Here we find two of the worse dregs of the media, just shootin' the shit.
Remember the days not so long ago when the righteous Spleenwald Horde would
swarm down on anyone who suggested that Glenn Greenwald wasn't the purest and
most righteous warrior for Freedumb who walked the Earth?
I mention it because today, before I could dive across the room and change the
channel, I accidentally caught 11 seconds of Greenwald's former #1-hype-man,
David Sirota, on the Thom Hartmann radio program.
the enemy of my enemy...actually created a conservative Supreme Court and then got liberals to give him millions by producing YouTube videos that don’t actually persuade any swing voters but do make MSNBC viewers feel smug
...and Schmidt is a bullheaded hypocrite who goes from zero to ballistic when anyone points out that the GOP actually existed prior to 2016 and will jump straight for your book-burning, moron, Lefty throat the minute no one is watching.
And anyway, this is a privileged, blue-check, white guy media squabble. Nothing to do with me. So, y'know...
I know you're hard-up for coin now that your whole "Shit on everyone, burn every bridge to the Democratic Party and dance in the flames to bring the Glorious Revolution" campaign strategy didn't work out as you planned --
-- but surely instead of taking bread from my meager table you could get your very good friend Glenn Greenwald to throw you some of that "Russiagate Is a Hoax" piecework he uses to pad out The Intercept.
Or maybe you could write him some funny, funny "Democrats are the real monsters" jokes Glenn could use the next time Tucker Carlson summons him to be on his Fox News White Power Hour?
Syria is still in the middle of some awful carnage, and still central to the developing chaos in the region. Its ruler is still a tyrant. But I can still recall the loud cries for the president to make the big boom-boom on these weapons, regardless of what might happen when you blow up a chemical weapons depot.
Senator John McCain, on the other hand, favors military action, arguing that United States should intervene even if the reports of chemical weapon use aren't true because Bashar al-Assad will likely use them in the future...If the United States were to intervene in Syria, it could not rely on air power to destroy Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Airstrikes would risk releasing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and exposing bystanders.
The number of bullets we all dodged in 2008 continues to rise.
Except, as happens sometimes when trying to talk about The Past without waking the Purity Duck, about half of the history of these events has been left out of this equation.
Sure, bomb-first-ask-questions-never types like John McCain completely flipped out because they always flip out when we're not blowing the shit out of something somewhere. That is undeniably true.
But it is also undeniably true that people like David Sirota were eyeballing exactly the same events and stating categorically that Obama was obviously a bloodthirsty narcissist, Hell-bent on invading another country at any cost:
Yet, despite all that, and despite the government’s recent history of lying about WMDs, the pro-war crowd nonetheless simply assumes that what the Obama administration is alleging is unquestionably true. Making such an assumption is, in part, another expression of narcissism.
Simply put, conceited narcissists don’t seem to care whether the entire case for the war they are advocating is actually rooted in verifiable fact, because their focus is on their own feelings. More specifically, they care only about their desire to feel heroic, righteous and moral, whether or not the entire narrative that makes them feel that was is actually true. Additionally, they know they don’t have to fear any consequences of ignoring evidentiary questions and focusing on their own desire to feel heroic. After all, even if the case for war ends up being a fraud, it won’t personally affect them because their beloved cruise missiles won’t be blowing up them or their families.
No doubt, the government’s motives for a war with Syria have little to do with moral opposition to chemical weapons. The geopolitics of Syria affect everything from oil to Iran to Israel to the defense budget – and those concerns might be what’s really driving the push to war. But the public sales pitch for war cannot dare admit that because such a truth is taboo.
I realize that salting the tail of the Purity Duck is usually nothing but trouble, yielding little but a doubling and redoubling of loathing from the True Believers and a series of digital slammed-screen-doors and promises to never darken my drooling, jackbooted blog ever again, both in the comment section and via email. But honestly, if McCain deserves a trip to the woodshed from Esquire Magazine and others -- and he does! -- then Sirota deserves at least one slap on the wrist from at least one, lowly flyover blogger.
I also realized that bringing this up in the middle of a fundraiser is probably a poor business decision, but honestly if I were running this blog as some carefully barbered profit center according to some larger strategic plan wherein I wrote only risked pissing off people who were already on the other side of the ideological planet from me, it would be a very different place.
But it's just me and as I told you during my very first fundraiser...
A Fundraiser Six Years In The Making...
...
I have watched the tides go in and out on blogging. Watched the organic material of the Great Primordial Blogging Sea organize itself into ever larger, more complex organisms, with ever more complex metabolisms and business plans, which -- when you pop the hood -- still depend heavily or entirely on "aggregating" something called "content".
In much the same way a blue whale "aggregates" krill :-)
After this: https://t.co/j9WRt1gmTT I can say Chicago should be an investigative reporter's dream. There's a huge story wherever you look.
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) April 8, 2014
Thank goodness David Sirota has finally arrived in my former home-town to whip the Chicago media into shape. Because who better to crack the Byzantine world of Chicago politics and corruption than Salon magazine's former expert on the secret, malevolent inner motives of the President of the United States :-)
That said, The Reader has been doing yeoman's work for decades. If they've found a way to get Pando to help cover their costs, bully for them.
Also and just for the record, on the subject of investigative reporting in Chicago, there used to be a thing called the City News Bureau of Chicago. Maybe you've heard of it. For over a century it cranked out some of the best hard-core, street-level reporters in American journalism --
City News Bureau of Chicago, or City Press, was a news bureau that served as one of the first cooperative news agencies in the United States. It was founded in the late 19th century by the newspapers of Chicago to provide a common source of local and breaking news and also used by them as a training ground for new reporters. Hundreds of reporters have "graduated" from the City News Bureau into newspaper dailies - both local and national - or other avenues of writing.
The City News Bureau had reporters in all important news sites, courthouses, Chicago City Hall, the County Building, Criminal Courts, as well as having as many as ten police reporters on duty. It operated around the clock and all year round. The reporters, though young, worked in competition with some of the best reporters in the country, working on the same stories as all the others, questioning politicians and police, and fighting for scoops.
They covered every single death reported to the coroner's office, every important meeting, every news conference, every court case that had once been a news story, even if the trial wasn't newsworthy.[citation needed]
The training was rigorous.[citation needed] The reporters were all amateurs when they came to work, but the rewrite men were professionals, accustomed to teaching in a hard school...
Chicago's City News Bureau --home of the motto, ``If your mother says she loves you, check it out"--will close its doors next spring, ending 108 years of covering cops, courts and local government.
The much-loved City News, known for its speed, accuracy and dogged reporters, fought a financial battle that this year produced a loss of $1 million. Its co-owners, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times , decided in late October to shut down the wire service around March 1, 1999.
Larry Green , the Sun-Times' executive editor, says the move was purely about money. ``If we were making this decision based on emotion, it would still be open."
City News' star-studded list of alumni boasts Pulitzer Prize winners Mike Royko and Seymour Hersh , actor Melvyn Douglas and author Kurt Vonnegut , who all did City News stints early in their careers. Also on that list is Charles MacArthur , who, along with Ben Hecht , wrote the Broadway play ``The Front Page" based on his experience as a City News reporter...
It came back for awhile as a shadow of its former self, and still exists as a college course at Northwest, but in reality it's gone and we are all the poorer for it.
I must confess that I have no idea how to take note the following --
Good news from Syria (really): Chemical weapons being dismantled on schedule
BY MAX FISHER
October 18 at 3:31 pm
The U.S.- and Russia-brokered deal to have Syria surrender its chemical weapons is proceeding on schedule, United Nations inspectors tell the Wall Street Journal, despite widespread predictions that Syria's civil war would make the effort impossible. The U.N. team had set an ambitious goal of disabling all chemical weapons production equipment by Nov. 1 and said it's on track to finish it in time.
The effort to destroy Syria's chemical weapons is still in its early stages and could slow or fail outright, particularly if the violence in Syria harms one of the U.N. team members. But these first few weeks are a promising sign, an indication that this mission may actually be achievable. But it won't save Syria.
The deal came in September, when Secretary of State John Kerry suggested off-the-cuff that the U.S. might roll back its plan to launch punitive airstrikes against Syria for its used of chemical weapons against civilians if the country agreed to surrender its stockpile. Russia seized on the comment, as did Syria, which led to a United Nations Security Council resolution for the destruction of Syria's stockpile. Many in the U.S. concluded that President Obama had been outfoxed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, that the plan was unachievable and would quickly fall apart.
Those critics may turn out to be right, but so far Syria appears to be cooperating with the U.N. inspectors, who in turn seem undeterred by the war around them. A representative for the U.N. disposal team said that several improvised explosive devices and mortar rounds had gone off near the team, conceding, "Naturally this is a matter of concern for us, but the team remains determined and the morale is very high." The U.N. agency charged with removing the weapons has operated in conflict zones before; last week, it won the Nobel Peace Prize for its years of work dismantling chemical weapons around the globe.
Kerry praised Syria for its cooperation with the U.N. team this month, saying, "We're very pleased with the pace of what has happened with respect to chemical weapons in a record amount of time." That's obviously a political faux pas, given the extent and horror of the Assad regime's abuses since the war began. But on the merits it was true: Syria has been pretty good about cooperating. What was awkward was the tacit admission that this deal leaves the Assad regime intact, and may in some ways help it.
...
-- without risking accidentally deflecting professional aspersions on David Sirota's calm and measured assessment of President Narcissist VonDronekill's real intentions vis-a-vis Syria, as reported in Salon just over one month ago:
Narcissists are ruining America
We're on the verge of bombing another country -- because a few conceited people want to feel good about themselves
BY DAVID SIROTA
From President Obama to British military leaders to the U.S. military planner who sculpted the attack plan, almost everyone acknowledges that sending cruise missiles into Syria will most likely not make anything better, will not stop the civil war and probably will not reduce human suffering. As the UK admits, the best (though certainly not guaranteed) chance of actually accomplishing any of those objectives is to mount a full-scale invasion.
Of course, that course of action could result in, among other things, thousands of U.S. casualties and roughly $300 billion a year in expenses. Understandably, those are costs America does not want to incur. And that’s where the narcissism comes in.
Many Americans supporting a new war in the Middle East want to feel good about themselves. Many want to feel like we did “the right thing” and didn’t stand by while chemical weapons were used (even though we stand by — or use them ourselves — when we’re told that’s good for America). But, then, many war supporters desperately want these heartwarming feelings without the worry that they may be face any inconvenient costs like higher taxes or body bags at Dover Air Force Base.
...
What emerges is a portrait of pathological self-absorption. That’s right – despite the pro-war crowd’s self-congratulatory and sententious rhetoric, this isn’t about helping the Syrian people. Channeling the zeitgeist of that famous quote in “Broadcast News,” this is all about us. To the pro-war crowd, if both feeling morally superior and avoiding any real sacrifice mean having to kill lots of Syrians without a chance of actually stopping their civil war, then it’s worth the carnage, especially because it’s half a world away.
Appreciating this insidious psychology, our government has come up with a brilliantly inhumane solution that plays to the narcissism...
No doubt, the government’s motives for a war with Syria have little to do with moral opposition to chemical weapons. The geopolitics of Syria affect everything from oil to Iran to Israel to the defense budget – and those concerns might be what’s really driving the push to war. But the public sales pitch for war cannot dare admit that because such a truth is taboo.
...
Then again, Mr. Sirota is not just some just some raggedy ass blogger living in a hobbit hole in flyover country. He is a respected professional Liberal columnist who hobnobs with other world-famous professional columnists and who is frequently invited to make appearances on Liberal teevee so as to better share his many, thoughtful opinions. I am sure when he formulated his initial assessment he must had insider access to sources and information about which I can only dream, just as I am sure that even as we speak Mr. Sirota must certainly be moving to retract and amend his originally assessments to reflect these very positive recent developments.
As will any story where the professionals are still working out all the important little details, the best course for amateurs like me would probably be to tread lightly:
In Syria, U.N. inspectors find ‘clear and convincing’ evidence of chemical attack
By Colum Lynch and Karen DeYoung, Published: September 16 E-mail the writers
UNITED NATIONS — U.N. inspectors found “clear and convincing evidence” that large quantities of the nerve gas sarin were used last month in Syria, the first confirmation by an internationally recognized team of experts that a chemical weapons attack took place.
The inspection report, presented to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, does not assess blame for the attack. But underlying evidence included in the report, including the trajectory of poison-filled rockets, was cited by the United States and its Western allies as proof of the Syrian government’s responsibility.
The inspectors’ conclusion “confirms the position of those of us who have said the regime is guilty,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the findings “beyond doubt and beyond the pale,” and a clear evidence of a war crime.
“The results are overwhelming and indisputable,” Ban said. “Eighty-five percent of the blood samples tested positive for sarin. A majority of the environmental samples confirmed the use of sarin. A majority of the rockets or rocket fragments recovered were found to be carrying sarin.”
Yet, despite all that, and despite the government’s recent history of lying about WMDs, the pro-war crowd nonetheless simply assumes that what the Obama administration is alleging is unquestionably true. Making such an assumption is, in part, another expression of narcissism.
Simply put, conceited narcissists don’t seem to care whether the entire case for the war they are advocating is actually rooted in verifiable fact, because their focus is on their own feelings. More specifically, they care only about their desire to feel heroic, righteous and moral, whether or not the entire narrative that makes them feel that was is actually true. Additionally, they know they don’t have to fear any consequences of ignoring evidentiary questions and focusing on their own desire to feel heroic. After all, even if the case for war ends up being a fraud, it won’t personally affect them because their beloved cruise missiles won’t be blowing up them or their families.
And his adjunct, "The whole thing may very well have been cooked up by Pentagon greedheads!" theory
No doubt, the government’s motives for a war with Syria have little to do with moral opposition to chemical weapons. The geopolitics of Syria affect everything from oil to Iran to Israel to the defense budget – and those concerns might be what’s really driving the push to war. But the public sales pitch for war cannot dare admit that because such a truth is taboo.
both went up in smoke.
Not that I believe there is any chance that any of that will matter in the slightest to Mr. Sirota: come feast or famine, traffic-trawlers like Mr. Sirota will remain as smugly invulnerable to inconvenient external realities as any teabagger.
And as sure as God made sharks and men to jump over them, tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that Mr. Sirota will be right back in Salon or on MSNBC earnestly pushing yet another imbecile iteration of his Worse Than Boosh line of hipster hair gels and hemorrhoid unguents.
"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."
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?
"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.
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
“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’sBret 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!
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 otherself-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."
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
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
