Poe, Drones and Boston -- UPDATE

"A skillful literary artist has constructed a tale. If wise, he has not fashioned his thoughts to accommodate his incidents; but having conceived, with deliberate care, a certain unique or single effect to be wrought out, he then invents such incidents--he then combines such events as may best aid him in establishing this preconceived effect. If his very initial sentence tend not to the outbringing of this effect, then he has failed in his first step. In the whole composition there should be no word written, of which the tendency, direct or indirect, is not to the one pre-established design."

 -- Edgar Allan Poe, May, 1842

Having reported eloquently on the tragedy that took place on a sunny spring day in the heart of his wounded city, Charles Pierce checked in this morning with this update on the state of our national discourse:

Was I on acid, or was the first question at the eight o'clock press conference dealing with the Boston Marathon bombing last night really somebody's asking Governor Deval Patrick whether the attack on the spectators was a "false-flag" operation?

Why, no, It turns out I was quite sober after all.

"Is this another false flag attack to take our civil liberties away?"

Oh, dear Jesus, the very first question? You have to be kidding me. Is this country really that far around the bend?

I took a little incoming last night, not only from The Dumbest Man On The Internet, (tm/The Lovely Wonkette) but also from people who can't read and see words that are not there, and from (I think) the Glenn Beck crew for this post that I put up almost immediately after the bombing and in which, you will note, the words "rightwing," "rightist," and "conservative," do not appear. (Also, a Pro Tip for the folks who dropped by from Glennbeckystanstan. I was a left-leaning sports columnist at a Murdoch tabloid for five years. I've know from political invective and you kids really need to step up your game.) It appears that poor Nick Kristof got in more trouble than I did. Hey, Nick. You write for The New York Times. You should feel more free to tell pipsqueaks like the guy from Tiger Beat On The Potomac to piss off. Fk the begrudgers, as the late Mr. Behan used to say. You were right, too. Remember Charlie Skinner from The Newsroom, and the only truly memorable line in that entire series so far.

"I am too old to live my life in fear of dumb people."

It is in no way "politicizing" the events by mentioning that history teaches us that, on events like this, the universe of suspects is wider than many people would like to believe. All indications are that, one way or another, the bombing was a political act. It may have been the political act of madmen, but it was a political act, and it does us no good to pretend — as Chris Matthews attempted to do last night — that it was not. Somehow, somewhere, this act came from a dark vein of violence in somebody's politics...

Yes, Charlie, you were quite sober; the first fucking "question" right out of the box at that presser really was from some dick trying to upholster his personal hobbyhorse with other people's public tragedy.

Meanwhile, a few thousand miles away and less than an hour later -- less than a day after the bombing -- Mr. Glenn Greenwald also weighed in.

Sure, the Boston Marathon attack was tragic and all:

There's not much to say about Monday's Boston Marathon attack because there is virtually no known evidence regarding who did it or why. 

But, see, the real issue is, as always:

As usual, the limits of selective empathy, the rush to blame Muslims, and the exploitation of fear all instantly emerge 

The widespread compassion for yesterday's victims and the intense anger over the attacks was obviously authentic and thus good to witness. But it was really hard not to find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid.

And of course no Glennjacking of whatever-today's-news-is into his boilerplate assay of drones and America's deep moral failings would be complete without Mr. Greenwald building his conclusions (many of which are perfectly valid) atop a ziggurat of assertions about anti-Muslim bigotry manifesting itself as reckless conclusion-leaping.  And worry not, gentle reader: even when scant evidence exists for such assertions in this case -- even when the available evidence in this case points overwhelming

President Obama: Don’t Jump To Conclusions On Boston Marathon Explosions 

 in the opposite direction 

“I don’t want to overly speculate because as you know early reports are often wrong, we could be way off base but clearly they are saying this was an explosive device, an improvised explosive advice, in other words, a bomb.” — CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.  

“We’ve been careful all afternoon, did not jump to conclusions.” — FNC’s Bret Baier. 

I’m getting suspicious with everyone telling me not to ‘jump to conclusions.’ I hadn’t, but now I’m beginning to …” —  Ann Coulter.

-- Mr. Greenwald will scour the cable news fringes and outermost barrier islands of muttering paranoia until he locates, say, an entirely predictable rage-gasmic outburst by bugfuck-crazy Pamela Geller or a couple of stupid things said by a couple of dolts on CNN.  The minimum perfunctory gesture required before we sprint back in time to let Glenn make his main-line argument, viz:  there has been a "rush, one might say the eagerness, to conclude that the attackers were Muslim" which has been "palpable and unseemly":

 The rush, one might say the eagerness, to conclude that the attackers were Muslim was palpable and unseemly, even without any real evidence. The New York Post quickly claimed that the prime suspect was a Saudi national (while also inaccurately reporting that 12 people had been confirmed dead). The Post's insinuation of responsibility was also suggested on CNN by Former Bush Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend ("We know that there is one Saudi national who was wounded in the leg who is being spoken to"). Former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman went on CNN to grossly speculate that Muslim groups were behind the attack. Anti-Muslim bigots like Pam Geller predictably announced that this was "Jihad in America".

(And not to worry, Independents and Centrists: just so you needn't feel that you are being asked to pick an icky partisan side on this made-up issue, Mr. Greenwald helpfully dips into Twitter long enough to dredge up a couple of comments by people you've never heard of so that he can rail on "particularly unscrupulous partisan Democrat types" too!

(some particularly unscrupulous partisan Democrat types were identically suggesting with zero evidence that the attackers were right-wing extremists).)

Then we must hurryhurryhurry back so as not to miss Mr. Greenwald's next amazing point:

Of course, the quest to know whether this was "terrorism" is really code for: "was this done by Muslims"? That's because, in US political discourse, "terrorism" has no real meaning other than: violence perpetrated by Muslims against the west. 

Which, leaving aside the fact that I can't think of a single sane person who does not consider Scott Roeder or Eric Rudolph or any of America's other self-appointed, shark-eyed Killers for Jebus and Freedom to be terrorists, is just a remarkably stupid and ugly thing to assert three days shy of the anniversary of the second largest terrorist attack in American history: the murder of 168 people by a right-wing American terrorist 

who felt entirely justified in killing as many innocent people as possible -- including slaughtering 19 children -- because The Gummint is Evil!

"I didn't define the rules of engagement in this conflict. The rules, if not written down, are defined by the aggressor. It was brutal, no holds barred. Women and kids were killed at Waco and Ruby Ridge. You put back in [the government's] faces exactly what they're giving out."

Today, Boston is a story of mass-murder showing up at a public festival with a mind to steal as many innocent lives as possible and leave as much terror and grief and damage in its wake as possible. 

But that is not the story Mr. Greenwald wants to write about.  

He  wants to write about drones and anti-Muslim bigotry.

And so into that Procrustean Bed Boston must be crushed, along with some raving from Pam Geller, a few minutes of CNN, some Tweets and "whatever else may best aid him in establishing this preconceived effect."

UPDATE:  

Never one to leave a Greenwald bandwagon unjumped upon, David Sirota immediately dispenses with the most token pretense of interest in the actual Boston Marathon bombing:

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks

And moves straight to his Provocative Thesis, which Mr, Sirota headlines as follows:

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a White American

See, according to Mr. Sirota, America doesn't treat white domestic terrorism qua terrorism seriously.  This is because a well-coordinated bomb attacks at a public event is so nearly identical to a dangerously mentally ill individual killing his mother and shooting up a school that something something ergo proper hoc white male privilege.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

All of which is going to come as a shock to organizations like the FBI, the Secret Service and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been around for 42 years and which:

"... monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.

"Currently, there are 1,007 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.

"Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 67 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president.

"These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, has grown 813 percent since of the Obama was elected – from 149 in 2008 to 1,360 in 2012.

"This growth in extremism has been aided by mainstream media figures and politicians who have used their platforms to legitimize false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive."

UPDATE II:

What people say:

Mr. Sirota, your observations are both amazingly dickish and poorly constructed.

 What Mr. Sirota hears:

The primary criticism of my @salon article is my Twitter photo. So funny. OK, so I changed it. You win! LMFAO.
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) April 17, 2013

David Sirota: the blogosphere's very own Dick Solomon