Lots of Dems: I'm not Muslim, so I'm sick of hearing about drone-killings, militarism & civil liberties abuses: doesn't affect me #PrivilegeGot that? If you are one of those "Lots of Dems" who does not care about what Glenn wants you to care about in exactly the Glenn-approved vocabulary Glenn insists you use, you are obviously a callous racist fuck. QED, because in Glennview, there is no acceptable third alternative.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 19, 2013
How ironic, then, that the ring-leader of the "Lots of Dems" -- Mr. Barry McHitler -- is himself a Sekrit Muslim! As I learned from multiple sources, including this exciting video which has been seen by 9.7 million people and "proved" that Mao Tse Obummer is a Sekrit Muslim with at least as must intellectual rigor
as Glenn brought to his charge that people who do not use Glennspeak (Babykiller!Babykiller!Babykiller!) when discussing their serious reservations about the consolidation of executive power are anti-Muslim bigots.
UPDATE: Remember, you go to "Calling everyone who differs with you one iota 'Babykiller'" War with the Fake Hitler you have, not the Fake Hitler you might want or wish to have at a later time.
UPDATE: This sums it up nicely:
. @davidsirota @ggreenwald Seriously, just invent the debate you think I'm having, declare victory & ensconce yourself in your own grandeur
— William K. Wolfrum (@Wolfrum) March 23, 2013
30 comments:
Haruhi bless us, it seems like every other post our born-again War Liberal writes now is a Two Minutes' Hate against that grubby DFH peacenik Glenzilla.
Are the old political categories in this country disintegrating? I hear Rand the Randroid suddenly sounding like an old, pre-Cold War isolationist rightist, and progressives sounding like Cold War liberal hawks.
Interesting times...
Camel-Faced Brazilian Citizen: I don't live in this country, so I'm sick of hearing about political reality and nuance and the fact it's a two party system ruling a military empire. #MadeUpQuote #Disingenuous #Libertarian Lies #ThanksforthecheckCato #Drpaul4eva
Shorter Drifty et al: "Nothing to see here-move along people, just greed, corruption, and rampant criminality, you know, the hallmarks of Empire. Whachagonnado? No move along prole. "
You know, Nonny (and to a lesser extent, GG), the essence of a shorter is to CAPTURE the spirit of a longer statement, not to make ascribe your strawmen to them. None of what you put in your 'shorter' even approximates the arguments against Greenwald's positions or styles of argument.
Of course, not having the courage to even use a nym, just adds so much weight to it, yanno? Perhaps you could spend some time studying the Sadly, No archives for examples.
Over here and at LGM, it is kind of mordantly amusing to see the Flying Glenn Horde come out to defend him. Reminds me of the days when Althouse's winged monkeys (or at least Meade) could be counted on to appear whenever she was mentioned.
Lots of Dems:
Wow, that.. that's magnificent! I've never seen a strawman of such grand stature.
Simply superb.
I'd actually prefer to like Glenn more than I do, but he makes it really hard. Glenn is an eloquent scold on an extremely important topic that 99% of the country would prefer to ignore. But if he could shitcan the holier-than-thou sanctimony and "if you don't immediately acknowledge that I'm a supergenius and pure of the soul, you're just a mindless drone Obot" routine, he might be more persuasive.
Oh, and anyone who claims to be a civil libertarian who throws their lot in with Rand "the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional" Paul...well, doesn't deserve to be taken as seriously as he thinks.
I take the rights of black people to dine in a restaurant of their choice, and women to take care of their own bodies, right here in America, land of the free (HA!), seriously. Glenn apparently does not. He's far away from all this in Brazil, so it's not his problem. See how that black-and-white bullshit can be turned around, Glenn? Make your case without being a hypocritical, insufferable douche, Glenn. We'll all be better for it.
" Make your case without being a hypocritical, insufferable douche, Glenn. We'll all be better for it."
I guess you didn't get the memo - that's just how GG rolls.
^ No, I have the memo (and the TPS report). It just frustrates me. The discourse needs his voice and others like it, badly. And I'm glad he's out there even though I can't stand some of his antics. He's just...such a...twat sometimes.
Let's see how swell we can use this new brilliant arguing tactic. (Glenn used it, so by his own definition it must be brilliant!):
Lots of Glenns: I'm not a woman, so I'm sick of hearing about abortion rights, women's health &equal pay: doesn't affect me #DemocratsAndRepublicansAreIdentical
Lots of Glenns: I'm not poor, so I'm sick of hearing about health care & the social safety net: doesn't affect me #DemocratsAndRepublicansAreIdentical
If I was a twit I would twit these, but I don't twit.
My god. I'm reading driftglass and seeing with horrifying clarity how intelligent people's brains turn completely to shit.
Here's a bit of reality for you: Glenn Greenwald never endorsed Ron Paul for president and he does not support Rand Paul or the Tea-Baggers today.
Over and over Greenwald said that it is bizarre that Ron Paul is dismissed as a loon for his views, but that McCain, Romney and Obama can propose extending insane wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, threaten Iran, with all that entails, and, furthermore, eviscerate the Constitutional rights of US citizens, and still be considered sane and serious candidates.
You have an administration that is insane enough to believe that all it needs is a secret process to qualify as the "due process" required before the state has a right to kill you, and Rand Paul is the only loon in the room in your eyes?
I'm not motivated to type these words to defend Greenwald. He can take care of himself and these blog posts of yours don't hurt him anyway.
I'm typing these replies because I think it's a shame that otherwise intelligent people feel obligated to defend a president who massacres civilians and targets his own citizens for assassination and torture, and for what??
To "fight" a bullshit "war on terror"? Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues to support Al Qaeda in Syria as they did in Libya. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
I'll be honest and tell you that I think both Ron n' Rand are detestable bigots and delusional. But my response to Rand Paul's filibuster was that even a broken clock can inadvertently tell the right time every 12 hours.
If you could grasp the horrible significance of what that means for the president you're defending, you might see where Greenwald is coming from.
^If the Dinocrats are so strong about health care and the social safety net, then why did Prez Droney McCatfood and his Dinocrats push through an alleged "health care" measure which amounts to forcing people to pay vampiric health insurance companies, and why is Prez DMcC doing his damnedest to "Grand Bargain" away SS and Medicare?
Oh wait--could it be because Droney and the other Dinos are bought and paid for by the same 1% (older name: Malefactors Of Great Wealth) who own the Reptilians as well?
The Second Gilded Age rolls on...
What Thwap Said.
It is possible to disagree with the Pauls on other issues, but acknowledge that they're right about our stupid and evil imperial wars, and the dangerous growth of Presidential power, which happens whether the Dem wing or the Rep wing of the Property Party owns the White House.
If you could grasp the horrible significance of what that means for the president you're defending, you might see where Greenwald is coming from.
I really have no fucking idea what you're on about.
Where exactly am I defending the president?
Glenn's tweet is stupid as fuck. Period.
To (briefly) entertain your rant though: It's cute that you're suddenly very worried about the government killing citizens when your local police force would be more than happy to quickly dispatch you (and your family if they happen to be nearby) at a moment's notice without the slightest thought of "due process" -- and that's as it always has been. And I guarantee you that's not going to change whether we want it to nor not. Do you blame Obama for the militarization of police forces too?
I don't think any of this shit is "good" and I've known the "warronterra" was bullshit from the moment Bush started it. And?
Tweeting stupid shit about how "lots of" us are somehow complicit in the murder of people abroad simply because they're Muslim? That's just stupid blatant bullshit. But because Glenn is evidently your God, it is THE ALL POWERFUL TROOF!
Whatever.
It is possible to disagree with the Pauls on other issues, but acknowledge that they're right about our stupid and evil imperial wars, and the dangerous growth of Presidential power, which happens whether the Dem wing or the Rep wing of the Property Party owns the White House.
Hmm...
"It is possible to disagree with Obama on other issues, but acknowledge that he's right about gay rights, womens rights, and health care (as a start)."
Or is it? I suspect it might not be for you...
And yes, your evil President and the corporate-controlled congress have done something to marginally improve health care in America. I don't like lots of the resulting bill, but it's an improvement over nothing. You can argue the merits of individual pieces of the bill (or not), but some real honest actual people are being helped today that would not be under a Republican administration.
I understand that means nothing to you in the face of OMG DROANS! -- to some of us it does.
I should really know better than to get involved in these discussions. Carry on.
It is a bit gobsmacking to watch driftglass draw his battle lines against Glenn Greenwald, but it is outstanding to watch for its sheer partisan hackery. Driftward definitely scored a blow using Glenn's preface against him. It was a nasty but effective adventitious attack that signals a veritable re-definition of the phrase "purity troll." I can only think that other vicious Demo partisans like Dana Houle (anyone remember him?) simply creamed themselves reading that.
Carry on, if you must. This is where a man draws his battle lines! He's a rebel, Dottie. Nuthin' much to do but jus' kick back and enjoy this unabashed assholery.
Greenwald has fluffed the Pauls a LOT more than he's ever praised Obama, from what I've read (Disclaimer: I haven't read everything GG has put out, and freely admit I could have missed it). His enthusiasm for them seems far more than "they're right about this, but..." which is all those nutbars deserve. And he seems to take glee in starting these pie fights about how their anti-drone, etc. position supposedly makes liberals who support Obama so danged uncomfortable. And his holier-than-thou schtick is just so tiresome.
I'm not uncomfortable at all in my support of Obama. I don't support him IN ALL THINGS, though Glenn doesn't appear to believe this to be possible. My biggest gripe with Obama is about the things Glenn is constantly agitating about (which is why I appreciate his douchey self despite all the douchiness). But the list of things Obama is on the right side of, or at least exponentially better on than the only alternative this country's fucked up system offers us (the GOP), is miles longer than the list of things Glenn seems to think are so abominable and horrifying that they should make all liberals run screaming from Obama (to whom, exactly? the Green party? the Lbertarians?)
Look, I take his point - liberals were appalled at Bush's abuses and don't want to talk about Obama's as much. That is impossible to deny. But he takes that inconsistency and takes it to mean that liberals now SUPPORT these things, just because Obama said so. That's a black-and-white false premise. Politics is a messy business, and there is, I think, a lamentable but rational calculation that Obama will have even more trouble getting anything GOOD done as president if he's constantly under siege from both the rightwing nutjobs (for his very existence) and his base (for the drones and related excesses in the "war on terror"). That's not to absolve anyone of anything, just my interpretation of what's going on.
Glenn's Paul-related writing that I know about just sort of brushes off the fact that the Pauls are fucking batshit insane on pretty much every policy liberals care about except drones and the drug war. Well, the shit they're batshit insane about matters, a whole fucking lot. A Paul presidency (ha!) could be as 100% pure as the falling snow on drone policy and legalize pot, while their pursuit of Ayn Rand and Hayek's ghosts unleashes economic ruin on the entire world - causing incalculable, avoidable suffering from poverty and starvation, among other nutty delights they support and would want to enact (personhood amendment woot!). And this "everything else" outweighs the "but he's so enlightened on drones!" By a lot. By a whole fucking lot.
And I'll continue to note that a so-called civil libertarian casting his lot with the Pauls is hypocrisy. Civil liberties exist outside the context of the war on terror, and the Pauls, for all their high-minded talk about liberty, don't believe government has any role in safeguarding civil liberties here at home. And we know from history how that has turned out. That should matter to Glenn too, shouldn't it? If he's addressed this, I must have missed it and would appreciate a link to said discussion if so. (that's not sarcasm) But hey, he's in Brazil, so he doesn't want to be bothered with the prospect of minorities being denied entry to stores and restaurants, or women having to get transvaginal ultrasounds against their will, amirite?
I note that for Rand Paul, and to a lesser extent, Crazy Uncle Liberty (h/t Charlie Pierce) being 'right about imperialistic wars' includes supporting them and not making any effort to restrict them legislatively, which is perfectly within their powers.
Also, being right about drones for the Younger Paul does not include actually opposing the drone attacks that are CURRENTLY massacreing civilians, just using a hypothetical attack within the US as a soapbox for grandstanding.
So I think 'being right twice a day' is a bit overstating the case. If he's a clock at all, it's an LED one that has had milk spilled into it and now has about half of the elements showing dimly, the other ones not at all, and three very bright ones like this: |-\. Meaningless and not even wrong.
OBS,
I thought I was talking to a sane, intelligent person.
I see that I was wrong.
Let's take one example of your stupidity and call it a day then, shall we?
I mention that the Democratic President Barack Obama's Attorney General says that as long as an opaque "process" goes into the assassination of an American citizen, then "due process" has been given and it's all legal.
I argue that that is absolutely fucking insane and that any politician or party that believes that is likewise insane.
It should go without saying then, that a right-thinking person should reject any politician or party should reject such insanity.
You reply with:
"It's cute that you're suddenly very worried about the government killing citizens"
Well, it hasn't been all of a sudden, I assure you.
"when your local police force would be more than happy to quickly dispatch you (and your family if they happen to be nearby) at a moment's notice without the slightest thought of 'due process' -- and that's as it always has been."
Well, technically, NO. Cops don't get to kill someone on the street and innocent bystanders and tell people that it was justified because it was approved by a committee at police headquarters, end of story.
"And I guarantee you that's not going to change whether we want it to nor not. Do you blame Obama for the militarization of police forces too?"
No. Clinton had more to do with that than Obama. And the whole thing has been a bipartisan thing.
But, regardless, is that your argument? "Our police are out of control, so it's not a deal-breaker for me if the president is too. That he thinks he has the right to kill us without due process"?
Is that what you're reduced to?
Pathetic. Pull your head out of your ass.
I mention that the Democratic President Barack Obama's Attorney General says that as long as an opaque "process" goes into the assassination of an American citizen, then "due process" has been given and it's all legal.
I argue that that is absolutely fucking insane and that any politician or party that believes that is likewise insane.
It should go without saying then, that a right-thinking person should reject any politician or party should reject such insanity.
And you write me off as stupid, because I used a different example of government's "due process" to show that our fucked up government has no qualms whatsoever about killing its citizens. And it's not in the slightest way new.
Well, technically, NO. Cops don't get to kill someone on the street and innocent bystanders and tell people that it was justified because it was approved by a committee at police headquarters, end of story.
Really? You may want to look into that a bit more. Pay attention to some particular examples in LA recently.
I see way too many people that suddenly, as of about 2008 or so (for some unknown reason, what could it be?) became almost irrationally concerned about "due process" and drones, etc. at the expense of everything else. I agree that it's awful, I'm just always quite suspicious of people's motives based on what I see as a lack of interest from a bunch of people in this stuff (or about other abuses in a similar vein) until this particular president came to power. Maybe that doesn't describe you, I wouldn't know.
WAT WOOD I NO I'Z STOOPID. I GO DRINK BEER NOW.
OBS, being called stupid is going around this week. I'll join you in that beer.
Ladies and germs, the Good Cop works with the Bad Cop. BOTH of them want to send you to the Crossbar Hilton. I've never been arrested, but even I know that.
Most, if not all, of the defenses of Prez McCatfood and his Good Cop Party on this esteemed blog boil down to "OH MY HARUHI, THE BAD COP PARTY IS A MILLION TRILLION GODZILLION TIMES WORSE SO WE MUST VOTE GOOD COP!!!!1!"
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I admit I don't know how to break out of our metaphorical Crossbar Hilton. I do know, however, that voting for and singing the praises of the Good Cop Party won't break us out.
Selah.
(FYI: a "godzillion" is a number the size of Godzilla.) ^_^
What's actually happening is Glenn Greenwald is like John Wayne. Wayne chicken hawked his way out of World War II and in response became a jingoistic warmonger and arch-conservative. Greenwald supported the Phony GWoT and Iraq and now to make up for it he's become a lunatic anarcho-libertarian declaring all Government Action to be the illegal Use of Force.
Glenn is also pimping out the claim that Obama is worse than Cheney and Worse than Nixon. So that means he's still supporting the Iraq War since the man who ended the Iraq War is worse than Architect of the War.
^So no one is allowed to realize he or she screwed up before, and so change his or her mind?
How, then, will liberalism ever gain new supporters?
thwap said...
Loyalists don't like truth.
Remember:
It's NOT when their team does...
When Glen calls them out for being a bold face hypocrite Party, for NOT gathering in the streets NOW that their guy(D) is doing just what the guy(R) that came before him did. These Dems Glen pokes fun at, are the Loyalists. And they will be apologetic about it down. The. Line.
driftglass,
Besides the stereotypical ad hominem article against Greenwald, where ARE the masses rising in the streets pleading, urging and calling out Obama? The UN is investigating criminal charges against America for the indiscriminate killing by Obama's drones. Obama thinks he can murder Americans over seas without a shred of due process. If it was Bush asserting this, there would be a march yesterday! In fact, when Habeas Corpus got suspended under Bush, Democrats were (cue the feigning, OUTRAGED!)
Yes, LOTS OF DEMS.
Grung_e_Gene said...
If I remember correctly, Bush agreed to the withdrawal date to occur just after he left Office and once in Office, Obama attempted to extend the US presence and push the date farther into the future.
Just because the left on Obama's watch and just because Obama gave a nice speech doesn't mean Obama actually brokered THAT timeline.
Oh, great FSM. It is not hard to both (a) criticize Obama and/or establishment Democrats on the merits, which is a good thing, and (b) avoid hyperbole, inaccuracies, oversimplification, trolling, etc. Recently (and unfortunately), Glenn Greenwald have shown he is frequently incapable of (b), which hurts his efforts at (a), at least with some readers, myself included. (Your mileage may vary.) I used to read the guy regularly, but I prefer my political analysis without so many laughable informal fallacies and ahistorical assertions, thank you very much. I appreciated much of his past work, so I'm honestly sorry to see this happen. But luckily, there are quite a few sharper critics of imperialism and human rights abuses out there – the TomDispatch crew (Greenwald posted there a few times back in the day), Jonathan Schwarz, Andrew Bacevich, the late Chalmers Johnson, the ACLU…
Ideologues gotta ideologue.
After listening to this week's podcast, apparently this faux-charge of racism hit a nerve. As way of background, I think what prompted this was the flinging at Glenn from many corners of the left that the only way he could support Rand Paul's filibuster was because he was privileged enough not to be a woman or minority otherwise he wouldn't be able to support an action by such a person who holds such odious views on other matters. It didn't matter how many times Glenn said "I don't support Paul on everything," "though many of his views are disgusting," or "his fetal personhood amendment is awful" he continued to get responses from liberals that, "Oh but it's sooo easy for a white MALE to support Paul! Those awful things he does just affect all us other people!"
So this particular tweet, I think, was an "Oh, if you want to play the privileged game we can play the privileged game" retort. I'm rubber and you're glue and all that. Sure, it's tactless and self-righteously sarcastic, but really drifty, of all the photoshoppin' people on the goddamn internet you should grok tactless and self-righteous sarcasm.
I’ve been listening to the Professional Left podcast and now I’ve opened driftglass for the first time in a while. I find the Brooks smashing very entertaining. But on Greenwald, I’m getting put off. The chief complaint against Greenwald seems to be focused on style rather than substance. Trying to be brief, I’ll reduce what I’m hearing you say is Greenwald is sanctimonious, judgmental, and oppressively pure. You don’t like this. Okay, fine. But at some point in the podcast, I heard your justification for droning bad guys. “In a heartbeat,” you said. This of course is where Greenwald comes down like a ton of bricks. I agree with Greenwald, who has built a fortress of dissent against the terrorism of drones. Greenwald has less patience than I do for political judgment of just what constitutes a “bad guy,” and how the (mythical) “ticking bomb” scenario justifies vaporizing these targets. I appreciate his uncompromising moral stance in this regard. On the other hand, taking the “ticking bomb” scenario to heart and letting that be your uncompromising stance, driftglass, is equivalent to the stylistic faults you decry yet lacks the deep substantive exploration I find when I read Greenwald. I’ll re-listen to the podcasts and read further in here. But so far I’m not too impressed by how you’re handling this.
Post a Comment