Shhhhhh, don't point out the monsters among us ...

Glenn Greenwald responds to the woolly thinkers who counsel we make nice to those who's goal is to take control of this country by any means.

In what universe is it "obscene" to compare the architects of the Iraq War, the torture regime, and endless War with Muslims "to killers and terrorists"? The comparison is true by definition. The people who launched the attack on Iraq are guilty of an aggressive war -- what the Nuremberg prosecutors condemned as the "kingpin crime" that "holds together" all other war crimes -- which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, turned millions more into refugees, and destroyed an entire nation. The aptly named "Shock and Awe" was designed to terrify an entire civilian population into submission. John Podhoretz criticized the brutal assault on Fallujah for failing to exterminate all "Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35," while his father has spent years agitating for a devastating military attack on Iran. At least 100 War on Terror detainees in American custody died as a result of their treatment, tens of thousands more (including clearly innocent ones) were put in cages for years with no due process (where many remain), and as recent mosque-related controversies reveal, a substantial portion of the American population craves a religious war with Islam. And that's to say nothing of the acts of other countries which this faction supports: from mauling an imprisoned population in Gaza and attacking a harmless, civilian ship in international waters to propping up some of the most oppressive tyrannies on the planet, including many in the Muslim world.

Sometimes, one's political opponents are "monsters" -- or at least engage in genuinely monstrous acts -- and what's morally offensive is not those who point this out, but rather those who insist that the comparison not be uttered on the jingoistic ground of shared nationality. ...

...

The endless, destructive War on Terror depends -- like most wars do -- on a cartoonish demonization of the Enemy as something utterly foreign, inhuman, and subject to entirely different drives than Us. Moulitsas' book, at its best, destroys that rotted premise by highlighting the many similarities between Them and Us. Because that similarity is a great taboo -- perhaps the greatest taboo -- it has triggered all sorts of outrage: outrage that is actually a testament to the value of the argument he makes.

Balance ...

It is right balance of ideals as stated by Conservative and Liberal positions that is lacking? Could be. Read Conservative vs Liberal

Excerpt on the issue of the US education system (or lack thereof):

The problem arises because conservatives do not have a position on education that drives us to be more productive as people. Conservatives do not argue that we need to be better in vocational training. And they argue against the utility of science. This is strictly medieval thinking. And it threatens to eliminate the middle classes. The problem of inferior education also arises because liberals tend to undervalue the social, political, and cultural values and tools of thought that are rightly taught in liberal arts colleges, in high schools, and in elementary schools. [emphasis added]

The penchant of Dem Leaders to scratch and claw at their progressive supporters confuses me ...

In fact I begin to wonder about Obama's comprehension. He actually doesn't appear to think he had to really deliver on anything substantive. Though he has shown in his speeches a thorough understanding of issues he does not appear to be interested in instituting any changes except those that cater to the very same people and corporations that Bush catered to.

Obama is not governing for the people. I suppose he thinks he can keep them satisfied with his pied-piper spiel and that all he has to do is concentrate on slapping down a few of what he considers his unimportant lefty supporters while ingratiating himself with Republicans and the Blue Curs all the while ignoring the right wing fanatics who have crawled back out of the woodwork.

This is not a plan ... catering to those that despise you while at the same time ensuring that those who support you will also end up despising you. No, this is not a plan.

Here's a post at Hullabaloo which says it all much better: Playing With Fire

Does this mean I'm not a liberal? ...

This appealingly funny quote made me laugh out loud:

"We're liberal Democrats -- we have a Buddha on our table."

Now since I don't have a Buddha on my table, or anywhere else, does that mean I'm not a liberal?

Liberals better get them some linguistic power ...

... because where the GOP has been subsumed by rabid extremists, the Dems are being (have been?) devoured by much of what was once Republican.

---------------------
The post the following quote comes from approaches linguistic reclamation from the feminist perspective, but there are parallels to how the Democrats --specially liberal or progressive Dems-- are treated by the media which, in the main, take their cues from Republican talking-points as they work to obscure that fact by repeatedly reporting that these same Republicans complain that the press is just oh so liberal which multiple talking heads prove by pointing to the few reporter/journalists endowed with working brains who are capable of gathering, investigating, probing, and interpreting information, data, and facts.

Linguistic reclamation is the re-appropriation of a term used by those in power to demean and disparage those in a less powerful group. One way in which women refuse the object position and reclaim their subjectivity is to take back control of pejorative terms such as “bitch”, “slut”, “chick”, “crone”, and “harridan”. Defused, a reclaimed word can become an in-group identifier, with a positive, powerful spin. It’s all about who gets to define “us” - “them” or “us”? Reclamation is about refusing to let others define your group, set the parameters, or establish the meanings. In some instances, reclamation is about reclaiming not just an arbitrarily-defined pejorative word, but about proudly reclaiming the pejorative meaning, when it is based in the fear of women speaking their minds, defending themselves, not letting their personal value be defined by their sexual worth to patriarchy.

------------------------
I suppose PIG was a linguistic reclamation? Anyone remember Pride-Integrity-Guts. I don't hear that anymore. I suppose because police forces have evolved into occupying armies --except for the LAPD which always behaved as an occupying army-- and no longer wish to be identified with the communities the used to 'serve' and now enjoy terrorizing.

Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values ...

All those are liberals?

Any political term that supposedly encompasses Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman, Bill Moyers and me (#18) [Glenn Greenwald] -- along with the likes of Maureen Dowd, Christopher Hitchens, Chris Matthews, Tom Friedman and Fred Hiatt -- is not a term that has any meaning.

I'll say!
-------------

I'm particularly struck by the 'willing to discard traditional values' in the definition of liberal. That would be traditional values such as witch-burning, religious wars and crusades, encouraging and enforcing ignorance, lying, cheating, ignoring and denying crimes when committed by the rich and powerful, seeing poverty as a crime ...

"Liberal media, my patooties."

Looking for a concise demonstration of just how much like GOP trained propagandists most of the pigs, who refer to themselves as journalists or reporters or commentators or news show hosts, are?

If so, read this: Compare And Contrast by tristero.

-------------------
Would that progressives would stop using the Republican terminology when dealing with the GOP's 24/7 misinformation campaign. Not a day goes by that I don't see the term 'liberal media' used as irony on liberal leaning blogs. Once, twice. That's interesting. Time after time? Day after day?

The blogosphere has many progressive voices who are great writers. Couldn't some of these coin a phrase that identifies the scum that pretends to report the news but instead massages it into GOP propaganda? Then work to turn that phrase, or word, into instant dirty word recognition like the GOP's media scum have done with the word 'liberal.'

-------------------
My other request into the void is to turn the word liberal back into a word that has a meaning, rather than an epithet controlled by GOP worms.

From Wikipedia:

Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.^[1] Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.^[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.^[3]

...

Here's some of what Conservapedia says about liberals:

Historical Liberalism

In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.^[13]

Original meaning: Classical Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with conservative values such as moral values and tradition.

The phrase "liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq" caught my eye. --Is consistent stance anything like a wide stance? Never mind.-- But it is an interesting choice of words. Stance instead of position or reasoning or conclusion. Stance has to do with posture and posturing. Not with information, reasoning and judgement.

-------------------
Added: It's really comical (in a depressing sort of way) that McCain is now attacking the media as a campaign strategy. The media who have doted on him for years. The media who have covered up about his lies, his temper, his meanness, his pettiness. The media who have attended his barbecues. The media that pushed his image as a maverick. Now he's using them as fodder in his campaign for the Presidency. Couldn't happen to nicer 'people.'

A message of HOPE?

A commenter to this post on Talking Points Memo:

I do think energy is one of Obama's weakest policy areas - his stance on nuclear power, for example, is very disappointing. I suppose he has to take a centrist position so he doesn't appear too radical.

I just hope he acts a little more green once he gets into office.

Posted by mjmcclure
February 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink

So we have to HOPE that Obama, if the nominee, and if elected President, actually has a reasonably intellligent and environmentally sound approach to energy AND that he's just hiding his real ideas from the Republicans who aren't going to vote for him anyway?

Now I'm starting to understand what this message of HOPE means ...

Yesterday's QUOTES ...

The death of American soldiers may be happening abroad, but some are fighting a very real war for the United States of America here at home: ... that some sort of attack piece is coming against me, Scott Horton, and anyone else writing about Siegelman and the Riley camp. [ ... and ...]
Scott Horton, it seems, will be the first victim. I just got word from folks in Alabama that the article on him just went out in the print version of Montgomery Independent and authored by Eddie Curran (who it is suggested has an interesting relationship with Senator Jeff Sessions). I had it read to me over the phone. It is a total hit job with a promise of part two next week.

They portend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States. ... Arizona continues digging up the desert and planting new homes. Arizonans must plan on sharing their pain (not to mention thirst)!
Those arguments against doing the right thing for college veterans are, in the case of our “wartime president,” about what I’ve come to expect of a man whose support for our troops has never extended past strutting through the latest photo op on a military base or an aircraft carrier. ... the goal in life of a Conservative is to take advantage of others.

Liberal Manifesto
Liberals believe in clean air, diplomacy, stem cells, living wages, body armor for our troops, government accountability, and that exercising the right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Liberals believe in reading actual books, going to war as a last resort, separating church and hate, and doing what Jesus would actually do, instead of lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing about the apocalypse. ...

... damn right!

Yesterday's QUOTES ...

People like Al Gore and Chris Dodd and Martin Luther King are out of fashion these days. People laugh at passionate men of principle in this time when principles are considered something for chumps and fools. There's no angle on principle, no immediate political upside in saving the constitution when the Republicans are spending every minute of the day preaching fear and bloodlust and superficial political gossip rules our discourse. But they stand up anyway and suffer the taunts and jeers of people who think they are naive or narcissistic or crazy, because they believe in something. And I am exceedingly grateful for it.
Honestly, I wasn't looking for quotes about Bank of America ...
I just cancelled my BOA card and we are refinancing through a local loan shark. His rates are MUCH BETTER THAN BOA. ... Check out B of A's special 1 hour offer to increase their debt and interest rate while pretending to help them! If B of A performed as stated in this complaint then they can no longer be considered a 'bank' but must be considered another scam artist, albeit one with considerable power and political connections.

Bank of America in this state said the only way they could help us was if we opened new accounts.

So we did.

At another bank.

Conservatism, like liberalism, is not a dogmatic philosophy, but rather a style of thought, an approach to politics or life in general. It stresses the status quo and traditional values, and is typified by a resistance to change. ...

The "conservative movement," however, is a decidedly dogmatic political movement that demands obeisance to its main tenets (and exiles those who dissent) and a distinctly defined agenda. Movement followers proudly announce their membership. ... their raison d'etre has transformed from the extenuation of their "conservative" impulses into the Machiavellian acquisition of power, usually through any means necessary.

At Guantanamo Bay there is no law. ... COMING SOON to all 50 states.

Real ...

... misconstruction (a word I found under delusion).