Chicago Gangster", "Kenyan", "Muslim", "witch doctor", "watermelon farmer", "slave owner" Democrat in the white house. The left complained about actual shit Bush did, and was kettled and caged into "free speech zones", while the right repeats racism and lies, and bemoans "oppression" when they don't get what they want.



prof_fate said...

For the record, it was James Goodale, the general counsel at The New York Times during the Pentagon Papers crackdown, who made that comparison. In an interview with Amy Goodman:

Goodale:Well, more precisely, I say that if in fact [Obama] goes ahead and prosecutes Julian Assange, he will pass Nixon. He’s close to Nixon now. The AP example is a good example of something that Obama has done but Nixon never did. So I have him presently in second place, behind Nixon and ahead of Bush II. And he’s moving up fast. And if he goes ahead against Assange, he’ll at least be even, and we’ll have to see how that prosecution, if it takes place, comes out, because maybe he’ll pass him.

So let's review:

Someone with a reasonable claim to expertise in these matters said that in the Assange case, Obama was going places even Nixon never dared go. Which anyone not strangling on their own bile or committed to dissimulation and diversion by strawman would recognize is not identical to the statement "Obama is worse than Nixon in every respect."

If there are people out there saying "Obama is worse than Nixon in every way", please do us the courtesy of identifying a few of them.

As far as I know, no one, not even your bĂȘte noire, has claimed that Obama is worse than Nixon in every single way. As for Cheney, the Sith Lord himself has on several occasions gone out of his way to compliment the administration on their continuation of Bush II's Surveillance State personnel and policies.

I mean, what's the contention here: Obama did something good with the bailout, so he gets a free pass in other areas?

To hell with that. If we want to indulge in some stupid, futile ratings game, I don't have the time or space here to even begin to enumerate this administration's failings, which has to weigh in the balance. Surely, after five years, it's high time we admitted he has to bear at least some responsibility for what happens on his watch.

For the inevitable "Well, would you have preferred, McCain or Romney?", the answer, is, obviously, "No!" I voted for Obama, in the primary and GE of 2008, when I was simply wary of the man, and again in the 2012 GE, which required a near death-grip on my nose.

But in pretty much every system of ethics, doing wrong, even if it's to some lesser degree than a hypothetical alternative candidate, is still doing wrong.

Don P said...

Mike K -- Well said, sir

prof_fate said...

Besides: Who can say with certainty that Nixon wouldn't have bailed out the auto industry, if faced with the same circumstances? For all his many, many faults, even if he was a paranoid shitheel, Nixon wasn't the kind of economic ideologue you currently find in the Republican leadership.

I'm not even totally convinced that McCain would have let the auto industry die, either. Things tend to change, when you don't have the luxury of sniping from the sidelines, with no real political consequences.