Glenn Greenwald has a good summary of coverage of Bradley Manning, from the assholish and petty — RedState and Joy Reid mocking Manning for having his pillow, blanket, reading glasses taken away — to the surprisingly good, not just Jim Miklaszewski’s coverage of it but also Jake Tapper’s and Charlie Savage’s interest in the story. I was a little disappointed that Glenn had several links to Obama apologists and none of them were to us.
I have a question maybe one of you can answer: it there any comment the from the free-Jonathan-Pollard crowd (centered at Commentary and Weekly Standard, but larger than just that) on Bradley Manning? I’m looking for something particularly hypocritical.
matoko_chan
GG didnt link you because of the Elite Balloonjuice Assange/Manning Crotchsniffing Squadron in your comments.
its embarrassing.
:)
jharp
This, from RedState,
“OK. Well, I suppose I really wouldn’t want to be put in solitary confinement and have my pillow and blankie taken away. In order to avoid this result, I have made a conscious decision to not access and steal highly classified information from the United States and sell it to a sex offender from Sweden.”
God these people are stupid.
liberal
That crowd claims that nothing really all that bad happened as a result of Pollard’s spying, but I thought I heard that we had a number of spies in Russia who were executed as a result. Anyone know about that?
joe from Lowell
Wow, people who use the issue of Bradley Manning’s detention to decry the abuse of solitary confinement as a whole are actually just cowardly Obamapologists, or whatever slur Greenwald has made up this week for anyone who doesn’t find him implicitly irrefutable.
I can’t believe he linked to this diary to bitch about it.
Heaven fucking forbid that anyone address a much larger problem, instead of focusing like a laser beam on the REAL STORY, which is, of course, how THIS IS ALL OBAMA’S FAULT.
What an asshole. That is an excellent diary about a very important issue that Greenwald himself insists he cares about, but all he can do is sneer at it (apparently, that’s his marketable skill). Disgraceful.
New Yorker
So Commentary and The Weekly Standard are in favor of freeing Jonathan Pollard? I know the following comment makes me more of an anti-semite than Heinrich Himmler, but I’m going to suggest that just maybe those two publications have their primary loyalties with the State of Israel, and not this country….
trollhattan
@DougJ
I’d been thinking about Pollard myself, wondering something similar about his right wing fluffers. Pollard’s flavor of treason is evidently 50% less treasonous, even though what he stole was orders of magnitude more damaging than what we know of Manning’s.
stuckinred
@joe from Lowell: Did you have a nice day there joey?
soonergrunt
Other than almost always mentioning that Manning is a homosexual whenever they wrote about him, and quite a lot of speculation that Manning did what he admitted to doing because he is a homosexual, (anger about DADT, in love with Assange, etc) there is not much at National Review about this case.
There is one comment to an article wherein the commentor, having found that the Espionage Act does not include the death penalty, laments that Pollard, Walker, and Ames didn’t get the executions they “so richly deserve.” and neither will Manning.
Interestingly, the commentariat there seems to be of the collective opinion that while Manning should be set on fire, hung, and then shot, that nothing should happen to Assange.
joe from Lowell
@trollhattan:
Pollard’s espionage, so I’m told, is less serious because he was spying in order to give information to an ally (Israel) rather than an enemy.
Manning spied so that information could be released to the general public.
Which means that people who denounce Manning more than Pollard consider the general public to be….what, exactly?
And I’m having a fine day, thank you.
soonergrunt
@trollhattan:
@joe from Lowell: Considering that the CIA believes that Israel traded information Pollard gave them to the Soviet Union to secure the release of jewish dissidents*, Pollard’s continued presence in Federal prison despite lobbying by every single Israeli prime minister is probably assured.
If G.W. Bush wasn’t going to let Pollard go, I don’t think anyone else will.
*This was the flatly stated assertion of a college professor of mine a few years back. Said professor having been a member of the CIA’s Clandestine Service (the field spooks) and CIA upper management and retired from there after 32 years.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt: You didn’t go to GW by any chance?
Anyway, so much for the “ally” line of argument.
burnspbesq
Greenwald:
18 U.S.C. Section 641:
Say what, now, Glenn?
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt:
but that was also YOUR original line of argument Sooner. According to you that is why he released the A-stan docs.
tch, tch….how soon they forget.
:)
brendancalling
I don’t think you guys are apologists for Obama, and I’m incredibly critical of him. You guys cut him a lot of slack, but that’s balanced by the fact that when you believe the President’s fucked up you let him have it.
That’s what i like about this blog, and I’d be willing to bet that’s why you’re not included in the apologist list (specific incidents of disagreement with Glenzilla notwithstanding).
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq:
That is a section about theft of things of economic value.
stuckinred
@joe from Lowell: Great!
matoko_chan
Oh Sooner, i made a correction for you on mistermix thread that has scrolled off the front page.
i would so hate for you to miss it.
matoko_chan – January 25, 2011 | 4:02 pm · Link
@soonergrunt:
dude……HAMAS won.
Hizb’ is in Lebanon.
you cant even keep the baddies straight..no wonder you are so confused about who the good guys are.
wallah.
burnspbesq
@joe from Lowell:
Wrong. See, e.g., U.S. v. Hubbard, 474 F.Supp. 64 (D.D.C. 1979)
Arclite
From GG:
That’s so depressing.
DFS
@liberal: Pat Lang’s blog has a bunch of good stuff on the Pollard case. The short version, I think, is yes, he got a number of people killed.
The interesting part is the question of whether Israel was deliberately complicit. There seem to be two schools of thought on the subject: either the Israelis deliberately sold intelligence acquired via Pollard to secure the release of certain people from the Soviet Union, or the Israeli military/intelligence establishment was so thoroughly compromised by the KGB that Pollard’s intelligence was going to make its way to the Soviets whether Israel wanted it to or not.
In any case, Pollard is a miserable little shit who went shopping for someone to sell out to almost the second he got his hands anywhere near any valuable information. The line about how he was simply a humble patriot who wanted to protect his beloved Jewish homeland is pure fiction.
matoko_chan
i shall dance naow.
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq:
Uh, here’s the text, big guy:
Allan
@joe from Lowell: Thanks. Now I don’t need to comment except to say “this.”
burnspbesq
@Arclite:
You’re right, but you and I probably find different aspects of that statement depressing. I’m depressed that people take seriously the writings of someone who apparently can’t tell the difference between a statement by a former campaign aide and the official policy of the United States of America.
El Tiburon
@burnspbesq:
First Amendment is lost on you, huh?
Arclite
@burnspbesq:
When I read GG’s article, I wondered about this very thing (regardless of whether it violates the 1st amendment). Does anyone have more info on this?
El Tiburon
@burnspbesq:
Also, I am no atty and admit to being over my head, the whole part about “convert to his use or gain” does not apply here.
Or are you implying that Wikileaks or Assange hoped to gain something by this?
General Stuck
LOL. and why you are still the master of the this domain.
El Tiburon
@joe from Lowell:
Before I call you unspeakable names, perhaps you can direct me to where Greenwald said this?
burnspbesq
@joe from Lowell:
Which part of “record” are you struggling to comprehend?
Joe Beese
@joe from Lowell:
I’m sticking with “craven bootlicker”.
It encompasses both the abasement before power and complete lack of principle displayed by Obama’s remaining supporters.
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq: Here is the ruling on the 641 charges in the case you linked to:
I think we all understand that stealing government paper and copy toner is theft, because (as I said) that statue is about items of value.
However, the court quite clearly refused to rule on whether the information itself counts as a stolen item.
General Stuck
@Joe Beese:
I am writing a book titled “Clueless Trolls and Those Who Love Them” May I quote this Joe?, Oprah would simply beam.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: University of Oklahoma.
One of the benefits of having David Boren as University President was his effort to turn the Political Science division of the college of Arts and Sciences into a world class organization.
trollhattan
Details about what Pollard stole remain classified. Here’s a bit lifted from Wikipedia:
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq:
Absolutely none. There is absolutely no part of “record” that I do not understand.
(Has anyone ever noticed that this formulation is an absolute, 100% guarantee that the person asking the question doesn’t have an argument, and is playing dumb to pretend that some language precludes there from being an argument?)
And, once again, thank you for linking to a case which proves you wrong, and which so precisely addressing the point you got wrong.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: Considering that Assange threatened to sue the Guardian over their receipt of the Wikileaks archive from a disgruntled staffer, I’d say that he considered that stuff to be of monetary value.
I personally think that unless they can prove that Assange offered something to Manning (and it increasingly appears that they cannot prove such) then they don’t have a case.
burnspbesq
@joe from Lowell:
Are you actually contending that if Manning supplied his own USB drive, there is no violation?
Remind me again what law school you graduated from.
FlipYrWhig
@Arclite: Good thing Glenn Greenwald has never sounded like his putative political opponents, as for instance when defending the Citizens United ruling, or for instance when declaring that supporting Obama is a form of uncritical adoration.
joe from Lowell
@El Tiburon:
Certainly. The third paragraph in Greenwald’s section 3 begins:
Look at where the link goes. Read what that writer says about the issue of solitary confinement. Greenwald called that guy an “Obama apologist” for writing that diary.
Glenn Greenwald needs to spend some time deflating his head, so he can understand that It’s Not All About You, Glenn. Cripes, writing a piece about how solitary confinement abuse is actually widespread now gets on Greenwald’s shit list, because of his epic-in-his-mind battle with those nasty Obama apologists.
soonergrunt
@soonergrunt:
Source:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/vanity-fair-wikileaks-deal-was-nearly-derailed/
emphasis mine.
joe from Lowell
@Joe Beese:
On a thread about an issue that you, allegedly, care about, this is the sum total of your contribution: discussing which name you’re going to call “those people.”
The most important thing to Protest People is their self-image as Protest People.
General Stuck
@FlipYrWhig:
Obot apologist. That support of CU was done for the continued purity of civil liberties and whatever negative effects are subserviant to that greater good. It’s like muzzling Ben Franklin speech from the grave and we must all remain mint free.
soonergrunt
@burnspbesq: If Wikileaks provided Manning with the encryption tools or other tools to upload the stuff to their servers, that could be the overt act needed to establish a conspiracy, whether Assange had ever heard of Manning or not.
Proving such, however…
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt:
Maybe.
Since Assange has been releasing his stuff for free, I’d say his interest isn’t financial, and he was pissed off about the Guardian potentially screwing up his strategy, not that he considered the materials themselves to have value.
fasteddie9318
FSM, who the fuck is Joy Reid and how on Earth did she get a job working for the Obama campaign? In addition to being an asshole, she doesn’t come off as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
FlipYrWhig
@General Stuck: It really does say all one really needs to know about what has happened in these areas over the last two years, to coin a phrase.
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq:
I’m talking about Assange, not Manning. Manning is in violation of espionage laws, and it doesn’t matter whose recording devices he used.
And it must be terribly embarrassing to you that you’re getting your ass handed to you this badly by someone whose degree is in urban planning.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt: I see what you’re saying. On the other hand, a financial interest in the timing of the release, however, isn’t the same thing as the materials themselves having value.
joe from Lowell
@soonergrunt:
Sure it could. However, burnsie is offering that argument in an effort to make a point about 19 USC sec. 641, which deals with larceny of federal property.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell:
Well, it could be argued that the information had an attendant cost to it’s collection/creation. It’s the work product of government employees and contractors, and that most assuredly can be valued. I do that a couple of times a year when I’m making a case for buying computer hardware, and most especially servers and backup software/storage drives. It’s done to place a value on risk reduction/mitigation strategies.
There’s also the cost attendant to procuring and maintaining the equipment used by those employees and contractors to collect, process, store, and transmit that information. The argument being that without the information, that equipment wouldn’t have been purchased, nor those persons employed. The intelligence data and State Dept cables could thus be said to have monetary value that is measurable. The fact that Assange considered it to be of monetary value to him could buttress such an argument, because it could be used to establish his intent to assist in the theft of something of value. For that reason, it’s probably a good thing for him that he didn’t actually sue the Guardian.
This, however, is more of an intellectual exercise than anything because I doubt a court would agree with that line or reasoning, or that any prosecutor who wasn’t on Law And Order would try it.
burnspbesq
@ Joe from Lowell:
From the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. v. Girard, 601 F. 2d 69 (2d Cir. 1979):
What was that about asses being handed?
And the definitions are the same, whether what is being charged is the actual theft, aiding and abetting, or receiving, so your attempted distinction between Manning and Assange is eight pounds of fail in a five-pound bag.
Never wrestle with a
piglawyer. You end up covered with mud, and thepiglawyer likes it.Stillwater
@burnspbesq: Did Manning sell his cache to Assange? Seems like a necessary condition for the statute to apply.
soonergrunt
But all of the preceding aside, I went to National Review (no link from me) and searched through their archives using the following search strings:
Manning
Bradley Manning
Manning AND Pollard
Bradley Manning Jonathan Pollard
Pollard
Jonathan Pollard
And I only found the stuff I mentioned earlier. So whatever you were looking for is not there, DougJ DougJson. I’ll be forwarding the bill for the PTSD counseling I’m sure to need after that experience.
joe from Lowell
@burnspbesq: You need to stop preemptively, and insecurely, declaring victory, because now I’m going to have to tear you a new one yet again.
The case you’re quoting now – having now realized your misinterpretation of the last one, you’re welcome – is about the sale of something – that is, it is a ruling that turns on the point I already explained to you over an hour ago, “things of economic value.” You might have noticed, that the quote you pulled reads
So, once again, you’ve found a case that proves me right, in my contention That is a section about theft of things of economic value.
*facepalm*
Oh, good God! Manning is charged with violating the Espionage Act (18 USC 793), and with illegally accessing a computer. He is not being charged with theft. He is not being charged under 18 USC 641. He is not being charged with any crime related to stealing federal property at all.
Yes, “counsellor,” the distinction between larceny (18 USC 641) and espionage (18 USC 793) is, in fact, a substantive one under our laws. For instance, the Espionage Act doesn’t reference economic value at all, and deals entirely with information, completely outside of any concerns about money.
Seriously, stick to traffic tickets or whatever it is you actually know about. Hooting and beating your chest when you make arguments this full of holes doesn’t make your glaring errors of fact, logic, and even legal knowledge any less embarrassing.
John - A Motley Moose
@joe from Lowell: “That guy” is a gal. Although, I’m not sure I should be calling a professor at SUNY a ‘gal’. She has more cred than Greenwald when it comes to fighting for human rights. She was involved in those kinds of battles before Greenwald was born. She’s used to being attacked. She doesn’t seem upset about what GG wrote, but her friends are definitely mad about that weak swipe he took at her.
soonergrunt
@Stillwater: He could have simply given it to Assange and the statute would apply, from the cite that burnspbesq supplied.
The clincher would be if Assange or someone acting on his behalf gave ANYTHING to Manning.
Here’s the problem–lets’ assume for the moment that encryption and FTP software was found on Manning’s personal computer. How do you prove that the software came from Wikileaks or Assange, and not from FreeSoftwareForDownload.com or from Archive_of_software_that_is_not_owned_or_associated_with_Julian_Assange.org? Just because it is similar or even exactly like the software Wikileaks uses does not mean that Manning got it from Wikileaks, and it especially does not mean that they can prove such.
Unless they can show that, or they can show that Assange or somebody acting on his behalf either assisted or gave something of value to Manning, they don’t have conspiracy.
At least, that’s what I understand, but IANAL.
Mike M
@Joe from Lowell: The stolen documents have tremendous value to a number of news organizations and WikiLeaks, even if the information itself is being given away for free. As long as the information is relatively scarce, it can attract traffic to your website (or print publications), and therefore bring revenue from advertisers, investors, or donors. WikiLeaks mission is to publish leaked information, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t also have a financial motivation to control the information flow. Even non-profit organizations need money.
In any case, I think it will be next to impossible to prosecute Assange for conspiracy. The information might have come to him anonymously just as he said. But even if he did provide some assistance to Manning in the procurement of the information, my guess is that Assange has been at this game long enough not to trap himself or his organization by leaving a trail.
From what I’ve read of Manning’s posted online communications, though, he doesn’t seem especially sophisticated, or at least doesn’t seem to have thought through the ramifications of his actions in advance.
joe from Lowell
@John – A Motley Moose:
And yet, Greenwald reads her (apologies, madam) piece about solitary confinement, and decides that it’s all about him, an attack by Obama apologists out to discredit him.
I wonder if the “Obama apologists” keep stealing single socks from Glenn’s washing machine, too.
Stillwater
@soonergrunt: He could have simply given it to Assange and the statute would apply, from the cite that burnspbesq supplied.
Well, I’m not so sure. The case Burnsy cited turned on two things, it seemed to me: theft and an exchange of money for the stolen goods. Words like ‘gain’ and ‘use’ as they apply to the recipient of the goods can get overly refined, but the overall context, especially the language indicating that the sale of information was ultimately deemed as violating the statute, suggests that material gain of some sort is required for the statue to apply.
But whatever. For the US DOJ to go after Assange for the possession and subsequent publication of the stolen information in the absence of a conspiracy would effectively criminalize every news-media outlet in the country. Burns is happy with that eventuality, but I think the DOJ and others are less enthusiastic about pursuing that line.
soonergrunt
@Stillwater: Well, as I’ve taken pains to say before, I am not a lawyer.
I was under the impression, however, that purchase was not necessary.
It is a crime to misappropriate government property, or to conspire to do such or to knowingly receive such.
that doesn’t mean that it would be easy to prove or that it would be wise to try to prove it.
As I pointed out though, Assange certainly thought he had something of monetary value (although I’m sure he would deny that) which would seem to go to criminal intent.
I’m not sure I want my real world prosecutors to be as creative as Jack McCoy was on Law and Order, though.
soonergrunt
@joe from Lowell: No. That’s the Bush apologists. We Obamabots keep taking his pens.
Stillwater
@soonergrunt: My comments were pretty restricted, only to the case Burnsy cited and its relevance in supporting the point he was making upthread.
Lawd knows that if there’s a crime to pin on Assange without creating significant collateral damage, the suits in DC will find it.
Mona
@joe from Lowell:
Joe. C’mon, that’s not what Glenn wrote. He documented that he has himself written about solitary confinement per se as barbaric, and well-before and -outside of the Manning issue. Being privy to the contents of his next book, I know that he takes on the Prison State in general, and the way it is stacked against the regular person in particular. In sum: At least as against him (or me), the latest rallying cry that those protesting the treatment of Bradely Manning had nary a care about prison conditions prior to the Manning matter is manifestly false. Do you conced that, and that that is his point?
Is it so awful that he and some others (myself included) hold Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to the same standards we apply to the GOP and to BushCo? I mean, why should any rational person base their caring that civil liberties are assaulted by politicians on whether the party label varies?
General Stuck
Oh please, the Obama bad/worse than Bush bullshit. Don’t you folks have any sense of shame?
Angry Black Lady
From GG current front page post:
really, dude? it’s the fucking SOTU address. he’s not making an appearance at some kid’s birthday party.
whatever legitimate points he may have (and he has many), it’s this sneer-y tone that makes him unreadable. talk about petty…
General Stuck
@Angry Black Lady:
He didn’t have a single word to say about Obama’s great Tucson memorial speech the night he made it. Fuck him and his craven bootlickers, to use another’s phrase..
Stillwater
Glenn Greenwald is the Jay Cutler of blogtopia.
Mona
ABL and General Stuck – seriously? You, like, totally care what ANY president’s speechwriters have vetted for him to spew in the SOTU? It truly matters that Obama said something pretty in Tuscon?
I’m just gobsmacked by such approaches to politicians.
Myself, I care what Obama does or does not do. And on that score he has been very significantly horrible.
FlipYrWhig
@Angry Black Lady: Have you ever met a libertarian who wasn’t like that, from Bill Maher to that kid in the dorm who wouldn’t shut up about “takings” between tokes? That’s how it works. Declare yourself a libertarian and instantly become besotted with your own smirky rule-breaking edginess.
Mona
@General Stuck:
Well, yeah, I do. And am genuinely puzzled that if you have a pro-peace, civil libertarian, anti-corporatist bone in your body, you aren’t also extremely frustrated with Obama. [scratching head]
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
No, it’s not. Read the statutory language quoted above.
General Stuck
@Mona:
A speech is a speech and is just on it’s merits as a speech. A simple acknowledgment of good or bad in Tuscon does not over ride the importance of actions to follow up on. Same with the SOTU, to whit GG thinks it’s important that Obama say what he would like to hear. So your holier than thou schtick falls flat as a flitter. We all care what Obama actually does more than what he says he will or will not do. Red Herring, straw man etc etc…
You don’t like what Obama does, and I don’t like what you and GG do. It’s a stalemate on that score. The only difference is that what you do doesn’t matter all that much, except maybe promote yourselves in a virtual world. When you all get real and honest, then maybe we can find some common ground and work together. But if you and GG insist carrying on as polemic flamethrowers, then there will be continued hostility.
Mona
@FlipYrWhig:
If you are referring to Greenwald, he has never identified himself as a libertarian, and in fact holds some views not typically associated with that cohort. Moreover, Jon Henke just got pissed at Greenwald for daring to “tell” libertarians what their priorities should be, given that in libertarian Henke’s views Greenwald is not one.
General Stuck
@Mona:
Your measuring stick is ideological purity of some sort, mine is progress in a political process where others have a vote in a democracy. We are not from the same political world, I don’t think. Hence, why the Obama worse than Bush meme is so patently absurd and offensive to me, and others.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: It depends on where you set the bar. Are you evaluating Obama against the universe of electable presidential candidates in the foreseeable future, or are you evaluating him against your personal vision of government? Because IMHO even in his worst moments from a “civil libertarian” and “anti-corporatist” perspective, Obama is light years better than anyone else who could ever be elected president. And that’s what matters. Being irked that the president, whoever he is, isn’t doing the things you think are right… seems like a good way to feel irked, you know, always. I don’t know why you’d want to live that way.
Mona
@General Stuck:
I didn’t throw any flames here, polemical or otherwise. Sincerely, I cannot fathom all this criticism of Greenwald for his “failure” to say anything about Obama’s Tuscon speech, or his disinterest — a disinterest I’ve had about every such speech in presidential history — in the SOTU. I voted for Obama, and wouldn’t do it again — that’s because I am far too opposed to his actions/inactions.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: Libertarians have sectarian squabbles just like Protestants do. The overarching story is still the same. That’s where he belongs, on the libertarian continuum.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: Greenwald isn’t just saying that he doesn’t care about the State of the Union address, he’s saying that you’d have to be a chump to care. Wouldn’t you say that’s the tone of a statement like this?
Mona
@General Stuck:
Nope. Sucker that I am, I chose to believe candidate Obama (more or less). He reneged on promises that are critical to restoring the rule of law, resurrecting America’s moral standing in the international community, and on crucial civil liberties matters, not to mention his continuing to appoint corporatists to high post. As I said, I care what Obama does (or does not do), not about pretty words. And he lied, or at least broke multiple, important campaign promises.
General Stuck
@Mona:
With polemic flamethrowing, I was referring to GG, and you endorsed the Obama worse than Bush he invented and uses in nearly every article, at least on civil liberties. No, you have been polite, and honest about opposing Obama at this point in time. I appreciate that honesty, but will continue to oppose people on the left who have come to such conclusion, just like I do for republicans, albeit for different reasons. I think you are wrong, but civil and decent about it.
Angry Black Lady
@Mona: yeah, i like, totally care; although you seem to think paying attention is futile, sometimes, just sometimes, a president will say something important in his SOTU address. you know, like when obama said this last year, and then like TOTALLY FOLLOWED THROUGH much to the chagrin of the frustrati. were you one of the “he’s never going to repeal DADT, no way not never” anticipatorily disappointed people? if so, maybe you should give the SOTU a whirl this year.
ETA: “This” being “This year I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay americans to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
Sapient
Mona said: “I voted for Obama, and wouldn’t do it again—that’s because I am far too opposed to his actions/inactions.”
This is why I can’t support what Greenwald and his acolytes stand for.
Sotomayor = Alito? I don’t think so. The reason civil liberties have been diminished in recent years is because Republicans have infested the court system to the extent that it’s dominated by their ideology. People who really want to see change are willing to accept the realities that politicians have to confront.
While you’re looking for your saint, Mona, keep in mind the “people sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state.” But if you can’t blame it on Obama, you really don’t care.
Mona
@FlipYrWhig:
Yes, I’d agree that his tone conveys that. But I share Greenwald’s bemusement at the media frenzy over the SOTU, as if it matters more than myriad things that get little, if any coverage, but which are infinitely more important.
Angry Black Lady
@Mona: because it demonstrates his lack of objectivity when it comes to all things obama, and signals that what he says must be taken with a grain of salt and investigated and backed up.
(one could say the same thing about me and my disdain for the hamsher.)
Mona
@Sapient:
Excuse me? Greenwald supported her nomination, and never, not remotely, equated her with Sam Alito! Seriously, I think too many here do not read Greenwald for comprehension, or are so put off by his strong criticisms of Obama, that they cannot, literally cannot, accurately assess what Greenwald does– and does not — argue.
burnspbesq
@Joe from Lowell:
You have a very long way to go before you understand how to read opinions.
The sale of the information in the Girard case is a fact that is specific to that case. Sale of the stolen property is not an element of the offense, and there is nothing you can do or say that will make it an element of the offense.
With respect to Pvt. Manning, it is common knowledge that he is being charged under Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not under any provision of Title 18. Five seconds on Google could have spared you some embarrassment. Any discussion of Title 18 pertains to Assange. Oddly enough, earlier in this thread you said you cared about Assange, not Manning. I took you at your word. Silly me.
I’m done with you. You’re incapable of getting it.
General Stuck
@Mona:
Like any president, there are things he promised that he broke that promise on. And there are other things not achieved thus far, due to our separation of powers government, and general lack of political support in the public. And there are things that Bush did in an illegal way, that have existed in law well before Obama and Bush.
I think all in all, within the realm of experience of my 57 years on earth, Obama stacks up pretty well with other presidents achieving what they promise. If you aren’t going to vote for Obama, then in effect you will be voting for the republican in 2012. It is not a zero sum proposition, and them is the rules.
Mona
@Angry Black Lady:
Well, Obama has broken enough important campaign promises, and the Dems held off on repealing DADT sufficiently long, that skepticism was more than justified. But finally following through on abolishing DADT is not, not even remotely, sufficient to salvage Obama’s presidency for purposes of civil liberties, peace, and his ongoing appointments of corporatists and sops to that cohort.
Sapient
Mona: “Greenwald supported her nomination”
Well good for him! But when you don’t support the Democrat, you get the Republican, so you don’t freaking get Sotomayor. You get Alito. Get it? And you get that person for life! So have fun with the “protest candidate” that you’re going to vote for in 2012.
John - A Motley Moose
@Mona: I actually read the Guardian piece and followed a link in their piece to a Greenwald piece on Manning. Greenwalds words, my emphasis –
“It’s one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it’s another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.”
The Guardian authors do not claim that no one has spoken out against solitary confinement and harsh prison conditions before Manning. That would be silly, since there are many prison reform groups in this country. The things the do point out, though, are spot-on. I have read many examples of people who say what Manning is undergoing amounts to torture. Those same people then put forward arguments that Manning has not been convicted of anything. That what he is accused of does not justify such treatment, etc… Well, if it’s torture then it is not justified in any case. At any one time, there are 100,000 people in solitary confinement in this country who suffer under the same conditions that Manning endures. Many of them are still awaiting trial, just like Manning.
Greenwald and others are right to complain about the treatment of Manning. However, Greenwald accuses anyone who points out that Manning’s treatment is commonplace in this country of being “Obama apologists”. Nowhere in that Guardian piece or the dkos diary is there one word defending the Obama administration. In fact, they are condemning the whole incarceration policy of this country. It would be nice if GG could acknowledge they have a point instead of getting so defensive about it and smearing honest activists for pointing out the silence from many on the progressive left for ignoring woeful conditions in our prison industrial complex.
The Guardian op-ed
The dkos diary GG linked to as an example of “Obama apologists”
Mona
@General Stuck:
Yes, and I weight those things as the primary reasons I voted for him. McCain wouldn’t have been much different on those scores. In my strong view, the U.S. government suffers from deep, systemic pathology, and at this point I realize that Obama never had any intention of addressing that, even tho he made multiple, specific and repeated vows that he would.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: Yes, Glenn Greenwald’s greatest cross to bear is that we sometimes fail to understand the extent of his correctness.
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
“For the US DOJ to go after Assange for the possession and subsequent publication of the stolen information in the absence of a conspiracy would effectively criminalize every news-media outlet in the country. Burns is happy with that eventuality”
Actually, I’m not, and I have said so repeatedly. The idea of prosecuting media actors under 641 for receiving stolen information, without more, would raise grave first amendment issues. However, the first amendment is a license to publish, not a license to steal. I have no qualms about prosecuting media actors for conspiracy, for actually stealing stuff themselves, or for aiding and abetting.
Stillwater
@burnspbesq: Maybe I’m assuming an overly narrow definition of ‘use’ and ‘gain’ in the statute, especially given the second case you quoted. If ‘use’ can be construed so broadly as to include the mere publication of copies of original documents, and if ‘gain’ is understood as to include no material gain of any kind, then the statute applies. But if not, then not.
Mona
@John – A Motley Moose:
Quite simply, you are wrong. Since Greenwald (and I) have spent some energy spewing words into the blogosphere about the prison-industrial complex, and the abomination that is current “corrections” policy, and given that his latest book is largely about that topic, we would hardly be found making such a point.
However, Manning’s treatment is not commonplace for those in pre-trial detention. With a written record like Greenwald’s (or mine), however, you cannot truthfully argue that our observing that means we do not care about those convicted of crimes being subjected to solitary confinement or other barbaric conditions.
burnspbesq
@burnspbesq:
ETA: note that I said “raise grave first amendment issues,” not “violate the first amendment.” AFAIK, there are no cases on point, and this is a close enough call that I can imagine some judges seeing it differently.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona:
You do realize that this means you will never count yourself satisfied with any U.S. government. What do you get from that? Why would you choose to base your politics on that kind of outlook? It’s like being dissatisfied with English because it doesn’t have a distinction between polite and familiar pronouns. Well, OK, but is that fixable?
There’s existential despair that Government Sucks, and then there’s specific disappointment that Obama did Bad Thing X or didn’t do Good Thing Y. For example, closing Guantanamo… didn’t happen… mostly because Congressional Democrats balked just as much as Republicans did. What should he do about that? Well, maybe there’s a conversation worth having in that question. But the more the problem is systemic and existential, IMHO the less interesting it is to hear about it.
General Stuck
This is good news for Sarah Palin. And Michael Palin.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: I have a hard time believing that solitary confinement is “barbaric,” frankly. Sounds like it sucks, sure. Same goes for most of prison life. I feel like I’d prefer being in solitary to being with a bunch of unpredictable freakazoids… but then again, I’m basically a misanthrope.
Mona
@FlipYrWhig:
I see, so pointing out that when someone here writes that Greenwald said X, when what he wrote was not-X, the former is just a burden for Greenwald, as opposed to an impediment to reasoned discourse. Got it.
Sapient
@FlipYrWhig: I totally agee, FlipYrWhig. Just give me something to read. Which Bradley Manning has (although it’s taken away at bedtime).
Sapient
Mona, you didn’t answer my question: Would McCain have nominated Sotomayor? Maybe you should rethink your voting options?
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
The Girard case is instructive on that point. The stolen information was the identities of DEA informants, and it was used by the leader of a drug-smuggling conspiracy to determine whether he had any rats in his organization. If that’s enough to constitute “use or gain,” then publishing stolen information is probably also “use or gain,” regardless of whether it is published in a newspaper for which one has to pay or on a website that can be accessed for free.
Mona
@FlipYrWhig:
Except that, candidate Obama repeatedly pledged to address those issues you label as my “existential despair.” In fact, as president he has in large part exacerbated them.
Mona
@Sapient:
No.
But I am less than happy with the Kagan appointment. In terms of the balance on the High Court for issues that are critically important, the Sotomayor appointment is wholly insufficient.
But the point is, Greenwald most emphatically did not equate her with Sam Alito, as was claimed.
soonergrunt
I don’t know why you guys are engaging this mona character. Anyone that devoted to Greenwald is pretty much a goner, and useless to people who actually are trying to get things done.
And I must say, Mona has the cult-follower thing down-if Greenwald ever runs afoul of the law you can look for her to follow him out with a blaze of gunfire/cup of cyanide-laced-kool-aid, but I digress.
The main problem with Greenwald and his followers is that he is too in love with the stink of his own taint to actually be involved in any movement that doesn’t make him the leader. The fact that he’s off-putting to all but those most dedicated to also smelling his taint pretty much dooms him and them to a loud, annoying, irrelevance.
This spawns abortions like the Accountability Project, which is anything but accountable and seems to exist primarily as a vehicle to line his pockets under the rubric of donations to a political movement. This will probably lead to an investigation or two, followed by the aforementioned ‘running afoul of the law/blaze of gunfire/kool-aid drinking.
So at least there’s a predictable path for our erstwhile correspondent here.
Sapient
That wasn’t the challenge, Mona. The challenge was, who are you going to get with your ideal “protest” candidate in 2012, the one who doesn’t win? You’re going to get a Republican. And your going to get more Alito.
Sapient
@soonergrunt: You’re absolutely right. Too many glasses of wine before watching the SOTU.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: I was reacting to this:
This is the usual Greenwaldian “y’all jus’ jealous” line, that he has such “strong criticisms” that we just can’t take it.
I’m glad you and he want to talk about prison conditions more generally. I still don’t trust the way he constructs arguments. I don’t enjoy the attitude of principled superiority, either, but that’s style, not substance. The way he makes a case is sketchy. It seems to persuade a lot of smart people, but very often there’s something fishy being covered over with a “there can only be one explanation” or a “clearly the intention must be” or the like. I don’t go for that.
Tim
@Mona:
Mona, you’re fighting a righteous battle here, but you’re arguing with weirdos who are absolutely OBSESSED with GG and their fantasies of his alleged wrongness, arrogance, wordiness, whatever. I’ve been coming to BJ for years, and believe me, it’s creepy the degree to which General Stuck, Sooner Grunt, Joe in Lowell, Flypwhatever, are fixated on GG and Hamsher as demons.
In their small minds, such as they are, there are no government sponsored atrocities that outweigh the fact that GG and Jane are…something.
Don’t waste your time.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: Re: Kagan, are you also still suspicious that Kirstin Gillibrand isn’t liberal enough? Because we heard a lot of worry about that too.
burnspbesq
@Mona:
“I am less than happy with the Kagan appointment”
Really. Who, that was confirmable, would you have preferred?
In formulating your anser, keep in mind that age is a legitimate consideration, and Wood’s age correctly made her a non-starter.
FlipYrWhig
@Tim: You’re just jealous that we make such great arguments. That’s the only possible reason why anyone dislikes someone else’s writing in the blogosphere.
Tim
@Sapient:
.
So couldn’t a Republican, for whom Mona doesn’t cast a vote, make the same accusation from their side? That by not voting for the R candidate Mona is electing the Dem? Why does it only go one way? Doesn’t the fact that I don’t vote for a Dem OR a Rep cancel out my vote entirely?
The idea that citizens of a democracy are OBLIGATED to vote for one of the nominated candidates, no matter how repulsive, is ridiculous. But fostering that meme certainly serves the aims of our corporate/governmental overlords who wish to preserve the illusion that the u.s. is a functioning democracy when few thing could be further from the truth.
soonergrunt
@Tim: Who gives a flying fuck what a republican does, you stupid shit?
That’s one of the dumber arguments made around this site, and that really is saying something. If we’re very lucky, they’re following around their version of Glen Greenwald with as much or more devotion as you idiots and we might get ahead a little bit then.
Mona
@FlipYrWhig:
What are you talking about? I never remotely suggested anyone was jealous; rather, I (correctly) have pointed out that several are simply wrong in what they claim Greenwald has advocated — wrong as a factual matter, and also for such absurdities as criticizing him for not writing nice things about Obama’s Tuscon speech. [eyes rolling] Nor to my knowledge has Greenwald attributed misrepresentations of his views and written record to “jealousy.”
Anyone, including Greenwald, has a right to be judged on what they actually have stated, as opposed to the erroneous statements attributed to them.
Tim
@soonergrunt:
That comment is very revealing as to what kind of person you are.
And you didn’t answer my question, presumably because you can’t. That too, is revealing.
Mona
@Tim:
Thank you. Co-sign.
Tim
@Mona:
Your wasting your time…
…but then, so am I so what the hell.
FlipYrWhig
@burnspbesq: I don’t think that’s necessary, personally. I just think there’s a distinction between saying “I’m disappointed in Obama’s corporatism and civil liberties record,” which is a fine thing to say, and “I’m so disappointed in Obama’s corporatism and civil liberties record that I will no longer vote for him,” which IMHO seems to suggest that someone who would do the things you want is out there to vote for instead. I think you have to take a harm-reduction approach rather than a zero-tolerance one.
FlipYrWhig
@Mona: The fact that you would “co-sign” a comment like that shows that we’re coming from utterly antithetical political places. Tim’s notion seems to me to be the height of vanity.
Mona
@burnspbesq:
I disagree about Woods’ age making her a “non-starter.” But in any event, if she was confirmable — and you do not state she wasn’t — then someone younger, if you require that, but more reflective of Woods’ jurisprudential views than is Kagan.
But again: Greenwald never equated Sotomayor to Sam Alito. Let’s see, he supposedly did that, he unforgivably failed to post about Obama’s Tuscon speech, he supposedly objects to misrepresentations of his stated positions by accusing those making them of jealousy, and on it goes. Well, this is all very instructive.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Mona:
Shorter Mona: No matter what, the black dude in charge gets no credit from me.
Keep looking for that unicorn that farts flowers, rainbows and pink pixie dust!
I doubt that you voted for Obama because it’s clear that no matter what he does it will never be enough for you.
I like how Timmeh, Mona and other GG ball-washers have this way of dismissing anyone who disagrees with the Great Glenzilla(!) as blindly worshipful O-bots or “weirdos who are absolutely OBSESSED with GG and their fantasies of his alleged wrongness, arrogance, wordiness, whatever”.
This is why you will never be taken seriously here. You think that your blithe dismissals of any who dare to disagree with you actually mean something when in reality your words only matter to you.
Stupid gits like you morons sit around picking lint out of your belly buttons, hold it up to show everyone and try to convince us that you found gold.
Mona
@FlipYrWhig:
Let me preface by saying I am not equating any past or likely-to-be-future presidential contenders from either party with Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. But, do you not agree that at some point before your choices are reduced to either of those very far extremes, a person can reasonably refuse to vote for either?
Tim
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
What is a “git?”
thank you
Mona
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Not only did I vote for him, but at various blogs I pissed of a lot of libertarians (I self-identify as a “left-libertarian”) by arguing why it was the only moral choice. But I’m not wasting my time searching for any of that, because you’d just switch to another ad hom ploy if I did.
Tim
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
This is why you will never be taken seriously here.
This is an instructive comment from Odie. It is important to him to fantasize that Balloon Juice is somehow “his” hangout, that his GG/Hamsher-obsessed cohort is predominant here, and that others who disagree with him are daring to oppose the will of the BJ Hive and will be shunned. BJ comment threads are Odie’s grade school playground and he is making it known that YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!!!!!!
ooooh, so ferocious. And pathetic.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Mona:
I wouldn’t give a shit if you linked to anything that you have posted on the internet.
It’s the internet and you question the veracity of anything that is posted on it. If you don’t then you are a fucking idiot.
I’m not a fucking idiot.
@Tim:
I NEVER SAID THAT YOU WEREN’T WELCOME HERE, NOR DID I SHUN EITHER OF YOU.
Mona, Tim is an idiot but since you co-sign something he said that makes you one. Also. Too. Ubetcha.
Talk about pathetic…lol! “Never be taken seriously here” =/= “YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE”
Reading comprehension is not your friend, is it?
Timmeh:
From the Urban Dictionary:
Git:
bastard
idiot
jerk
arsehole
cunt
I’ll let you folks choose which one I mean since you like to do that shit anyway…lol
Oh, and you’re welcome. :)
Mona
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Mr. Manatee, you don’t even have to search the whole, wide Internet. I’ve been posting on and off here — albeit sporadically — for some 6 yrs. I joined with John in going batshit ballistic during the Schiavo Derangement and offered him support in the comments at least that far back. So, for some, I am not an unknown at BJ, and that includes John; we follow each other on Twitter.
But I do realize I am not welcome here. :)
Stillwater
@Mona: But I do realize I am not welcome here. :)
Don’t let the concern troll harpie brigade run you off Mona. I for one was happy to see you here a short time ago, and look forward to seeing you here again.
soonergrunt
@Tim: The person I am is one who knows that if you were any more full of yourself over unimportant bullshit, you’d explode and fertilize the soil for a two hundred yard radius.
That you are as arrogant as you are stupid is what allows you to think that you have a right to expect anything such as an answer to your self referential, self-taint-licking bullshit. You are a consummate Greenwaldian. Please go and look for pocket change on the interstate in the dark now. You’ll actually be useful to society for about 16.42 seconds, which will be a personal record, I’m sure.
soonergrunt
@Tim: Use a mirror.
soonergrunt
@Stillwater: Stillwater, I am not a concern troll.
Tim and Mona are, like the vast majority of glenbots, basically useless people who are consumed with their own self importance, just like their leader.
And while it could easily be said that I am trolling them, and I AM trolling them, I am most assuredly unconcerned about them.
John - A Motley Moose
@Mona: Yet that’s exactly the point GG made. He linked the words “Obama apologists” to a diary that said absolutely nothing about Obama. This is indisputable. I do not deny Greenwald any credit for speaking out about human rights abuses, including prisons. I am accusing him of misrepresenting the diary on dkos he linked to and the op-ed piece in the Guardian. He didn’t refute those authors, he misinterpreted and distorted them. Have you actually read either one?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Mona:
So, according to you, everything that is posted on teh intert00bs iz fact?
Fuck this is weak shit.
“But I do realize I am not welcome here.”
Awww, you haz a sad. What’s the matter, are you upset that your great whizdumb is dismissed out of hand by some stranger on the internet? Looking for a shoulder to blubber on? Don’t worry, Timmeh will probably be coming back around in a few and I’m sure he’ll be happy to lend you his.
Time to roll for a bit since I have shit to do in IRL that’s actually productive though I will admit that I hate to miss out on the baby seal clubbing here. Do feel free to whine away though and don’t let my absence disappoint you too much, k?
Have a very nice evening! :)
Mona
@Stillwater:
Oh, I was just waxing glib in remarking that I understood myself to be unwelcome; my time online has greatly diminished in the last 18 mos since I am happily involved in some family matters, but I’ve looked in on BJ for over 6 yrs and don’t foresee that changing. My comments have all but dried up here and elsewhere (today has been a rather rare exception) and I don’t use my blogging privileges at Jim Henley’s place hardly at all for, oh, about two years now. (As a matter of truth in advertising, I prolly should delete Jim’s site from my sig.)
But, every now and again I revert to my online enthusiasms, and this was just one of those times. It will pass, and then come back again.
Tim
@soonergrunt:
I see you are still too stupid to answer my question.
Tim
@soonergrunt:
how old are you?
Mona
@John – A Motley Moose:
No, I read neither. But if Glenn did that, you absolutely should tell him so either in his comments section or via email. Contrary to what some here have said or implied, his regulars who generally agree with him have disagreed on specific claims he has made, and he does answer disagreements proffered in his comments — at least earlyish in the thread he does.
Glenn has been known to occasionally overstate his case, and I’ve told him so — tho I can’t say he did so here, because I read neither link. He also is at other times very careful, but like all human beings he is sometimes mistaken. Or with him, what happens is that his outrage hits 11 and he on a comparative handful of occasions has let his fingers fly when he should have reread what he is critiquing.
But of course, he links to people just so that they can judge for themselves, and does, unlike many bloggers, take up challenges in his comments section.
John - A Motley Moose
@Mona: I give you credit for being honest enough to admit you haven’t read either one. You really should before you spend so much time defending Glenn’s criticism of those pieces. It might help you to understand where some of the criticism is coming from.
Mona
@John – A Motley Moose: This is the bulk of what Glenn says about the Guardian Op-Ed, my emphasis:
Could you identify where he is misstating what that Op-Ed contains? Were his errors elsewhere in his post?
John - A Motley Moose
@Mona: It’s not that part, although he’s technically right, but wrong in principle, because they linked to articles that either supported their contention with comment threads that were filled with examples of the types of statements they were talking about.
It’s this part of Glenn’s statement that I disagree with
That’s a gross misrepresentation of what was said in both pieces he linked to as examples of that kind of theme. I have also pointed out that neither piece he links defends Obama in any way. In fact, they never mention Obama or defend the way Manning is being treated. They condemn it in no uncertain terms.
Mona
@John – A Motley Moose:
Well, I don’t see a gross misrepresentation in the Op-Ed based on your weak defense of it. It is not necessary that Obama be named for something to constitute an unwillingness to criticize governmental action when there is every reason to think the same ppl would do so if Bush 43 was still in ofc.
I’m not going to wade thru a Kos comments section, but if your claims about Glenn vis-a-vis the Guardian Op-Ed are representative, he did not do what you have accused him of. To argue, as you do, that he is “technically right” but wrong in principle is, well, unconvincing. (It reminds me of a losing plaintiff in a defamation case I once followed, who claimed that everything the defendants said was true in each specific instance, but the stmts were “false collectively.”)
John - A Motley Moose
@Mona: I’ll give it one more try.
This is what Greenwald is accusing the authors of doing.
I say they did not do this. I cannot prove a negative. It is now up to you to prove that Greenwald is correct. You haven’t done so yet.
Mona
@John – A Motley Moose:
Having now gone and read the Op-Ed, I see what so pissed Glenn off. The authors link to him as one of 3 examples of lamenting Bradley Manning’s treatment, but utterly fail to note he has vigorously condemned solitary confinement and prison conditions in general, and that he did so well before anyone had ever heard the name Bradley Manning. That fact undermines their entire premise.
Mona
@John – A Motley Moose:
Again, I just read it, and they most clearly did. And used Glenn, of all people, as an example of “progressives” who are supposedly late to the party in opposing solitary confinement in particular, and American prison conditions in general. He has every right to be outraged, given his written record. He documents why that is so in his post.
soonergrunt
@Tim: You need to ask questions worthy of the effort of typing out an answer. You also need to pull your nose out of your own ass, and attempt to determine whether or not a fair-minded person would care about your demands to answer your question.
The answer to both is no, right about now.
@Tim: Old enough to know that hoping for something from you other than self-referential bullshit is a lost cause. Young enough to still enjoy calling you out as the taint-licker you are.
Donald
“You do realize that this means you will never count yourself satisfied with any U.S. government. What do you get from that? Why would you choose to base your politics on that kind of outlook? ”
That’s one of the weirdest arguments I’ve ever seen. Don’t believe that our government has deep systemic flaws not because the belief is false, but because you don’t “get something from it” and it’s not a basis for the sort of politics the writer prefers.
That’s not even right anyway. A person might think that the Democrats stink, but are less awful than the Republicans, meaning less total human suffering, and vote for them on that basis. One doesn’t have to like a party to vote for them. Unfortunately the party one votes for might come to think you do like them and has no incentive to change so long as one keeps doing that, but that’s the dilemma.
John - A Motley Moose
@Mona: So because Greenwald can point to himself as an exception then their whole premise is wrong? I’ve read a hell of a lot of posts and comments on this subject and seen plenty of support for their claims.
In addition, I’m still waiting for an explanation for why Greenwald called the author of the dkos diary an “Obama apologist”. There’s not one single thing in that diary that can support his claim. And he doesn’t provide any proof. It’s the very thing he’s complaining about – people making claims and not providing any quotes to prove that claim.
FlipYrWhig
@Donald: Well, there’s disappointment you can do something with, and then there’s disappointment that’s pretty much masturbation. If I concluded that I could not in good conscience cast my vote for a government that refused to change the American flag back to the Bennington Flag, well, I’d end up not voting ever, and I don’t get what that’s supposed to accomplish. Politics is transactional. It seems to me that even if there’s some terrible thing that Obama has done or did do, the test of whether or not to vote for him is what he has done _on balance_ and, AND, in comparison to the other people on the ballot.
The idea that your vote is so pure that your principles must remain unsullied… well, that’s not the way I see it. America has done all kinds of fucked-up things in the world, and I have only a few shots to un-fuck them, and withholding that opportunity from myself seems kind of a hollow gesture. You can say “I don’t support Bad Thing X, and Candidate A supports Bad Thing X, so he’s not getting my vote,” and feel pretty good and virtuous about that.
What if Candidate B ALSO supports Bad Thing X, and there are two candidates on the ballot? Fuck ’em, right, they’re just two sides of the same problem. OK, what if Candidate A supports Bad Thing X but also supports Great Thing Z, but Candidate B hates Great Thing Z? But, alas, poor me, I’ve decided Bad Thing X is the only thing that matters, and I can’t in good conscience lend my precious support to someone who is part of the problem. That’s what anti-abortion people do: look at one issue instead of the full spectrum. It seems kind of stupid to me.
Donald
Flip–
You must have missed where I acknowledged both the validity of lesser than two evils voting and also the dilemma it poses. There’s not any easy answer to this that I know of, but pretending that the lesser of two evils is actually good seems like a bad idea to me.