Different Day, Same Shit.

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.

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.

- Muammar Gaddafi is dead, after being wounded and captured by Libyan rebels in his hometown of Sirte.

A spokesman for the National Transitional Council (NTC) in Benghazi, Jalal al-Galal, said a doctor who examined the fallen strongman in Misrata found he had been shot in the head and abdomen. Jerky video obtained from Sirte showed a man looking like Gaddafi, with distinctive long, curly hair, bloodied and staggering under blows from armed men, apparently NTC fighters.

The brief footage shows him being hauled by his hair from the hood of a truck. To the shouts of someone saying "Keep him alive", he disappears from view and gunshots are heard.

"They captured him alive and while he was being taken away, they beat him and then they killed him," one senior source in the NTC told Reuters. "He might have been resisting."

- If you plan on attending an Occupy Wall Street protest, you might want to find out if it'll get you canned from your day job. Because that's what happened to Lisa Simeone, producer and host of NPR's "World of Opera" after attending an "occupation" at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C.

That same day, NPR persuaded a company for which Simeone worked to fire her, cutting her income in half and purging from the so-called public airwaves a voice that had never mentioned politics on NPR.

About three and a half hours after the above email was sent, Simeone had been fired by a show called Soundprint as punishment for having been "unethical." Here is her bio on that show's website. And here she is on NPR's.

Soundprint is a show that does touch on politics and includes political viewpoint in Simeone's ledes, but it is not an NPR program and not distributed by NPR. It is, however, heard on public radio stations. Despite the title "NPR World of Opera," that show is produced by a small station called WDAV for which Simeone contracts. Simeone was not an NPR employee. WDAV has not expressed any concern over Simeone's "ethics."

Simeone told me: "I find it puzzling that NPR objects to my exercising my rights as an American citizen -- the right to free speech, the right to peaceable assembly -- on my own time in my own life. I'm not an NPR employee. I'm a freelancer. NPR doesn't pay me. I'm also not a news reporter. I don't cover politics. I've never brought a whiff of my political activities into the work I've done for NPR World of Opera. What is NPR afraid I'll do -- insert a seditious comment into a synopsis of Madame Butterfly?

It makes you wonder why NPR would take such drastic steps to have a freelancer on a show that was merely broadcast on some of NPR's affiliate stations given the boot just hours after she attended the protest. The whole thing reeks of an over-reactive legal department -- or someone who had a grudge and found the perfect excuse to give her the boot.

NPR hasn't done much, if anything at all, to cover OWS. It seems NPR feels more comfortable staying in the good graces of corporate donorship than covering one of the most important and game-changing events in the history of the United States.

BTW, when conservatives parrot claims of how "50% of Americans don't pay taxes," remember that those claims are just that. Over 86% of Americans pay their taxes, a damn sight better than what the Wall Street boys are doing.