Different Day, Same Shit.

Being the President of the United States is already hard work. Being one who happens to be a man of color in the aftermath of one out of a long string of horrific miscarriages of justice is a task of nearly-Herculean proportions, especially when countless people have their own expectations of what should or shouldn't be said.

As someone occupying a seat of immense global power, you'd think that a man like the president would have a great deal of latitude over how to publicly express his feelings on Trayvon Martin. Unfortunately, the man's obligated to play the role of "America's President™" and any attempt to voice his true feelings in a way that seemingly sides with one side of the aisle would be conflated into favoritism.

One commentator over at Abagond felt that the president did not show the outpouring of emotion or the fluidity of speech that he displayed during the Sandy Hook tragedy. Watching the speech myself in its entirety, what I saw was a man who's literally walking on oratorical eggshells - a man attempting to voice how he feels about the Zimmerman trial and its effects on the black community without disrupting, diluting or invalidating the message in the eyes of a mainstream audience that's sensitive to perceived judgement and slights, despite being more than comfortable with issuing their own.

I've taken the time to unpack my own thoughts and feelings about the president's speech, highlighting sections that stood out to me as I see fit, thanks to the convenient transcript posted in its entirety over at Huffington Post:

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works.

Unlike former president Jimmy Carter, the president never says he thought the jury made the right call or that he agrees with the jury's decision. He only mentions that the above is how the system "works" in this country. The matter of whether the trial was actually conducted in a manner resembling professionalism is left up for debate.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

Here, the president highlights the history of suspicion being cast upon black Americans regardless of activity or intention. He's right - 35 years ago, he would have been just another Trayvon Martin, more so if he grew up in a place like central Florida. He doesn't go into the infamous "talk" that every black male gets as he gets of age - in my opinion, that's a missed opportunity.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

The president responds to the old chestnut of black-on-black crime by saying, in essence, "yes, we realize it's a problem. We're not stupid." He deftly links the problem to poverty and America's own screwed-up history, not to any sense of innate black criminality. He also goes on to explain how the assumption of black criminality affects and frustrates to no end young black men who are most definitely not criminals, but are assumed to be by America at large.

I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

Considering how there have been relatively few, if any riots in the aftermath of the case, I find this bit of preemptive advisory from the highest authority of the land to be a bit...unnecessary.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

At one time, most states featured a "duty to retreat" clause in their self-defense laws. With the advent of "Stand Your Ground," the duty to remove oneself from a dangerous situation before resorting to lethal force went out the window. The end result has been a string of cases where one side or another would have lived had it not been for the over-zealousness that a SYG policy offers to those involved.

What I and many others would like to see is SYG be suspended or preferably terminated across the board until a saner self-defense policy can be developed.

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

As I said before, if Trayvon Martin had been an actual, visible threat - armed or not - it's likely that Zimmerman would have gladly followed the 911 dispatcher's advice to leave the "heroics" to the police. Seeing someone who was not only defenseless and not surrounded by people who could, at the very least, scare him off, Zimmerman took an opportunity only rank cowards could love - the opportunity to harass and scare someone who was visibly weaker than he was to justify his own preconceptions. When it became apparent that Trayvon Martin would put up some kind of defense, Zimmerman escalated to lethal force.

To answer the question as it was intended, the realities of Trayvon Martin's racial background and standing, combined with a deceased Zimmerman's resources (in the form of his father, Judge Robert Zimmerman, Sr.) and America's own opinions of armed or potentially armed black males, it's likely he would end up with the same or worse treatment that Marissa Alexander suffered at the hands of the justice system for a mere warning shot. 20 years for Ms. Alexander, a possible life sentence - or the death penalty - for Mr. Martin.

There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

America has never been comfortable with discussing race or any policies that have anything to do with race. The president wants the people to carry on dialog among themselves and their families. I don't see that working too well, either. People are often locked into what they want to think unless it touches them in an extraordinarily personal way.

I think we could use an honest, national dialogue about race, but that's a long time coming, if it ever comes. In the meantime, it's my personal opinion that the black community should do everything it can to protect itself and its most precious commodity - its children - as much as possible. That's about the only thing that can be realistically done.

At least until the president or someone else decides to risk the political capital and do something to bring about a fundamental positive change in ethnic relations and civil rights.

And that's the thing that I think pisses off many people more than anything else. The fact that the president has the most powerful platform in the world to bring about genuine social change as he pleases, yet he seemingly does nothing with it. Of course, he does well when it comes to quietly bringing game-changing mandates and bills into play through the so-called "11-dimensional chess" game. Unfortunately, people want change they can readily see and immediately feel.

President Obama was voted into office based on that desire for change and for the first three months, it seemed like he was in a position to do anything he damn well pleased. When it became apparent that he wasn't going to grab the bull by the horns, but instead guide the bull around with carefully placed feed, Americans expecting swift change were miffed, to say the least. He seemed like a lame duck long before his second term.

Lyndon Baines Johnson understood exactly what he was risking when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the end, it cost the Democrat party its entire wing of Dixiecrat hangers-on.* In light of the GOP's various attempts to ensure monolithic power throughout America, would it really be wise and prudent for the president to risk his own political capital and the possibility of complete GOP dominance for the foreseeable future by, say, ushering in Universal Heathcare whole-hog? That's a good question for anyone to ask...

---

Not too many people are happy with the president's speech. White conservative commentators felt the president should shut the hell up about race. Black talking heads feel he should talk about it more and in a much more direct manner. Those on the "professional left," the so-called "emoprogs" and "puritopians," are extremely offended over the possible implication that they are not as "colorblind" or "post-racial" as they thought and extraordinarily miffed over black media being more preoccupied with the outcome of the Zimmerman trial than with drones, the NSA or Edward Snowden's next cross-continental stop as he searches for asylum.

Nevertheless, the president said what he was able to say and he still managed to bring his message forward in a clear and concise manner. No, I'm not completely satisfied with his speech, but I feel he did exactly what was required of him as President of these United States.

*Some say that it eventually worked out for the better. Too bad we got Reagan's right-wing revolution out of it.

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.

There are plenty of cynics among us, especially those who are bitter about the president not being able to give them everything they ever wanted on a silver platter in the first 100 days of his administration. That bitterness takes over when he finally manages to get something done in the face of a completely insane and obstinate legislature. Frankly, we could have kept this from being a problem back in 2010, but hindsight is 20/20. Which is why reading how this guy didn't get his pony exactly when he wanted it pissed me off to no end:

At first I was just going to ignore this travesty, because it’s a move so clearly calculated to drum up attention among the gays that really it should just be ignored. I mean, big words, big deal; put your legislation where your mouth is if you want to impress me. But then the blissed-out, adoring responses started appearing in the media. And on Tumblr. And on my Facebook feed. “My hero!” trumpeted one acquaintance on Facebook. “Such a brave move for Obama!” announced a Tumblrite. Again, are you kidding me? The man is the president of the United Fucking States. Have you guys ever read that little “Declaration of Independence” thing? It’s 2012, for fuck’s sake. This isn’t some backwater redneck hick who’s suddenly seen the light of day. We’re getting this excited because a Columbia- and Harvard-education lawyer from Chicago supports the idea of equal rights? He hasn’t actually done anything yet - he’s just not opposed. And everyone’s acting like this is some huge ethical revelation or act of moral clarity. Seriously?

And it goes on and on. Seriously, I lose respect for people who choose to stamp their feet and throw a shit fit when they're not instantly gratified.

Obama’s 100 Days should have reflected that slogan. He should have gone into the White House four years ago and done exactly what he received a mandate from the people to do - shake shit up, and fast. Obama’s should have pushed harder, more immediately, and further on health care. He shouldn’t have surrendered to Congressional Republicans so quickly. Once he had a health care reform in his pocket, he should have worked quickly and aggressively to solidify the coalition that had put him in office. DADT should have disappeared within the first 6 months of the Obama administration. He should have worked quickly and aggressively to undo Bush-era policies on abortion, HIV, and education, which would have put the gays, the feminists, and the teachers’ unions firmly in his pocket. If Obama had had any true vision beyond “Change” as an empty slogan, or if he had had any loyalty to the people who believed in and supported him to begin with, he would have worked first and foremost to fulfill those campaign promises.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a mandate from the American people to shake shit up and get things done when he came into office. Most of the changes he helped push through during his first term were spat back out. If Obama had charged in hard and fast like many people wanted him to, chances are the blowback would have been so fierce that it would have left the rest of his term in shambles and the GOP that much more dedicated towards blocking practically every "socialist" legislation he had in mind.

The net effect would had been a one-term presidency. But that's okay, since he martyred himself upon the altar of uncompromising progressiveness. I'm fed up with people wanting the president to martyr himself in the name of emo-progressive purity.

In short, Mr. President, I’m thoroughly unimpressed by your manipulation of my identity group for your own political gain.

And I'm thoroughly unimpressed by your temper tantrum. Give the man some time to get the shit you want done...done.

The 44th President of the United States did what no other president has done so far: stand in unequivocal support of marriage for same-sex couples.

Afterwards, the current front runner for the GOP candidate nomination did what most people expected him to do: reaffirm his unequivocal opposition to marriage for same-sex couples.


The president's campaign team responded with the following video, which included a clip of George Bush expressing ambivalence, if not support, over the issue of same-sex marriage.


I don't see a downside for the president coming out (sic) in support. After all, he advocated same-sex civil unions, not the act of homosexuality itself. Yes, it is possible to be against homosexuality in general yet not mind those of different proclivities to join in legally sanctioned union with one another. The only temporary loss will be scores of churchgoing black folk who will briefly reconsider their support of Obama until they remember what the alternative to an Obama administration looks like.

Mittens had to reaffirm the GOP party line to avoid looking like a fool to his own supporters. There's no way he can moderate his way out of this unless he wants to risk pissing off the Teabagger contingent. If he's worried about looking like a wimp in front of those folks, he should look back to his time in prep school, back when he cut a fellow classmate's hair under the assumption of him being "queer" and different. Of course, Romney has no recollection of the event:

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

Remember how his campaign people attempted to capitalize on Romney's zany antics as proof he wasn't completely wooden and robotic. You have to wonder if they're regretting that. Even his wife pitched in by vouching for the man's capacity for fun-loving:

“There’s a wild and crazy man inside of there just waiting to come out,” Romney’s wife, Ann — a graduate of Cranbrook’s sister school, Kingswood — attested in a television interview this month, evoking what she saw as his endearing and fun-loving prep-school persona.

Wild and crazy, indeed. The more the Obama team buries Romney and his ilk, the greater the chances of Obama's reelection.

And of course, there always has to be someone around to piss in the punch bowl. Yes, Obama is no LBJ. He's just Obama. And by all indications, that's plenty and then some.

I thought I wouldn't have to blog about Glenn Greenwald again, but Greenwald has a way of staying within the Man's peripheral vision. Just take a look at this Chirpstory, where Tim Wise goes toe-to-toe with Greenwald and Be Scofield: EDIT: Said Chirpstory can be found here.

Feeling a bit dizzy? Discombobulated, perhaps? Ok, let's break this down.

Due to President Obama's expanding use of drones in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, Glenn Greenwald and the like have likened Obama to George Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Since President Obama has yet to end the War on Terror, full stop, he continues to come under criticism from Greenwald, et al. Be Scofield wondered if President Obama would continue to allow drone strikes if the largely Muslim victims, many who are involved as collateral damage in the pursuit of Muslim extremists and terrorists, were black Americans, instead. Yes, even purported liberal voices can pull the Race Card now and again, for their own purposes. Now that you have the discussion framing, let's get down to the meat of the discussion.

Adrian Charles countered with an essay by Tim Wise on how the policies of Ron Paul, that wily underdog savior of all that is progressive in the world, happen to line up with those of well-known white supremacist David Duke. I covered several aspects of Paul's deficiencies in regards to ethnic relations and how many progressives still managed to fall headlong in love with the guy. And this is where the wheels on the logic bus just sort of fall off here.

Ok, so it's been established that President Obama's foreign policy is racist, as it, according to Greenwald and Scofield, targets Muslims, who are often considered "people of color." Scofield wants ardent Obama supporters to imagine those Muslim victims as black Americans and then ask themselves if they would still support Pres. Obama. Ergo, Pres. Obama is racist and so are you, if you support him.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul wants to end the War on Terror, automatically making him a good guy to many. Assuming this is true, he would also end the drone strikes. Ergo, he is not a racist, since it seems he's looking out for the best interests of people of color by putting an end to their massacre. Unfortunately, if you've read up on the company Paul kept and his views, many of which happen to align with those of notable bigots and racists, then you'd see that the man is, despite many of his policies aligning with those that progressives crave, is a racist. Except that he isn't, by Greenwald and Scofield's standards.

@bescofield: @timjacobwise @ggreenwald Obama has eliminated the civil rights of more people of color than Paul has i.e. killing them.

It's well known that Ron Paul vehemently disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wishes to do away with it, thereby stripping many of the protections that black Americans have taken for granted for decades on end. If something like this actually happens, it will have a detrimental effect on the treatment of black Americans and their ability to effect political change through the very mechanisms that have been used to great effect for centuries, one that would last for a very long time. But no, this isn't racist. Neither is associating one self with racists. For Scofield, it's the bodies of "people of color" overseas that matter, since it feeds into the "Obama=Racist" and "Obama=Bush" memes.

@bescofield: @timjacobwise @ggreenwald Obama doesn't believe in hierarchy of the races, but he kills more people of color than Duke + Paul together.

"Hierarchy of the races." That's how Scofield explains the policies and opinions of Duke, Black, Paul and any other bigoted individual who believes in white supremacy. Considering the struggles, trials and tribulations that black Americans have gone through just to be considered equal under the law, this is just downright insulting. And yet Scofield and Greenwald expect black Americans to que up behind Ron Paul because he happens to represent the best "Anti-Obama" that these guys could come up with (Hillary Clinton is the "Anti-Obama" of the Villager/Firebagger set). Just because some aspects of the man's policies happen to line up with those of progressive liberals. Duke, et al. are nothing to worry about since they only believe in the "hierarchy of the races." No, there's not much wrong with whites believing they are mentally, physically and socially superior to blacks.

At any rate, that's not terribly important to Scofield. Instead, it's the bodies overseas that matter. 243 targeted attacks via drones since 2009, netting 2264 casualties, most of those representing collateral damage, in the pursuit of extremists and terrorists. For a number of reasons, President Obama cannot end this cold turkey, just as he could not end the War in Iraq cold turkey - that had to be drawn down with a well thought-out plan that helped the U.S. effectively "save face" without causing any political or foreign policy backlash. The drone attacks will end in the same way. After all, Pres. Obama's push for more drones served to prevent further U.S. soldier casualties in Afghanistan. Between nameless, faceless bodies in rubble and U.S. servicemen offloaded from C-130s in flag-draped caskets, which one would serve to further wreck the Obama Administration and give Republicans more ammo with which to end his term in office?

Actually, many progressives would prefer the latter, since it would do just that, as many believe Pres. Obama is long past the point of redemption as far as progressive politics are involved. Some want to believe that being pelted by rocks supplied by progressives and thrown by Republicans would cause him to "wake up" and start doing the bidding of Greenwald and the Village crowd, for once. Seeing a black (or bi-racial, if one wants to get all picky about it) president pragmatically navigate his way through treacherous political waters while remaining unscathed does absolutely nothing for them. And this is not coming from an "Obot" or "Obama groupie" - this comes from someone who recognizes pragmatism as a means of survival for what it is - it's not weakness, "being like Bush" or 11-dimensional chess - it's being smart enough to realize that going Magic Negro™ or Hillary Clinton in regards to foreign and domestic policy will guarantee a single-term presidency.

To wit, "Obama (black/bi-racial guy) = Racist" and "Ron Paul (white guy with dubious ties) = Not Racist." This sort of mindfucking in order to get the responses you want is a specialty of Greenwald and Scofield, apparently, and it sucks in plenty of people who don't know better. It's all headgaming at its finest.

As I said in my very first blog post, it's better to have your own stuff, because you never know when you'll end up being shown the door at other venues, especially if you happen to be a contributing blogger whose views suddenly clash with the status quo or offend the site administrator or founder. Those who ran afoul of famous firebagger Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake learned that the hard way. Fellow blogger Redeye parted ways with Left in Alabama after a number of disagreements among former fellow bloggers there.

Which brings me to this bit of fallout from the epic Greenwaldian clusterfuck that has most of the blogosphere in stitches:

In case you’re not up to speed, long story short, I had a Twitter discussion with Marcy Wheeler about the NDAA; a Greenwald supporter quipped that if I saw Obama raping a nun on live TV, I would defend him for it; another supporter quipped that I would fantasize about playing the role of the raped nun; and Greenwald piled on. When asked to account for the clumsy rape metaphor, Greenwald doubled down, claiming that it wasn’t a metaphor, and that he actually believed that I and other Obama supporters would defend Obama if we were to see him raping a nun.

In what world is such a comment appropriate? It was a vile thing to say, and it is a vile thing to defend. Moreover, the stalwartness and cluelessness with which people, including John Cole, defended that statement is disappointing.

To be clear: I neither asked nor expected John to defend me. I can and do defend myself. But I was surprised and stunned that he stridently defended Greenwald when he could have, and should have, said nothing. Even worse, he managed to cast Greenwald as a victim. Stunning.

Both Greenwald’s comments and the comments offered in defense are incontrovertibly offensive to women, offensive to rape survivors, and are inexcusable. Does that mean I think Greenwald is pro-rape? Of course not. But using rape as a metaphor or leveraging it to score political points is tone-deaf, at best, and malicious at worst.

The above is from contributor "Angry Black Lady," who sadly will be leaving Balloon Juice behind this bullshit. She has her own blog with a stellar cast of contributors, so her departure from the blog won't be a devastating event. But her departure in of itself is rather disturbing, for reasons I'll go into later on.

This isn't the first time she's had a major disagreement with John Cole, recovering conservative and founder of Balloon Juice. Both came to blows when it came to the NDAA. But I was led to believe that it was more or less "no harm, no foul" in the end, just two bloggers voicing fiercely strong opinions on a subject, particularly one with a potential to cause ill will among bloggers and commentators.

This time, the whole affair became patently ridiculous. At the heart of it all was this Chirpstory, in which Twitter user @DrDawg made an unfortunate comment about ABL's supposed willingness to defend Pres. Obama no matter what he did, with Glenn Greenwald effectively co-signing the comment:



These two tweets helped set off a firestorm of indignation and criticism from other users, something that Greenwald quickly proved himself as being incapable of handling further into the storyline. Somewhere in there, John Cole affected a stance that attempted to criticize people for essentially making a bigger deal of this than he thought should have been made:


If you want to make the point that 1)people are wrongly attributing this quip to Greenwald, and 2)lambasting Greenwald for this quip is a waste of energy, this is the wrong way to go about it. The above made Cole look less like an impartial observer wishing to set the record straight and more like someone who attempted to pick the most indirect way of defending Greenwald possible.

Many people didn't see things the way Cole and others saw them, as seen below: (HT to @dvnix)


As a result, the blog split into two camps, one that defended Greenwald and others on the so-called Professional Left while castigating ABL and others for defending Pres. Obama, and others who were genuinely outraged by what seemed to be a free pass given to Greenwald, et al. "Unquestioning Obama defenders" was the overarching meme for those posts, directed at those who disagreed with Greenwald's Chicken Little bullshit and those who attempted to explain Obama's position on NDAA.

Ever since that post on the NDAA and whether or not indefinite detention existed for American citizens (answer: it doesn't), I've always had this feeling that half of the blog's commentator pool wanted to castigate and upbraid the "uppity" ABL for expressing opinions that ran contrary to what they wanted to believe at the time. Perhaps that vibe was always there, but from that point on, it grew into epic proportions. The commentators at Balloon Juice are known for copious amounts of snark, but a growing number of people became prone to getting downright nasty when it came to certain issues.

Between that, the growing lovefest with civil libertarianism and the attendant boy-crush on Next American Hero™ Ron Paul, I figured ABL's departure would come sooner or later. It's hard NOT to interject "race" into this subject, especially given how this country is literally soaked to the bone with racial antagonism, but I couldn't help but get the vibe that some wanted to dress down and/or chase away ABL for not conforming to the views expressed by an obviously superior white Progressive Liberal, whose views were to be automatically respected and questioned. Remember (this goes out to those who don't do reading comprehension well), this isn't a sweeping indictment on the behavior of the people on the blog, just a somewhat disturbing observation of a few commentators.

What disturbs me the most is a growing number of self-proclaimed liberals and progressives cosigning with a man who not only stood with white supremacist figures, but also has a mountain of evidence that outs him as being less than comfortable with minorities, no matter how much he and his supporters claim to have their best interests at heart. It's a bit unnerving to read the newsletters about his pathological fear of blacks and gays, only to be goaded into supporting Ron Paul because his stance on drugs happens to coincide with the welfare of the black community by coincidence. But that's the sort of thing his supporters want to drive home. Blacks and Latinos are supposed to climb aboard the Straight Talk Ron Paul Express, no questions asked, for a few trinkets crafted purely by coincidence.

I suspect there's a deeper game afoot, one that involves using the ever-present levels of poutrage and indignation over Pres. Obama's failures to deliver the ideal presidential experience progressive liberals wanted to kneecap the president's chances at re-election, by driving an deep and permanent wedge between progressive liberals who are for Obama and progressive liberals who are fed up with the guy. Convince the dissatisfied side to not vote (or vote for Ron Paul) as a way to strike back at an "ineffective" Obama, and you'll have the recipe for the GOP slotting in their preferred candidate come Nov. 2012 with relative ease. And having President Romney in office come 2013 doesn't bother many Professional Lefties one bit, as these guys are the least affected economically by conservative policy -- in fact, their bank accounts rely on having conservatives in power for PLs to complete the self-effacing perpetual underdog routine, something that's hard to do when "your guys" are in power. A guy like Greenwald is the perfect trojan horse for knocking lesser minds off balance while sowing the seeds for a Democrat wash, and a conservative victory.

ABL will be fine. There's no doubt about that. But I worry about the increasingly hostile atmosphere back at Balloon Juice and how it will shape future political values and opinions.

The bad thing about piggybacking off of someone else's ill-conceived comment is that the shit winds up on you, too, as evinced by the tweets listed afterwards in this Chirpstory. Seriously, Chirpstory is a wonderful tool for saving and showcasing shit like this for all to see, for whatever the Internet defines as posterity.*

Everyone and their dog already knows the specifics about the National Defense Authorization Act and how the boogeyman threat of the president having unlimited powers to detain U.S. citizens without so much as a "hey, wait a sec" was thoroughly debunked. Yet this guy, who evidently has a hard-on for attacking the president for not paying more attention to him and his fellow Cocktail Liberals and attendant emoprogs is still swinging for the fences over this bill. Obama won't risk what political capital he has to veto the NDAA, so guys like Greenwald and anyone else they can scare with their brand of hysteria are effectively stomping their feet like a bunch of five-year-olds in a supermarket aisle deprived of their choice of cereal.

You have to wonder what's it to Greenwald, et al. to attempt to bring the president to heel over NDAA, besides exercising their right to chastise Obama for not being a good Magic Negro™ by closely adhering to the Professional Left's wishlist of "Things That Obama Should Have Done Within 90 Days of Being In Office". I understand the frustration that many liberals have with President Obama, but the last thing that's needed during an election year is a long line of sour faces who've sworn off voting for Obama because he chose to exercise a great degree of pragmatism in an increasingly hostile legislative environment, instead of throwing caution to the wind and indulging in ramming through bills and public policy, consequences be damned.

Here's a president who stepped back and allowed the Tea Party to swiftly become irrelevant, the GOP to implode and the blame for the vast majority of our current economic ills to fall on conservative measures and policy, all the while taking care of terrorist boogeyman Osama bin Laden, promoting policies that actually produce jobs instead of generating more tax cuts and successfully withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And Greenwald, et al. are not satisfied with this man's performance so far.

As a reminder concerning the NDAA:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

And here is President Obama's signing statement concerning NDAA (H.R. 1540) sections 1021 and 1022:

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

It's interesting to see Glen Greenwald equate the actions of Pres. Obama in regards to foreign policy and the War on Terror with that of former dunce-in-chief George W. Bush. Apparently, Pres. Obama forgot that he was supposed to repudiate the entire concept of the War on Terror - in other words, he was supposed to take what Bush started and kick the entire mess in the trash can, damned what the rest of Congress, the military, his advisers and most Americans thought. At the very least, he was supposed to play the Professional Left-mandated role of soft touch when it came to terrorism, as evinced by Greenwald's lament of how he should have merely arrested Osama bin Laden as opposed to simply disposing of him. I think Greenwald, like many others in that particular circle, are simply too damned uncomfortable with how Pres. Obama's taken a much harder line on terrorists. In fact, they're very uncomfortable with how Pres. Obama is running things so far.

A lot of people were disappointed that Barack Obama was not their Magic Negro™. And since he didn't revert decades of damage caused by conservative policies within a year of his being in office, these same people are now out for blood, doing whatever they can do dissuade others from supporting and voting for him the next go around, even at the cost of having another conservative as president, who will most likely continue the damaging policies that these people were against and wanted to fix in the first place. To them and to Greenwald, that's far preferable to another four years of what they see as a "phony."

Barack Obama was supposed to be their anti-Bush in every single way. But his governing style was far too pragmatic for the Professional Left and emoprogs to tolerate. As a result, he's considered no better than Bush. Greenwald and company are operating on a nine-year-old's logic.

Meanwhile, Greenwald and others are praising Ron Paul as a champion (of sorts) of civil liberties. As other bloggers have pointed out, his opposition to "warmongering" makes him a pretty good shoe-in for "good guy" within the PL and emoprog circles. It's too bad that these people can't, for the life of them, see how Ron Paul's stances are merely for his own ideological convenience:

But the nature of his anti-war stance is fundamentally different from that of liberal opposition to any given war. The tipoff is in his opposition to foreign aid, and his anti-United Nations position: he's anti-war because the rest of the world just isn't worth it. His is not the pacifism of the anti-war movement but the nativist isolationism of the America-Firsters; Paul is "to the left of Obama" the way Lindbergh was to the left of Roosevelt. (That may be true in a fairly literal sense, although I wouldn't trust anything from Big Government without further corroboration.)

Similarly, Paul's positions on civil liberties issues aren't actually about civil liberties as we understand them; they're about his opposition to Federal authority. (An opposition that is somewhat conditional, it should be noted.) For example, in talking about the death penalty, he makes clear that he opposes it only at the Federal level. His opposition to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, and domestic surveillance come from the same root as his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He has no real objection to states violating the rights of their citizens; it's only a problem if the Feds do it.

The assumption underlying this is that people are freer when states (as opposed to the Federal government) have more power. Now, it may seem obvious to some of us that the distinction between one arbitrary administrative unit and another isn't exactly a human rights issue, but let's just consider for a moment: does state or local control actually translate to more liberty?

In short? Ron Paul only cares about civil liberties when it brings him to the goal of eliminating federal interference in most aspects of governance. He could care less about what the individual states do. After all, that's his thing. How does that effect liberals on the Ron Paul bus? Well, lets just say that the individual states are a hell of a lot more conservative than guys like Greenwald give them credit for. See Alabama's HB 56 and Arizona's SB 1070? Most states, left to their own devices, are prone to stripping out and reducing civil liberties. No more same-sex marriages, abortions, Planned Parenthood or civil protections for homosexuals and transsexuals. No more protections against racial discrimination, either. But Greenwald and others can't see this forest bereft of actual civil liberties for the anti-war trees.

How far does the selective omission of Ron Paul's policies go in regards to support from Greenwald, et al.?

Remember, Greenwald says Citizens United is good for civil liberties. But what he means by those two words is very different from what most of us have in mind when we say them. The president has been consistently supportive of voting rights, for example, but that is elided from the Greenwald definition of “civil liberties;” he also elides the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Fair Sentencing Act, the overturn of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the president’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the US Commission on Civil Rights, etcetera.

Contrast that to Greenwald’s treatment of Ron Paul’s record. In his op-ed, Greenwald makes no mention of the congressman’s racist newsletters, his public stance on the Civil Rights Act, his attempt to strip Iranian students of federal financial aid, his evident homophobia, his numerous assaults on abortion rights, his desire to repeal the “Motor Voter” Act, his attacks on the 14th Amendment, etcetera. I regard his stance on the gold standard as a repeal of economic rights — one that William Jennings Bryan would abhor as a cross of gold.

In Greenwald’s story, not one of the issues in those previous two ‘graffs — not even the fight over voter ID bills that would disenfranchise millions of African Americans — count as civil liberties issues, but the supposed right of an American citizen to be free from harm while directing harm to other Americans does.

That doesn't matter. Ron Paul's anti-war stance and overall appearance as the "anti-Obama" and liberalism's "last pure hope" is all guys like Greenwald need to get on board and start waving "RP" pom-poms in front of a packed crowd.

The disinformation campaign to cast the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as the dawn of a new "Nazi America" age continues unabated on Twitter. More and more people are attempting to use the bill as pretext for scaring the living shit out of the Occupy Wall Street people into discouraging support of President Barack Obama, and as an excuse for not casting a vote in his favor. I hate playing "conspiracy theorist" here, but I have to wonder if this isn't just some campaign whipped up by a conservative think tank to harness waves of liberal outrage and indignation to batter Obama's reelection chances - in other words, let the indignation and moral outrage of liberals and the smooth second-guessing of the professional left do the GOP's heavy lifting for them.

Milt Shook has a great article on his blog, the aptly named "Please Cut The Crap," that spells it all out for anyone who still has a hard time grasping the fact that, no, there isn't an "Indefinite Detention Bill" that locks up Americans indefinitely a la gulags and Nazi concentration camps:

Here’s the language in section 1021 that has the pro lefties up in arms. It’s in the Conference Report. Follow along, please. Oddly (?), most pro left cite (1), but leave out (2)-(4). I know, that just seems so odd, doesn’t it?

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Yes, I do admit section c) looks troubling, especially if you look at it all by itself. But as long as we have Obama (or Biden) in office, we have time to get rid of it, especially if we give them a Democratic Congress. But I would also note that the pro lefties also leave out sections b) d) and e). When you read them you’ll know why.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oops.

Yes, you read that right. The so-called – the “Indefinite Detention Bill” that pro and emo lefties are trying to convince you will give the president the power to round us all up and detain us forever without a trial, not only doesn’t exist on its own, but the language is somewhat limiting, and specifically excludes US citizens or people who are in the United States legally. Section b) 2) does bother me, but I don’t think it’ll survive a court challenge because it’s too broad. What the hell is a “belligerent act,” for example? I once called a US Senator an asshole to his face; that was kind of belligerent.

I will note, for the record, that the provision does fly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and I don't like it. But I don't see anything in it that isn't reversible, and certainly nothing that's worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for, just as we're recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.

Milt goes on to explain how the desire to trash can the entire bill has its own set of unwanted consequences:

Obama doesn't have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and the teabagging GOP worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?

Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you're claiming a lack of principle when you're lying to the public about a bill that doesn't exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?

AND I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR THIS, NOT OBAMA. They put it there, not him. Blaming this on Obama is kind of like blaming the company who put the olives in the jar because you didn't chew your olive responsibly. Just saying.

In order to kill the above provisions, Obama has to kill the entire bill. That would be a politically stupid thing to do, and anyone with any common sense would understand that. The best way to handle this is to keep this provision in mind, give Obama a second term, and give him a Congress that will pass a repeal that he can sign. There you go; problem solved.

Sorry, Milt. Some people who are emotionally charged over the NDAA right now are dead set on not giving President Obama a second term. The funny thing about these folks is if you ask them if or why they think the nation would be better off with an Republican administration, given that such a thing is the alternative at the moment, you'll only get silence. Or a regurgitation of "throw the bum(s) out. That's right - throw the bums out, but let's not give any thought to the new set of bums filling their spots.

Personally speaking, I'm getting sick of these people. They'll risk handing the nation over on a silver platter to Republicans for the next generation over these lies. The Republicans aren't gonna stop them from believing a series of blatant lies and committing a terrible mistake that eventually works in the GOP's favor.

Milt leaves a wonderful parting shot for common-variety chucklefuck and current pied-piper of professional leftist disinformation Glenn Greenwald:

Look, folks, I don’t like this section of the bill much more than Greenwald does. On its face, without lying, it’s odious, especially if Obama is replaced by anyone in the current Republican field. The problem is, the bullshit braying being screeched by professional lefties like Glenn Greenwald actually helps make the possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate greater, not less likely. If you really want crap like this amendment repealed, you’ll need a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic president. You’ll also need a Supreme Court appointed and approved by Democrats, because an entire court full of Scalia/Thomas/Alito clones will happily give a Republican president this power.

I'm beginning to believe the professional lefties relish the advent of a solidly Republican executive, judicial and legislative power structure. When that happens, the professional left will no longer be obligated to do any heavy lifting. Instead, they can spend all of their time mouthing lofty platitudes about what they believe ought to happen without any responsibility for making any of that happen. And when they're called on such tripe, they can always take a cool, soothing dip into their own personal pool of perpetual underdogism and beautiful martyrdom, and point to the GOP as an insurmountable brick wall for any action they commit. And then it's back to the DC/LA/NYC cocktail parties and other venues of preening self-importance.

I believe they'll piss themselves for the chance to usher in President Gingrich. There's a certain domestic abuse meme that comes into play, but I'm not gonna repeat it. You can see it, and somehow, it's terribly fitting.

Seriously, read Mitt Shook's article on the whole thing. It's a damn-near work of art.

See my previous posts on the National Defense Authorization Act by following the "NDAA" article tag.

There are some people out there who genuinely believe being on the bottom is a lot better than being on the top.* They're people who'd rather rage against The Man™ rather than be The Man™, or at least be in a position where they just yell and flip birds at The Man™ instead of being in a position to act against him. People who'd rather remain the lovable losers in life rather than go on any sort of winning streak.

I've noticed this within the Democrat party. There's always a cadre of supporters who'd rather play the role of perpetual underdog. They see some sort of beautiful purity in being the perpetual punching bag of opposing forces, where each blow rendered is treated as an absolution of sorts, the same way the Flagellants treated every lash as self-mortification of past and present sins, both real and imagined. For the rest of us, this "beautiful suffering" sucks greatly, as it interferes with other things. You know, like winning elections.

These people don't like President Obama much. They don't like him because he failed in his obligations to play the Magic Negro that most emotional progressives (henceforth known as "Emoprogs") expected him to be. Others don't like him because he doesn't describe to the "beautiful suffering" bit that many perpetual underdog Democrats (henceforth known as "PUDs") subscribe to. He refuses to fall on his sword in grand disgraced samurai style for not bringing the results Emoprogs expected, nor has he shown any inclination to jeopardize support from moderate circles in the pursuit of the PUDs and other groups that have confined the Democrats to electoral loserdom.

A lot of people don't understand that you can't do jack-shit if your people don't win. The Teabaggers, God bless those assholes, understand this well. Sure, they appear to be jokes (because they are), but when Election Time rolls around, they pound the pavement, crank up the Wurlitzers and get their people out to the polls. And after they've won, then they attempt to put all of their crazy plays into motion. Meanwhile, the PUDs are busy thumbing through their Rolodexes in search of the mythical pure candidate who can do the "beautiful suffering" bit on cue with flawless precision.

The PUDs are so pissed with Pres. Obama that they're ready and willing to give him the heave ho at a time where the American people can least afford to do so. To wit, Obama is and will remain an electoral shoo-in, an incumbent who, despite all he didn't manage to do, did far more. With his "11-dimension chess game," he managed to unmask the Republicans as a sorry bunch of obstructionists who are ridiculously obsessed with kicking him out of office, even at the risk of leaving Americans unemployed and uninsured. He gingerly stepped out of the way of the Teabagger bus and watched as the wheels fell off of it in grand fashion. The GOP candidates are a mess and the nominee will most likely be someone who will end up having his head handed to him on a silver platter come November 4, 2012. Democrats have this election in the bag.

And yet there's always someone who can't wait to dump the contents of said bag out on the floor and tear the bag into tiny strips, all because it happened to be a paper bag and not an "environmentally friendly" cloth bag. Which brings me to the brouhaha over Naomi Wolf's op-ed.

As mentioned before, the only crime Wolf can be successfully tried, convicted and flambe'd on is using a bullshit news article to springboard her own sensationalist piece to popularity. And people are still talking about it. In showbiz (or was that public relations?), they say bad publicity is better than no publicity. I'm only surprised at the level of energy being expended on this woman and her crap op-ed, presumably to stop a story like this from becoming accepted gospel.

And why? Apparently because, as Sarah Jones of PoliticsUSA explains:

Why are progressives hawking a right wing rumor? In the best of worlds, I suppose it’s because post-W, we are all government-leary and the Right knows how to stoke this fear in us and use it to scatter us into fragments of what we could be. But just as in any other relationship, a constant attitude of mistrust to such a degree that we believe any smear no matter how unfounded will not lead to positive change. It’s impossible, in fact, to create positive change when you’re hampered by the power of fear and hatred. These are emotional diatribes, at best; at worst, they’re cynical ploys to be King or Queen of the movement.

The Emoprogs and PUDs have this knack for following only "approved voices" when it comes to stuff like this. The Naomi Wolfs, David Brooks and Jane Hamshers of the world. You know, folks like those. Ever since slowly making my way through to the liberal/progressive end of the political spectrum after spending my formative years in Freeper Hell, I've tried my best to divine exactly what about these people that makes them such an anathema to ordinary left-wingers but just perfect to the PUDs and Emoprogs. Unfortunately, my natural tendency to just disregard these people as not being important enough to even bother with hampers my ability to do just that, but I keep trying.

Perhaps it's the condescending manner to which they speak to others and of others who are outside of their personal and political frame of reference. Perhaps its their love of being the darlings of the cocktail circuit, where it is OK to be contrarian, to a point, just not contrarian enough to piss off those who financially or socially butter your bread. Or maybe its because when push comes to shove, these people are far too wrapped up in the art of being a "beautiful loser" and a "lovable underdog" to actually effect any sort of meaningful change to the way things are done in this country. A lot of these people love the current status-quo -- it works out for them, and to change that would mean screwing up a good thing.

The story of Pres. Obama allowing the DHS to run roughshod over the civil liberties of the OWS and 99% fits perfectly with a lot of narratives from the Emoprog and PUD-end of things. Obama is evil because he lets the Homeland Security dickwads encourage local police to wail on and hose hapless protesters with OC spray. Therefore, Obama must be shown the door. No one ever bothers to answer the following question: "Replace him with who?" No, just some throwaway answers about how Elizabeth Warren or Ron Paul would do a better job and so forth.

No one ever manages to connect the dots between weakening Obama's electoral support and having another Republican president in office. In fact, such an event suits the PUDs and Emoprogs well. Both groups can continue to practice the "beautiful suffering" and "lovable underdog" routines without having to deal with the responsibilities that come with actually effecting positive change to our political and social institutions. Meanwhile, the GOP is left to its usual routine of practicing cronyist ineptitude vis-a-vis governmental affairs while allowing the free marketeers to sell the nation off for wholesale prices, one factory at a time. Status-quo achieved. The Brooks and Hamshers of the world are pleased as punch.

As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of perpetual underdogs.

*Let's get those homosexual/prison jokes out of the way right this instant.

I watched the GOP economic debate on a Bloomberg stream earlier tonight. If you want to know how I felt about it, look at my Twitter posts, because I'm not about to go into detail about it again. Next time, I'll create a nice little tag to keep everything in one place. Honest.

Poor Herman Cain really thought it was his time to shine. Too bad the GOP establishment (the Powers That Be™) already have their hearts set on Mitt Romney, nevermind if he practices some goofy Utah cult religion. The rest of the nation will just have to learn to live with it, even Alabama.

Redeye didn't like Herman Cain's softshoe routine any more than I did. Neither did Dr. Boyce Watkins. To sum things up, they both see Herman Cain as the perfect "get out of being/seeming racist" card for white conservatives. Herman Cain: The Ultimate Racial Grievance Neutralizer™.

- How come when protesters threaten violence or even broach the mere appearance of becoming violent, it is considered to be a fucking tragedy of epic proportions worthy of martial law and swift crackdowns by law enforcement, but when a conservative mentions running over a few protesters with his car, "well, he didn't mean nothing by it" or "come'on, it's just a joke! Can't you take a little joke?"

In the conservative world, threatening to kill someone because their political ideology is different than yours is regarded as "a harmless joke." But someone who merely considers doing or saying anything that could possibly harm conservatives in any way is fair game for the most brutal state sanctioned punishment available.

- Arch-villain Skeletor, currently in a meat-and-skin-covered form he calls "Rick Scott," wants college kids in the state of Florida to forget about all that nonsense about getting a useless liberal arts degree and instead knuckle down and go for a "STEM" degree: degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Nothing wrong with expressing his preferences, except he plans to fuck liberal arts majors over by pulling the rug on the funding received by liberal arts and social science sections at Florida's public universities. After all, if you want to chase a useless degree in Anthropology or Philosophy, you might as well do it at a private institution and rack up over a $100k in non-dischargeable student loans.

If this is touted as a "money-saving measure," shouldn't they look at the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on their athletics programs? Of course not. Monetary pursuits that reward a chosen few but placate millions are not to be trifled with.

- Speaking of student loans, people are wondering whether we should forgive a large portion of student loans and mortgages currently held by millions of Americans. Of course, the lending and banking industry would just die if they didn't have all of that debt to hold over America's heads, so expect that idea to be a no-go for the foreseeable future.

Unless, of course, everyone simultaneously defaults on their student loans. *cue evil laughter*

- A young man follows his dreams in Romania, only for his life to be cut short in a barroom brawl over a woman. My heart goes out to Chauncey Hardy's family and friends, who are surely in some deep, deep pain over what happened.

- On the other hand, two heffers were hauled in for hauling off and going ham on one another with a heavy helping of household bleach and ammonia at Wal-Mart. And this is one of the many reasons I prefer shopping at Target. It's a bit more expensive, but at least you don't have two women slinging "American Value"-brand bleach all over each other and 19 other people.

BTW, mixing bleach and ammonia together makes chlorine gas. Chlorine gas is potentially fatal. Just thought you all should know.

- President Obama's "American Jobs Act of 2011" died an ignoble death in the Senate today, 50 to 49. 60 votes were needed, but he couldn't get them from his own damned party. Read as Patricia Murphy at MSNBC's Powerwall orgasms over how this setback is proof positive of Obama's weakness in Washington. Keep this crap up and the various "Villagers" and "emoprogs" will get their secret wish: to have a Republican in the Oval Office for the next 4 to 16 years. That way, they can play perpetual pretend underdog crusaders again while taking GOP "danegeld" because "they have no choice but to." Better to have pocket change to go cruising the cocktail dinner circuit with.

This reminds me of combat vets who cruise the local bars with a batch of shiny medals and a story to spin for each one, to impress the young bunnies and jaded ex-wives. And they get them by deliberately flinging themselves into combat scenarios, whether it actually helps their platoon or not.

- Is this how true Christians are supposed to behave? I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't approve -- John 8:7 and Matthew 7:1 is clear proof. Then again, most people who call themselves "Christians" only read bits and pieces of the Old Testament and only the juicy portions that validate their own bigotry and bloodlust:

But who could imagine the hate and rage that would motivate a Pastor to instruct deacons and members of his congregation, Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland, TN. to physically attack a couple arriving in the church parking lot last Wednesday?

The fact that one of the gay men attacked happened to be the Pastor’s own son, Jerry Pittman, Jr., no doubt contributed to Pittman senior’s noxious edict. According to Pittman Jr., after hearing his Dad yell, “SICK’EM!:”

“My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad’s request. My uncle smashed me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn’t help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back.”

The attackers also verbally assaulted the couple continually with anti-gay verbiage which continued even after a Sheriff’s Deputy arrived on the scene. Bystanders and other congregants made no effort to stop the assault. For that matter, neither did the Deputy Sheriff. Once the barrage of punches ended, the Deputy refused to let the two victims press charges.

Officers of the law may have a sworn duty to protect innocent citizens, but they're not obligated to uphold that promise. Really, it makes them no different than the highwaymen of old or the enforcers found in various dictatorial regimes.

BTW, if the so-called "Christians" were to see Jesus once more, they may try to beat and crucify him again. It's probably why when he promised to come back, he'd only do so when it was time for Judgement. Seems like these folks only respond favorably to the wrath of God, which sucks for the most part. Oh well, Judgement Day's a'comin.

- Detroit police officer Joseph Weekley was finally arraigned on charges stemming from the murder of Aiyana Stanley-Jones in a botched police raid.

Weekley is a 14-year veteran who had been a member of the department’s Special Response Team (SRT) since 2004. He reportedly told his sergeant moments after the shooting, “A woman inside grabbed my gun. It fired. The bullet hit a child.”

But the Stanley-Jones family lawyer Geoffrey Fieger told the Detroit Free Press he was shown a video immediately after the shooting that shows police as the aggressors. The video in question has not been found was reportedly not investigated by police.

“All I know is that the [missing] video is pretty dramatic,” he said. “You can see the gunman shooting into the house from the outside.”

The video that police have “is very different,” he said. “It doesn’t show a thing.”

Chances are his eventual sentence will be light, if he's sentenced at all. Juries have a thing for exonerating officers of the law.

I hate to end this blog post on a bitter note, but it is what it is.