Tag Archives: The People’s View

Angry Black Links: Foreclosure Madness

Once upon a time, I claimed I would do link round-up posts every day.  We all know how that turned out.  So what I’m going to do instead is link posts “whenever the hell I feel like it.”

Today (so far), it’s just one link.  I’ve got a case of the grumpies and I’m having a hard time caring about anything.

I’m a bit less grumpy than I was a few hours ago, but grumpy all the same:

TumblrShare

And Again The "Professional Left" Misses The Point

http://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Keep-Left-Traffic-Sign-K-1773.gifSo, Amanda Terkel over at HuffPo picked up the story of a New Mexico Obama For America official who flagged down this amazing The People’s View post on the post-downgrade Firebaggery which goes on to explain among other things why Paul Krugman should stick to economics and not politics.  The HuffPo post is not the point (although for the record, Terkel is the only regular voice I’ll pay attention to over there.)

The larger point is of course that Terkel’s article immediately identifies everyone on Earth who believes themselves to be among the aggrieved Professional Left that Obama apparently hates.  For example, Ezra Klein tries to play it Miles Davis cool, but ends up outing himself:

Time and again, however, we see evidence that they have gotten deep inside the White House’s head. In letters, in offhand comments, in outbursts at press conferences, in my personal reporting, members of the Obama administration and members of the Obama reelection campaign will let slip that they are dwelling and worrying over these arguments. They may not agree with them. They may not think they’re fair, or sophisticated, or useful. But they’re thinking about them. And if you’re the “professional left,” that’s exactly what you want.

Yeah see, we call that “Stockholm Syndrome”, Ez.  But it gets worse.

Continue reading

TumblrShare

My Mark-Up of the Holder Amicus Brief re the Padilla Case; Pushing Back at Greenwaldism

This madness must stop

The following two posts over at The People’s View are a must read in order to understand Salon contributor, Glenn Greenwald’s continuing failure to argue points in good faith, instead favoring condescension and sneering: (1) The art of distraction and the fake assassination scandal; and (2) Bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Glenn Greenwald’s Delicate Fifth Amendment Dance (updated: Greenwald responds, calls TPV “cultist”)

Greenwald’s latest screed on torture is steeped in hypocrisy. First, he attempts to rake Eric Holder over the coals for Holder’s “kill that al-Awlaki guy” stance by referencing a brief Holder filed in 2004 which, purportedly, undercuts his current “kill that guy” position. The brief in question (posted below) is an amicus brief filed by a group of people as “Friends of the Court,” and while the brief was, in a matter of speaking, filed on behalf of Holder and several other people, he certainly did not write it. He signed off on it. The fine lawyers at Arnold & Porter surely drafted it. Yes, he is responsible for the positions taken in that brief. But Greenwald’s article seems to suggest that this was some sort of stand-alone brief that Holder filed in his capacity as a DOJ employee (note Greenwald’s snide capitalization: “Holder’s Brief”)

So Holder filed a brief that sorta but not really (arguments go both ways) conflicts with his current stance on al-Awlaki.  Greenwald goes bananas.   Greenwald, however, made some downright nasty comments about the evils of immigration in a 2005 blog post, yet when called out on Twitter about it, had nothing but snide retorts. He wrote those statements six years ago, you see, back when he didn’t have any readers; and how sad it is that Cultists had to reach back six years to find grounds to discredit him:

That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I’ve discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time – due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I’ve written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I’m 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country – not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and – like so many things I thought were true then – has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That’s why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.

So, in this instance what’s good for the Glenn is not good for the Holder.

I don’t see how this sort of chicanery sits well with anyone. Given Greenwald’s penchant for writing persuasive brief-style arguments based on cherry-picked research, it becomes necessary to follow and read the myriad links he provides in his work lest one be taken in by an intellectually dishonest argument.

As a friend (@vcthree) pointed out on Twitter, Greenwald does not expect his readers to do follow-up research, and indeed, such research would not be required if he didn’t bend, twist, and ignore facts and law at his leisure, in order to make his Principled Points.

So, in the spirit of “you don’t have to be a lawyer to read a brief or understand it,” I have read Holder’s brief; I marked it up, highlighting the important sections, and dashing off a couple of notes. I simply don’t have the time to spend to write a proper post on the subject, but if you take the time to skim the brief, I think you’ll be able to discern what I would have said.

Cheers,

ABL

(Mark-up of Holder Amicus Brief Re Padilla Case on Scrib follows the break)

Continue reading

TumblrShare

Manic Progressive Mentality: I love this comment… right in the face.

It was a drive-by blogging!1

I’m swiggity swamped for the next couple of days; I’m far too busy to blog.  Still, I wanted to repost this amazeballs comment by zizi2 in response to a spot-on post — “Let’s Talk Some R-E-S-P-E-C-T: The Ugly Racism on the Fringe Left” — by Deaniac83 over at The People’s View:

“What we have taking place is a convergence of different factors, in addition to all that you have said. I’ll try to shed some light:

1. Transference: It’s a term in psychology referring to the tendency of a person so scarred from a traumatic event or abuser that they “transfer” their anger onto another person, usually an ally who is the easiest to reach. These self-professed liberals/progressives have been whiplashed from the capacity of Wingnuts to seemingly get their way ALL the time, and never facing consequences for their vile behavior. Their anger is a direct barometer to their sense of ideological DEFEAT. Bottom line: In order fro them to feel defeated, it means they never first defined VICTORY on their own terms, but the wingnuts’. So their cry is “why has Pres. Obama not brought VICTORY on wingnut terms?.

2. Mercenary incentive: Immediately after the 2008 elections, David Sirota, Jane Hamsher, Cenk Uyger and others loudly opined about how they were going to deal with the likely shortfall in cyber traffic and ad-click revenues with a President in office from their ideological ranks. Their behavior shows the fruits of the Faustian bargain they struck: i.e. to make money as contrarians. They have no actual commitment to any policy cause. Notice their reactions are always predictable no matter what policy issue is on the table. No sane person remains a ONE NOTE track on every single issue in their lives. Their one chorus tells us all there is to know about their motives.

3. The tweeterization of News: More importantly how is it the same people appear as expert pundits on EVERY single policy debate? It used to be that real journalists, no matter how brilliant they are as generalists, CANNOT claim to have disciplinary expertise in more than one or two areas. Yet these fauxgressives know every thing? The foreign media truly laughs at the total lack of serious expertise in American media reportage. BBC invites people who actually know the technical details of policy to talk about said policy. Here we are being “informed” by idiots. This is anti-intellectualism, of the left wing variety, no different from the right wing’s.

4. Exotic ideas about Black Civil Rights Struggles: The fauxgressives learned nothing other than the sanitized Cliff’s Notes versions of the civil rights struggles of minorities. They never grasped the true nature of those struggles as “PAINFULLY SLOW” and often “OBSTACLE RIDDEN” processes that often took one step forward to three steps backward. Heck they have no idea how long the protests against the Vietnam war took. So it is very easy for them to be keyboard commandos. They wanted a time-warped version of the black and white newsreels they’ve seen on PBS about struggle, to OBSERVE from behind the safety of their keyboards. In other words they wanted the REVOLUTION TWEETED in 140 CHARACTERS, with a Gil-Scot Heron Swagga. So if they are not getting it, then Pres. Obama must be no good.

5. They need a Janitorial Presidency: Overt and residual features of White privilege. Some of these folks remain willfully or inadvertently unaware of the baked-in cosmology of white privilege. It manifests itself in the expectations you mention. To them a black person cannot be average. Either they are superhuman or mediocre, or both. Initially they imagined candidate Obama to be “magical’, just like in the movies or in sports. But when they now take a closer look at the complex human being that he is with flaws, their new default posture is that he must be mediocre.

I could go on and on….”

[Emphasis mine.]

Right on.

1 Why not a Mrs. Doubtfire reference?  Why not, I say?  Anyway, I will be scarce for the next few days.  Work and stuff.  You know how it is — oh wait, some of you don’t, and your purported “ZOBAMA IZ THE DEBIL” allies don’t seem to give a shit!  Ah well.  These are good times, aren’t they?

Also, if you poli-junkies haven’t checked out the epic discussion going on over at Osborne Ink (here and here), there’s probably something wrong with your political mind-head.

[via The People's View]

TumblrShare

FireDogLake: Lying Liars and the Sycophants They Breed

Politics goes Hollywood! (Or is it Hollywood goes Politics?)

A couple days ago, Ezra Klein (of the Washington Post), Adam Green (of the racist ass ad for Progressive Campaign for Change [seeDeaniac83's post on the subject over at The People's View]), Jane Hamsher (of the Lake of Fiery Dogs), and Roger Hodge (he wrote some book I don’t care about) appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss bash Obama and the tax cut plan.

I watched the clip and was irritated (of course). First, Roger Hodge stutters and stumbles as the “Obama is a French surrender monkey!” narrative spews forth from his lips. He can’t answer any of Lawrence O’Donnell’s questions, and can’t even effectively deliver the snark he’d probably been planning for weeks. [Barack Hoover Obama? Really, dude?] O’Donnell asks Hodge what the bottom tax rate is. Of course, Hodge doesn’t know. O’Donnell tells him it’s 10% and would go up to 15% for the lowest bracket. Hodge’s response? “No one wants to see that happen.” Oh really? Because that’s what you’re advocating, ding dong.

Second, Adam Green, who has adopted right-wing “ZOMG! Obama is, like, so black and scary!” tactics, chimed in and started talking his talky talk. He didn’t have much to say when O’Donnell pointed out that Republicans could never be shamed into raising taxes. And seriously, if you don’t know that by now, why are you in politics?

And finally, there’s Sweet Lady Jane who blinks and doe-eyes her way through her bullshit narrative: “They are using the poor as a human shield.” Oh really, rich white lady who can afford healthcare?1 Is that what he’s doing? Or is he recognizing that, while the extension of unemployment benefits may not be important to you, they are pretty damn important to, you know, poor folks.

And then there was Ezra Klein who actually had some facts about the tax plan. He agreed that the tax cuts for the rich are odious, and that the estate tax deal is noxious, but he pointed out that there are two ways to look at this:
Continue reading

TumblrShare