Different Day, Same Shit.

While the rest of the Twitterverse pays close attention to the self-important wordsmithings of both Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota, yours truly has never been up for watching both intellectually masturbate themselves and each other into smug, self-satisfied ecstasy. It's only when one or both do or say something so irretrievably stupid that The Man bothers to take a closer look.

Today, Sirota performed that epic feat of intellectual stupidity with one of his Salon articles. Seriously, Sirota thinks that a racially-motivated killing done under the cloak of a flawed law and institutional racism is the equivalent of the president's decision to eliminate a top-ranking American-Yemeni terrorist via Predator drone:

Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extra-judicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime. The two were simply presumed guilty, without any evidence being officially marshaled against them. Not only that, such a presumption wasn’t hidden from view in shame, as if it was something to be embarrassed about. Instead, Obama openly touted the extra-judicial killing of the father and then his spokesman haughtily justified the extra-judicial killing of the child.

Explaining the Zimmerman-like aggression against the Awlakis and thousands of others who find themselves targeted by U.S. drone strike missiles, the federal government later offered up the Zimmerman Principle, repeating the same sentiment that Zimmerman expressed during his cellphone call to non-emergency responders.

Whereas Zimmerman told non-emergency responders that Martin “looks like he’s up to no good,” the New York Times reported that Obama’s indiscriminate drone bombing, which “counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants,” presumes that people in a targeted area are “probably up to no good.” In other words, when it comes to military policy, the Obama administration is George Zimmerman perceiving the world as filled with Trayvon Martins supposedly “up to no good” — and who supposedly therefore deserve to die.

It is, of course, no coincidence that, whether African-Americans like Martin or Arabs like the Awlakis, those most affected by the Zimmerman Principle’s presumption of guilt tend to be people of color.

So, whereas all Zimmerman had to do was stay in the car until the police could arrive and roust Trayvon Martin with legal sanction, all the president had to do was put the drones away and apparently commit billions of dollars and thousands of troops to a manhunt and hopeful arrest of al-Awlaki, where he could then be tried and convicted in a civilian court (given his status as a U.S. citizen) as Sirota apparently intended.

According to Sirota, America, or the president, to be more precise, is that neighborhood watch doofus with his fat finger wrapped around the trigger, waddling towards al-Awalaki as he walks home with Skittles and Arizona iced tea in hand.

Whereas Trayvon Martin was just an ordinary 17-year-old young man, conservatives, Zimmerman supporters and other unreconstructed love painting Martin as some sort of weed-smoking thug-in-training for whom Zimmerman did the world a favor of ridding. Meanwhile, al-Awlaki willingly integrated himself into the Al-Qaeda network, calling for the deaths of American civilians and soldiers alike. Perhaps that was just bluster to make his American-Yemeni self appear more palatable to his backers. Not Safe For Work Corp had a story on this very premise of image and communication to bolster one's image as a "true believer," but that's beside the point. Point is, Sirota attempts to rehab al-Awlaki's image into a Martin-like bystander who's only true vice was being in the path of the president's Zimmerman-like drone-assisted rage.

One always runs into comparisons of one highly charged event or historical figure to another, sometimes as a springboard for someone's pet causes. The constant comparisons of the LGBT movement to the Civil Rights movement for black American equality is one. The GOP's constant attempts to repaint Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a conservative figure for their own purposes is another. Sirota's attempt to conflate Zimmerman's current state of freedom to the president's freedom to call on as many drone strikes as he pleases fits the bill to a tee.

I don't think Davy here understands his history well enough to understand that (1) there's centuries of racial antagonism behind Zimmerman's actions that serve as a round hole to his square peg of a drone narrative and (2) it is highly offensive to use Martin's death at the hands of Zimmerman to push forward a message attacking the president for his use of drones in the waning War on Terror, as opposed to keeping thousands of active troops on the ground.

Speaking of which, I think I get Davy's premise. With drones, there are no U.S. casualties covered with flags on homebound transport for Sirota and others to use in order to pressure the president to cut the War on Terror short and bring the troops home. With drones, the incentive for any sort of immediate withdrawal nearly vanishes. Fewer dead U.S. soldiers means less pressure to pack it all up and bring everything home, just as they thought the president promised back in 2008/2009.

It's no surprise that Sirota thinks the president is just as much of an unabashed racist and failure as George Zimmerman is. As far as he's concerned, the president failed to bring home the emoprog bacon when he decided to push forward with the War on Terror instead of putting an immediate end to it. These and other non-actions on part of the president managed to land him on the emoprog shitlist. So much so, in fact, that guys like Cenk Uygur have called for the president's arrest and conviction as a war criminal. Sound familiar?

Bob Cesca's Daily Banter piece points out three important things:

1. The above is the latest attempt for Sirota and his fellow emoprogs to step all over the president for being just another George Bush, in their own humble opinions.
2. Yet these same morons are more than willing to stand with the likes of Ron and Rand Paul. Sirota loves Rand's stand on drones (at least when it comes to terrorists overseas) while blithely ignoring Rand's position on the Civil Rights Act, states' rights and a whole slew of classic Dixiecrat views and opinions on race.
3. Sirota and the anti-Obama emoprog collective's misappropriation of Martin's image further isolates them from the remainder of the left, while making them the perfect patsies for any milquetoast conservative wanting to lead anyone from the fringe left off the proverbial cliff.

Like Cesca, I won't explicitly say that any of these jokers are racists. But it's safe to say that these self-important morons are...well, just that.

Next thing you know, Glenn Greenwald will start crying about how the Trayvon Martin case sucked all the oxygen out of the room in an attempt to distract people from Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, are aircraft either controlled by ‘pilots’ from the ground or increasingly, autonomously following a pre-programmed mission. (While there are dozens of different types of drones, they basically fall into two categories: those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs.

The use of drones has grown quickly in recent years because unlike manned aircraft they can stay aloft for many hours (Zephyr a British drone under development has just broken the world record by flying for over 82 hours nonstop); they are much cheaper than military aircraft and they are flown remotely so there is no danger to the flight crew.

While the British and US Reaper and Predator drones are physically in Afghanistan and Iraq, control is via satellite from Nellis and Creech USAF base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. Ground crews launch drones from the conflict zone, then operation is handed over to controllers at video screens in specially designed trailers in the Nevada desert. One person ‘flies’ the drone, another operates and monitors the cameras and sensors, while a third person is in contact with the “customers”, ground troops and commanders in the war zone. While armed drones were first used in the Balkans war, their use has dramatically escalated in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the CIA’s undeclared war in Pakistan.

- Sourced from Drone Wars UK

The new face of the ongoing forever war to root out suspected terrorists, further cement American hegemony in the Middle East and South Asia and to make the guys running Iran feel rather uncomfortable is what at first glance appears to be an overgrown RC plane with funny-looking fins. It's also an ever-growing bone of contention between the president, numerous Democrats, pundits fascinated with "poutrage" and the art of martyrdom for purity's sake and ordinary Americans who don't want to see some overgrown RC plane loitering over their house while grilling burgers in the backyard. Or get taken off this mortal coil by one.

The president's taken a beating over the use of drone warfare in the War on Terror time and again, mostly on the grounds of what he can and can't do in regards to using them and where. Most recently, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a letter to the administration demanding a little more transparency when it comes to drone use and the declassification of several DOJ memos that discuss the legal ramifications of targeting Americans in the commission of counterterrorism drone strikes. Some Senate Democrats are also asking questions:

President Barack Obama faced a tough question on drone policy from a fellow Democrat during a Senate meeting Tuesday and defended his administration's program, according to sources in the meeting.

The administration's drone program captured national attention last week when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) carried out a nearly 13-hour filibuster to protest elements of it.

Rand specifically wanted clarification from the White House as to whether it believes it has the authority to use a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat, as it feels it does when a citizen is on foreign soil. The day after Rand's filibuster, Attorney General Eric Holder answered that no, the president does not have such authority.

Senate Democrats were largely absent from Paul's filibuster last week. But on Monday, a group of progressive Senate Democrats pressed Obama on the issue. Details of the exchange so far are scarce.

"There was an exchange, but I don't want to get into the specifics," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

"Basically, the president said that they're doing everything they can to comply with the law and to give information to members of the Intelligence Committee," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who paused for a long moment before answering. "And he said they would continue on that path."

A source in the meeting said one question was posed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a member of the Committee on Intelligence. A spokesperson for Rockefeller didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

I'm all for a little clarification and a definite restraint on power, in this case. Getting comfortable with the idea of drone warfare opens the doors to drones as a general solution for every "problem." Law enforcement agencies are chomping at the bit for a chance to deploy drones for surveillance and the FAA's accommodating them with a law that will, among other things, open up the nation's airspace to drones. A few states are attempting to put a damper on that fun before it even begins.