Wednesday, January 29, 2014

A Tale Of Two Assholes


The one on the left is Republican Representative Michael Grimm from New York. 

The one on the right is Republican Representative Peter King from New York.  

The one on the left is an asshole who recently said something stupid and threatening to a reporter.

The one on the right is an asshole who recently said something stupid and threatening about a reporter.

So far, the stupid and threatening stuff the asshole on the left said is generally being taken as par for the course because, frankly, whaddya expect from a Republican asshole like that.

On the other hand, so far, many people have made a strenuous effort to portray the stupid and threatening stuff the asshole on the right said as part of President Obama's War on Journalism!  A conspiracy so vast and deep that it nearly exists!

Because there is no hook too small that it cannot support all the outrage in the world.  

30 comments:

blogenfreude said...

Why does my state send idiots like this to Congress?

Jack said...

I guess anyone can be a journalist; the First Amendment pretty much makes everyone with a pen and paper a journalist. There is no certification or club membership required.

That said, I don't think of Greenwald as a journalist. I think of him as a far right paranoid libertarian activist. And a litigator. He's not interested in writing objective, fair, and accurate news. He's interested in promoting an intensely anti-American agenda, with propaganda and information carefully cultivate to show what he wants it to show, and to hide what he wants hidden. (That's why he buries all the mitigating details in the 45th paragraph.) Anyone who has seen the spittle flying from his mouth while he rages knows he hates this country deeply, and wants to damage it as much as possible.

So, yeah, he can hold a pen and he can press it against paper to make letter shapes. But "journalist" is way down the list of terms I would apply to him.

Monster from the Id said...

Interesting how so many pwogs became gung-ho flag-wavers once a kinda-sorta-maybe nominal pwog became Prez.

OBS said...

Interesting how so many pwogs became gung-ho flag-wavers once a kinda-sorta-maybe nominal pwog became Prez.

Interesting how many strawmen have been burned at the holy sacrificial altar of "Both Sides."

Monster from the Id said...

OK, OBS, you're gonna tell me "Both Sides" (that is, both major parties) DON'T support the indiscriminate murder of swarthy foreigners, in order to keep the world safe for Big Business to plunder?

CM said...

**you're gonna tell me "Both Sides" (that is, both major parties) DON'T support the indiscriminate murder of swarthy foreigners, in order to keep the world safe for Big Business to plunder?**

No. Even if both sides seem to have similar foreign policy there are differences in the number of wars started, threshold for declaring war and the extent of military engagement. Even if you conclude that both sides are evil, you surely must concede that one side is a greater evil than the other. If you do not do that you are being unfair to the victims of the greater evil.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

There goes another one, OBS! Stand back, don't get burned!

Anonymous said...

@Monster from the Id:

The word "indiscriminate" is where your problem is. While I think you're correct in noting that the US government, regardless of leadership, is in the business of using force, protecting the monied/propertied/privileged class, and choosing winners and losers, you are fooling yourself if you think there is no difference between the two sides. I too wish that the choice between the two parties was more than a decision about how much of the nation's wealth is going to trickle down to the needy or what kind/intensity of state violence was going to be in vogue for the next four years but for the foreseeable future that's what it boils down to.

By all means, don't give the Dems a pass on their corruption, greed, and cowardice, but recognize that the "Both Sides"-trope is a dodge. At this point and time one side is obviously less wasteful, less bloodthirsty, and less vengeful and the difference is *not* academic.

--Nonny Mouse

Anonymous said...

CM@2:12 PM said it better than me:

If you really want to be morally reductionist, you can take the number of people killed and displaced when you invade a country, occupy it for a decade, destroy its institutions, and hand it over to sectarian soldiers, subtract the number killed by drones, and the difference is why the Both Sides trope is bullshit.

If the whole enterprise turns your stomach I say congratulations for being a human being with a functioning sense of empathy, but decisions about how the killing power of the US government is going to be used aren't about what makes you feel good as a person.

--Nonny Mouse

driftglass said...

Interesting how so many emopwogs were for demanding journalistic accountability before they were against it.

bowtiejack said...

Too bad IRA terrorist (and uber-patriot) Peter King has never been indicted.

Maybe they just overlooked him and his district - Long Island, the vermiform appendix of NY.

Anonymous said...

Driftglass,

And they accuse you of only being interested when your ox is being gored. Projection is a bitch.

--Nonny Mouse

OBS said...

so many pwogs became gung-ho flag-wavers once a kinda-sorta-maybe nominal pwog became Prez.

And:

OK, OBS, you're gonna tell me "Both Sides" (that is, both major parties) DON'T support the indiscriminate murder of swarthy foreigners, in order to keep the world safe for Big Business to plunder?

Excellent. Why don't you go for a third straw man to torch? They're so sparkly and fun!

Or, y'know, you could read the wackypedia page and maybe learn something.

n1ck said...

100,000+ dead Iraqs and 4000+ dead Americans is exactly the same as drone terrorism strikes that only kill foreigners, because BOTH SIDES!

You know, I fucking loathe Empire, but at least Obama limits the amount of death Empires deals out when he's in charge. Not to mention drone terrorism strikes aren't nearly as conspicuous as boots on the ground.

I'm not a cheerleader for Obama or Empire, but to think that a Republican or Democratic president can just turn Empire off by executive order is beyond delusional- It's outright fucking dishonest.

Criticize Obama and Empire, please. Just don't make the mistake of making yourself look like a massive fucking idiot by saying Obama and Bush Jr.'s foreign policy is even remotely similar.

The objective differences between them couldn't be more obvious to someone living in objective reality.

Monster from the Id said...

My, what shrieks of indignation!

Do I detect a few guilty consciences here? ;)

Monster from the Id said...

Oh, and N1ck--if I, or you for that matter, or any commenter on any blog, or any blog host or hostess, cared whether or not we looked like "massive fucking idiots", would any of us ever comment on anything?

n1ck said...

Monster from the ID: That you constantly make yourself look like a delusional fucking idiot implies that no, you don't care that you make yourself look like a delusional fucking idiot.

Also: Droneglass.

Keep on keepin' on, idiot.

Anonymous said...

No Monster, people can host or post on a blog without inevitably looking like an idiot. This is done by putting together a coherent argument. True, you run the risk of encountering alternate points of view or -- God Forbid -- having your opinions altered, but those things don't necessarily make one look foolish.

On the other hand, coming to lecture people with nothing more than "they are disagreeing with me thus I must be right and they must feel guilty" does make you look pretty foolish.

A couple of us have pointed out that while the Obama administration employs state violence, just like every administration prior to it, there is a clear difference in scale of the carnage. That you have no answer to this is not surprising. For the most part your particular political subspecies are only interested in absolving yourselves of any responsibility for the shitty things your government does. Pretending that both parties are exactly as bad as one another is a very useful tool in this regard, removing any need to evaluate incremental progress or potential compromises.

The shrieks of indignation you are hearing are not borne of guilt but from annoyance. Nobody likes being lectured to by someone who is adopting deliberately a simple and self-serving outlook.

--Nonny Mouse

Anonymous said...

As someone who has been reading the musings of Mr. Glass, since before he even had his own blog, when he was but a wee lowly commenter: the most amazing thing of late, is to observe the explosions of horror that erupt at his absolute most obvious inarguable observations.
It is like hearing the strangest game of telephone ever done.
The projection he manages to elicit, is both bizarre and profoundly amusing.
Keep up gods work senor Glass...many are proud to have known you when..

and oh yes....3....2...1

Monster from the Id said...

Nonny, I plead guilty as charged.

I am more concerned with separating myself from the evil deeds of the US govt. and the corporations which own it, in order to maintain the health of my immortal soul, than I am with the health of the Dinocratic Party, or of the USA.

If I must choose between the health of my soul and the health of my country, I will choose the health of my soul.

I'm selfish that way. ^_^

Lumpy Lang said...

Yaaaa... Haven't you heard? The 'good' cop is definitely much nicer than 'bad' cop! :-))))

Monster - ordinary citizens are not guilty in any way for the crimes of U.S. imperialism - unless they consciously [b]choose[/b] to identify with the ruling class and its apparatus of repression (- as do Droneglass and co-thinkers here).

CM said...

Lumpy

**unless they consciously [b]choose[/b] to identify with the ruling class and its apparatus of repression (- as do Droneglass and co-thinkers here).**

Where is the evidence the DG and other commentors here support or identify with any apparatus of repression?

PS: DG, your Captcha is very cumbersome while posting from a smartphone.

Anonymous said...

Monster,

You are welcome to your opinion, of course. Where I part company with you is when you start lecturing people who view harm reduction as a worthy enterprise. You come across as if your only concern is preserving your sense of moral superiority, especially when you refuse to acknowledge that the difference between the good cop and the bad cop can be measured in blood in lives; lots of blood and lives.

--Nonny Mouse

Anonymous said...

Don't waste your time CM.

Lumpy's pathology couldn't be more clear: "They are all the same, therefore I am absolved of all responsibility." They lay claim to many rationales but "my shallow apathy is principled" is the only one really being championed.

Why do you think they rise so savagely to the defense of the "both sides" fallacy? Acknowledging any differences cheats them of some of their rationale for rising above it all.

--Nonny Mouse

Lumpy Lang said...

"They are all the same, therefore I am absolved of all responsibility."

No. THEY are the rulers. I and people like me have no responsibility for their crimes, which I condemn and seek to expose... for the same reason I salute the deeds of people like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

Droneglass' hatred of these heroic individuals is the measure of his conscious complicity in the crimes of U.S. imperialism that they have brought to light.

Lumpy Lang said...

"especially when you refuse to acknowledge that the difference between the good cop and the bad cop can be measured in blood in lives; lots of blood and lives."

The 'good' cop and the 'bad' cops certainly are different... but what's important is that they work as a TEAM.

How dumb does the prisoner have to be not to figure that out?

Monster from the Id said...

Holy Flashback! The debate between pro-war (or at least war-tolerant) Establishment Liberals and anti-war DFHs rages once again!

To go back a little farther, BHO reminds me of JFK.

JFK gave an impression, to both his supporters and the right-wing portion of his detractors, of being more liberal than he truly was.

I see the same from BHO. To listen to the wingnuts, you'd think he was the second coming of Che Guevara, instead of the bland apologist for imperial plutocracy which he is.

Anonymous said...

Lumpy Lang,

That the entire political establishment operates under a umbrella of consensus with self-serving reasons to resist change is not revelatory. The consensus can be changed over time and the establishment coerced into modifying its behavior.

You may not be happy with that plan but it is not an irrational strategy and as others have pointed out "A Pox on Both Their Houses" is not a bloodless strategy either, regardless of whatever protests you pre-emptively summon.

--Nonny Mouse

Anonymous said...

Monster from the Id:

Your framing is too grandiose and I suspect also an attempt to deflect. Yes lets talk about broad trends, vague groups, and historical figures...

Earlier in this thread you were kind enough to state, bluntly, that your primary -- indeed only -- concern was your spiritual cleanliness, not the outcome of any political struggle, the agenda of any institution, or the overall trajectory of your country and its killing tools. On the other hand, I am stating bluntly that I am in favor of some compromises if they come packaged with a reduction in pointless killing. Objectively I am less tolerant of war than you are because I am more concerned about there being less of it than I am about the metaphorical blood on my hands.

You think this is a colossal spin job on my part? Look past your own sanctimony and re-read your contributions to this thread. Time and again you say that you really don't care about any difference between the main political tribes in the US, even the life and limb differences, but are only concerned about your own conscience. I'm not going to say that you have no business thinking that way and in fact I will respect that stance but only up until the point where you start hurling abuse at people who see a rationale to accept compromise.

If you want to talk about whether or not compromise is wise or just under the present circumstances, fine, but that is a far different conversation than the authoritarians vs brave revolutionaries narrative you're wrapping your arms around.

--Nonny Mouse

Pinkamena Once More said...

And why is anyone responding to the racist bass-ackwards knuckle-dragging cousinfucker LL and his cock-decoration Hamfist Carmelo from the Back of the Fridge Behind the Ketchup, Next to the Mayonnaise, and to the Left of the Coleslaw?

We established some months ago that they are rightscum - giving them any attention besides the brush-off only feeds their delusions that they're fighting Us Fuckin' Dirty F*g-Humpin' Negro-Lovin' Commiehippiezz on our own turf and winning.

Ignore them. They aren't worth it.