The “anything goes” media mentality when it comes to Russia strikes again.
(updated below)
The Washington Post on Friday reported a genuinely alarming event: Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. power system through an electrical grid in Vermont. The Post headline conveyed the seriousness of the threat:
The first sentence of the article directly linked this cyberattack to alleged Russian hacking of the email accounts of the DNC and John Podesta — what is now routinely referred to as “Russian hacking of our election” — by referencing the code name revealed on Wednesday by the Obama administration when it announced sanctions on Russian officials: “A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials.”
The Post article contained grave statements from Vermont officials of the type politicians love to issue after a terrorist attack to show they are tough and in control. The state’s Democratic governor, Peter Shumlin, said:
Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world’s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality of life, economy, health, and safety. This episode should highlight the urgent need for our federal government to vigorously pursue and put an end to this sort of Russian meddling.
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy issued a statement warning: “This is beyond hackers having electronic joy rides — this is now about trying to access utilities to potentially manipulate the grid and shut it down in the middle of winter. That is a direct threat to Vermont and we do not take it lightly.”
The article went on and on in that vein, with all the standard tactics used by the U.S. media for such stories: quoting anonymous national security officials, reviewing past acts of Russian treachery, and drawing the scariest possible conclusions (“‘The question remains: Are they in other systems and what was the intent?’ a U.S. official said”).
The media reactions, as Alex Pfeiffer documents, were exactly what one would expect: hysterical, alarmist proclamations of Putin’s menacing evil:
Our Russian "friend" Putin attacked the U.S. power grid. https://t.co/iAneRgbuhF
— Brent Staples (@BrentNYT) December 31, 2016
NEW: "One of the world's leading thugs, [Putin] has been attempting to hack our electric grid," says VT Gov. Shumlin https://t.co/YgdtT4JrlX pic.twitter.com/AU0ZQjT3aO
— ABC News (@ABC) December 31, 2016
Yikes. https://t.co/cXsyd1RHOK
— Paul Farhi (@farhip) December 31, 2016
The Post’s story also predictably and very rapidly infected other large media outlets. Reuters thus told its readers around the world: “A malware code associated with Russian hackers has reportedly been detected within the system of a Vermont electric utility.”
What’s the problem here? It did not happen.
There was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid.” The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all its computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.
Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims, so Burlington Electric had to issue its own statement to the Burlington Free Press, which debunked the Post’s central claim (emphasis in original): “We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems.”
So the key scary claim of the Post story — that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid — was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed the Post’s claim were based on fiction.
Even worse, there is zero evidence that Russian hackers were even responsible for the implanting of this malware on this single laptop. The fact that malware is “Russian-made” does not mean that only Russians can use it; indeed, like a lot of malware, it can be purchased (as Jeffrey Carr has pointed out in the DNC hacking context, assuming that Russian-made malware must have been used by Russians is as irrational as finding a Russian-made Kalishnikov AKM rifle at a crime scene and assuming the killer must be Russian).
As the actual truth emerged once the utility company issued its statement, the Post rushed to fix its embarrassment, beginning by dramatically changing its headline:
The headline is still absurd: They have no idea that this malware was placed by a “Russian operation” (though they would likely justify that by pointing out that they are just stenographically passing along what “officials say”). Moreover, nobody knows when this malware was put on this laptop, how, or by whom. But whatever else is true, the key claim — “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid” — has now been replaced by the claim that this all shows “risk to U.S. electrical grid.”
As journalists realized what did — and did not — actually happen here, the reaction was swift:
1) Not an infiltration of the power grid.
— Dell Cameron (@dellcam) December 31, 2016
2) "Russian" malware can be purchased online by anyone.
3) See 1 & 2. https://t.co/bVIG8zQBsk
Pretty amazing how badly the Post appears to have mangled this one. You didn't call the Vermont utility regulator before publishing?
— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) December 31, 2016
My money's on this all turns out to be commodity malware and not even APT28/APT29 and everyone jumping on the bandwagon will look v silly
— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) December 31, 2016
This matters not only because one of the nation’s major newspapers once again published a wildly misleading, fearmongering story about Russia. It matters even more because it reflects the deeply irrational and ever-spiraling fever that is being cultivated in U.S. political discourse and culture about the threat posed by Moscow.
The Post has many excellent reporters and smart editors. They have produced many great stories this year. But this kind of blatantly irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior — which tracks what they did when promoting that grotesque PropOrNot blacklist of U.S. news outlets accused of being Kremlin tools — is a byproduct of the Anything Goes mentality that now shapes mainstream discussion of Russia, Putin, and the Grave Threat to All Things Decent in America that they pose.
The level of groupthink, fearmongering, coercive peer pressure, and über-nationalism has not been seen since the halcyon days of 2002 and 2003. Indeed, the very same people who back then smeared anyone questioning official claims as Saddam sympathizers or stooges and left-wing un-American loons are back for their sequel, accusing anyone who expresses any skepticism toward claims about Russia of being Putin sympathizers and Kremlin operatives and stooges.
But it’s all severely exacerbated by social media in ways that we don’t yet fully understand. A large percentage of journalists sit on Twitter all day. It’s their primary window into the world. Because of how intense and raw the emotions still are from Trump’s defeat of Clinton, the social media benefits from tweeting and publishing unhinged claims about Trump and Putin are immense and immediate: thousands upon thousands of re-tweets, a rapidly building follower count, and huge amounts of traffic.
Indeed, the more unhinged it is, the greater the benefits are (see some of the most extreme examples here). That’s how otherwise rational people keep getting tricked into posting and re-tweeting and sharing extremely dubious stories that turn out to be false.
And that’s to say nothing of the non-utilitarian social pressures. It’s not news that coastal elites — particularly media and political figures — were and are virtually unified in their unbridled contempt for Trump. And we have seen over and over that any time there is a new Prime Foreign Villain consecrated — now Putin — U.S. media figures lead the campaign. As a result, any denunciation or accusation toward Trump or Russia, no matter how divorced from reason or devoid of facts, generates instant praise, while any questioning of it prompts instant peer-group denunciation, or worse.
Few things are more dangerous to the journalistic function than groupthink, and few instruments have been invented that foster and reinforce groupthink like social media, particularly Twitter, the platform most used by journalists. That’s a phenomenon that merits far more study, but examples like this one highlight the dynamic.
In this case, the effect is a constant ratcheting up of tensions between two nuclear-armed powers whose nuclear systems are still on hair-trigger alert and capable of catastrophic responses based on misunderstanding and misperception. Democrats and their media allies are rightly alarmed about the potential dangers of Trump’s bellicose posture toward China, but remarkably and recklessly indifferent to the dangers of what they themselves are doing here.
* * * * *
Those interested in a sober and rational discussion of the Russia hacking issue should read the following:
(1) Three posts by cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr: first, on the difficulty of proving attribution for any hacks; second, on the irrational claims on which the “Russia hacked the DNC” case is predicated; and third, on the woefully inadequate, evidence-free report issued by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI this week to justify sanctions against Russia.
(2) Yesterday’s Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi, who lived and worked for more than a decade in Russia, titled: “Something About This Russia Story Stinks.”
(3) An Atlantic article by David A. Graham on the politics and strategies of the sanctions imposed this week on Russia by Obama; I disagree with several of his claims, but the article is a rarity: a calm, sober, rational assessment of this debate.
Since it is so often distorted, permit me once again to underscore my own view on the broader Russia issue: Of course it is possible that Russia is responsible for these hacks, as this is perfectly consistent with (and far more mild than) what both Russia and the U.S. have done repeatedly for decades.
But given the stakes involved, along with the incentives for error and/or deceit, no rational person should be willing to embrace these accusations as Truth unless and until convincing evidence has been publicly presented for review, which most certainly has not yet happened. As the above articles demonstrate, this week’s proffered “evidence” — the U.S. government’s evidence-free report — should raise rather than dilute suspicions. It’s hard to understand how this desire for convincing evidence before acceptance of official claims could even be controversial, particularly among journalists.
UPDATE: Just as The Guardian had to do just two days ago regarding its claim about WikiLeaks and Putin, the Washington Post has now added an editor’s note to its story acknowledging that its key claim was false:
Is it not very clear that journalistic standards are being casually dispensed with when the subject is Russia?
The real problem is that Russian financed hackers actually did hack Podesta and the DNC, plus who knows who else, likely in retaliation for some sideswipe hack at the expense of their interests. I have to say I prefer hacking to nuclear dick waving, but Trump? Jeez. What a revolting development!
Pwn All The Things [email protected] Jan 4
And this isn’t even the DNC hack. It’s just the Podesta one. And it’s only one of many different strands in just the public attribution case
30 replies 170 retweets 579 likes
Pwn All The Things [email protected] Jan 4
When hackers hack at scale, they reuse infrastructure. They make mistakes. This isn’t unusual. You can piece the bits together.
Now I know what fake news is. This
The question is why? Are you willing now, Glenn, to look at the horrific truth about the child raping satanist ring uncovered by the world wide citizen’s investigation? Putin gave a speech talking about the child trafficking, and stopped Russian adoptions.
Add that to the newly “uncovered” info that the elites like to have infusions of the blood of children and we are getting to the real story.
http://govtslaves.info/are-the-aging-elite-feasting-on-young-blood-rockefeller-research-advanced-eternal-quest/
The real scandal in the DNC hack is that we have to rely on hackers and/or foreign intelligence agencies to tell us the uncomfortable truth about our own politicians. The Washington Post certainly isn’t interested in the job.
Glen,
You’re always the voice of sanity in our insane world. The reason they hate you is that you are a thousand times smarter than they. They wouldn’t know what ethics were if it slapped them in the face.
Thank you for helping me stay un-brainwashed. We love this site.
It is probably the C.I.A. testing the vulnerability of the system. . .
they could pull it off like 9/11 and blame anyone they want
Thanks, Glenn.
The sky is falling ……the sky is falling….Now Obama is concerned about the Russians….NOW? What about the ” I can do more after the election”…Obama/Putin love affair?
So, now, Glenn, be prepared to be called a Russian stooge. Kudos for courageous journalism.
Yes, it’s clear , “clear that journalistic standards are being casually dispensed with when the subject is Russia?”
Also clear that what we are experiencing now in journalism is a “come to Jesus or be lost” moment of truth. “To be or not to be, that is the question.” “Crossroads of civilization” moment. “Truth or consequences”?
As the kid’s movie by Disney, “Holes” sings in opening number, Glenn, “You’ve got to go and dig them holes.” Thank goodness at least you’re not crazy and can still write with integrity. msm is so out to lunch and lost…..Gobsmacked!
Mr. Greenwald, I am grateful every day for the fact you are practicing journalism. Thank you for this report. I’ve a couple of questions pertaining to a term that’s been popping up lately across the board: What are “coastal elites” and who are they, exactly? Are there “inland elites” as well? (I should think so.) Is the term “coastal elites” a cover-term for something that’s politically incorrect to mention? I know you’re a very busy man and probably won’t be able to answer these questions yourself, but I wanted to raise this matter in the hope I’d be better informed as a result. Best wishes to you!
So it appears Macroman’s note on typos has been pulled. Perhaps the Moderator does not know of the long standing history of commenters proofing GG’s work. He has said he appreciates it.
But, worst of all, I have been deprived of shining a light on the typo contained in the post about a typo because my hilarious response was pulled too.
Do mods think they are helping keep things clean by correcting typos without leaving evidence the correction was made?
wrong thread!
I can easily envison a future for Glenn Greenwald on the Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort counter espionage team for Trump and his boss Vladi.
Meanwhile everything is great as Trump relies on Sean Hannity at Fox and Julien Assange in Ecuador’s embassy for his intelligence briefings.
Amazing……Glenn has gone off the deep end.
No, really he hasn’t. He’s doing his job and doing it very well. He makes a few careless remarks sometimes, but we’re all doing that these days.
From Snowden to Assange, Americans have seen the NAKED truth and where our Gov’t has morphed into. They learned our Gov’t is SPYING on U.S. citizens contrary to the Countries founding document and Contrary to OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. They learned our Politician turn a blind eye to Spying other than giving it lip service and the 3rd Branch doesn’t much care either despite CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.
They learned from Assang e that our Political Parties don’t Play by their own RULES. They learned that our MSM is in CAHOOTS with the Party they favor.
And they learned ALL OF THIS WHILE OUR OWN GOV’T DECIDED WE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW IT. Now they claim what many believe is the Truth, to be “Fake News”….What was that story about the Boy CRYING WOLF ????
So called REAL News media peddling Fake stories while pointing fingers others is why no one is buying their baloney anymore.
A disgruntled Bernie mole at DNC going rogue is more plausible than Russians, but that would go against water carriers’ narrative so they latch onto anything to advance their fiction.
Bernie actually won more delegates through primary elections than Hillary but Hillary got more mysterious super delegates and becomes nominee.
This is cause enough for a mole to turn the tables on Hillary.
Russians are smart enough to realize that they don’t have to lift a finger to hurt Hillary.
Oh, by the way, the same Foolaid drinking liberals who were okay with unrepresented super delegates for Hillary are upset with country’s electoral system!
Rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, Clinton got about 400 more, but through cheating.
The casual dismissal of possible Russian meddling is far more troubling than a paper running an incorrect article that had zero negative impact. I’m not sure why Glenn and others are so pro-Russia, but it’s difficult to take them seriously when they clearly side with a communist country over a democracy.
Which one is the Democracy and which one is the communist one?
“Which one is the Democracy and which one is the communist one?”
In a Democracy, man exploits man; with Communism, it’s the other way around.
Please, explain to me again why I should trust any media! Nullius in verba!!!!!! Or as Bismarck would have said “Nothing can be be taken for truth until it has been officially denied!”. I do agree with the premises that the 4th estate is screwin with Nuclear Armegeddon, cut it out, please.
I want to apologize to The Intercept, Glenn, the moderators, its readers and those who post or read comments here…and even Mona….for a number of my recent profanity-laced responses to unfair and untrue attacks on my person.
I am sorry readers had to see that stuff…
What unfair and untrue attacks? You claimed — this was your substantive comment — you supported Bernie Sanders, and I don’t believe you. I will never believe you until you provide a link demonstrating it. That your response was instead an endless litany of vulgar abuse only reinforces my lack of belief.
I didn’t see any attacks on your person. I saw vigorous challenges to your claim to have been a Sanders supporter, but that’s not a personal attack.
Some of your “profanity-laced responses,” on the other hand, were definitely personal attacks.
If I’m wrong, please let us know what you considered an attack on your person.
And/she also claimed refusing to believe it without a link in support of this highly dubious claim constitutes a “twisted demand.” (I mean, really now.) And that evidence requirement in turn inspired inspired all that base, actual personal attack on me — which I don’t actually care about except for spewing the board with new sub-threads to continue it.
Doug… I didn’t initiate the insults and personal attacks, I responded, albeit coarsely.
I have apologized for that…
It is telling that Mona’s comment was removed… and it speaks volumes that she hasn’t apologized for her conduct.
It is worth noting Mona’s comment attacking me was removed by the moderator, as it was in violation of Commenting Policy her claims about her conduct notwithstanding.
what reinforces those involved in unfounded belief systems is confirmation bias.
it is a fool’s errand to engage deluded provocateurs and dissemblers.
There you go. And don’t let them shake you. You aren’t imagining things. The tone here is awful. I haven’t heard anything remotely like this sort of concession from anyone else here.
Mona, no one has to produce papers for your approval.
Doug, aren’t you the guy who wrote that thuggish little bit about how rough “we” can get with people?
Yellow Journalism is alive and well. Doing their best to foment animosity and anger at the Russians. WHY?
Why are they doing it? It all relates back to Hillary losing the election. When WikiLeaks published material showing that they DNC was conspiring to help Hillary defeat Bernie, and that the mainstream media was sending debate questions to the Hillary campaign – they needed to change the subject away from the factual content of the emails, to WHO leaked them. By choosing Russia as the source, they could turn the debate to make Hillary (and the USA) look like a victim. They are continuing with this phony story now, to try to discredit Trump, as he has expressed an intention to improve relations with Russia. We have some really sick people in the Obama admin., and in the media.
The fact that the presence of malware (which is available all over the web on many,many reputable sites) is called “hacking” shows how over the top the democrat media has become.
What would melodramatic/unsubstantiated do w/a, “Made in Russia” sticker slapped on a Vermont utility pole?
Stupid coastal elites …
Don’t be fooled. Populism won’t help Democrats win again
Al From
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/04/why-populism-wont-help-democrats-win-again
It is quite likely that the malware was done by a Russian. There are a lot of Russian hackers, mostly independent hacker groups out for cash. They sell credit card numbers, SS numbers, etc. The fact that it ended up on a power network is simply because they infect every machine they can. The Russian government mostly ignores them as they rarely affect Russians and bring in a lot of foreign currency. Putin need not be involved other than ignoring their actions.
And WaPo isn’t the only one; all the ‘liberal’ establishment press, e.g. Rachel Maddow, are turned rabid ‘red’-baiters.
And where is the left’s postmortem? At least the right has had the sense to feign self criticism, e.g. on immigration. But Dem.s blame no one but Russians. Fatal lack of insight. Intransigence. Dooming us to right wing politics unless and until …
What troubles me most in this convergence is what it shows of TheTwo Party system, the duopoly. What I used to think of as merely an increasingly mutually defining, even accommodating, relationship of rivals, really does turn, instead, into quite a singular ruling sect, designed with good cop, bad cop faces, dressed in harlequin colors, red and blue, crossed, and totally antipathetic to democratic principles, unworthy of any further support.
I miss the olde Soviets! For with that great enemy, we, and much of the world, at least had an alternative. Alas, now they are even on the syndicate board. Now there are no alternatives (save, perhaps China) until such masses of disillusioned begin to form a truly progressive answer, coming from the bottom, presently lost in the fog.
I hope I live to see that. The progressive swing of the pendulum is long, long overdue. But I must consider, perhaps it does not go/come around, reliably, always, but eventually finally does end.
What I used to think of as merely an increasingly mutually defining, even accommodating, relationship of rivals, really does turn, instead, into quite a singular ruling sect
Coming a little late to figure this out. It’s what the much reviled but always wise and courageous Pat Buchanan used to call “the 2 wings of the one bird of prey”.
And while we all agree with this view, it’s ironic that it was Pat Buchanan whom the Republican Party sent in to effectively dissolve Jesse Ventura’s independent party in Minnesota.
The russians hacked my aunt’s micro wave oven. Her favorite ‘Penang chicken with rice’ came out after eight minutes looking like Vladimir Putin’s naked torso, and the oven used to work fine.
Well, well, well.., if it isn’t the Mona-Maisie puppet show spamming the top of of an Intercept thread ONCE AGAIN with previously posted, off-topic articles and/or factoids. Different day, same old hypocrisy!
As a proud member of the ‘Coastal Elites’ I can verify that we are ‘virtually unified in our unbridled contempt for Trump’ and as Fox is looking for substituting Megan Kelly let’s hope that Glenn Greenwald keeps on being ‘united’ with Tucker Carlson and get’s that job.
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not . The important thing to do is get the big scary headline out there, and in people’s minds. Corrections on page 26, several days later , will never be seen by them so the initial story is still believed. Biased Journalism 101. (Hands up, don’t shoot is another example. That never happened but how many people still believe it did?)
I posted a version of this down thread, but I wanted to make sure it gets noticed, as the ratcheting-up of outside threats unduly is one topic this article addresses:
U.S. Military Budget: Components, Challenges, Growth
That’s a lot of wasted billions, which could build some bridges, feed some children, research/fund some alternate energy sources etc., without raising taxes a bit. Bernie Sanders (and Keith Ellison and Elizabeth Warren etc.) should think about this, and join the peaceful civil libertarian progressives!
I should know by now that you can’t have a worthwhile discussion online. Something about being on the internet seems to bring out the worst in everyone, myself included.
Still, I did learn a few things by posting here, although they were mostly things not to do. Looking at the responses to my posts, I’m reminded of how easy it is to unfairly impugn someone’s motives, as I did at a few points when discussing Glenn Greenwald’s work. I realize that the whole point of the piece was to challenge the WaPost’s story in particular and the whole Russia-hacked-the-election idea in general. He’s doing his job in doing so and he may very well be right. I made a few small points about passing remarks GG made, that it is inaccurate to focus on “coastal elites” as the representative opponents of Trump, and that if you are going to criticize Trump’s (and Putin’s) critics, you ought to at least concede that there is a case against them. Yes, I can see that GG wasn’t claiming that opposition to Trump is limited to “coastal elites.” But as I read his words I’m seeing another instance of a claim that I see made carelessly again and again, this notion of coasts populated by affluent liberals. a notion which doesn’t match reality. I was arguing more against this broader argument, made by many other people besides GG, and I didn’t make that clear. Still, re-reading the piece, I still think he took his correction too far. There is this new myth shaping up, whereby the cruel, affluent coastal liberals are shaping up as the new national scapegoat and I’m going to challenge it whenever I see it. Gator’s comments are enough to tell me that I’m not entirely off track. I was way off-base in saying that GG had some sinister reason for doing so, that he doesn’t want us to think certain ways. There is no basis for my saying that.
As far as my other point goes, that GG shouldn’t write as if Trump and Putin are inexplicably put upon, I see it confirmed when I read Matt Tiabbi’s article linked in the original piece. He writes: I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He’s gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. And Donald Trump, too, was swine enough during the campaign to publicly hope the Russians would disclose Hillary Clinton’s emails.” Tiabbi said that because he recognized that he needed to. Glenn Greenwald needed to as well.
It is amazing how upset some people got when I criticized GG, even making small points. I’ve admired his work in the past. But no one is beyond reproach. The venom and outrage were remarkable and unseemly.
The coasts are, in fact, over-populated with “affluent liberals” as compared with the rest of the country. What’s the evidence that this group is being scapegoated, beyond what the wingnuts have long ranted about that?
“what the wingnuts have long ranted about that”
That is exactly the point, Mona. The wingnuts are, for the time being, taking over the country. And GG, in this instance, is literally speaking their language.
Gator90 said:
I don’t think that Glenn meant that when he said the term, but my understanding of dog whistle innuendo is that “coastal elites” means liberals, and “east-coast elites” means jews–which I guess now means self-hating jews.
I don’t think it was Glenn’s intention, but I understand your point completely.
One of my most favorite troll posts sounded completely innocuous, but was chock full of dog whistle innuendo terms from around the world–and it got the best, and seemingly completely random replies.
“The Armenian people will rise against your tyranny!”
Without any grounding or backstory understanding of these dog whistle terms and phrases it just seemed like everyone replying had gone completely crazy.
One day I will try to dig it up because it is very interesting on many levels–although one of the giveaways was the use of the term “wingnuts” ;)
Yes. The thing is, it’s just a shorthand. That’s all. But what gets me about this, and I am not even talking about Glenn here, I’m talking about the dozens of times I’ve heard this shorthand expression used, is the way it’s used as a substitute for thought. We all use such talk, but we should always bear in mind that reality is much more complicated and not be careless. So I’m a white male living in Seattle. My brother is a union carpenter. My best friend is a union electrician. I am a teacher, piecing together a living from three jobs. My Vietnamese immigrant girlfriend is a dental hygienist. My brother’s wife is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant couple. Rita is a loan processor and has been laid off about six times since 2008. We see red when we hear the phrase “coastal elites.” About the only thing that angers us more is Donald Trump. At no point would any of us ever have given into the hatred and violence he preaches. We knew exactly what we were seeing from the very start. We aren’t tolerating any accommodation with this man.
To be clear, we know very well that people aren’t talking about us when they say “coastal elites.” In this way of thinking, we don’t even exist. *That’s* what pisses us off. We’re being overlooked. Sound familiar? But we didn’t give in to hate. That’s why we don’t have a lot of patience for Trump voters and don’t feel sorry for them. If you think I’ m bad, you should hear my brother talk about using the term “coastal elites.”
Again, I’m not talking about Glenn Greenwald here. Psst, there are other people on the planet. Off-topic? Not entirely. You can say that people like us aren’t a significant voting block, and we certainly don’t have a lot of money to donate or positions of influence. Fine. What you are saying is that we aren’t worth regarding. And that’s the problem.
The size and shape of the country IS the location of its citizens; it is not the dirt that should be entitled to vote.
. What’s the evidence that this group is being scapegoated, beyond what the wingnuts have long ranted about that?
Is ‘wingnuts’ what the libtards are calling normal people these days?
Greenwald is defended vociferously because he functions like a compass in these turbulent times of agendas and deception. He’s not free of faults (I think he’s too mild, personally, and his writing makes nearly every other reporter here seem weirdly affected), but he has a refreshing quality of sincerity most of the time that is clear, reassuring and dynamic.
You challenge that at your peril in the lions’ den where he is most appreciated.
Bring it on.
Me? Oh, I reserve my name-calling for politicians. I try not to insult people here very much.
Robert and others like him, who offer weak critiques of Glenn’s writing, really are, more than anything, put off by the intellectual horsepower around here. Glenn tends to attract readers and supportive commenters who are smarter and better informed than the aggregate at most sites.
It’s hard, therefore, to get away with poorly reasoned arguments or unsupported assertions here. That’s always been deeply annoying to many.
Jealous and awed to be in your presence, are we? Not so much that I won’t point out the arrogance and self-flattery in your post.
Oh, and the “coastal elites” thing was more about reporters than anyone else, in my opinion.
I know. There’s more to the story. That’s all I’m saying.
Well that doesn’t seem too contentious to me, but what do I know? I doubt Greenwald is trying to be entirely comprehensive about all factors when painting broad pictures to denote general context for the main point.
Then why not say “reporters”?
“Coastal elites” has a very different meaning from “reporters,” obviously. GG, who is far from careless with his words, had a reason for saying the former and not the latter.
sigh. Loath as I am to try to clarify gee-gee’s remarks, as previously stated: there are large elite coastal gators … and then there are little snappers paddling around in the brackish backwaters of the marshy swamp lands.
So I won’t:
ps. as the ruler of a small country (in Appalachia) I consider myself a fairly elite hillbilly gator … but that and $25 won’t buy me an elite burger @ Trump Towers
there are large elite coastal gators … and then there are little snappers paddling around in the brackish backwaters of the marshy swamp lands.
ROFL! Best clarification I’ve seen yet.
I consider myself a fairly elite hillbilly gator …
A unique and priceless specimen. :-)
since I’m up and perky for a bit:
“As far as my other point goes, that GG shouldn’t write as if Trump and Putin are inexplicably put upon,”
————————————————-never happened, GG writing like that. Look, no matter how many times people like you try to act like GG has ever defended Trump or Putin, it’s never going to work because the textual evidence against it is voluminous. You have to start with this absurd premise that declining to join in partisan pile-ons (or challenging bogus notions) somehow constitutes support, and then go on from there…. It works with you partisans & that’s good enough for you. Which leads me to
“the cruel, affluent coastal liberals are shaping up as the new national scapegoat”
———————————————a fellow can dream anyway. But seriously folks,
that’s your partisan bubble talking again. I’d substitute “sanctimonious, smug, hypocritical” when I’m thinking of the worst offenders, but plenty of other affluent and not-so-affluent liberals will get caught up with them. because of a refusal to criticize in the name of “fighting republicans.” So shitheads like Rahm and Cuomo and Feinstein all get a pass at crucial times from most of this bunch. And nearly everybody among this kind of liberal made 8 years of excuses for Obama. But the scapegoat thing? Affluent coastal liberals were already were a national scapegoat to many; they have been for a long long time. The term “flyover country” didn’t come from nowhere. It came from the coasts. Hillary Clinton flew out of flyover country night after night, apparently, in a stunningly apt bit of metaphorical activity.
In closing: all liberals probably ought, for the sake of their political aspirations, to think a bit harder (i.e. in a non self-congratulatory manner) about why this “nice” bunch of people could get to be so disliked.
“I should know by now that you can’t have a worthwhile discussion online”
————————————————-and by “you” you mean you. What Maisie and Mona wrote you though (I didn’t scroll past this section, I’m sure there were others)? That was “worthwhile”. You could learn something from that.
Thank you for this. I’ll get back to you later.
Hello Vic,
Regarding your first point, I was talking about a single post. No, I haven’t read huge amounts of GG’s writing, although I admire what I have read. I’m sure he has spoken out against Trump and that he stands square against who Trump is and what he is saying. I have made the very small point that he could have at least make a brief remark about those two men. That is a far cry from asking him to join in “partisan pile-ons.” I notice none of you have addressed my comparison to Matt Tiabbi, an apt comparison of two first-rate journalists writing on the same story. Tiabbi deftly made where he stands clear in two sentences. He even pushed it a bit with a little Hunter S. Thompson impression. It’s not that big a deal, and some people throw fits.
Your second point: This is precisely why I thought this was worth bringing up, and by the way, when you comment on a site like this, you can raise an issue for discussion without exclusively focusing on a particular writer or article. Rather than thinking about the reality on the ground, you’d rather get some kicks in on those liberals while they’re down. You won’t refine or clarify your thought because it’s too emotionally satisfying to keep punching your pet scapegoat. And I’m not a liberal or progressive and under no circumstances would move to the right. Those categories were dead decades ago, thought their corpses are teeming with life. I simply don’ t like seeing people used as punching bags.
The next thing that strikes me is how, in different circumstances, we might find we have much to agree on. Rahm, Cuomo, and Feinstein? Why did you leave off Robert Gibbs and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? I have no use for any of these people.
“But the scapegoat thing? Affluent coastal liberals were already were a national scapegoat to many; they have been for a long long time.” Thank you for the confirmation. Mona was pounding the table demanding evidence.
In your last point, you manage to get a little mean. The nasty tone of the internet is also commonly recognized, yet you go for the personal attack.
Robert you are completely right: deplorables can be found anywhere …also on coastal areas and even outside the US.
@ Robert F
If you’re including me in that, I resent it. I tried to be reasonable with you and demonstrate quite clearly that your “point” about “coastal elites” was largely, if not entirely, irrelevant to Glenn’s arguments–even if in a technical sense “coastal elites” was not defined with specificity. It is a rhetorical device that almost everyone understands.
And this:
Yes it is. Because that was the entire point of Glenn’s piece–“media” and “political figures” who are benefitting if not intentionally from attempting to delegitimizing Donald Trump in classic propagandistic ways.
I am quite positive Glenn would never argue that there aren’t many reasons to “making a case” against both “Trump” and “Putin” but it is important, so as not to amount to propaganda, to not conflate them and then pass it off as news.
Of course there is, and see above. And Glenn has referenced those “legitimate” critiques many times. But given many of the other writers here spend most days of the week reporting on Trump’s bad deeds, though not necessarily Putin’s, why should Glenn do that in an article that has nothing to do with Trump or Putin’s bad deeds, but rather “media” and “political” elites seeming newfound desire to use propaganda to delegitimize Trump rather than simply attack the merits of Trump’s administration appointments, potential Supreme Court nominees, ethical problems . . . .
Look I applaud you for an excellently disguised “whatabouttery” critique of Glenn’s work, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s still a “whatabouttery” critique at base.
And it isn’t venom or outrage coming from some of us, it is profound exasperation with people who seem otherwise reasonably intelligent and reasonable (e.g. you and Gator90 who are the only commenters making the argument that “coastal elites” and Glenn’s inability/unwillingness to specifically define it is relevant to his argument–it isn’t), but who get their little whatabouttery bone to chew on and can’t let it go even after it has been explained to them why the bone they are enamored with is largely if not entirely irrelevant to the argument or point Glenn is writing about.
That’s frustrating. And that frustration isn’t born of personal animus, venom or outrage, but a seeming willingness on your part to be purposefully obtuse to what everyone else seems to understand but you two–at least on this topic i.e. that we find your critique to me either irrelevant to Glenn’s article, or that even standing alone it is largely an unimportant one, and/or does not preclude the very obvious point that it is not only “coastal elites” who are contemptuous of Trump but 10s of millions of other Americans–which is so obvious as to go without saying given 67 million of them voted for Hillary Clinton or not otherwise Trump.
Obama has proven to be one of the worst Presidents I’ve seen when it comes to motivating citizens to head in a direction, any direction, that meets the needs of a majority of Americans.
Of course, buying into and expanding neoliberal and neocon policies beyond even what Bush, Cheney, and the first Clinton(s) desired didn’t help, given that because of these policies the average American was still being left behind at a growing rate.
That was politically dumb enough. “It’s the economy, stupid” doesn’t mean just how the S&P, Military Industrial Complex and the financial sector is doing; the market index, easily splashed on the TV or computer screen is largely just eye-candy, anyway, given that any structural changes that would prevent another debacle in our economy have been largely thwarted by the actor(s) in question.
Then, on the rare occasions that I even try, I watched some actual TV tonight, a Frontline special on Donald Trumps ascension. A segment highlighted the 2011 White House correspondents dinner and the rather epic take-down of Donald Trump by the President, a scene I’d only seen snippets of, and one I thought was pretty funny at the time. I’d never watched the whole thing, nor had the background on Trump’s persona as described by his peers and associates, or delved into his political history of navigating among the moneyed elites of New York City.
Sure, it was personally gratifying for Obama to drag the ass-hat birther claimant over the coals and humiliate him in public – but to what end?
I’m not arguing that because Obama did this one thing therefore we have Trump. Obama was already proving himself to be dislocated, an elitist if you will.What I am arguing is that by publicly highlighting Trump’s ignorance and rubbing Trumps’ nose in it front of the very paragons that Obama has sided with and which Trump has been fighting merely highlighted Obama’s own political ineptitude.
Note: I hadn’t seen this July, 2016 National Review article essentially on this same subject when I wrote this (I found it when I was going to link the 2011 Trump lambasting) nor do I even know if I agree with what was said in it – so it could be “great minds think alike!” or “what a plagiaristic rube!”
I think it’s all theater, pretending to be on different sides. Trump and Obama and Clinton and even Sanders are paid to stop people telling the whole damn system to go to hell, to keep fighting for pre-chosen establishmentarians (of whom Trump is no less one than the great “change agent” Obama) rather than for real amelioration and an end to the Deep State.
I’ve considered that position a lot over the years (I have millennial children – not that that lends my position added credibility) but have come to reject it.
While we do have and always have had elites and moneyed interests that do get together at correspondents’ dinners and various retreats worldwide (what they are retreating from, I don’t know) it seems more a result of cliquishness and group-think than it is any outright, well planned economic and political subjugation of the rest of us.
That said, the net effect of these folks being in positions of power and able to influence our elected officials is the same – good for them, shitty for the rest of us.
Trump wanted to be a part of that, and Obama’s smack-down at the White House dinner was supposed to be his disinvitation. Didn’t quite work out that way, it seems.
They are selfishly sociable animals in this regard, because that’s how hierarchies come into existence and perpetuate – but Trump had been excluded…until now. History shows us that every so often the applecart gets upset and the election of Trump is, I hope, the beginning of just such a thing.
Thanks for the detailed response – I’ve seen your comments here and there and hoped we could interact at least once or twice. You seem to be saying I sound similar to your kids, which I’m hopeful is a compliment to all of us.
My problem with the portrayal of Trump as an excluded outsider to the elite is that with his comfortability (spellcheck says this ain’t a word, but it’s obvious what I mean) among the very rich, he doesn’t really strike me as one – and not only will his presidency diminish the prior-election snobbery of many elites eager now to be close to power, but also he seems to have an almost childish desire to be a grand and accepted figure in political circles, a desire that constantly makes a mockery of his pretense of macho independence. His cabinet choices reflect establishmentarianism to an almost vulgar degree, and his rough edges seem to be blurring into typical political consent-manufacturing for the nefarious purposes of the Deep State.
Obama may play the role of a system-defender against Trump, but as I said ultimately it seems to me a scam performed to blandish the demarcation lines between Dems and the GOP in the theater of preserving the status quo through the pretense of “robust debate.”
I don’t see that the applecart has been upset at all – I wish it was. If he’s either advertently or inadvertently an agent of change toward dismantling the gross oligarchical duopoly that has wasted so much and made inequality so drastically entrenched I’ll be very surprised but also very pleased to be wrong about this.
You’re quite welcome, and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts here.
With regards to any comparison to my children, yes, although not my intention, there’s some comparison with regards to being active politically at this point in some of their lives, as several of them are – but most of them are not, at least not yet. I’m not even sure some of them voted this election, despite my sending their mail-in ballots to them, that’s how much we’ve communicated about it. That said, and although I’ve not spoken very much with these slackers about it, there may be at least some reason for that, given that my livelihood (and their upbringing) was impacted greatly by my, in retrospect, misplaced concern for my fellow citizens. Being blacklisted in a small community wasn’t fun for any of us.
What I have seen while observing these burgeoning humans over the years is that being politically involved depends a lot on a persons innate temperament and, thankfully, not so much an the conditions into which they are born. Of the four biological children and one niece that our family damaged during their upbringing, only two right now are what some might consider (a phrase used all too often deridingly, in my view) social justice warriors – empathic and very publicly outspoken in their thoughts and feelings about how the wider world should be and what we can do to make positive changes to make that happen.
As far as the current condition of the applecart, yes, it’s still trundling along – but as a said in my comment above, “history shows us that every so often the applecart gets upset and the election of Trump is, I hope, the beginning of just such a thing.”
That thought is one reason why I didn’t vote for Hillary – although, in California, any vote otherwise would likely have no affect, anyway – because ultimately if we don’t choose change we get what we get and that’s been a steady descent into a world governed by, intentional or not, an economic and political future that, by fault or design, and likely both, continues to reward and protect those not really hurting at all.
I do hope you stick around and remain active, Maisie, because you (despite some difference in degree and the assignation of motive as to how we got here) and yours are definitely what the doctor ordered.
Matt Bruenig published this in Jacobin on the universal basic income, and it’s very good: The Rich Already Have a UBI
Slander see DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander
or… a tactic used by Mona to seek to impugn, malign, discredit, impeach the character of one expressing a view she disagrees with.
See Ad hominem. Logical fallacy used by those lacking sufficient counterargument.
RMD,
Try to not let them get under your skin. Their whole goal is to bring you down to their level. Whenever I let that happen, I regret it. You are absolutely right about the nasty tone of this site. With a few notable exceptions, people are horrible here. Bud, if you can see that, you can see that a response in kind won’t help. The challenge for people of good will is to find a way to make our points without sinking to the awful, smug snarkiness that pervades our society.
Defamation
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken,
that harms a person’s reputation;
decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held;
or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
See: Mona, shit hurler
I doubt your claim incriminating someone in defamation would be satisfied, as there’s very little chance to prove you’ve suffered any reputational losses, being an anonymous poster in the internet, or some malicious intent was aimed at you. But you don’t need a lynguistics comission on hatespeech to perform a semantical analysys of your messages to prove that general connotation of your remarks had been an open verbal abuse. Also I cannot see how you hold any ethical moral highground to accuse someone of something. You just came and instantly desocialized yourself cursing everyone and attacking a woman, imagine what if this was a prison or we’d met in the streets, ahah
SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. Law of Nisi Prius, 3. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum.
Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Bac. Abr. Slander.
Written or printed slanders are libels; see that word.
2. Here it is proposed to treat of verbal slander only, which may be considered with reference to, 1st. The nature of the accusation. 2d. The falsity of the charge. 3d. The mode of publication. 4th. The occasion; and 5th. The malice or motive of the slander.
From your quote:
Mona is simply pointing out that the correct word for written slander is libel.
SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his
The correct word for written slander, which your own quote points out, is “libel.”
Yeah, so, RMD, I plugged a sentence from above into google, and this came up as the first entry:
I’ve passed two bar exams in two jurisdictions, both on the first try. rr is also a lawyer.
And you?
You engage in sophistry and quibbling… when not outright lying.
if your claim to training is true, it is a sad commentary on requirements of character or trustworthiness
SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service,….
Finding some entry on the Internet — where one can find anything — does not make a thing so. Besides, as Maisie explained to you about your own quote, and as it shows on its own terms, you are wrong.
Oh, also, you never supported Bernie Sanders. That was a lie.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander
slander see DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. Law of Nisi Prius,
slander noun
abusive language, accusation, calumniation, calumny, censure, character assassination, damaging report, defamation, defamatory words, denigration, denunciation, execration, false report, imprecation, insinuation, libel, malicious report, obloquy, reproach, revilement, scandal, scurrility, slur, smear, stricture, traducement, vilification
Associated concepts: malice, publication, slander of title, slander per quod, slander per se
Silly! You’ve now edited the quote – that link is to the same damn quote you copied before that declares “Written or printed slanders are libels; see that word” (a little after “Law of Nisi Prius”). This time you took that bit out!
I posted the legal dictionary and their definition. Maisie either ignored or didn’t read it.
Here it is.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander
slander see DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
slander noun
abusive language, accusation, calumniation, calumny, censure, character assassination, damaging report, defamation, defamatory words, denigration, denunciation, execration, false report, imprecation, insinuation, libel, malicious report, obloquy, reproach, revilement, scandal, scurrility, slur, smear, stricture, traducement, vilification
Associated concepts: malice, publication, slander of title, slander per quod, slander per se
That link declares “Written or printed slanders are libels; see that word.” It doesn’t go away just because you selectively ignore it!
Well to be fair Mona, you could also be slandering him while typing your comment, but then it would depend if your verbalization of the defamatory statement was communicated to, or otherwise heard by a third party. Which is to say, even if while engaging in libel you were shouting the exact same words at the top of your lungs decked out in your yoda jammies covered in Cheetos dust and all by yourself in your room, it still wouldn’t be slander.
The lawz is funz for everyonez is what I likez to sayz. eSpeciallyin for those not indoctrinatedz whit itz subletees and new ances or thooz pesky elementz.
Well s/he is right that I’m opinionated. And I guess I’d have to cop to occasionally being an asshole. ;)
And even if I could hear her out here in California, truth is a perfect defense. ;^)
I supposes a court might consider letting a libel suit lie for alleging that someone supported Richard Nixon…nah.
RMD has many peculiar notions resulting from the affliction of neoliberal disease. S/he also spewed, e.g.,:
RMD may indeed be a disreputable character, but I don’t see why someone can’t be a Sanders supporter who also supported Clinton, since Sanders himself endorsed Clinton and demonstrated to many what a weasel politician he can be:
Sanders: ‘Clinton will make an outstanding president’
Now, he’s either mistaken or lying – but since he evidently thinks it isn’t incongruous to support a corporatist warmonger and be a democratic socialist, and warmly recommend her mendacious bullshit to the masses, he’s an untrustworthy person to say the least.
Oh Maisie, absolutely. There are many who supported Bernie in the primaries, and then Hillary in the general. But I do not believe RMD is one of these.
Not the way s/he carries on. I don’t and won’t believe it, not without evidence. Moreover, the conniption s/he has gone over this only reinforces my disbelief.
RMD sure sounds like a Clinton supporter to me, too. Bernie Slanders did too, ultimately, although he seems to have regained some of his sense lately. He’s lousy on the MIC and foreign policy, for which I’ll never support him, personally.
Bernie, like many people whom I respect, felt it imperative to support Clinton in order to prevent Trump. And yes, altho Bernie is one of the least hawkish candidates in quite some time, that’s only by comparison. He’s not Jeremy Corbyn.
Still, I admire him for many things, including that what you see is what you get, and pretty much always has been. And much of what you see is deeply right and admirable. He just did an interview with Sarah Silverman that was truly amazing. (Silverman was, I know, obnoxious toward those who couldn’t support Hillary in the general.)
Yeah, I saw that. It’s hard for me to muster up any trust in any politician at this point, but he said some impressive things, and his record except for the MIC and foreign policy ideas is good (perhaps he could change his mind on these things and realize how much money is unnecessarily being spent on the military and “defense,” money which could be spent in more “democratic socialist” ways*). We do need a Corbyn, but even in Corbyn’s own damn country he’s apparently getting the shaft for being too socialist and peaceful. Did you see the puke Obama had to say about it all?
The Telegraph
U.S. Military Budget: Components, Challenges, Growth
That’s a lot of wasted billions, which could build some bridges, feed some children etc., without raising taxes a bit. Bernie should think about this, and join the peaceful civil libertarian progressives!
Sanders is a politician, and a realist.
1. He wasn’t the presidential candidate after the primary
2. There were 2 viable candidates in the presidential race
3. He saw what a Trump victory would mean (and that warrants a fuller examination)
4. He opted to lend his support to the one that could prevent Trump from getting in.
5. Suggesting Sanders is untrustworthy because of his decision to support HRC is a view you’re entitled to … I don’t agree. Or, to flip in around; every person who has ever stated something that they know to be untrue for some perceived benefit… would eliminate the entire human race.
Continuing to take part in attacking me because Mona has a belief system based on lies… is also your choice.
…a few words come to mind…. gullible, weak minded, childish, dependent on approval from others….and disreputable…
take a look in the mirror
I think everyone who supported Clinton, Trump or Sanders is lacking in good sense.
All I’ve said is that you *may* be disreputable, and that you seem to support Clinton. If that’s an attack, you’ve lived a very sheltered life.
With that I strongly disagree. There was no other national politician on the stage as able to move the political process back toward the left as Bernie Sanders. He was and is a good start.
Demanding a Corbyn on pain of withholding support from a Sanders is, in my strong view, actual “purity politics” of the destructive kind.
You disagree? With me? Horrors! Oh well, that’s okay. I’ll demand what I like, though. I don’t see positive results from going with lesser evils, of whom Sanders is one as far as I’m concerned. I’ll go for more purity rather than less, and not settle for any more killing or overfunding the death machine of the MIC.
All the comments I’d seen of yours (I can’t say I saw them all) indicated a support for Clinton. This means you *may* well be disreputable in my book; I didn’t realize it sounded as harsh as you seem to take it – there’s quite a lot of rough-and-tumble here, and I thought you seemed pretty resilient till now.
I think if you’re going to lecture people on violating the comments policy, you at least shouldn’t violate it yourself by telling Mona to “fuck off” and describing anyone who listens to her as “uninformed cretins”. Just sayin.
But hey I’m not much of a hall monitor being presently on restriction myself for engaging in some sort of as yet undefined naughty commenting behavior.
Oh well such is life when censors abound.
RMD also holds the amusing opinion that we here engage in “groupthink.” This would mean that we do not seriously disagree among ourselves, which is certainly so, amirite?
And this just strikes me as sad, given how Trump ran his campaign and the rhetoric that surrounded it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/talladega-college-marching-band-trump-inauguration-alabama
My guess is there is enough backlash from alumni that they ultimately pull the plug on their performance. But maybe not. It would be great if they punked Trump at the inauguration somehow. I might actually watch the inauguration celebration if I thought that was actually going to happen.
Maybe play and form into the universal sign for small fingered vulgarian or something even more cool. Like freak out the NRA folks by all showing up playing and marching while wearing loaded AR 15s. That outta scare the baby jesus out of Trump’s supporters, a historically black college marching band all exercising their Second Amendment rights at Trump’s inauguration celebration, just to see how the Secret Service responds anyway in telling them they can’t do it, and then throw the NRAs favorite arguments right back in their face, put Trump on the spot to take a stand for or against the claimed right to carry anywhere anyone likes.
hahahahahaha love it
If they have to go, they should get advice from the Stanford band first.
Yeah maybe they could coax Gary Tyrrell into picking up the trombone again, dressed like Trump while playing “Hail to the Chief” . . . and then the entire Talladega College marching band steamrolls him while hi-stepping to Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” and the drum major burying his baton right in his ass.
Now that would be fucking historic man. I’d pay for a copy on DVD to watch over and over again. Better than even “The Play”. Can’t say I wept watching Elway get one of his 4th quarter comebacks stripped from him in that chaotic ending.
I’m a Duck fan man. I love it when the other Pac10 now Pac12 teams have misfortune. Shit I thought USC was out of it last night against Penn State. But they pulled it off. More power to them they earned it.
You’ve totally got the picture. Since the Stanford kids are currently in strict double-secret detention (“disbanded,” actually), they should have plenty of free time to help Talladega.
Yes, it would be even better than “The Play” (which I like to think of as “Tiptoe through the Tubas”).
Didja see this?
Rebecca Ferguson says she will play Trump inauguration if she can sing Strange Fruit
Duck devotion is a fine and honorable thing.
Yes I did see the Rebecca Ferguson thing, and that outta make the wingnuts heads explode if she does. Don’t know much of Rebecca Ferguson but Billy Holiday and even more Nina Simone is my favorite and both have covered Strange Fruit.
Then again, they’d probably all start singing the verse like it was a good thing–who knows with those white nationalist loons.
All I know I won’t be wasting one second watching it live, while still hoping the Talladega College band figures out a way to punk Trump at his own inauguration celebration.
And if this guy runs for office, particularly as a Dem, I know the Democratic party is deader than Dillinger and day old dog shit:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/03/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-2017-resolution-visit-us-states
He used to be an atheist, but has just re-found religion, apparently.
Just in time for Christmas, it seems! Since politicians who dismiss holy spooks and sky fairies are not allowed to succeed in the U.S., this is probably related to his political ambitions also.
I guess the Comments Policy is not meaningfully enforced on this site.
as you can tell from my name i’m in charge of intercepting all comments. i can dial 911 on your behalf please advise how i punch those numbers. i’m on linus torvalds and it’s an advanced piece of machinery. thanks much. oh and what do i punch them with.
the takeaway is that rather than engage in ‘debate’ some think this site is best used to violating stated policies as a handful repeatedly harass, personally attack, engage in willful misrepresentation, slander, and smearing of those they disagree with.
Proud stuff. It is a credit to the site.
i enjoy debate as much as next guy, sir, and your contribution is much appreciated. you taught me from our exchange below that the whole lybia thing took place in 2014-15. i gasped when i realized what a fool i was. thanks much. folks look it up further below. it’s humbling.
like this one it’s dated 2016: https://thinkprogress.org/why-so-many-refugees-are-fleeing-to-europe-from-libya-f95d570f4d81#.cy0tlet7k
This truly is akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
RMD, you made the substantive claim that you had supported Bernie Sanders. I do not believe it, and attacked your SUBSTANCE.
Besides, that they do not “encourage” “name-calling” does not constitute a prohibition.
You are welcome.
(And I still don’t believe that you supported Bernie Sanders. But to prove me wrong — linky?)
Mona’s comment was an unsolicited, unprovoked comment asserting a falsehood and contained a personal attack on me including denigrating remarks against me,… and was deleted from the site… owing to it being violation of Commenting Policy.
@RobertF
You are very confused about where you are in general, and about Glenn Greenwald specifically. (You are confused about a good deal more than that, but let’s stick with this for now.)
This was an opinion piece that contained reporting. Most of Greenwald’s work is such. He vehemently rejects the “objectivity” model of journalism, also known as “The View From Nowhere.” (All of this is also true of most of the other journalists here.)
Greenwald wears his viewpoint out in the open, and does not remotely hide it. Moreover, he proudly embraces the “activist journalism” tradition that has a glorious history in this country. Which decidedly does not mean he eschews factual accuracy. He strongly believes a justified reputation for that is necessary and valuable, and he enjoys such a reputation.
Got news for you folks:
NONE of the power companies have connected their control systems to the internet.
I KNOW. I’ve been a programmer for public utils.
That’s true. There is, or is supposed to be, an air gap between utility control systems and the Internet.
It’s also true that there was an air air gap between the PLCs* controlling the centrifuges at Natanz. Solution: create Stuxnet, which promiscuously infects Windows PCs and does nothing except to spread itself until it finds itself on a machine running the (in this case, Siemens) software used to program those PLCs.
Presto. Air gap jumped.
That said, there’s no reason to believe that the malware found on the laptop in Burlington was aimed at PLCs/SCADA* equipment, just as there is no evidence publicly available that it or the malware allegedly found on DNC machines was launched by or at the behest of any particular government, agency or person(s).
It would probably be a good idea, while we wait for further details (if we ever get any honest ones!), to take a few hundred managers who were responsible for allowing Windows operating systems anywhere near mission-critical operations and hang them by the front gates of their facilities, pour encourager les autres.
*Note for non-geeks : PLCs are “programmable logic controllers.” They run all kinds of automated equipment and are programmed by computers that run dedicated software and are plugged into the PLCs or an intranet to which the PLCs are connected. SCADA means “supervisory control and data acquisition” and usually refers to devices or systems that monitor automated equipment and/or sensors and “phones home” with the info.
Nah. Stuxnet didnt jump the air gap all by itself. Someone assisted it, either purposely or accidentally by violating basic airgap rules that perhaps were not strictly enforced.
Of course. Those basic rules are violated, ignored, bent, forgotten, etc. every hour of every day in virtually every environment in which they are supposed to be observed.
That’s why the (probably) US-Israeli developers were fairly confident that the gap would be bridged. Humans are, predictably, human.
Messages encrypted with the best public-key encryption methods — messages that are, realistically, computationally infeasible to crack — are frequently compromised for the same reason: humans are human and operational security at origin and destination, where the messages reside in cleartext, sucks.
“Urgent! Click here and change your password immediately!”
And on and on. Ain’t gonna change.
You have a point, but I beg to differ from your statement that ‘most’ will eventually make it home. There are many measures that can be taken to prevent it, both in the human and technical spheres.
After all, nukes are also computer controlled in some form. Imagine some hack jumping THAT airgap.
…and you can be sure that by now there are 1000 variants of Stuxnet, each waiting for someone to carry it over the airgap that will take it to its target.
Again, of course. And over those air gaps most will go.
FYI… 8 years… including SCADA specifically for one of the largest utils in the country.
Then you’ve had a lot of relevant experience. You wouldn’t argue that the air gap is unbridgeable or even that bridging/jumping it would be unlikely, would you?
Cuz, as a coder in a mission-critical environment, you know how much time and energy is spent in development/testing/administration/operations trying to idiot-proof the systems — and that it’s just not possible.
PLC and SCADA are pretty generic terms. I believe the PLC’s for the Iranian centrifuges were purchased from Siemens so their characteristics and code were well known, but it’s not particularly hard to develop them from scratch, so you would need inside knowledge to figure out how to program them. That is, jumping the gap is not by itself enough to cause havoc.
I’m pretty sure most people and entities who need them just call the appropriate distributor or manufacturer — and I’d be amazed if it’s all that hard to get your hands on examples for testing.
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) Suppliers
The Burlington (Vermont, USA) Electric Department has issued two statements denying that the electrical grid was in any way compromised and expressing their dismay: ” It’s unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country.”
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/news/3908/Burlington-Electric-Department-Statement-in-Response-to-Reports-of-Russian-Hacking-of-Vermont-Electric-Grid
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/news/3910/Burlington-Electric-Department-Statement%3A-No-Indication-that-Electric-Grid-or-Customer-Information-Compromised
The bourgeois press lies. The tiny US capitalist class maintains its class rule partly by keeping US workers’ xenophobia well supplied with sensational news stories and, when necessary, outright lies.
Capitalism must die so that the working class may live.
Workers of the World, Unite!
Independent Workers Party of Chicago
The porter
meaningly
bats his eyes
Ready to serve me
for free.
The detective
looks at the cop
in surprise,
The cop
looks at him
inquiringly.
I know
I’d be fiercely slashed and hanged
By this
gendarmerie
caste
Only because
I have got in my hand
This
hammer-and-sickle pass.
=D
…and to top it off, the breathless stories on the “FBI/DHS report on Russian hacking” fail to mention the lack of the words “hack”, “hackers”, or “hacking” in connection with the “Russian operation” anywhere in the report (in fairness, it does use the word “hack” in reference to penetration testing, i.e., “self-hacking”).
Creating an international incident with a nuclear-armed power out of childish spite over losing an election. Has a political party ever been so dangerous?
@ Gator90 & Robert F
And here’s a newsflash for both of you, you better start worrying a lot less about parsing Glenn’s obvious points and use of language, and worry a little more about Trump getting this sort of press, because if he continues to get it, the liberal/left/progressive faction in this country, and their agenda are dead for generations to come:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/03/donald-trump-general-motors-tax-chevrolet-cruz
I sure as fuck haven’t seen a single Democratic party politician in my lifetime, except Bernie Sanders [an independent but more liberal than almost any Dem in House or Senate] in a much less full throated way, attempt to create the impression he/she is prepared to “go to the mat” so to speak for American manufacturing and/or the American worker.
And whether [unlike the Carrier “deal” it is actually true or not, or the numbers are accurate or not] or not Trump truly gives a shit about the America worker or not, if he creates the perception that he is in the minds of the American people, it becomes real whether you like it or not.
There’s your enemy–the fact the feckless Democrats have, together with almost the entirety of the GOP, sought to bipartisanly fuck over the America workers.
Donald Trump changes that perception in the minds of Americans (i.e. that he is the only one willing to stand up for American worker when Congress won’t) and you might as well accept that the only thing keeping Trump dictator for life will be that at his age he won’t live very long.
As I noted below, there is a simple way for the Democratic party to regain its electoral footing in this country, and that is run on FDRs Second Bill of Rights, and actually believe it, and actually fight for it–even if that means to the detriment of the Democratic party’s big financial backers on Wall Street or Hollywood or wherever.
You simply can’t have it both ways. People aren’t stupid and don’t by the technocratic meritocratic Dem third way incrementalist bullshit any more.
Get your partisan brains wrapped around that, or prepare to get your ass handed to you by Trump and his coattails in the GOP for decades in the further. And then your only hope will be he sabotages himself via the personal/family corruption, in his administration or in the GOP Congress generally. I think the latter will necessarily happen but whether or not it brings down Trump personally will have everything to do with his public popularity.
And the Dems keep giving him big wins “politically” as a function of “perception”, they’re fucked, and it will be their own fault. They could have taken a strong stand against unfettered “free trade” and made threats to use tax code to penalize any transnational entity that wants to do business in America, and specifically American transnationals, but they are too busy sucking up to the same wealth trough the GOP is–and people see right through that transparent hypocritical bullshit, and were willing to give an asshole like Trump a chance to “shake up the system” for better or worse. Because it really couldn’t get much worse economically for 10s of millions of people in this country regardless of the “identity”.
in the “future” not “further”.
It makes me laugh to hear faux liberals speak condescendingly about the “rubes voting against their best interests”. Those “rubes” have figured out that the Dems don’t represent them, despite all their fancy talk.
Personally I don’t want the scabs in the DNC and Dem party hierarchy to figure it out…let them keep making their hubristic mistakes. It’s the only way that the drones may stop voting for them and we can get to a real party that represents the working classes.
good post. Sanders is the only Democrat who attacks Trump where it matters, but the main Dems can’t even fathom this line of thinking.
Where the mainstream lib citizen is now, as opposed to the benighted centrist Dem leadership? well it is not looking good, from my unscientific observations: still just huffing and puffing about decorum, and russian stuff I doubt they even believe in their hearts.
RR, you make many good points, as you often do. I too would like the Democratic Party to be more progressive and to better represent the interests of workers. I’m all for that. How to achieve it is less clear to me than it appears to be to you.
I hope you’re right that it can’t get worse economically for tens of millions of Americans, but I fear you will soon be finding out that it can.
As for parsing Glenn’s words, everybody needs a hobby. Besides, Glenn every once in a great while actually listens to me and at least pretends to give a shit what I think, which is more than I can say for the Democratic Party.
Well, you are a lawyer, gator … but I’m still willing to hear you out.
*if you were an elite coastal lawyer … not so much.
Ha. Define “elite.” (Sorry. I’ll show myself out.)
Fair enough. I’m going to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I actually believe it is actually very simple to run on a platform that appeals to a majority of Americans. But the key is keep it simple, FDR’s Second Bill of Rights is simple and presumably something all of us nominal “progressives” can agree upon. If it isn’t–then that’s the problem, IMHO. We shouldn’t be calling ourselves “progressive” if we can’t agree on some basic fundamental values that the Democratic party has long since abandoned.
And yes it can always get worse, but there isn’t much farther to fall for 10s of millions of Americans. And it probably isn’t going to be until the lawyers, doctors and purported political consultants start feeling that same pain that 10s of millions of our fellow citizens have been experiencing for decades, that we’ll finally dispense with this fiction, that even us lawyers and doctors and other “professionals” have the same vested interest as those that too many of the “coastal” and “big city elites” (in whichever cities all over America) refer to in one of many derogatory ways.
We all work for “the man” in one capacity or another. And how we achieve progress is not to forget that, and stop with this illusion that you, me or anybody with more education is somehow more entitled to a dignified economic existence than the janitor, or garbage man, or WalMart worker, or 7-11 clerk, or home care worker, or burger flipper.
All jobs need doing. How we set the law up to reward those individuals with a livable wage and benefits is a political choice, not an immutable economic reality like the laws of physics. But it’s going to have to start with everyone, and I mean almost literally everyone on “our side” of the political spectrum stop believing they are somehow deserving of their six figure plus salaries while people starve and can’t afford medical care and decent housing–particularly when they are working full time.
Somebody will have to take a haircut, and my vote is for everyone corporate entity of a certain revenue/profit size, and every individual making more than $250,000.00 per year on average. I mean seriously, I don’t care where you live in American from Manhattan to San Francisco, if you and your family can’t make it on $250,000.00 a year after taxes, then your priorities are all fucked up in my humble opinion. And I can say that because I’ve lived in SF, Seattle and PDX and know what $250,000.00 per year in salary means, not that I’ve ever earned it. If I’d ever earned that kind of money I could have retired tacking together about 4 years of that sort of pay, and 8 to 10 if I had children.
rr, we’ve had our differences, but both of your posts in this sub-thread, I co-sign.
The Dems haven’t learned a goddam thing: The DNC really shouldn’t staff its Trump war room with former Clinton aides.
And as the kids are all saying on Twitter: “Bernie would have won.”
This
Sounds like they are honing propaganda statements.
ham Sarris is a noted individual. Project Reason sounds like the Ministry of Truth.
oops, I gots me pedinska-fingers.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
I told Mona wonders will never cease … and she acted like I stole her lunch money! %^)
*wrt what goes around, comes around … found this old Greenwald thing (2013) and thought it relevant to our present predicament:
http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-vowed-protect-whistleblowers
Wut!?
I could be wrong, bah, but that article from the way-back machine is probably a result of Podesta’s ability to harbor a grudge. No way to prove it now, but I’d be willing to bet that if Hillary had managed to win, Podesta would have done an about-face on that so energetic we could have harvested energy from his spinning body for years!
rUssIAn cYbErZ in my 3rd cup of coffee
Only 17 days until the Trump apocalypse, johjohn. .. r u ready?
well i do have to agree that russian cyber and its role in the election of trump has led to a whole new era of domestic program cutbacks, widespread international civil wars, failed economic globalism, and xenophobic prejudice
and yet everything will remain refreshingly similar
The type of change that one can count on…
I doubt Greenwald has any magic answer to that. I’ve got a similar observation. The use of “Democrat”. It’s a useful yet troublesome term. Sometimes people mean “the good party”, sometimes “the party that used to be the Democrats, you know, back in the day”
Sometimes they mean “the leadership of the Democrats”, sometimes “the habitual Democratic voter”.
Sometimes they mean “the target audience of the Democratic party”, sometimes they mean “the donors to the Democrats”.
It causes needless confusion when, in search of brevity, we say “the Democrats” and some random Clinton voter thinks we’re referencing her.
If someone uses a phrase, particularly in a public writing, I think they can reasonably be expected to be able to say what they mean by it. That wouldn’t appear to be asking too much. (Which is not to suggest GG has any obligation to answer my question; but surely he could if he wanted to. He’s a very articulate fellow.) It also would not appear difficult to say “Democratic donors” or “habitual Democratic voters” if that is what is meant. Seems quite easy, in fact.
Hi Gator – I can’t speak to what Glenn meant specifically with regards to what he was attempting to explain with his “Trump is an elite…but not that kind of elite,” but I did find this article helpful in categorizing Trump in a way that may reflect some of those differences:
More here…
It’s fine to go after the WaPost for sloppy reporting ,and it’s fine to criticize the Clinton campaign. They deserve it. But it is going too far to then portray Donald Trump as being wronged. Here’s what passes for Glenn Greenwald’s reasoning: “It’s not news that coastal elites — particularly media and political figures — were and are virtually unified in their unbridled contempt for Trump.” First off, it is false to imply that the nefarious “coastal elites” are alone in their contempt for Trump. My friends and colleagues are unified in our contempt for Trump and none us are affluent. Most of us are struggling to piece together a decent living, but none of us gave into Trump’s hatred and call for violence. The way Greenwald frames this shows his own brand of groupthink. Greenwald himself passes media misconceptions along unchallenged. We also have to ask where this “unbridled” contempt came from. Greenwald wants the focus solely on the “coastal elites,” as if they just woke up one day angry at poor Mr. Trump. Again, it’s confusing because we aren’t members of this elite–to Mr. Greenwald and those like him, we don’t even exist– but we have contempt for Donald Trump because of his contemptuous behavior. We remember the election that Mr. Greenwald has already forgotten. We remember Trump’s racism, his bragging about sexual assault, his calls for political violence. We remember all of things Glen Greenwald doesn’t care to mention. Are you going to try to say those things didn’t happen, or that they were the result of the Clinton campaign’s spreading misinformation? We saw it and we remember. I used to respect Glenn Greenwald’s work, but this is nonsense. Fine, I’ll accept that the Vermont utility story is false, but that doesn’t change the fact that the president-elect of the United States has spoken well of a ruthless dictator and continues to do so. That is the real story here, a story that Glenn Greenwald and his readers want us all to ignore.
Let me translate this into the original latin….
Delenda est Carthago
They are telling us false stories, about Russia, a rival country, and it is impermissiable to have peace with countries that the CIA tells lies about.
The original latin continues….
so the only way to end this ceaseless flow of falsehoods is to do what the propaganda writers want and destroy Carthage…sorry, Russia!!!!
I swear, I’d bet you anything with the CIA’s resources, I could gin up a war between America and Switzerland in no time.
“They’ve tampered with our wristwatches!!!…The Swiss tyrants are trying to make us late for the voting booth so they can steal the election for the Chocolate Party!!!!” (the Chocolate Party…darker than you think!!!)
I don’t find anything here to respond to, but your command of Latin is very impressive.
“I swear, I’d bet you anything with the CIA’s resources, I could gin up a war between America and Switzerland in no time.”
And the Swiss would likely win. :)
I’ve been trying to get GG to say who these “coastal elites” actually are and what makes them “elite,” but thus far to no avail. It’s been suggested below that he means high-society Manhattan bluebloods, but I don’t think that could be the case since he specifically referred to “coastal” folk who include “media and political figures.”
You raise another good question — does one have to live near an ocean and/or be “elite” (whatever that may mean) in order to have justified contempt (bridled or unbridled) for Donald Trump?
who cares if you accept the utility story or not, the queen bee lost
but dude keep 1993 alive for all of us!
Again, if I criticize poor, innocent, wronged, saintly Donald Trump, I must be mindless follower of Hillary Clinton. It’s that easy!
hey just a lucky guess on my part
“Trump’s hatred and call for violence”
Casualties in Iraq, 01/02/2017:
Terror attacks: 250
Combat near Mosul: 70
Sunni Triangle: 150
Executions in Samarra: 100
Shelling of Mosul: no data
Lybya: nobody even counts
Her Highness royal HRC, secretary of state, is no doubt a better person.
So can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Why do you think I’m a Clinton supporter just because I see Trump for who he is? I’ll tell you why, because you are indulging in black and white thinking in order to confirm your own prejudices. Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war disqualified her from office. But that doesn’t make Trump innocent. Thanks for the little list. We’ll be able to write another in a few years. Do you honestly think he’ll put a stop to all of that? And Trump did support political violence in America. Try to deny it all you want. We all saw it.
Do progressives accept wearing burqa or not?
If it is the woman who is choosing to wear a burqa as a function of her autonomous choice (presumably religious), then why wouldn’t I accept it? I don’t question when certain orthodox Christian followers wear things on their heads or particular types of plain skirts or whatever, why should I care about the burqa? The question in the private sector is, does the employer require a particular sort of attire for a legitimate reason (or can someone’s religious preference be reasonably accommodated without thwarting those legitimate reasons). In the public sector the question is slightly different depending on context–public schools or official government activities and/or the nature of the work being performed (i.e. is it safe to wear certain types of clothing religious or otherwise).
I didn’t know America was now interested in being the clothing police, except possibly with regard to the above and regarding children while in public or private schools–and any restrictions there are more a function of trying to create a learning environment free of distractions based on young people’s choice of clothing. And in the case of public school teachers, they should wear a basic uniform that can reasonably accommodate individual teacher’s particular religious proclivities consistent with law (i.e. subtle cross on your person but not prominent, or scarf on head in case of certain Muslim or Sikh sects, so long as those teachers don’t otherwise proselytize or engage in bias against the schoolwork or activities of their students).
I also personally think all K-12 kids should be required to wear reasonable uniforms, made in America, and that those uniforms should be subsidized at tax payer expense. And I say that as someone who has no children. There are ample hours in the day for kids to express their individuality through clothing choices. So, I don’t understand why it has to be during the 7 hours of school or few extra hours of school related extra-curricular activities.
Perfectly reasonble answer of a sane person. Now the question is whether you consider yourself to be progressive. There’s no trolling on my part, it just happened that one day I’ve stumbled upon this and was quite surprised someone actually brought up the original meaning of progressivism. And I’m not talking about superiority of western culture. Really. Left stands for modernity, humanism, equality and abolishing of boundaries. Now how modernity intersects with counter-modern “stone-age” revivalism by neo-Islamic fashion? It just makes very little sense. And I know muslim stopped wearing veils by the 19th century or so, before that they stole that fashion from byzantine aristocratic women’s veils. Just left doesn’t seem to be left and it’s just one of the aspects of that.
That’s right. If you argue against Trump, you must be a progressive. That is the only alternative. You will wear the jersey.
No kidding!
@ Robert F & Gator90
Exactly why are you guys purposefully misreading and decontextualizing Glenn’s argument?
He’s describing particular coastal elites–media and political figures (i.e. media and political elites which are likely by definition major media network executives, producers, and infotainment readers and nominal journalists, together with certain politicians (although unnamed I think easy enough to deduce and from which party, organizations or end of the political spectrum).
So are you going to address the necessary counterfactual that disproves Glenn’s use of the term “coastal elites–media and certain political figures” by demonstrating which “coastal media and political elites” are not unified in their contempt for Trump?
Or are you going to just pick irrelevant nits because Glenn doesn’t spoon feed everyone a definition for every rhetorical device or word he chooses?
Also, to suggest that certain coastal elites are unified in their contempt for Trump, is not mutually exclusive with other non-elites being contemptuous (rightly I’d argue) of Trump so what exactly is your point?
As a result of this alleged bias that Glenn attributes to certain coastal elites–vis a vis mainstream corporate media figures and national Democratic party politicians and affiliated organizations and figures–are you or can your rebut the following contention:
Here’s a little test, find one person or organization you believe to be a “coast elite–media or political” and define that however you like, and demonstrate they aren’t doing what Glenn is attributing to them of doing. Now not that finding an exception to Glenn’s framing disproves his general posited “rule”, but it will be fun watching you guys try. Otherwise, you’re doing what many of Glenn’s readers have done for a very long time–attempt to turn a word usage into the point of his argument or his piece rather than refute the substance of the piece as a function of the word or phrase’s usage in the context of the piece.
I’ll wait. Assuming either of you want to be intellectually honest enough to attempt to refute Glenn’s point on the merits of his framing with counterexamples disproving it.
“So are you going to address the necessary counterfactual that disproves Glenn’s use of the term “coastal elites–media and certain political figures” by demonstrating which “coastal media and political elites” are not unified in their contempt for Trump?”
fabio and sylvester stallone, they were both in “the expendables” which is about as elite as you can get
Still waiting.
Presumably it should be too hard to find “coastal elites–particularly in media and politics who aren’t unified in their contempt for Trump.”
Assuming your focus on Glenn’s use of the phrase isn’t calculated to distract from his larger argument.
@RR — Thanks for waiting. If I say “I like flowers, particularly roses and daffodils,” would you take that to mean roses and daffodils are the ONLY flowers I like? Or would you infer that I like other, unnamed flowers as well? I suggest that “particularly” in this context clearly means “including and especially, but not limited to.”
But for the sake of argument let’s imagine Glenn confined his statement to “elite coastal media and political figures.” Isn’t Fox News, a major news network located in New York City, an elite coastal media organization? I confess I seldom watch Fox News, but I would bet it has not been instantly praising any denunciation or accusation toward Trump or Russia.
Is Kellyanne Conway, a New Jersey native educated at exclusive private universities in Washington DC, a coastal elite?
Just for fun I’ll add that Glenn has acknowledged in this very thread that he himself is a coastal elite. So there’s an example for ya, right there.
@ Gator90
Too clever by half boys. I’ve directly quoted the one time in this article that Glenn refers to “coastal elites”, and he did so with particularity within a broader argument and paragraph.
You do realize that the word “virtually” means “almost all” or “nearly all” and permits exceptions to the rule of uniformity or absolutism? Again, and even if Glenn could have phrased it slightly different with a slightly better clarifier some, many or most how exactly would it have detracted from his point, assuming you understand his point? Please be specific in articulating what you believe his argument/point to be, and how using the turn of phrase he did detracts from it because he doesn’t literally prove that every single entity or individual that could nominally be construed as a “coast elite–particularly media and political figures” isn’t “unified in their contempt.”
So in answer to your question(s) specifically this one:
Obviously Glenn isn’t talking about “conservative elites” (even though some of them were/are nominally contemptuous of Trump, and I’m not going to do your work for you in finding examples), he’s talking about “[nominally liberal] coastal elites–particularly [nominally liberal or at very least left of center] media and political figures.”
So just for fun, I’m going to accuse both of you of being purposely obtuse in purposely misreading and misunderstanding Glenn’s argument.
Again, as with any writer, could Glenn have been slightly more precise in making his point–yes. But, again, unless you are being purposely obtuse his point is fairly clear to anyone reading within the context of the piece and whether or not there are exceptions to his “coastal elite” classification/paradigm is entirely irrelevant to the larger arguments in the article.
Finally, and without much ado, to anyone with at least a 12th grade reading comprehension level, it does not need to be stated that “those who are contemptuous of Trump are only coastal elites.” It is not mutually exclusive, nor relevant to Glenn’s argument, that there are obviously 10s of MILLIONS of Americans who are contemptuous of Trump and that they are spread all over the nation, in every state, and that they cannot remotely be referred to as “elites” much less “coastal elites.”
So, again, why are you guys attempting to make a non-point or draw a meaningless distinction out of his use of a phrase, and/or the absence of including the fact that there are 10s of millions of non-elites who are also contemptuous of Trump and who have nothing to do with the MEDIA and POLITICIANS Glenn is arguing against in disseminating or accepting as truth dubious claims re: an issue?
Like I said, please stop attempting to be too clever by half. Everyone on this thread but you two seems to understand Glenn’s arguments but you two.
RR: “obviously Glenn isn’t talking about conservative elites … he’s talking about [nominally liberal] coastal elites–particularly [nominally liberal or at very least left of center] media and political figures.”
Oh. Sounds like “coastal elites” is basically a sneering code phrase for liberals, same as how the right-wingers use it. That’s what I suspected all along; thanks for confirming. (Except Glenn said he himself is a coastal elite, and he would probably indignantly resist classification as a liberal. Oh well. Glenn, like Whitman, is large and contains multitudes.)
Here we go: “He’s describing particular coastal elites–media and political figures.” He didn’t make that distinction, which is my whole point. You go back and look. He begins by making a broad charge against “coastal elites” and then narrows the focus to media and political figures within that elite. What he doesn’t do, as I said earlier, is acknowledge that this contempt might be shared by others outside of that elite, or that contempt for Trump is well deserved. You ignore those points as well. As Gator points out, it doesn’t take much effort or space to make a few clarifying remarks.
The point I’m making is that again and again I see these references to those who stand against Trump as being “coastal elites” and/or dedicated Clinton supporters. My point is that there are many other kinds of people who see Trump for who he is and oppose him. What about community college teachers (with their vast estates), or other service industry workers (convenience store clerks with their mansions) who were never fooled by Trump? I’m tired of seeing this nonsense repeated so often without being challenged. Gator understands the point I’m making, and other do as well. I suspect GG and his readers won’t let go of their “coastal elites” explanation because it’s too convenient.
Given that, your “necessary counterfactuals” and tests don’t make any sense. I’m not arguing that that there isn’t a liberal elite or that they don’t have contempt for Trump. What I am saying is that it takes all kinds to make a world and that there are many people from many walks of life who oppose him, with good reason. That is all. And Glen Greenwald’s original statement doesn’t account for that. I see this misperception again and again and I am going to call people out on it. The more important issue, which you and Doug S studiously avoid, is that many of us, people living in cities struggling to hold on to what we have, have no voice and no effective political representation in either of our two major political parties. To most people in the media and the academy, and as a person with an influential position that includes Glen Greenwald, we don’t even exist. Sound familiar?
So you didn’t have to wait long. Your “tests” are only your attempt to control the course of the argument and to avoid my main points. As far as your claim that it is mistaken to parse Glen Greenwald’s words goes, he’s a writer. That’s all we have to go on. I read the piece by Matt Tiabbi, and he manages to pause and make clear, in a sentence or two, that he sees Trump and Putin for who they are. GG needed to do that and he didn’t. It isn’t hard.
Since you quoted GG at the end, it’s worth looking carefully at what he wrote. “Any denunciation,” “no matter how divorced from reason or facts,” “generates instant praise,” “any questioning…prompts instant peer-group denunciation.” Look at all the absolute statements. This is an extreme statement where the writer is working hard to paint a caricature and working hard to discredit those rightly opposing Trump as being irrational. I’m aware that a writer can’t qualify every statement, but he can avoid absolute and extreme statements.
What is clear is that the writers and readers here indulge in their own groupthink and cant. Dissent isn’t treated kindly. You imply (thanks, Doug!) that I might not be honest in your closing. Let’s see if you are honest enough to finally address my points: that ritual references to “coastal elites” are inaccurate and that there are good reasons for having contempt for Donald Trump.
So your criticism is based on satisfaction of your expectations? So why are you surprised by quite a normal reaction of completely different people holding perhaps different political views or as me apolitical at all, simultaneosly pointing at your fallacies?
GG wrote a text in an OPINION ARTICLE genre. His name and credibility back his expertise. He’s quite objective in comparison to mshtm and owes you as a person nothing. HNY, best regards.
This wasn’t an opinion piece, it was reporting. Glenn Greenwald’s name and credibility don’t back his expertise. He’s right because he’s Glen Greenwald? You are right that as a person he owes me nothing. As a writer, he owes his readers clear and specific thought and language. And I’m not surprised at all by the reaction.
Was it? I got zero coverage of any new event, so it’s not an informational genre. It would rather be an analytical article (he discusses a wider problem, hysteria in the press) some facts he cites support that, some particular examples he uses after making a point rather tell about there’s also a rejection of WaPo’s partyline by different journalists. Why I wouldn’t classify it as an analysys is the text is pretty short, he would develop the idea more thoroughly otherwise.
He has a right to be biased, rejection would be punishment. There’s a point where nameless journalist can become an expert. He’s the one. He was clear with facts, and expressed his own views. IMHO, not his fanboy.
You are the one claiming the example of contempt for Trump is exclusive to ‘coastal elites’.
Not true. I’ve explained that my main point is the opposite.
“I’ve explained that my main point is the opposite.”
You have attempted to explain your point.
Your nearly-entirely wrongheaded post has probably been adequately dealt with, already, but, just for good measure:
As far as I can tell, Greenwald has not, above or elsewhere, asserted of implied any such thing.
You need to visit a good dictionary, where you will be able to review the difference between implication and inference.
If you are going to say that my post was “nearly-entirely” (What does that mean? Choose one or the other) false, you might bother to explain why. You might consider looking up the word “lazy.” And thanks for the suggestion, your mean-spirited snark notwithstanding. I wasn’t sure about using the word “imply.” Now I’ve looked it up. Of course there are different definitions, and some dictionaries list them as synonyms. Others make a clear distinction, as here:
Imply vs. infer
To imply is to express something indirectly. For example, you might imply that it’s time for a guest to leave by saying that you are getting tired. To infer is to surmise or conclude, especially from indirect evidence. For example, if you were to tell a guest that you’re getting tired, the guest might infer that it’s time to leave.
So, although as the smartest man in the room, I’m sure you’ll find fault, I believe I used “imply” correctly. By focusing only on “coastal elites” GG suggests that opposition to Trump is limited to a certain group. No, he didn’t say that directly, which is why I say “imply” or “suggest.” He wasn’t clear. People saying this usually aren’t, and we’d expect better from a serious thinker. Again, you see this lazy thinking all over the place and we need to challenge it. Just as the Democrats may very well be using a conflict with Russia to avoid coming to terms with their own terrible mistakes, so some other people are creating a “coastal elites” straw man to avoid the flaws in their own thinking.
Two suggestions for you: Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni, and The Unsettling of America, by Wendell Berry.
Doug is very smart, just ask him.
You’ve still failed to understand that your inference isn’t equivalent to another’s implication.
And you’ve wasted sooo many words in demonstrating that failure.
You’re correct: I’m quite certain that you are, in fact, confusing your inference with what you imagine to be Glenn’s intended implication. And it isn’t necessary to be the smartest guy in the room to understand that.
That’s utter and complete nonsense, arising from ignorance of Greenwald’s history of spoken and written comments on the subject and a silly misreading of his piece above the line here.
As for accusing Glenn of “lazy thinking” — well, if he decides to engage you on that one, I won’t want to miss it.
Now, I’m finished with you on this subject.
Just FYI, so far you’ve been handled quite gently. We get much rougher than this around here.
“Just FYI, so far you’ve been handled quite gently. We get much rougher than this around here.” Thank you, Mr. Salzmann. With that statement you make make my point very well: many of the regular commenters here are more interested in making personal attacks, in degrading someone, than they are in making a sound argument and moving the debate forward. I can see why you are sympathetic to Trump; your minds work the same way.
“[…] but that doesn’t change the fact that the president-elect of the United States has spoken well of a ruthless dictator and continues to do so. That is the real story here, a story that Glenn Greenwald and his readers want us all to ignore.”
Well, no it isn’t, actually. It’s *your* story and you are plainly going to whack on it until the last dog dies.
If Putin is a “ruthless dictator”, you may have to do some explaining of your own.
There is actually no particular reason citizens of other nations should elect leaders you approve of, particularly those enjoying support above 80% of citizens polled. If you believe in “democracy” (as all lefties invariably claim) then what you are carrying on about?
That Russian people may place different values on leadership preferences than you do, offering some hint that your opinion counts for exactly nothing in their territory.
“The majority of [Russian] respondents (61 percent) held negative views of Clinton, the survey found.”
Did you abandon support of Clinton because a majority of Russians disliked her?
Shocking as this may be to you, the person in charge in Russia is who he is, regardless of your exalted opinion of your own better judgement. You don’t get to pick some imagined replacement leader you would likely be happy to force on Russia at the point of a bayonette if power permitted you. Because “democracy” (and whatever other golden calves you worship in public and don’t really believe in at all).
Politics is “the art of the possible”. As you have just witnessed, it’s not often pretty. Get over it. And expect exactly the same level of sympathy you would have spared the opposite side had your faultless champion won. Which is to say none. Nobody cares about your gaping open wound of disappointment because they are of no importance to anyone but you.
If Trump — unlike Obama — deals with Putin like an adult rather than a petulant, thin-skinned child, a cooperative arrangement for peace seems possible, rather than another half-century of senseless Cold War standoff and justification to waste even more billions showering obscene profits on the enormous domestic armaments industry, which expenditure depletes rather than adds to the national wealth. That would be one less high-threat theater of war we would have to plan for and fund. It’s just math.
That was actually the aim when the amateurish attempted “Russia reset” by the inept Obama/Clinton administration miserably failed. Obama himself mocked Romney for claiming Russia was our biggest threat. And now?
Rather than suck it up and try again after that enormous Clinton-managed misfire, the current administration went off on a revenge pout, in effect reversing itself to agree with what Romney claimed about Russia to begin with and hoped nobody would notice this sudden and astonishing about-face.
So what reality do we assume and act on? Here’s the very short multiple choice:
“Russia is:”
1. An (immensely powerful and deadly) enemy threatening our very existence which we must focus our war machine on to defeat them when they eventually attack us. Somehow. Somewhere.
2. A (much weaker) competitor nation with interests we share and can jointly pursue, even if we have conflict of other interests we will have to negotiate.
Pick either door number 1 or door number 2. There is no door number 3 on offer.
And yes, Trump would understandably admire and prefer to work with a seasoned, non-ideological leader like Putin who is demonstrably capable, secure in the support of his own people, and therefore fully authorized to negotiate a practical deal on their behalf.
Competent people prefer dealing with other competent people. Incompetent people invariably seek ways to avoid them.
Now this. I won’t give much of a direct supply, since you seem to be making a canned speech rather than responding to my post. The only response would be to repeatedly say, “did I say that?” because your response is strangely detached and seems to be directed at someone else. However, I see one mistake I made, which we can clear up easily. I called Putin a “ruthless dictator.” I haven’t read up on recent Russian elections, so I can’t say that he’s a dictator. But stories I’ve read indicated that he is ruthless. Today, the Interceptor carried a story which mentions the murder of a Russian journalist, with alleged Kremlin involvement. I know what “alleged” means. I have a simple question for you. Is it your position that these and other allegations of political violence against the Putin government are false? I am not being facetious. I simply want to understand your position. Are you saying these reports are false?
That implication did not happen, wasn’t made. At all.
Nope, no “groupthink,” and also no “passing along misconceptions.”
No, and no.
As you should, because it is.
Referenced from ZH, this article by Ray Dalio/Bridgewater offers some insight into how at least one of the 1% view the dangers of “fake news” in the MSM: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fake-distorted-news-epidemic-bridgewaters-recent-experience-ray-dalio?articleId=6222049685817819136#comments-6222049685817819136&trk=prof-post
Thank you for these articles.
I’m going to simply flip-flop my entire ideology just because of a bunch of rotten eggs, but I’m not exactly taking pride in my “registered Democrat” status these days.
Social priorities need to be revised (tact is a good thing, but there’s more important matters to worry about than calling out someone for using the “r” word in jest), and we need to be calling out our party’s supposed leadership. Bernie had the right idea there.
At least the Dems had a good run…remember when they had full control of congress, enacted Canadian style single payer healthcare, cut costs in half, gave everybody the right to medical care….
This story has the ethos of the era all over it:
Or as Trump would say…”Hey, you knew I was corrupt when you elected me, what’s the big deal???”
…No wait, Trump wouldn’t say that, he’d say “What ethics body?, never heard of it!!!”…”I didn’t abolish it!!!!”….”Yes I abolished it because it was a bunch of losers!!!”…”That’s what I said I’d do!!!”
But seriously, what was the ethics office going to do anyway? Look backward ad not forward into the past? That is all so pre-Obama anyway. We don’t want to “criminalize” ethics disputes, any more than we want to criminalize policy-disputes, such as torture…do we?????
Actually, of course, Trump tweeted his opposition to passage of this bill.
Will Trump’s tax return not fit into a tweet? Is that why we can’t see it?
No idea. But I will make a note to ask him next time we meet and get back to you on that.
By I’m really excited about the upcoming American film “Patriot’s Day”, telling the story of the Boston marathon bombing. From the trailer:
Remember the days when American movies tried to convince the world that Americans actually practised what they preached?
russian toster-ovens have penetrated the grid with CYBER ELECTRICITY
Can we call it the “Karl Rove” school of Journalism?
There may be no facts underpinning the story, but the story out into the media…is its own facts.
Maybe the next step is to have news articles that hyperlink to themselves on the same page as corroboration.
So Greenwald is now writing on stories that the alt-right only love and love and love.
Come on Glenn…..the alt-right doesn’t need any help. Go focus on stories that factually help the progressive movement and the US middle class. Pick the right battles! THINK!
Couldn’t agree more. This is getting out of control and it’s getting there fast.
Glenn needs to submit all his drafts to Podesta and Palmieri for pre approval and commentary.
Yeah Glenn,
Imagine holding as a plenary journalistic value–that the “news” should be based on accurate verifiable “facts”–instead of anonymous bullshit and what best helps the progressive movement.
I mean you’ve gone from journalist to jackass in a heartbeat by actually valuing fact over partisan fiction.
I think you should only report on things using anonymous sources, and only couch your reporting in language that helps the progressive movement while undermining the “alt-right”, that way you can redefine your career as propagandist in service of the progressive movement rather than as a journalist.
I’m with Arth above, all your drafts should be submitted for approval to David Brock, Alan Dershowitz, and Haim Saban before you ever even consider publishing anything. That should cover all your bona fides as a true progressive partisan and stop all this petty nitpicking of your work. That way, next time you step out of the jungle and land at La Guardia “factshonesty” and those who think like him/her can be there to welcome you with a brass band and palm frond path into your waiting limousine as you deplane to get on your way to a Democratic party fundraiser with Haim Saban and all the big money boys and girls from Wall Street and the entertainment industry, which of course is every good partisan “Democrats” life’s ambition.
Or you could continue to do what you do, and actually have people value and respect your work and your personal integrity. I’m voting for you to do the latter. So “THINK!” and “Pick your battles!” is right especially because of use of really awesome exclamation points.
Rahm Emanuel said it best:
If you want a nice, safe space where everyone wants to protect “progressives” from inconvenient reality, you should probably go somewhere else.
The “Russian hacking” frenzy is imbecilic, deeply dishonest, hyper-partisan and quite dangerous. If exposing it for what it truly is hurts the crummy little feelings of “progressives” or anyone else, well, you know what they say in Russia: “Tough shitsky.”
*obviosly triggered* Can any progressive here answer me is burqa tolerable or not?
Yeah. My progressives, right or wrong.
Of course Glenn is right…..the KGB is your friend.
No! Obama and the MSM and the Frenzycrats are right! American intelligence agencies are our friends.
Blow up the US Government and start over……it is way too large, filled with bribery and corruption (under the label of “lobbying and lobbyists”, and our votes no longer count.
I think it is becoming true and apparent as Trump refills the swamp with his own……bloodless coupe’s never work.
“Fake News” And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Someone keeps warning us about the dangers of this…..can’t recall the fella’s name…..but it seems that Forbes (at least) is now tooting a similar horn. Wonders never cease. :-s
Defective link (you defective linker!). Fixed:
‘Fake News’ And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
This is a good synopsis. I think the two biggest takeaways should be that:
(1) the yearning to break news leads news entities to perform simply bad reporting.
(2) Relying on anonymous sources is not inherently bad, but alone is wholly insufficient. It must be corroborated to the maximum extent possible. When in doubt, abide by the adage (slightly modified): “distrust, but verify.”
Tell this to David Dayen. That 8 part story on Knight Capital fell apart with minimal research.
Um actually it didn’t even though you did your best to cast shade upon it in the comments section with Chris Dilorio. Most of us read that and can come to our own judgments on the topic and none of the story “fell apart” just because you argued it did.
And just because you believe defeating the spirit and intent of a law is okay employing a plausible technical reading of any given law, still does not make certain actions morally or ethically acceptable, and even if certain regulatory agencies of the government don’t have the sand to enforce their own laws and regulations for whatever reason. Just like AG Holder did with the banks. I should know I spent more time than Holder did suing them for their mortgage practices, which were/are one colossal monumental systemic “fraud” which was self-evident by all the states AGs who did sue and achieved massive multi-billion dollar settlements–which amounted to, unfortunately, the “price of doing business” for the banks and their executives, directors, accountants and lawyers.
And David Dayen didn’t use an anonymous source, he used Chris Dilorio, so not sure what your point was? What was it by the way?
Understood and thanks for the comment. Yes, Dilorio wasn’t anonymous. But he was just a victim, not a whistleblower as it pertains to his losses, which is what the story was about.
I don’t deny Knight Capital did, or may have done, all the things he states. But this was not the cause of his loss.
Even the most basic things that were passed by Dilorio to Dayen were not researched such as the ‘aged fails’ disclosures. That was very simply a matter of looking or reviewing a VERY public document. One which Dayen should have reviewed in generating the story.
Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree what the story was about. And whatever critiques you may have posted in the thread, and how they were rebutted by Dilorio, I’ll leave to each individual reader to decide for themselves who got the better of those arguments. I didn’t weigh in on any specifics because I didn’t have the time to do my own legal research and come to my own opinion. But I’ve had enough dealings with the banks, their attorneys and accountants to not trust anything that comes out of their, their attorney’s or their accountant’s mouths when it comes to their record keeping practices, their willingness to fabricate affidavits and documents, and their willingness to lie and obfuscate while under oath.
So again, and I understand you claim to do some of the compliance work in this arena, I’ll keep my own thoughts and counsel on the subject.
And while Mr. Dilorio may not have been a “whistleblower” in the technical legal sense (i.e. going through proper legal channels under a particular legal or regulatory scheme while employed by a particular entity or agency–or a possible qui tam lawsuit litigant), I don’t think the word is being used that way in the series, nor does the general public use it that way very often.
And as a former federal employee, I can tell you that any “whistleblower schemes” or “legal protections” you think you can avail yourself of, are illusory, regardless of whether you end up being right or wrong about financial or other malfeasance by any particular entity or agency of government.
Those legal schemes are a calculated legal ruse to make it look like people can come forward, without repercussions, and report in good faith what they believe to be malfeasance, whether right or wrong ultimately, but the reality is totally different. That any whistleblower is ever treated with protection, much less rewarded, is about as rare and accurate statistically as a Horatio Alger fable. The process and schemes are used to bury both the whistleblower and the malfeasance, not make it publically transparent and/or correct it.
I did it once on relatively minor issue, and but for me being much more organized, prepared, and familiar with the relevant process and regulations, and being able to see I was being set up to be the designated scapegoat and likely lose my job when the merry-go-round my boss was riding stopped, I wouldn’t have been able to protect myself and my job. That individual ultimately got caught and issued a formal reprimand, but only because I’d made myself untouchable by documenting and reporting the problem in exactly the right way and under exactly perfectly timed circumstances.
Otherwise I would have been the one left holding the bag, or caught in a Catch-22 of refusing an order from a superior that this individual refused to reduce to writing so he could scapegoat me when the time came. So I set this individual up to give me the verbal order in front of others willing to go on record re: what they witnessed and heard, and I had the documents all teed up, together with verified copies properly postmarked and ready to beat this individual to the punch with proof before he had a chance to spin it to his superiors or disappear my proof.
And if it is that hard to protect oneself on a relatively minor issue, and easily proved instance of malfeasance, I don’t think one has to have much of an imagination to comprehend how nearly impossible it is to protect oneself with regard to a more complex issue/problem, or one involving lots of powerful people where incredible sums or budgets, or violations of law are involved.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment(s).
It’s just that I believe Dilorio told Dayen loads of facts that Dayen seemed to not have tried to verify. There was even one fact that Dilorio disagreed with regarding an item Dayen posted in the article regarding E-mobile from Japan.
In any case, thanks for your feedback and honesty. Much appreciated.
May I ask you a question, given that you are a lawyer?
Which do you believe is the most credible story as it relates to Dilorio’s losses? Do you believe it was Knight Capital naked shorting or a scam perpetrated by Stone and accomplices? (Proximate cause)
Both. Gaming a system is gaming a system, even if technically “legal”. And I don’t find it very compelling that in unraveling a particular scam (for example creating REITS or mortgage backed securities, or creating MERS to avoid recording fees and documentation and negotiable paper handling requirements, which is where my knowledge base is strongest and the attendant tax advantages associated with holding those certificates as a tax dodge) you found that the lawyers and others involved were very careful to diffuse “proximate causation” to the point no individual/entity can be held singularly accountable–legally or otherwise. That just means it was a well executed and well thought out scam.
So, personally, and as a lawyer, I think for the most part attempting to establish “proximate causation” for a systemic level grift or scam is a fool’s errand. It doesn’t exist, because it is calculated not to exist by design. It wouldn’t be a very good scam or tax avoidance scheme if those lawyer and others involved created a paper trail in the first instance definitively establishing their collusion in an intended calculated scam or tax avoidance scheme (i.e. the intent to subvert or go around the intent and spirit of a law(s) which would be illegal, and unethical for lawyers to knowingly participate in). But purposeful self-delusion and rationalizations when big fees are on the line is a powerful drug for far too many lawyers in this country who have lost sight of what “justice” really means.
And I’d suggest that if you don’t know that’s how things actually work in certain industries, it is because you either don’t want to know, are involved in facilitating it, or don’t have the capacity or experience to understand how these sorts of systemic industry based scams (investment and tax avoidance schemes) are created and carried out.
Just my $0.02, but believe what you choose to believe.
I’m acutely familiar as these are left up to the accountants and lawyers both. But thanks for your $0.02. It’s appreciated.
As am I. I do not, nor would I ever participate in any way, or work for a client who seeks to subvert the intent of the law–at least as I understand that “intent” after doing my own research. Maybe you are, I don’t know and won’t choose to speculate.
It is one thing to be mistaken as a lawyer (or accountant) as to what that “intent” is, or to have some better than “plausible” argument i.e. one more in line with a well-developed, rational and good faith argument based on doing your research into “legislative intent” as a function of those records and documents (to the degree those records and documents are decipherable as something that could be described by anyone as anything other than partisan doublespeak; and depending on the issue being legislatively debated or studied–my experience has been those “issues” and the frequency of the doublespeak is more a function of the “issue” at stake rather than nominal party affiliation of the particular legislator or entity weighing in on the issue during the legislative comment period as it concerns non-elected officials particularly when it comes to “economic issues” or regulatory schemes where there is a decidedly unequal playing field between “industry” voices and the few voices that represent consumers or workers, which I don’t think is really news.)
And in the absence of a level playing field between the two, you not only get “bad laws” (in the sense they work against consumers and working class people, and for the benefit of certain industries and their beneficiaries), but lawyers and accountants who will stop at nothing to push the bounds of even those bad laws past their absolute breaking point in how they are interpreted and constructed, because they know they cannot be held legally accountable for pushing those arguments so long as they can hide behind “plausible” or “mistaken” beliefs about what they do or should mean.
I’m not that kind of lawyer, and that kind of lawyer or accountant disgusts me. And until the law changes to hold them personally and financially accountable for facilitating those sorts of “interpretations” (and if you can’t hold John Yoo accountable for his on a topic like torture) then good luck holding the esoteric gurus of finance and their lawyers and accountants accountable unless you really simplify the rules, laws and language to make it abundantly clear that systemic level scams and avoidance schemes will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law no matter how big you are, or what harm it causes that industry or the broader economy.
But former AG Holder just about killed that sort of accountability single-handedly together with others in the Obama administration and Obama himself. It is my biggest bone of contention with his administration because I think “economics” drives every other issue in America and if you can’t/don’t have accountability in those arenas that doesn’t just amount to a “cost of doing business” that can be incorporated into a board of directors budget, then I don’t think you can really have any accountability whatsoever in a meaningful sense, or a political system, or system of “justice”, that doesn’t delegitimize itself in the eyes of the public every single day.
People aren’t stupid and understand that “injustice” is a function of not enforcing the purported rules of the game equally on everyone no matter their relative economic or “power” status in society. America has gotten so far afield from that ideal, that nobody be confused or wonder why the vast majority of people are questioning the legitimacy of all American institutions. They see it in their lives, and they read about the double standards that apply everywhere and at all times. And that’s a super dangerous thing in my opinion, because eventually people reach the breaking point of the injustice and corruption they’ll tolerate and then all bets are off for society maintaining any semblance of social cohesion.
That’s why it resonates so clearly with so many the idea that “the system is rigged”, because it is, they see it and feel it in their lives. They don’t need some egghead lawyers and accountants telling them to doubt what they are experience because they aren’t educated or enlightened enough to understand the “nuance” of some bullshit law that was passed to fuck them and benefit some rich individual or entity, or stop there from being any accountability for those same individuals or entities when the go so far across the line nobody can look away.
How so?
I read the first few articles but got tired of the grind of waiting for new parts to be published.
You can check out my first comment in Dayen’s last article here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/whistleblower-vindicated-massive-trading-firm-knight-capital-charged-with-abusing-naked-shorts/?comments=1#comment-324409
But there were also other claims made by Dilorio/Dayen that were easily explained. Some, not so easy as it takes accounting background to understand. You can read my comments in the last story to get a flavor.
But this comment summarizes my comments from the first 7 parts.
One thing I’ve noticed, the WPost doesn’t do subtlety. Remember their 16 Bernie Sanders stories in one day:
“Bernie Sanders’s two big lies about the global economy”
“Clinton is running for president. Sanders is doing something else.”
So now the billionaire owned Wpost has a new target, and facts appear to be no obstacle.
I’d be even more concerned about the Wpost, but I have bigger things to fear, just read on twitter that Putin is building the death star…hashtag “Putindidit”
“So now the billionaire owned Wpost has a new target, and facts appear to be no obstacle.”
The local (Seattle) news put up some sales comparison info for the holidays.
Amazon had 43% of the market while the next biggest share went to Walmart at less than 5%.
Pedinska: “It is a Brave New World”!
“[…] meaning that a reader being forwarded a link to the article would have no way of knowing the article they were seeing was in any way changed from the original version published 2 hours prior”
This is an excellent example of propaganda by deliberate omission of relevant facts to sustain a false narrative.
What distinguishes WaPoo is their amateurish, ham-handed execution.
Thanks. This makes it seem like WaPo is publishing draft versions of their story before it’s finalized. Then, correcting them on the fly and hoping no one notices.
Sad.
[NOTE: This is in response to something GG said to me a couple days ago on this thread, which I just saw. I’m putting this up here because I’m a self-important attention seeker and because I’m hoping GG might read it. Of course, if he’s too busy preparing a new column that I will soon be seeing, that would be fine.]
GG: “As for Trump: yes, he’s a billionaire from New York, but he grew up in Queens and I think has always been alienated from, insecure in front of, scorned by, and resentful toward elite culture.”
At this point, Glenn, I must ask you what the word “elite” (as a noun and/or adjective) means to you. Can you define the term in a manner that rationally excludes a billionaire business mogul/television star? What makes the “coastal elites,” whom you say are unified in their contempt for Trump, “elite” in a way that he himself is not?
I’ll give you some bibliography on better understanding the elites:
Thorstein Veblen: Theory of the Leisure Class
C Wright Mills: The Power Elite
Excellent reads, seriously. And you will understand why Trump is not an Elite yet.
I can answer this in a more useful fashion than an explanation of “Glenn’s definition” would provide:
Gator, you need to expand your understanding of the word “elite” and the variations of use and nuances of its meaning.
A good starting place:
Definition of elite in English
Understanding the etymology may help:
The narrow understanding of the word as meaning “rich and able to throw some weight around” is just way too narrow.
I’d be willing to bet that the high mucky-mucks of elite New York society never invited the boor, Trump, to any of the most “exclusive” social functions, if they could possibly avoid it — and that he has known that and fumed about it for a very long time.
@Doug – while I sincerely appreciate the information you have provided, what I’m really trying to find out is who the “coastal elites” are, as referenced in the following sentence from Glenn’s column: “It’s not news that coastal elites — particularly media and political figures — were and are virtually unified in their unbridled contempt for Trump.” My questions about that were what prompted his (not very satisfying) response.
The etymology of “elite,” while interesting for its own sake, sheds little light on what Glenn Greenwald means by the term in 2017. Like many words, it means different things to different people.
When conservatives use the term “elites,” for example, they typically mean educated liberals, or wealthy liberals, or liberals who work in the creative arts. In this way, an assistant professor at a state university who got through college on student loans can be “elite” while a conservative billionaire or a conservative 4-star general cannot be. I hope GG isn’t buying into this right-wing framing, but I kinda wonder.
Based on GG’s explicit reference to “media and political figures,” it seems clear his view of “elite” is not restricted to Manhattan high society. What he does mean by it remains mysterious.
Gator, you wrote this:
And the correct answer is an unqualified “yes.” Hence my response.
OK Doug, but as I already said, I am trying to understand the term in the context of GG’s actual use of it in the above column. Hence my response to your response.
“I am trying to understand the term in the context of GG’s actual use of it in the above column. ”
You seem to be demanding clarification to know if you should be insulted or not.
Well, I am a lawyer who lives in a coastal city, so I guess it’s possible I am included in GG’s notion of “coastal elites.” But if so, I would want to assure him there are many such lawyers who think Trump is the bee’s knees and couldn’t care less about Russia.
You are confusing ‘elite culture’ as a definition of being moneyed. It isn’t. It’s much deeper than that. There is virtually no possibility the cultural elite would be found hanging out in Queens, which is economically and culturally diverse. Manhattan is a gravity well for all big money, new and old.
If you should win the lottery, you won’t be elevated to join the cultural elite, whose blue-bloods will sneer down at you as mercilessly as ever, but with even greater hostile disdain because you are merely ‘nouveau riche’.
There is also a unique (virtually invisible) black elite culture, as well. You don’t apply for membership. You are invited: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Kind-People-Inside-Americas/dp/0060984384 But don’t hold your breath, regardless of how much money may be in your family. It requires generations of success to even be considered.
Well said, as always. All journalists, whether they be innocent or guilty of participation in this clusterfuck, should read this article carefully.
Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation
So, in short, an IP address that “officials” have been blaming for Russian hacking of the DNC does not necessarily mean targeting by Russians. And could be benign. I see…..
Those damn authorities. Always twisting the arm of the WaPoo to publish their unconfirmed leaks. How dare they. :-s
“It’s not descriptive of anything in particular,” said Robert M. Lee, chief executive of Dragos, a cybersecurity firm.
Might be interesting to see what Mr. Lee and his firm think of the DNC “hacking” evidence.
Robert M. Lee of the cyber security company Dragos noted that the report “reads like a poorly done vendor intelligence report stringing together various aspects of attribution without evidence.”
In other words, not only did the Russians not penetrate (the grid), they never even tried to steal a kiss.
Nice Salami Tactics that the “Democrats” are using here.
Never the less, still no strong evidence for their allegations.
However, if the DNC hadn’t f*cked Bernie, Hillary used the Governments email-system and the Podesta Mails would’ve been non-existent than that Hack had been useless.
It solely proves that the DNC cannot withstand transparency.
Hacked or not, the DNC are to blame themselves not the Russians or Wikileaks.
Luke Harding of the Guardian thinks there is some ulterior motive for the invite of US Embassy staff and their children to a Christmas party in the Kremlin. “Luke Harding claims the invitation from the President of Russia to the children of US diplomats to attend New Year and Christmas parties in the Kremlin is a threat to US diplomats, subtly reminding them that the FSB has “precise information” about their children”. http://theduran.com/guardian-journalists-bizarre-claim-vladimir-putins-new-year-christmas-invite-threat-us-diplomats-children/ You could not make it up.
Looks like the Guardian is yet once again throwing in its lot with the NYT and the Washington Post. It is nothing new in recent months but profoundly disappointing nonetheless.
Too true!!!
Luke Harding could make it up a dozen times a day, and he often does.
Joe McCarthy or Josef Goebbels would have been in propaganda heaven if they had media hacks of Harding’s “quality” to help promote their respective versions of vile madness.
Wolf Blitzer is a most shameless fellow. Thanks to Russians we now know he was passing debate questions to Hillary Clinton and also getting his questions from the DNC in order to ask Trump. I think Trump is going to drain this fellow along with the rest of the swamp :-) Today this fellow was trying very hard to push his Russians and Trump agenda, but then who listens to him.
Great job Glenn. Keep smashing the Fake news coming out of “repeatable” outlets.
Freaking autocorrect it should say “respectable”
freaking autocorrect, it should say “fucking”…
Turn autocorrect off and live the dream! :-)
Poetry is always a mistake
Fat fingers stab jagged red lines imposing order. The ambition of persuasion, the settling of correct.
This is Empire.
Fyslexic dingers dabbling at
The pretense of being the purveyors of sympathy
While hiding the abettors of favored versions of entropy and enthalpy.
In an interview with Hannity, Julian Assange says source for Wikileaks was not Russian government:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/02/assange_to_hannity_our_source_was_not_the_russian_government.html
Assange also said the Libyan “war” was responsible for the refugee crisis in Europe.
His “imprisonment” has unhinged him a bit, I think.
If I recall correctly, Assange vowed never to speak of Wikileaks sources even — again, as I recall — promised he (and Wikileaks) should have no knowledge of the source of documents by design so as to protect their informants.
If he knows it wasn’t the Russians, that implies he knows the actual source. Further, as I understand it, the Russians use “cut-outs” to facilitate their espionage. They would be foolish not to, for just this reason.
Espionage is, by definition secret. Those who demand proof from spies might as well demand truth from professional liars. A spy’s job is to avoid detection. (Somebody help me remember: what was Putin’s job in the old Soviet Union?)
Julian Assange’s assurance is as credible — as dubious, that is — as Trump saying, “believe me.”
+100
brilliant. now i get it. folks, listen, when it’s not the russians it means it’s the russians. i believe there is a saying: “if it looks like hack behaves like hack spells like hack, it is the russians”
what do you know just ran into this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8339225/Libya-up-to-a-million-refugees-could-pour-into-Europe.html
Here is a site I checked before I posted.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
I hope the BBC is credible for most.
This article seems like comprehensive coverage.
All should notice the virtual absence of Libyan refugees.
stupid me forgot libya thing took place in 2014-2015. thanks so much milton by way of bbc. folks this is a lesson be humble do not assume you know-it-all
Both the First Libyan civil war and Syrian civil war began in 2011.
The Libyan Civil war ended within a year with the death of Gaddafi. The Syrian Civil War basically ended with the fall of Aleppo.
Besides a bunch of Libyan refugees ending up in Italy, the majority fled to Egypt and Tunisia. The Libyan “war” wasn’t engineered by Hillary Clinton, it was an outgrowth of the Arab Spring. Nato intervened on the side of the rebels and defectors because of Gaddafi’s brutal response.
Compare this to Syria where the Russian intervention, concluding with civilian massacres in Aleppo, ensured Assad’s continued rule.
Assange’s comparison of Clinton and “Russia” (meaning Putin) isn’t even close to objective or accurate.
Libya: No war … meaning no invasion. Few European refugees. UN approved intervention by NATO. Strongman overthrown. No Russian interference.
Syria: An enduring civil war (Shia/Sunni), a massive intervention by Russian military, hundreds of thousands of European refugees, and extreme atrocities including the massacre of civilians while under Russian aegis.
Do you see a pattern?
The
“We came, we saw, he died!”
Arab Springs occured without foreign intervention? Okay. I’m not an historian of special services, but that comment by HRC says something don’t you think? We also could speak about who provided bombs for the “closure of aerial space” as the UN resolution put it, and who bankrolls and leads NATO. What did CIA’s annex do in Benghazi?
Also there’s unrelenting bombing of Yemen by the Sauidis. Who is providing barrel bombs for their aircraft?
I don’t know what rock you’d been at during all the time, i won’t even bother posting proof that Lybya is a world of mayhem and a gateway for migration from the entire continent of Africa. The other one is Turkey, and I am intentionally not using the term “refugee” or “Syrian refugee”.
What considers Russia, it intervened after the the initial wave of migrants hit Europe. It was about a year ago. I’m not disputing alledged civilian massacres, though some dubious sources are supporting that claims among others. It’s unclear whether you attribute civilian losses directly to Russian Airforce or shia ground troops/Iranian/Syran Arab Army. Russia bears responsibility for collaterial damage, as any country’s military, according to international conventions it signed and customs of war. If one would be able to prove intentional genocide took place, we would be witnesses of the UN classifying one as such.
I would doubt that Russia’s intervention actually had “rescued” Syrian government, I linked Seymour Hersh’s article somewhere below that supports that.
But the statistics tell nothing is different in Iraq with American-led coalition providing aircover there, huge losses on all sides. Such is a character of this conflict that cannot be clearly separated on different smaller conflicts: Civil War, War on Terror, Religious War, Interventionist War as anti-government combatants failed to be separated on “moderate” Islamists and ISIS, excluding Kurdic Militias. Al-Qaeda’s control over Allepo, among others, vanished. It was liberated for me personally. If one would want to see Syrya under the control of radicals, as it was the only alternative, read intelligence reports, that is certainly a failure.
I tried to be unapologetic of Russian goverment or dictator Assad, who operate on legal basis, and using means expected from them to do, as Ukraine was expected to start an operation in its rebellous regions. But they had no motives in starting that conflict, and were not providing weapons to so called “rebels”, including international Al-Qaeda’s subsidiaries openly as others did.
I find it a remarkably callous statement.
Has US foreign policy been brutal and bloody (as well as stupid), especially (but not limited to) the invasion of Iraq, its unyielding support for repressive regimes throughout the region and the world, its blind support for Israel and its export of weapons and mayhem?
Yes. I have often railed against US foreign policy going back as far as the Vietnam War.
That’s not my point, even if you or anyone else thinks it should be my point.
I believe that Assange isn’t a disinterested party — as he pretends. I think his lack of disinterest shows in his comments. Further, I believe Trump (rather than Clinton) promises a more aggressive and brutal US foreign policy. I think he presents a far greater likelihood of disaster than Clinton. I also think Russia/Putin has a foreign policy that is no more benign than that of the US — much worse in many respects.
I hope this clarifies my comments for you and others.
Milton you sound so very scared ! Ask yourself who benefits from your frightened mind.
CII has already dealt with your ignorance about the relationship of Hillary’s Libyan disaster with the refugee crisis in Europe, so I’ll just take this little tidbit (for now):
What do you think of their alleged littering of the malware with Cyrillic characters and the use of Russian IP addresses? Would they not also be foolish to do those things? Hmm?
I mean, after all, “[a] spy’s job is to avoid detection.”
And what of those who accept the claims of spies as truth, without evidence?
Step back, Milton, take a deep breath and review the First Law of Holes.
I have no need to step back.
You should recall the Second Law of Holes.
Stand upon the mountain of dirt a digger has created, look down upon the digger, and repeat yourself.
Then beware the next shovel-full of dirt.
You may be somewhat right, but why did you stop short of accusing Assange of actually writing the emails in the name of Podesta, Donna Brazile, DWS and all the creepy folks?
1 It didn’t occur to me.
2. Had it occurred to me, I still wouldn’t have presented it as true.
3. You don’t lend Assange a bit of credibility by accusing him of maliciously lying in such a bizarre way. At least blame the FSB.
4. You make no point when you try to mock what is true with a ludicrous and impossible falsehood. Other than to show your own lack of imagination.
If you disagree with my facts, fine. Dispute away. If you think mockery changes reality, you’re as deluded as any other propagandists like Lord Haw-Haw or Roger Stone.
Russians paid Podesta to write all the crappy stuff. And Tony Sausage is a Russian spy. Looks like we are in mutual agreement.
This is a staple of the Trump presidency or at least most likely will be. ;)
This strategy has been a staple of Republicans since Nixon.
From Lee Atwater to Roger Stone, one of their favorite dances is the lie-smear two-step.
You’re absolutely correct. We’ll see this frequently — it’s how they will cover their incompetence and their corruption.
just a few issues with mssr wiltmallow:
1. the statement of assange proffered does not EXPLICITLY say the refugee crisis was necessarily COMPRISED of solely Libyans, merely that the war-like substance visited upon Libya HAD far-reaching implications which exacerbated Syria, etc which THEN led to the refugee crisis ratcheting up…
2. unfortunately, mssr wiltmildew did not include a citation for the interview quoted from, and a superficial search didn’t find it; BUT, it did find an interview where assange specifically talks about Syrian refugees as a huge problem, and how the EU/etc were trying to -literally and figuratively- scuttle virtually any/all refugee boats as a means to deal with the -you know- collateral damage of Empire’s machinations…
3. lastly, the bbc listicle cited actually conflates two issues and presents them as one: migrants and refugees… I can think of a political/partisan reason to conflate those two cohorts, but I can’t think of an honest-reporting reason why one would do so… surely, mssr wiltmelon can make the distinction clear in an obfuscated, recondite, tortured-logic sort of way…
4. IF I am going to blindly follow ANY Big Daddy, it is going to be a daddy who tells me NOT TO TRUST THEM, but to believe my own eyes/ears/brain… assange is that non-authoritarian daddy I would trust SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE he tells me NOT TO TRUST HIM…
(and I don’t, in the sense he is referring to…)
USG in general, politicians specifically, and the mass mediawhores most definitely, have ZERO TRUST, beyond ‘reporting’ the weather (but not climate), celebutard ‘news’, pushing the latest propaganda line, and blathering on endlessly about made-up (one might say ‘fake’) ‘controversial’ shit of no consequence…
unfortunately, I believe mssr wiltfellow is actually a Twue Bewiever, not a bot… an authoritarian shill seeking a Big Daddy to call his own… *there* is your ‘silent majority’, the 25% of the population who are authoritarians…
As I read your response, I was going to offer props for a rational and welcome contribution.
But then with your last paragraph, you completely undermined your own post.
WTF?
If you go to the trouble of checking my source material, why do you then ruin your own work with a specious and nasty personal attack on me? “Twue Bewiever,”??? Grow up!
(By the way, my source for citation was Assange’s interview by Maurizi, the subject of a recent post on this site. I didn’t link the material because multiple citations seems a sure way to convince a censor to throw a post into the limbo-bin as those links are checked for appropriateness. The BBC post disputes Assange’s claim and was necessary. )
Anyway, good for you for checking my work.
I think GG’s recent attack on Ben Jacobs (as an example of poor journalism) wasn’t just counterproductive, it displays exactly the sort of avoidance common since the election. Assange’s role in the election certainly has some bearing on the outcome of the election. Jacob’s post-election appraisal has absolutely no bearing. People are free to write what they want, but I find several GG articles since the election disappointing … at best.
I doubt that makes me an authoritarian or “Twue Bewiever”, but as I say, people are free to write what they want.
It’s not just Russia, it’s everything…from giving air time to climate deniers to making our election about ratings and entertainment instead of defending truth and calling out lies! Where are the Edward R Murrow’s of our day?
Our once reliable truth sayers have sold out! Hunger Games much?
WAPO once again producing fake news.
Mr. Greenwald, what have you managed to talk yourself into? You feel that Donald Trump is being unfairly maligned? The poor, innocent babe. Perhaps you’d care to set the record straight and give an instance of how his sound ideas are being misrepresented. For someone who claims great concern over a lack of evidence of Russian misconduct, you don’t give any specific examples of Donald Trump being wronged. Where are these unhinged tweets? On the contrary, the most unhinged tweets come from Trump himself.
“Repair” not “repaid”.
Given the way the USA does not repaid it’s infrastructure, no one need hack the electric grid. They can just wait for it to collapse, like the highway system, etc.
Feel a compulsion to support or oppose Trump particularly? Congratulations, you’ve been manipulated!
The establishment has us divided. You’ve heard of “Divide and conquer” – well, you’re playing the game!
The only true division is between the greedy rich and the disempowered poor – but we are trained to not group the “ruling class” as a whole as the most significant enemy to our happiness, even thought it is exactly that.
The Deep State (or ruling class, if you prefer) are obviously continuing their corporate/banking/military-industrial complex hegemony with the presidency of Donald Trump – regardless of how the Democrats or the Republicans describe Trump (absurdly) as anti-establishment or populist.
Corporatism, warmongering and imperialism have not been curbed at all.
Obama’s wars (in several countries) will still be occurring, just as will the dominance of the Federal Reserve and the increasing militarization of the police and the surveillance state. Trump will stop none of this, in fact he will (like his predecessors) merely further entrench the existing horrors and add some of his own.
At the start of the 21st century, General Wesley Clark (thx Jimmy Dore) candidly admitted that the Deep State is committed to “taking out” 7 nations as soon as possible:
Syria
Iraq
Libya
Somalia
Lebanon
Sudan
Iran
It can be seen that serious actions toward these “regime changes” have already been taken. The Sudan is presently host to our “elite” special forces, Somalia is being more vigorously assaulted by Obama than ever , Libya has been all-but destroyed, and we are still bombing Syria and Iraq even after our preposterous failures to accomplish anything positive in either country.
Please note how aligned with Israel’s interests these takeovers are.
So it stands to reason that the Deep State still holds these goals, and will pursue them however it can. Clinton wanted to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, provoking the understandable wrath of Russia by so doing, and it is my belief this naked ambition for regime change and bear-poking is the real cause of her failure regarding the (establishment-rigged) election results – the ruling class decided her stubborn streak made her an unworkable puppet and thus ultimately a dangerous choice. The complete overwhelming of Syria has been postponed for now, which is only sensible. So they went with Trump, who is just as much under their control, but was usefully portrayed as an outsider and agent of change (in a similar way to the propaganda employed for Obama).
Trump’s “selection” of Mad Dog Mattis and Flynn etc. reveals that the Deep State are going to use Trump’s presidency to go after Iran particularly, undoing the rather suspiciously motivated “accord” which several countries (including the US, possibly to Obama’s credit) had condescendingly imposed. Taking out Iran which is actually almost as insane as going after Syria, but seems nonetheless to be the aim.
Basically the establishment is intact, the inverted totalitarianism fully in place, and the populace still divided into laughable constructs of “left” and “right” while the ruling class persist to realize their terrifying agenda – unchallenged by the infighting or apathetic people of the United(!) States.
But go ahead, be a sheep and take one side or another, arouse hatred for either the right or left – but I tell you bluntly the problem is vertical and not horizontal. The Deep State which owns all towers above us, and though it may seem unseen and silent to common people, we allow its looting corporatism, warmongering and imperialism to remain functionally unchallenged – except insofar as encouraging the duopolistic theater of petulantly claiming it’s the other side’s (and not the ruling class’s) fault.
You make it sound as if a small group of psychopaths is cynically exploiting human divisions in order to rule. The exact opposite is true. Ruling is a tedious and generally thankless task, mostly consisting of attempting to slow down the rate at which people kill one another.
Luckily, the US devised a system of two parties so that people could assuage their aggressive instincts, not by decapitating their leader, but by electing the opposing party into power. This has been quite successful, as people stop fighting each other long enough to enter a voting booth and cast their ballot.
I do not think you are intentionally advocating a return to a bloodier past, but if you don’t use politics to distract people, how do you prevent them from killing each other?
Yes, I do!
The rowdy populations of some other first world countries have their frustration-sourced tendencies toward aggression successfully subdued (by a higher standard of living for everyone) via the dastardly clever ruse of “peaceful democratic socialism,” which still allows a fair bit of looting by super-powerful establishmentarians – just not at the violently overreaching and disturbingly impractical levels of the Deep State.
The ruling class of course makes sure this mild common sense approach is seen as something America can’t do because of her innate character (it makes our butt look too big or something). Although this immediately labels me a “leftist” I suggest it with the spirit of civil libertarianism in contradistinction not only to Trump but also to Clinton, Obama, and even Sanders – whose foreign policy (and dubious institutionalism regarding the military-industrial complex) is as Deep-State-ruled as the rest of them.
@ Maisie
At times I think you over simplify things at an institutional level, and why things actually work the way they do, but on balance and on the whole, you are very close to understanding what is going on, an why, and what America is really all about.
I hope you are relatively young, because if you aren’t, and it isn’t your generation that starts demanding something better and relatively more sane, then you and all those who come after you are all well and truly fucked.
My generation (born in 65) and those before me have totally fucked up the planet and the possibility of a better America. If there’s anything left in 50 years I hope you guys will be better stewards of whatever comes after.
I’m all for having a sense of humor, proportion and realistic understanding of why it is so hard to achieve meaningful lasting “change” or “progress” when it comes to human beings and their institutions, but you guys are facing an environmental apocalypse and everybody my generation thinks buying a Prius and voting in “no plastic bag” legislation is going to save everyone. It isn’t.
Granted, I’m not going to feel particularly bad when the human species decimates itself together with almost every other species of animal and plant on the planet, but it makes me incredibly sad that but for the worst impulses of a very small percentage of humans (greed, inability to share, very narrow short-sighted understandings of “economics” and hyper-developed ability to “otherise” all our fellow brothers and sisters all over the globe), our fate as a species (and those we are co-dependent with/upon) could have been much much different.
Like I’ve always said, if/when push comes to shove and I’m still alive, the only people I’m targeting for their scalps are the hyper-rich fuckstains on humanity. But for their insatiable greed and paranoia the world could be a much better and different place.
And one of the very, very small number of lawyers ever to get even close to my favorites list.
As I’m rather older and somewhat broken, push coming to shove in my lifetime seems less likely every year. But just in case I learn that I have only a short time left, while I’m still relatively mobile. . . I’ve got a little list. ;^)
My Favorite Dictator and My Favorite Millennial. You two should do tag-team teaching of Intro to Political Reality.
This is the Spread the Loot around Fallacy. In reality, there is never enough loot to keep everybody happy, or at least not happy enough to successfully suppress the human killer instinct. Humans evolved in a world of scarcity, where hoarding resources was a survival imperative and being satisfied was a virtual guarantee of extinction.
The US has achieved a record level of obesity and people are not even close to being satisfied. This does not even take into account the coming scarcity as a growing human population scraps over the finite resources the Earth can provide. Even those who believe the world is close to ideal will see this temporary moment of relative peace and prosperity implode as the world collapses catastrophically. And my outlook is a highly optimistic one.
In fifty years, people (the few who survive) will recall the wondrous ancient times when the US could produce heroic political candidates such as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
I appreciate how you portray the human being as strategically (“hoarding resources was a survival imperative”) and physically (“the US has achieved a record level of obesity and people are not even close to being satisfied”) incapable of achieving a fulfilled state, but more because it is a wickedly clever observation about the current manic version of inverted totalitarianism than because it excuses the same.
Being a millennial obsessed with my looks I sometimes envy large people chomping on every sugary or fatty foodstuff in sight – but I can’t help but agree with you that even as the eaters turn into giant blobs with eyes as glazed as their donuts, they are decidedly unsatisfied. The same with those wrecking themselves with vast quantities of cheap booze – it looks tempting to get foolishly oblivious and celebratory…until I realize it masks a massive thirst and hunger for something poor people (of whom I am one) just can not ever buy – a life with some dignity. We have big screen TVs, and computers in our phones that are simply miraculous. We are told we live like royalty compared to the third world and even to our ancestors, but the existential angst of the poor and poverty-stricken is about the depressing prison of the condition and not its flashy perks.
Most of us will never get out of our station in life. I’m in my twenties and so incredibly in student debt that it often makes me cry. I was brought up to believe my education would make me secure, but it has only made things much, much worse so far. I have to work two jobs, and even with my minimal partying I end up having a hard time making rent on a shared house with three other girls.
I believe some in the ruling class and most of the common people can indeed find satisfaction by adopting a kinder philosophy that certainly entails Spreading the Loot Around but is not restricted to just that. I think a more careful stewardship of resources could indeed save the day, even now (if exacted right away). I don’t see why people need to be more than millionaires any more than I see why people need to eat more than necessary – in my opinion both obsessions are born of a philosophical disenchantment rather than a dissatisfaction innate to the human condition.
American culture offers nothing but pseudo-religious hogwash and avaricious “positive thought” to uplift the human disposition, so everyone is just trying to satisfy their cravings for power and pleasure at whatever level they find themselves. But beyond this there really is a Deep State who wants this unsatisfied motif to be our hallmark, because without it corporatism, warmongering and imperialism would falter – and these are the essential business of the corrupt of both Parties.
If you’re right, I hope by then those remaining will realize at least that such “heroes” played for the same miserably exploitative team of cynical greedy bastards.
The Deep State ain’t going to make it in the 21st century, maisie. *Your student loans, otoh, may well continue into the next century, but Snowden stole the Deep States’ ‘crown jewels’ . .. leaving only a increasingly and despairingly shriveling impotence.
Obama’s wars (in several countries) will still be occurring, just as will the dominance of the Federal Reserve and the increasing militarization of the police and the surveillance state. Trump will stop none of this, in fact he will (like his predecessors) merely further entrench the existing horrors and add some of his own.
Jacob Bacharach had a good tweetstorm on this:
https://twitter.com/jakebackpack/status/816255089820237824
It’s nothing but a dog and pony show, where the truth is replaced by political narrative by those still smarting after Trump’s glorious victory.
And the Washington Post, who already lost all cred before the election still has not learned their lesson.
I seems pretty elementary that if the Russians intended to manipulate the US elections they would take great pains to cover their tracks, particularly given that Trump was the candidate they wanted to help. Until the last hours of Nov 8 practically every breathing member of the body politic was convinced that Hillary would win, and if it so happened it would have been very costly to the Russians if they left behind obvious tracks of their attemps to push her rival.
Kinda like the Netanyahu-pro-Romney-and-against-Obama debacle of 2008. It sure didnt help relations between them.
So one would have to assume that the ‘sophisticated Russian hackers’ were infantile bunglers when the chose exploits already (allegedly) associated with them from previous hacks, used servers located in Russia, left behind text or metadata in the cyrillic alphabet and — the most incriminating and irrefutable evidence of all — performed their evil deeds DURING KREMLIN WORKING HOURS instead of in the wee hours of the Russian morning, munching on cold pizza, as any bona fide professional hacker would have done.
A little too pat; a little too easy for the cybersleuths to come to the conclusions they did.
http://bgr.com/2017/01/02/cnn-hacking-fallout-screenshot/
The partisan hacks are up in arms so Glenn must be doing something right.
Okay now I’m completely done with those know-nothing assholes at Lawyers, Guns and Money–and that now includes the pathetic Asst. Prof. Loomis.
Apparently, Glenn is now personally responsible for Donald Trump being elected, um, because David Neiwert says he is.
Want to know what Neiwert’s academic and professional CV looks like to make him a “genuine expert”, at least in Asst. Prof. Erik Loomis’ eyes, and “know[ing] more than perhaps anyone on the rise of fascism on the right in this country over the last two decades,”. I mean more than anyone alive or dead is presumably what Loomis is arguing without substantiation for such a broad assertion.
So the “genuine expert” who “know more than anyone” on the topic of “rise of fascism of the right in this country” . . . is a guy who went to the dink school University of Idaho, and got one degree in English, and later went to another super hot bed of academic thought to refine his academic and journalistic chops and knowledge on the “rise of fascism in America”– the University of Montana where of course he studied “creative writing”. That’s right folks, the guy who knows more than any living human being, and any dead one too, on the topic of the “rise of fascism in America” is an English major who studied creative writing in the sticks in Idaho and Montana (which is not to suggest Idaho and Montana aren’t hotbeds of right-wing assholes.)
And oh yeah, but he has his own blog, and worked for MSNBC [I mean what could be better “centrist” know-nothingism expert credentials to an Asst. Professor and LGM blogger who thinks Hillary’s loss is due to a combo–mainstream media, Comey, Russia, Stein and Bernie conspiracy] and worked as a “contributing writer” for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I mean gee golly gosh just look at the guys Wiki page for all Neiwert’s “genuine expertise”, both scholarly and journalistic, by comparison to Glenn Greenwald a Pulitzer Prize and I.F. Stone Award winner, who is now apparently single handedly responsible for ‘the enormity of the monstrous regime [Greenwald in cahoots with Tucker Carlsen] have now empowered and enabled.”
I mean those guys are seriously fucking deluded and embarrassing themselves by misrepresenting, or even worse–failing to understand, what Glenn is arguing re: Russia and the alleged hacks.
Fuck them, they are literally too stupid and lack even the semblance of capacity for self-awareness to even understand why Hillary Clinton lost an election, that shouldn’t even have been close.
The bloggers at LGM are precisely why the Democratic party is a smoldering ruin.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/01/genuine-expert-on-fascism-speaks-about-rise-of-fascism#comments
Yikes. That train-wreck headline:
Genuine Expert on Fascism Speaks About Rise of Fascism
I mean, if that doesn’t convince you, what will?
He may lack the academic credentials to be dubbed the world’s foremost expert on the rise of Fascism in America, but I’d cut him some slack if he has successfully mobilized his own neo-fascist movement. Fascism is a pragmatic philosophy, based on channeling people’s hopes and fears as a means for achieving political power. The enemy must exist both externally and internally, but the identity of the enemy can shift to suit changing circumstances. The enemy may be Jihadists one day, Russians the next, always supported by the progressive fifth column led by the insidious Mr. Greenwald.
I admit to being unfamiliar with Mr. Neiwart, so I’m probably giving him too much credit. It is more likely he is a simple cheerleader, with no direct control over the direction that Fascism will take in America. So at best, his ‘expertise’ probably consists of the ability to recognize fascism when he sees it, which is undoubtedly useful, but not really that impressive.
Sounds like a certain blog site is still in denial and badly in need of a good scapegoat and rationalization for the Dems loss.
RR – My screen name may be evidence of a certain defensive bias here, but are you really suggesting that attending one or more relatively undistinguished state universities precludes the subsequent development of expertise on a given topic? Seems a bit snobby.
I’m no expert on Neiwert, but I believe he has written extensively (in books and otherwise) about the American right. Have you read any of his work? Do you think it’s possible his writings on the subject are the product of diligent research of the sort that leads to expertise, even if he didn’t go to Fancypants U? Aren’t you reflexively deriding him just because someone at LGM praised him?
@ Gator90
Basically I’m going to show you the respect I normally don’t, as if your question was in good faith or that you are actually doing your own work.
It isn’t necessarily about doing solid work in an academic discipline at a smaller or lesser known university–it’s about doing the work, period. At the level of an academic if you’re going to claim “expert” status. Journalists, without that background generally don’t get to claim “expert” status in anything.
Neiwert has written for every paper in the Pacific NW. I’m well aware of everything he’s ever written.
My point being isn’t that people can’t find a way to being “experts” on one topic or another, but journalists with degrees in English and creative writing, generally speaking (and I don’t care what university they attend) don’t become the individuals “who know more than anyone else” living or dead [Erik Loomis’ statement not mine], on any topic in the known universe, much less “the rise of fascism on the right in this country” given too many academics and others have been writing on the topic for years.
Now maybe that’s just me, but at an objective level, Neiwert hasn’t earned it, so to speak–not as a journalist, and most certainly not as an academic.
Do you actually think Mr. Neiwert knows more about “American fascism” than political science professors or historians say Sheldon Wolin, or Noam Chomsky, or Rick Pearlstein or Alperovitz, Benjamin Barber, Norman Finklestein, Stephen Walt or John Mearsheimer, Michael Parenti, . . . and those are ones I can pull off the top of my head, and not all the academic papers and books by authors, political science professors and others I had to read as a political science major and as a lawyer/law student.
I mean, seriously, David Neiwert?
Do you understand why no “journalist” absent the 10s of thousands of hours it takes to actually become an “expert”, at an academic level or almost any other level of study or knowledge, whether it be banjo picking or macramé, should be afforded the title of “knows more than anyone” title on any subject?
I genuinely always want to give you the benefit of the doubt Gator90. But your reflexive contrarianism at times is annoying to say the least. David Neiwert isn’t a fucking “expert” on anything. And if he was, and had the sustained career as an expert, his publishing record alone at his age would be something entirely different from a couple of lightweight tomes on “the right” in America and book on what Orcas can teach us, and blogging or being a contributing writer at the SPLC (which I have mixed feelings about given their classification of certain groups–and their relationship to issues affecting Israel, granted the ADL has become much worse).
Do you understand why that is the case when it comes to “expertise” as an objective matter?
And if there’s anyone that’s more anti-snobby than me, I’d really be interested in you pointing them out to me. If there is anyone that has railed more against pseudo-expertise in the ivy leagues (or at the very least a totally intellectually incurious cabined worldview amongst academics in the Ivy league or their equivalents) it is me.
Good scholarship, good analysis and good research is possible by any auto-didact on the planet much less from second rate academics at nowhere universities. But Neiwert is neither. And for an Asst. Prof. at a university I attended to claim that Neiwert is more knowledgable than “anyone” on the planet, on any topic is both silly and stupid, much less he uses Neiwert as a foil to insult Glenn who’s done nothing to deserve the childish shit he gets from those clowns at LGM.
Paul Campos? Are you fucking kidding me? That guy got his The Obesity Myth book handed to him by actual “experts” in all relevant fields from medicine to epidemiology to the law. And yet anyone should take anything he says seriously? Get the fuck out.
Believe what you want, but I don’t think by and large you and I see eye to eye on what the problems are in America.
You gladly voted for Hillary Clinton thinking that was some sort of “smart vote” as opposed to entrenching and empowering (if not kicking the can down the road) the very guy Loomis’ and his pals are accusing Glenn, Bernie and Jill Stein voters of empowering, which is ludicrous. Those who voted for Jill Stein are not the reason Hillary Clinton lost in key states. Nor is Comey, or Russia or any other boogieman/straw man you want to prop up to deflect why your chosen candidate lost.
I’m not the one who believes Hillary Clinton isn’t part of the problem in America–you are.
Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton . . . they are two sides of the same problematic ideology. And until you attack that ideology directly, don’t expect that things aren’t going to get anything but worse for the vast majority of Americans and human beings on the planet.
The technocratic bullshit faux incrementalism (scraps from Wall Street’s table) of the Lemieuxs, Campos, Hillary Clintons of the world isn’t going to get us where we need to be. And if you have children you should start wising up to that reality before it is too late for you and yours too.
It’s going to take courage, fight and a new politics and entirely new solutions to what is ailing America and the world, and I’m not looking to people like you or Lemiuex or Campos or Loomis for those solutions, that courage or that fight.
Sorry, but your track record, and theirs, is abysmal in those respects.
To be clear, I’m talking about Loomis, and the fact he attended University of Oregon which I attended, not that I took classes at the universities that Loomis has taught at which are arguably University of New Mexico, Univ. of Tenn. or Univ. of Rhode Island where he is an Asst. Prof. And the first two depend on what his teaching duties may have been at UNM (likely) and U of T(less likely), and presumably he had some on the way to getting his PhD at UNM, but in any event I’m trying to make the point that nobody at Univ. of Oregon that I know would point to Neiwert as an “expert” on much of anything.
And I’m pretty sure none of my political science professors at PSU or law professors at Lewis and Clark would either.
I hold no particular brief for Neiwert but I am not persuaded that a journalist who writes extensively about a given subject is precluded from becoming an expert on that subject (with the degree of difficulty depending, of course, on the nature of the subject).
You and I definitely see things in different ways RR, but I have found value in reading your views over the years and still do. (For example you were among the people who helped me “see the light” regarding the moral bankruptcy of Zionism and I will always appreciate that.)
I was and remain proud to have cast my general election vote for the one person on the ballot who had a chance to defeat Donald Trump.
No one blames you for voting for Donald Trump. He did his best to defeat himself, but as he had so many times before, ultimately failed. However, he hasn’t given up and will try hard to undermine his own agenda. So eventually, I believe, your vote will be vindicated.
Ha! Never stop commenting, Duce. We will need you more than ever in the imminent Dark Age.
@ Gator90
Fine. We can agree to disagree on Neiwert’s expertise. But if you want a taste of his rudimentary analysis on the subject go to his blog. Take a gander at the excerpts from his forthcoming book–Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump (June 2017, Verso Press). –all if it was widely reported by others.
Pretty sure assembling other individual’s reporting on a subject in one compendium doesn’t make you a “genuine expert” on anything but assembling topical compendiums of other individual’s reporting on a topic.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
As far as your Hillary vote goes. Fair enough. Everyone votes their own electoral, moral and strategic calculus, and I don’t have a problem with that. And I don’t particularly have a problem with people agreeing to disagree as to the effect of any particular vote in any particular election so long as that vote can be “causally” tied to a specific outcome as a function of that singular vote. Short of that, an individual vote doesn’t “count” for much as a mathematical or moral matter except as “signaling” to others.
Moreover, and for myself, I don’t think folks should be able to vote in secret. Everyone’s votes, like everyone’s tax returns, should be open for public inspection.
I think people should be free to choose whether or not they want to enable their fellow citizens “economic” and “political” actions as consumers and fellow citizens i.e. I should be free to not buy products or services from those whose “politics” and “economic worldview” are actively working against me and mine, and conversely I should be free not to sell products or services to those who are actively working against me and mine as a function of the “politics” and “economic worldview”. Now could that be problematic in the sense that certain individuals could use another’s “politics” and “economic worldview” as pretext to “discriminate” economically against others based on protected class traits like gender or race–yes of course.
But my thoughts on that are that those who would seek to discriminate on the basis of protected class status using a pretext, already do so, and can do so in an almost unlimited fashion now that the Supreme’s have basically gutted those aspects of the CRA protecting those folks except where “overt intent to discriminate” can be established. So my thought is why not level the playing field a bit in favor of the little people.
Tax transparency isn’t such a novel idea in some Scandinavian countries, and I’m of the opinion that if I have nothing to hide, nor am I embarrassed about how I earn my living, I shouldn’t have any problem with having my tax returns be a public record.
“I was and remain proud to have cast my general election vote for the one person on the ballot who had a chance to defeat Donald Trump.”
Didn’t you vote for Hillary? Bernie was toasted in the primary.
I said “on the ballot.” Had Bernie been on the ballot instead of HRC, I would have voted for him.
Yup, very, very bad. Mucho dumb and nasty.
Not only clueless and nasty but a major cyber-wuss, as well. If that’s his characterization of a purported script-kiddie-level phishing expedition, just wait until he sees a real cyberattack.
I’m getting pretty down about the state of “left/liberal/progressive” politics in the Democratic party, if instead of seeing Trump’s election as a wake-up call and opportunity to force “the right” to politically “own” everything that is about to come down the pike, they spend the next 2-4 years trying to pin the blame on Glenn and Stein voters like they did Nader.
Fucking stupid, venal, craven and cowardly. And until they decide who they actually want to represent, and start doing it, then I’m fucking done with them.
I will continue to expend my efforts on the West coast and specifically Oregon, and hope the West coast has the gas to lead by example and push back on the nasty shit that’s coming everyone’s way.
Personally, at this point, while I care what happens to all humans, and I don’t like the idea of blaming the poor, disenfranchised and misinformed for their poor voting choices, it’s time that there be clearly drawn lines about which policies lead to which results.
And as H.L. Mencken said, “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Sometimes it is only “reality” smacking certain people in their faces that gets them to wake up to who is really on their side, and willing to pass policies that actually address the problems that are affecting their lives in a more significant way that “the war on Christmas”, “who has an abortion”, “who uses which bathroom” and that “liberals aren’t really trying to confiscate all their guns” [although in my perfect world I wish they would, but since that’s never going to happen, what do I care].
Really, I’m way to cynical to believe America isn’t headed for some major bad shit in the next 4-8 years, but I’m also optimistic enough and old enough to know, what doesn’t kill us makes us theoretically stronger, and that the fight is never done. You just have to be prepared to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. And they will–Trump and his administration are going to fail on their own stupidity and it will be a spectacle of the absurd and macabre.
If only the left/progressives could get their shit together and be in a position to take advantage and drive a stake through both Trumpism, and “liberal/centrism” for the foreseeable future.
For reasons I’m to tired to elucidate (reading the LGM comments was both exhausting and nauseating), but which you mostly know and, I think, generally agree with, I believe that it is at the local and bioregional levels that the most effective and important work is to be done. And those are also, fortunately, the levels where we can have real influence.
Nation states the size of the US, along with the system of global finance-industrial capitalism that owns and operates them, are too big not to fail in an environment of permanent resource and energy constraints.
We have some major advantages out here on the left coast, and we have a comparatively (must get better!) enlightened political climate. There are possibilities.
At the “higher” levels, bad shit is going to be happening (and it flows downhill so we won’t escape all of it), but much better to be where we are than in most other places in these benighted states.
It is definitely time to think globally and act locally, while keeping your fingers crossed.
Why is this such a difficult concept.
The people responsible for Trump’s election (in no particular order):
Trump himself, everyone who voted for him, everyone who contributed to his campaign, anyone (if anyone) who reported inaccurate vote totals, (mostly) anyone who publicly advocated for him, anyone who worked surreptitiously for his election.
This is how the universe works.
If you run your car into a tree, it is not the tree’s fault. It is not your spouse’s fault. It is not your third grade teacher’s fault.
If there were other circumstances — rain, broken brakes, a hologram of an open road in front of the tree — these other circumstances contribute but do not determine.
There is agency (people doing things) and there are inanimate objects (things being things). The election is an inanimate object (ballots) designed to determine the collective will of the people.
Unless there was cheating, the people responsible for Trump are the people who voted for Trump. If there was cheating, then the cheaters are also responsible.
If you voted for him, you own him.
Everyone should stop looking for scapegoats.
People with integrity will tell the truth about their vote.
I voted for Clinton.
Can you provide any evidence that Greenwald supported Trump or voted for him or contributed or worked for the campaign.
Seems like just a bunch of unfounded statements and aspersions you just casted without a shred of actual evidence.
It seems to me IMHO that Greenwald didn’t like either based on his articles that he wrote.
What’s your basis for agreeing with Neiwert?
I didn’t write that, I don’t think that, and even if I did think that, it’s none of my business.
Your questions aren’t really questions anyway. They’re accusations dressed as questions.
So again, I’ll try to make myself clear.
I think it’s important to point out cause and effect — a concept rarely displayed in this comments section and almost never displayed among the chattering TV people reporting on opinions, repeating specious accusations, and injecting ugly slanders into the entire political culture.
I don’t care who voted for Trump. That’s between them and their own conscience.
You can decide for yourself who you vote for. Just don’t pretend it’s someone else’s fault …
(e.g., “I voted for Trump because crooked Hillary was too much a risk. And because Mexicans.”)
If you voted for Trump, you’re responsible for his presidency. If you didn’t, you aren’t.
Greenwald, Neiwert, Peter Pan and the Tooth Fairy opinions are irrelevant to me.
Yes you did.
You responded to RRheard just 3 comments above. RRheard wrote the following:
To which you responded as follows:
Implying that Greenwald somehow endorsed Trump, which is a huge lie. Now you’re trying to weasel out of it. At least own your own lies and distortions. They are readily available to cut-n-paste.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/07/glenn_greenwald_on_donald_trump_the_dnc_hack_and_a_new_mccarthyism.html
Greenwald from the Slate interview:
So what is your point?
That Greenwald doesn’t endorse Trump as you implied by your post above.
It isn’t a difficult concept for me to understand at all and I’ve argued it much longer than you have, thus my exasperation with Loomis/LGM blaming Glenn, which is precisely what Loomis and Neiwert are explicitly doing–without proof Glenn voted or advocated for Trump. And as far as I’m aware, Glenn did neither, nor could I imagine him doing so.
But at least on this we agree–the people responsible for Trump being empowered are the people who voted for Trump and actively worked to fund and/or promote his candidacy. No other individuals are.
I voted for Jill Stein. And I’m perfectly at ease with that vote regardless of what anyone thinks, says or writes about it. I’m not morally, strategically, defensively or otherwise obligated to employ my “right to vote” for or against any candidate, unless I chose to based on my personal voting calculus/rationale, which is why I did not vote for Hillary Clinton.
And I’m certainly not obligated to adopt another individual’s calculus or rationale for voting one way or another in any given instance, otherwise my vote means nothing to me personally (it then becomes and exercise in subsuming my judgment and political rights to another which I will not do).
I voted for the candidate(s) I preferred based on his/her policies and the degree to which I believe his/her actions in the political arena match his/her words–for me that was Bernie Sanders in the primary and Jill Stein in the general.
Anyone who doesn’t like it, or thinks that’s petulant purity pony seeking on my part, can suck it as far as I’m concerned. His/her opinion means absolutely nothing to me in that regard.
The American political candidates that openly embrace the following and fight for it, are the ones most likely to get my vote:
That American politicians have stopped trying, or are afraid to openly fight for the above (both the Democratic party and GOP), is a non-starter for me. Capitalism/capitalists can be made to serve the above agenda, or they can’t. And if they can’t, “our way of life” isn’t worth preserving. And if they won’t fight for the above, then rest is nothing more than rhetorical bullshit, and why approx. 50% of eligible voters are so disillusioned they don’t eve bother to vote.
And if American politicians don’t believe in the above, and aren’t willing to fight for it openly and unequivocally, then they don’t deserve any Americans vote. IMHO.
awesome post.
Can the Washington Post even be considered a newspaper anymore?
“Read carefully and between the lines, and it’s possible to learn something that’s true.” — Gore Vidal, re WaPo and NY Times.
The usual gaggle of intellectual/media mouthpieces who jump on Trump’s every utterance or tweet as being “fake” or absurd have yet to weigh in on the WaPo bandwagon on the evil Russkies and their nefarious hacking.
Supposedly respectable sources (WaPo/NYT/Obama) all parrot claims about hackers and Russians and electric grids at risk but have yet to offer up a single piece of evidence that can be independently verified.
So the current Establishment Rule is this: if it is anti-Trump in content or spirit, we must believe it wholeheartedly and without reservation. If it is in any way helpful to Trump, or could be, then it must be denied. So by extension, since “Trump is a tool of Putin” then it follows that Russians must be hacking the hell out of everything in the USA to learn our precious national secrets. Such as how many kilowatts Bernie Sanders uses each month.
The real secret is why anyone would believe the CIA and the Obama administration in the first place, absent any actual facts that can be verified.
The Lame Lying Losers (L3) of the msm have been stating that “the russian hacking did not change any votes”. In other words, the CIA hacking did not change any votes or, Obama’s hacking activity did not change any votes.
I seems pretty elementary that if the Russians intended to manipulate the US elections they would take great pains to cover their tracks, particularly given that Trump was the candidate they wanted to help. Until the last hours of Nov 8 practically every breathing member of the body politic was convinced that Hillary would win, and if it so happened it would have been very costly to the Russians if they left behind obvious tracks of their attemps to push her rival.
Kinda like the Netanyahu-pro-Romney-and-against-Obama debacle of 2008. It sure didnt help relations between them.
So one would have to assume that the ‘sophisticated Russian hackers’ were infantile bunglers when they chose exploits already (allegedly) associated with them from previous hacks, used servers located in Russia, left behind text or metadata in the cyrillic alphabet and — the most incriminating and irrefutable evidence of all — performed their evil deeds DURING KREMLIN WORKING HOURS instead of in the wee hours of the Russian morning, munching on cold pizza, as any bona fide professional hacker would have done.
A little too pat; a little too easy for the cybersleuths to come to the conclusions they did.
Via our open internet, we must retain and protect our ability to counter the relentless U.S. propaganda flow as this administration currently enacts sweeping laws to censor us. They are aggressively scapegoating Russia as the enemy.
Charlie Hebdo acknowledges the Word of the Year 2016 being “post-truth”, and queries the Word of the Year 2017 might well be “information”? <|;-)
It’s only natural to be a little worried about the Russia hysteria. At first it was confined to a few embittered supporters of Mrs. Clinton, convinced that if the American people hadn’t known the truth about their candidate, she could have been elected. Then it spread to the entire Democratic party. The Republicans, of course, cannot resist a bit of Russia hysteria themselves, so they are now clambering aboard. Once they do, Mr. Trump will climb on with them.
This is just normal politics, and nothing to worry about. Nobody wants a war with Russia. But it’s been clear for some time that the internet isn’t working as a means of controlling popular opinion in the way it was designed to do. So it’s going to be necessary to institute some security measures to control content and access. Al Quaeda and ISIS have been useful bogeymen, but it’s hard to sell them as an existential threat to the internet. Despite the best CIA mentoring, their hacking skills are still at a rudimentary level. So cue the Russians, an old demon who can be repackaged as a threat to internet security.
The answer, of course, is to build a wall. Not a bricks and mortar wall, as Mr. Trump’s literal minded supporters were cheering for. But an analog to the Great Wall of China, which itself was once rumored to be a real wall, but is now understood to be an electronic means of excluding dangerous ideas from an impressionable populace. In the US, this is long overdue. If the Russian Menace, whether real or imagined, is necessary to provide impetus to construct it, so be it.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/year-donald-trump-kills-net-neutrality/
Well, if you can’t have an Internet Kill Switch, the the next best thing is to slow down the flow of information.
fifty bucks
get a router on ebay and block out any country you want
fifty bucks
dnc coulda shoulda didnta
fifty bucks
didnt have it, or did and blew it on the Seth Rich hit
fifty bucks
what else can you do with
fifty bucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdFIgYXHQQ8
“In the final hours before the Christmas holiday weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday quietly signed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law—and buried within the $619 billion military budget (pdf) is a controversial provision that establishes a national anti-propaganda center that critics warn could be dangerous for press freedoms.
The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, establishes the Global Engagement Center under the State Department which coordinates efforts to “recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United Sates national security interests.”
Further, the law authorizes grants to non-governmental agencies to help “collect and store examples in print, online, and social media, disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda” directed at the U.S. and its allies, as well as “counter efforts by foreign entities to use disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda to influence the policies and social and political stability” of the U.S. and allied nations.
The head of the center will be appointed by the president, which likely means the first director will be chosen by President-elect Donald Trump.”
From http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/26/under-cover-christmas-obama-establishes-controversial-anti-propaganda-agency
This from a liberal Democratic President.
So the recent fake news rhetoric and the anti-Russia hysteria are linked.
Still no story from the NYT or the Washington Post on this new Ministry of Truth of the US Government and a direct assault on press freedom.
Why was this not an election issue.
What I really want to know is why no other instance of this malware has been reported in association with this mess. Let me get this straight the Russians had three targets- the DNC, Podesta, and one of the smallest Vermont utility companies?
This story was just as fake as the story in 1963 that Russia killed JFK. Russia is not as childish as the USA who thinks its people believe anything you feed them. The war drums have to retreat!
never mind the russians what about the canadians
do 17 intelligence agencies have consensus on canada yet?
what is the nature of the threat we have been facing going forward
it’s switzerland. they hacked a laptop at the coast guard, our ports are now defenseless against the mighty swiss navy.
The whole world is the nature of the threat going forward, jonjohn. As soon as Trump kicks the UN off of American soil, Putin will make Canada an offer they can’t refuse. *or, else, Hack their elections too.
*Trump is already making deals all around the world. .. and because the world is round, it blows my mind.
the world threat is of course a concern
lets get more intel on the world and also canada
“lets get more intel on the world and also canada”
Yes, I have a couple of concerns about The Great White North; A, it’s a big country and,
A, it’s loaded with one-piece hockey sticks.
Hello.
Well upon the twittersphere I actually read in the first instance of doing so, that indeed a laptop there was where the culprit mallwear was discovered. Anyhow, I read on Thursday 29th the joint DHS, ODNI, FBI Statement on Russian Malicious Cyber Activity. At its foot the readers or ‘entities’ who suspect malicious Cyber activity report to them.
So, not a WP subscriber I don’t know all said there. However as Mr Greenwald points towards by mentioning the Irving Janis theoretical notion of Group think (1972), and myself I can offer that were groups under pressure make faulty decisions. Then hesitantly, doesn’t the rash of false reporting and responses smack of hysteria? (No offence to ladies).
If so, then not only are the phenomena on view. I’d enquire as course, well, are there those amongst us disposed to faulty or even the irrational behaviour as outcomes of pressured decisions.
Are there further, those amongst us seeding that behaviour into fruition.
And lastly, are they if there doing that. Then are they grouped, or even perhaps lone Wolf anarchists? Because eliciting a reaction is child’s play with forethought. It’s likely that in a grouping then an overall result may logically be resultant?
Anyhow, causing hysteria in a community or population is the crux. If there is a feedback loop here, then it exists I suggest through both lack of accountability in the disseminating of info. and possible restriction too of , say, information of truth and quality. Both Mr Snowden and Greenwald have noticed and warned of info. sources used now in news reports left to be anonymous. So, as the events are true in what we see of false reporting being a prevalence…
Then I ask: is this indeed forethought and seeded. Or is it all a crazy feedback loop from the plain fact news info. sources are more and more anonymous for even contemporary credible reason?
Because if neither above are the correct question. Something is rampant enough currently to be bringing to the fore and into play, say, a condition were reason of the rational is becoming threatened!
(A little ramble into areas I think and I don’t have ability to be clearer with.)
Thanks.
I am a Software developer, here is my opinion:
The DHS has released their Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) relating to this malware they are calling “grizzly steppe”.
They released a Yara signature which they claim identified the malware.
The problem with this Yara signature is that it looks for a very popular and widespread Web shell toolkit called PAS Tool PHP webkit.
To explain what this means in layman terms:
Yara is a tool designed to look for software operating on any given network. The “signature” allows Yara to look for something specific.
What the DHS was specifically looking for using Yara was the use of the PAS PHP toolkit. The tool kit provides shell access to an infected server.
This PAS Web shell is so widely used and distributed that it could literally be used by anyone.
The source code for PAS is public:
https://github.com/tennc/webshell/blob/master/php/pas/pas.php
What this means is that this malware is used by every two bit Ukrainian blackhatter this side of Moscow. This malware could be used by absolutely anyone, and it existing in any two locations at once is no evidence of anything.
What this also means is that this was clearly not a sophisticated hack by a nation state.
This is amateur software.
This is malware you get from spearfishing campaigns. In other words the Vermont utility and the dnc are not practicing even rudimentary cyber security, and their staff are most likely to blame for opening suspicious email.
It’s even theoretically possible the DHS themselves uploaded the PAS Web shell, as as they have been caught hacking into other us networks, for example in Georgia, they are not beyond suspicion.
Also note that the Yara signature would not detect the most current version of the PAS PHP webkit so the DHS’ security advice is as amateur as the software they claim is being used to hack the US.
As the source code of pas is base 64 encoded the useless Yara rule can only attempt a string matching scheme on the initial Declaration of variables. This was overcome in the current building of pas by using string concatenation to assign values to the variables.
If the DHS is really putting their rep on the line for this evidence then they must be hoping that no software developers check it’s credibility.
Thank you for your expertise and explanation, not my domain, but the last word “credibility” should not be so evasive
Try uploading that same post to the New York Times comment thread under its next “Russia Hacked the Election” headline. Guaranteed it won’t make it past NYT pre-mod.
It is a lead-pipe certainty that the “intelligence assessment” based on physical evidence offered so far will eventually be laughed at by all serious persons, as many already do. So why press on with what appears to be baseless fake news which must eventually be walked back?
The wily Desert Fox may offer some insight:
“The great German general Erwin Rommel once made a distinction between a gamble and a risk. Both cases involve an action with only a chance of success, a chance that is heightened by acting with boldness. The difference is that with risk, if you lose, you can recover: your reputation will suffer no long term damage, your resources will not be depleted, and you can return to you’re your original position with acceptable losses. With a gamble, on the other hand, defeat can lead to a slew of problems that are likely to spiral out of control…If you encountered difficulties in a gamble, it becomes harder to pull out – you realise that the stakes are too high; you cannot afford to lose. So you try harder to rescue the situation, often making it worse and sinking deeper into the hole that you cannot get out of…Taking risks is essential; gambling is foolhardy.” https://brucelynnblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/difference-between-a-risk-and-a-gamble/
Enhanced Forwardization
One of the best things about the Russia Insanity is that it shows Obama’s “look forward not backwards” bullshit on torture–was just that–Complete Bullshit.
Every pathetic reason and every pathetic excuse that Obama gave as to why we couldn’t do anything about torture was directly and enthusiastically violated in Obama’s quest to link Trump to Russia.
Imagine if the administration and the media put even .0001% of the energy they put into trying to demonize Russia into investigating and holding torturers and their enablers accountable.
——
On Double Doubling Down and Tug of War
In the last month of the election, Obama ordered the intelligence community to issue a press release very strongly implying that Russia hacked our election for Trump.
As people start to question the truth of the administration’s accusations, there is still a reluctance to accept the logical conclusions that come with these questions and doubts.
We have a rope. On one end of that rope is the idea that Russia hacked our election for Trump, and on the other end of that rope is the idea that Obama is lying about Russia in order to social engineer the election for Hillary.
Because of the press release issued by Obama, one end of the rope has to be true.*
The less evidence there is to support Russian Hacking, then the more evidence there is to support Obama Lying.
This is a tug of war–the truth of one side negates the truth of the other.
Obama was very smart in the sense that he bet everything on the Russia allegations. He bet his presidency, his legacy, the democratic party, partisan politics, media credibility–he doubled down on many people’s entire world view.
In other words, if Obama is lying, then everything falls.
This is why you see so many people who have lost it completely over the Russia allegations–a whole life and worldview is a stake. This is also why so many people still believe that both sides of the rope can be true.
The most effective arguments are those that require a person to dismantle their world view in order to rebut it. You win through inertia.
You aren’t so much convincing someone as you are making it much less work to agree with you.
*Yes, we can have a situation where a naive but wonderfully moral and well meaning Obama is tricked and fooled by a mean and evil “Intellegence Community”–but this actually makes things much worse and doesn’t really change the basic story unless you are an Obama groupie.
Yes, the Tug of War is a good schematic if he us population is stil in the kneejerk mentality of the russians always being culprits?
Just another layer of dishonesty. PresObamamsunk himself deeply into the CrookdClintonsO shcemesmto get homself elected and then her elected as Potus.
But, omg, something went wrong.
Gues people,sonot like presidents who use pseudonyms and cannot give a direct order to their appointees?
All the Russia stuff fits right-in with the Geo-politics that are employed against the Russians the last years that persevere – only – “the complete encapsulation of the Russian border by (forced) alliances and/or wars.
Fueled by coughing-up some – could be = evidence….
Let’s Make Democracy Great Again !!
For a while there, I thought that China was going to be the New Evil Empire, but apparently it’s Russia once more. Although I suppose someone could try to make them both into Cosmic Enemies.
“…The fact that malware is “Russian-made” does not mean that only Russians can use it…”
The “fact” is that the malware was not Russian at all, but was coded by – and well known as – a Ukrainian malware.
Question for the Russo hysterians posting here. If you could come up with a way to solidly make the false case that Donald Trump was born in Kenya, would you do it?
I just wish I could write as lucidly as does Glenn. His articles are almost like reading poetry.
David
” I can promise you – if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians.”
– John McAfee 12/16 RT interview
WP editorial intent is purposed, conditioning disinfo to qualify and justify a predetermined governmental action. An act of a propaganda agency per the
insidious legacy designs of Edward Bernays, Goebbels inspirational master.
Why is there any confusion about what’s going on here or why? Bezos/CIA, ..hello?
It the reverse true? If it doesn’t look like the Russians did it, then it must have been the Russians who did it?
Let’s see if we can bring some common sense using less than three letters.
RT
“It the reverse true? If it doesn’t look like the Russians did it, then it must have been the Russians who did it?”
Simple logic trumps your common sense, obviously.
Yes, common sense. Motive, means, opportunity, history, and associates in common.
” I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”
MY common sense blares like an air raid siren with crap like this.
This is a rather limited schoolboy who not only knows the truth, (it was Russia), but cannot admit the truth (it was Russia) because he’d get in big trouble.
You must be very proud.
“Motive, means, opportunity, history, and associates in common.”
None of these is evidence. They are conditions for suspicion and therefore investigation to discover if compelling evidence exists.
So far there is none.
Hopefully you’re never asked to serve on a jury.
“MY common sense blares like an air raid siren with crap like this.”
You hear sirens as you claim the sky is falling.
I see Hannity is interviewing Assange tomorrow, in person.
Maybe he will clarify the source. He has said it was not the Russians.
Assange and Murray both say the same thing. They are the only two people in a position to have direct personal knowledge of how the DNC files came to Wikileaks and in what form. Yet both of these Wikileaks insiders have been studiously ignored as the “Russian hacker” theory is pursued like a fox before hounds.
Snowden says NSA would have tracked any network exfiltration of files from the DNC by hacking and also would see any network transfer of those files into the Wikileaks server.
Has NSA been asked to confirm or deny the existence of any such evidence?
*crickets*
Did NSA provide specific evidence to underwrite the hacking theory presented with “high confidence” in the CIA intelligence “assessment”?
*crickets*
Right now, NSA is the big dog that has never barked. At least not yet. Meanwhile…
Absent NSA confirmation of any in or out transfer having taken place, Murray’s story seems the most credible that fits the (known) facts: the transfer was by a thumb drive he personally received from a DNC insider which he then transported and delivered to Wikileaks. Assaunge all but directly named the murdered Seth Rich as the DNC insider who spilled those beans. Too bad about the “attempted robbery” with no valuables stolen.
One of the curious things about the quick descent of the Murray story down the rabbit hole is that no “investigative journalist” apparently ever bothered to verify whether Murray was actually in DC when he says he was. You know, hotel and airline records, etc. The usual, obvious things even a rookie reporter would know to ask.
If there is no record he was there when he claims, then his story is almost surely bogus. But if he was there, then why dismiss his account of events out of hand if no other contrary evidence disputes it?
” ‘Common Sense’ is usually some science out-of-date by a hundred years.” — Otto Neugebauer, historian of science.
I think that we can see here a dangerous cyber-escalation which could end in a unforeseen disaster in real world. I have no clue why US Administration is heating up this development when they claim on the other hand the vulnerability of US-infrastructures. Now everybody who has the skills can take part on this game and plame one of the nations.
Thx to Glenn Greenwald to put another light on this developments, without C&P the released news.
http://www.saurugg.net/2016/blog/vernetzung-und-komplexitaet/cyber-eskalation
What you in the US call ‘hysteria’, here in France we would call ‘caca nerveux’. Hollande is doing that the whole time….
La peur qui fait peur?
Seems wapo like most of the main stream corp media are not overly concerned with the truth. Bezos is a dangerous oligarch who embodies the image of greed and privilege what a surprise he bought a propaganda outlet.
This is how the oligarchy is destroying our access to the truth about world events. Bury it in a blizzard of lies that strips away the credibility of the news sources and the internet it’s self. Meanwhile, back in the interlocking boardrooms of the international banking military propaganda complex, decisions are made that shrink the sovereignty of the people.
And here the pot of anti-Russia hysteria boils over.
Politico declares that the US and the “West” are already at war with Russia.
And
“The truth is that fighting a new Cold War would be in America’s interest.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-214589
Who is Molly K. McKew, the author?
“Molly K. McKew and Gregory A. Maniatis are independent consultants who advise governments, foundations and international organizations on foreign policy and strategic communications. They worked for Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and his national security adviser during and after the 2008 war with Russia, McKew from 2008 to 2013 and Maniatis from 2006 to 2013.”
This article needs to be challenged. Since the Washington Post will not do it, maybe the Intercept can?
Thanks for the link. An examplary piece of doublespeak. And mentions the Game also, that’s what they, adepts of Brzezinsky believe in. Just substitute the subjects in this article and you know their tactics. Adviser to president that fled his country once criminal charges were presented my a$$.
Glenn I luv ya and I get it but I think you guys have a little hysteria hysteria. I appreciate the critique of the press jumping the gun but I don’t think you can expect citizens to not be alarmed by what we do know (limited as it may be) and what we can see. I appreciate The Intercept’s role – let’s get the evidence but it’s harsh to criticize citizens for being hysterical given the nature of the PEOTUS, the lack of trust and the gazillion alarm bells going off at the same time.
Well, we could expect it if our citizens weren’t so alarmingly ignorant and credulous, but, since they are. . .
The problem is that you imagine you see what you are told to see, rather than what you’ve actually been shown, which is a whole lotta nuthin.
Many citizens are over-whelmingly concerned with staying out of the homeless shelter. Anyway, for people low on the totem pole, the US has always been pretty authoritarian.
It might help you calm down a bit if you read slide 23 of the following JTRIG training manual.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1023279/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf
Written by an informed and intelligent person you are. Do you understand the multitudes not as perspicace as you will believe it!
Why is the US MSM silent on the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act that Obama just signed.
It authorizes the US Government to disseminate propaganda.
Great blog Glenn, reflected my thoughts precisely. Another link that has to be clarified is:
1) What do they mean by “attacked by Russia”
2) some one in Russia?
3) some person with Russian passport in Russia or Ukraine?
4) some non-Russian in Russia hacking DNC?
5) how to establish link between this person and a Putin
6) could it be a rogue player in Russian government?
Taibbi didn’t just live and work in Russia for over ten years – he speaks Russian. This is something that most US journalists are too lazy to learn, and it is a big part of why they just parrot whatever the US State Dept says. Because they are lazy and stenography journalism requires much less effort.
Taibbi knows what he is talking about.
Was Taibbi involved in undercover work for the CIA in Russia?
A heroin junkie linked to “nationalist-bolshevik” Limonov he would have rather got a job as FSB’s informant at department Z (defense of constitutional order, former KGBs department 5, ideological warfare). Though I doubt it. Seems like typical Charlie-Hebdo style hypercynical author from the 90’s St. Petersburg trendies’ scene. Wrote tabloid stuff for expats there.
Taibbi criticized the US govt and CIA extensively – so I very much doubt it.
Once a saw him on Sudder st. in Kolkata, preaching 10 exotic ways two commit a suicide before a group of japanese backpackers. He was bent in an extraordinary way with his chin between his buttocks, showing how to bite off the soft tissue to cause a mild bleeding.
His analysys should surely be sober and rational.
He helped run an ex-pat newspaper, The Exile. See The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia by Mark Ames; Matt Taibbi; Edward Limonov
+100
taibbi and ames are classy chaps worthy of listening to re all things russia. they had ample experience there teaching russians american ways. couple links here help you discover yourself:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/02/exile-201002
http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/10/30/the-exile-guys-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/
…
but mostly read their highly esteemed book “The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia”
once you do you believe it when taibbi calls putin “gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything”
Thank you for your endorsement.
Sure is curious that every intelligence agency in the US government doesn’t?… nor 99 out of 100 US Senators?
Do you work for Trump?
“you know, ‘cuz he knows stuff others don’t”
… and while you’re at it you might re-read MT’s final observation.
At some point insisting there’s no merit to anything the US government says… while waving pom poms for a writer with fewer resources…
The issue isn’t resources. It’s the credibility of conclusions based on objective evidence provided. The tech community is weighing in on the latest “report”:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/
FWIW, a reminder from Nuremburg:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
those nazis they learned from the best. from goebbels’ archive http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb29.htm
… The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. …
Goebbels was a devout admirer of Bernays, Freud’s (Jewish) American nephew, as the true master of modern propaganda techniques. Any reading of Bernays’ works demonstrates why Goebbels so admired him.
Despite his deserved reputation for serving as a top dog in a notorious regime of thugs, Goebbels was an intelligent man of subtle mind who earned a PhD in literature as a student under a Jewish professor. People who dismiss Goebbels without understanding his methods do so at their own extreme peril.
For anyone with an interest in how nations of people can be readily herded into support for monstrous national policies, Goebbels’ personal diary — self-serving as it appears in some portions — is an absolute must-read. Bernays also is required reading, of course, since these two men were contemporaries joined at the hip as the master propagandists of their own age, and ever after.
Goebbels emphasized the principle that propaganda should be erected solely on carefully selected facts which cannot be easily falsified, then skillfully woven into a narrative which therefore cannot be easily discredited.
This more elegant method of calculated deceit relies not on crude lying, but on eliding contradictory facts which would discredit the promoted narrative. They are the dogs that never bark.
Which is to say the most effective fake news promotes alarming conclusions based on facts, not on outright fibs which may force a retreat when discovered. (WaPo editors should particularly take note.)
Goebbels’ and Bernays’ sinister methods are fundamental to all modern propaganda efforts, public and private, and plainly visible daily to anyone who bothers to pay attention.
Bernays coined the merchandising term “public relations” to peddle his advice about use of these methods to businesses and public institutions, and was richly rewarded for his efforts.
The link you provide offers an excellent demonstration by Goebbels of sound propaganda principles put into practice (authored in English, at that, not German). The particular irony is that this short propaganda piece is a biting and sarcastic critique of the inherent weaknesses of counter-factual propaganda efforts which he attributed to Churchill.
thar she blew
Maybe Mr Obama can get ARS on the no fly list,,, just for spite.
Could it simply be that these unverified stories are published recklessly on purpose? The headlines get the news and have traction; the disclaimers and edits do not. Is there an agenda behind these reckless news reports? I think so.
Understand the methodology of the network of wallstreet & DC thieves. They are not concerned with what is true and factual, they are simply concerned with what works. All the thieves want is enough people willing to abide by their sayso (msm) to sail on. Like the attack on iraq – never mind that WMD was a scam that smarter or more knowledgeable people knew it, there were sufficient people to go along with their BS for them to have their war.
This is going to be hard for you to swallow – but neither wallstreet nor beltway DC care about what is good. If you are a true Christian, you will be able to find places in the Bible about the deceivers, the wolves in sheepskin. Working people do not want to have to think or challenge, they simply want to choose sides. The American society is conditioned to simply engage in entertainment and root for their city sports team – that’s about it.
As long as there is a sufficient number of people to acquiesce to the will of the thieves, the rest of the people simply don’t count.
Ultimately, the agenda is, who owns the planet, the economy, and dictates the terms. Enjoy your life, Own your will.
“Working people do not want to have to think or challenge, they simply want to choose sides. The American society is conditioned to simply engage in entertainment and root for their city sports team”
And they root for them at modern day gladiator stadiums named after the Caesars of our time the banksters. They want the masses to concentrate on point spreads rather than do the math on the cost of covering their last Ponzi scheme approaching $18 trillion.
Post factual. the new/old journalism
Wall Street Journal Editor Says His Newspaper Won’t Call Donald Trump’s Lies ‘Lies’
“I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie,’” says Gerard Baker.
“…..it might suggest we’re not being objective…”
rather, it confirms you endorse, support, and enable actively misleading the public.
—-per Politifact:
Statements / facts / claims made during the campaign that were “true or mostly true”:
• Clinton 51%
• Trump 9%
• Sanders 49%
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43
1. When Hellary was screaming “my name is hillary clinton!” or screaming “i want to be the first woman president of the US”, anyone could say she speaks the truth.
2. the 51% is a rounded up from 50%. That 50% was 50% because the population heard from each of her 2 faces and 1 face was always contradicting the other face – logically, she spoke the truth only 50% of the time. (50% is a good indicator of 2 faces).
3. The public got WMD all wrong. Again logically, this would mean that Trump’s 9% is in reality 91%.
barrabbas lies to advance Trump.
thank you for providing examples of your confirmation bias against the US and in favor of Fascism.
it is useful to keep in mind when seeing your effluent stained ‘reasoning’
i sense the sentiment here leans towards trump mainly because of barabbas. else it would be firmly hillary imho. using advanced reasoning one can say barabbas promotes fascism. my advise is to travel one way while obama still controls airports.
i have no influence on much and less on little
either way, Trump (DT, pronounced “dit” for short), is WMD for WDC
– i’ll take back the ‘go back to school’ remark
h a n d
And why would sophisticated Russian hackers use an exploit so easily identifiable as theirs? One has the suspicion that Grizzly Steppe is indeed some fat guy — not in his own bed, but in the CIA’s Dirty Tricks Dpt.
Ummm, Glenn. GLENN?
The Russians have developed living–yes, maybe copied, may be being used by other malicious groups–malware that was found on a laptop that was used by an employee at a Vermont power provider. The nature of this kind of malware is that it seeks to find “clean” computer systems and infect them.
So if the employee had actually attached his laptop to the network at his place of employment, the malware would have instantly transferred TO that network.
The one that controls the power grid for Vermont. Who knows what would be the next step?
Because we all know that a huge DDS didn’t literally shut down a huge internet routing service that serves major business and banking industries just a few months ago. No, we need to take each and every one of these breaches as individual, isolated cases.
Nothing to see here, right? Just Red baiting.
Ummmm, person. PERSON?! Do you have any clue what you’re talking about because it really doesn’t sound like it. And, yes, any cyber attack should be investigated independently, with conclusions only possibly drawing on consistently observed patterns – not hysterics and manic speculation.
So you are saying the WaPo article was correct?
The Washington Post has retracted its story about Russia hacking into Vermont’s electrical system. But the story is still up with an editor’s note. And the headline with the words “Russian Operation” in it are still there.
I actually laughed out loud a couple nights ago when a whole bunch of the progressives I follow on Twitter starting translating their tweets into Russian Cyrillic. It’s clear even with all the establishment’s red-baiting and traitors/fake news list-making – laughter’s still the best medicine for most ailments, including political insanity.
Thank you, Glenn, for frequently laughing first when it’s needed most.
From Craig Murray Blog…”Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as “proof” provides anything of the sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email. It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted NSA surveillance for a period longer than the time frame for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses. In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this kind of definite evidence.
Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available, it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks”.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
+1
Glenn, when a media source openly lies about big things such as this even once it is a sign that they are no longer to be paid ANY attention to at all from then on.
If however to give them the barest shred of doubt you ignore that advice and they do it again, mistakenly or otherwise, then at that point you should just act as if they are just some drunk idiot in the corner of the bar spouting nonsense and give them just about as much credence.
Yet in the US your mainstream media openly and blatantly lies to you EVERY day multiple times nearly always in an attempt to push some government propaganda point or whatever ideological axe the editors/owners have to grind and still you treat them as credible sources of information.
All propagandists intermix the truth with the fiction in order to make you more gullible, that the Post has actually reported a story straight sometimes is no surprise there. It is the methodology tried and true to get sceptics to buy sacks of excrement as though they are filled with gold.
And it appears Americans really like paying gold prices for manure.
Stop giving these cretins a pass, because if you don’t we’ll have to assume you have joined their off key chorus.
GG leans as far as he dares so as not to get buried in lawsuits and defence expenses. I am 100% sure he knows their game and handles it well. Please factor this into your calculation.
I can assure you that Mr Greenwald has not.
This, in particular, is a tragic time for the major press institutions to be doing agitprop.
With a new and highly corrupt admin taking office in three weeks, they will be regarded less and less.
That has been one of the pres-elect’s goals and unfortunately, this confluence of events could not suck more than it does right now.
I only hope the reporters that we’ve come to trust overshadow the less credible sources.
Unless the smaller papers/websites decide to join the WH Press Corps, we have to get our news online, not television, where the corporate press still has a very loud voice.
The NYT and WaPo do some great journalism, as you know. I stop reading when they stand behind the Admin – whichever one is in power.
Why do these two stories seem similar? ? Zero Hedge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-14/georgia-confirms-homeland-security-attempted-hack-election-database-10-separate-time?
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman said “The people who have spent eight years in the White House are not an administration – they are a group of foreign policy losers, embittered and shortsighted. Today, Obama officially proved this.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/30/russia-plans-immediate-counter-measures-us-diplomats
Here we go AGAIN. The Communists burned the Reichstag. Fascist strategies were necessary to bring order. Those damn Commies have hacked our Liberty now. While we are making them PAY for what just take our word for it they did…BayerMonsanto and it’s allies are going to continue to remove key micronutrients from all your food crops and feed, especially amygdalin the sole thiocyanate precursor that enables proper white blood cells function so everyone needs epi pens, antibiotics, cancer treatments or lengthy medical support post vaccine injury/failure. It is no easy thing to kill Jews post the Shoah and in free countries all over the world, but Bayer that built Auschwitz figured it out and with a bit of help from the Left has made the unthinkable teal for us all. Legally protected bioengineering of amygdalin and thiocyanate deficiencies, legal sabotaging of the neutrophils in all mammals. RUSSIA liberated the research done in Bayers famous camp when it liberated Berlin. When did they figure out what Bayer Crop Science kniws…the link in microbiology between amygdalin in plants and grass that produce seeds, thiocyanate production, and the neutrophils…spoiler: the neutrophils run on thiocyanate stored in our livers, which babies get in the womb and from mothers milk unless there’s not enough amygdalin in the diet so thiocyanate is ptoduced. Then mothers pass the thiocyanate deficiency to their unborn or nursing infants not this crucial antioxidant. Russia and the French coukd explain it, but the French are not talking despite the fact that amygdalin deficiency explains the Seralini rats, and with double blind research already done. It’s what is being removed from food crops and feed, not added that is the trouble. Russia coukd explain to Americans who Bayer was and is, and what methyl bromide and other legal AG chems are capable of accomplishing, and quickly. Delaware family in St Johns anyone? We’re not listening to Russia though. We font want to hear that BERIBERI brought about the end of Colonialsm…a vitamin deficiency from innovations in Food proceasing if rice. BeriBeri changed the whole world, but compared to what amygdalin and thiocyanate deficiency are doing it was nothing. Russia needs to be prevented from any good diplomatic relations with the USA at this time and deeply distrusted or they might shut down the trust the world has for altered crops and feed that create stealth malnutrition and automatic revenue streams for drug companies. And kill pollinators. And cause warming by destroying plants and whole ecosystems in bodies of water by killing the plant’s that keep the water clean. It’s not about the power grid. It’s scorched earth, and there is only one microbiology for all mammals. The Monsanto Protection Act means no litigation once this all comes our and as more and more get sick or hurt by safe vaccines…maybe RUSSIA made our produce seedless sweeter and without amygdalin…lol. Advancing together is way catchier than work will set you free. I wonder if the Oscar Schindler for our times, Trump, will be able to cut deals will Bayer as was done on another era? Merck will sell back amygdalin to you though for 100 usd a
Hilariously limp rejoinder I see around twitter and elsewhere: variations on “We Have More Important Things To Think About Now.” Since Trump is about to be president, you see, no further discussion can take place other than how to “stop him.” It sounds so reasonable, you know? Why all this infighting? Hey, let’s get together and take it to the Real Enemy, you know?
It’s crap, it’s always said when they don’t actually have arguments. It must be resisted. It’s easily recognized because it’s happened before.
It reminds me of spring 2003: “Discussion about whether to invade Iraq is over. Now we must support the troops.”
I will never forget nor forgive NPR (at least until they acknowledge/apologize for —- will never happen either) for all the reporters who, in those moments where they weren’t fellating generals and think tankers and neocon creeps, interrupted critics with “but do you support the troops?” “but isn’t Saddam a tyrant.” This supposedly neutral reliable news outfit used up half of any war critic’s time with this kind of inane bullshit.
I blame NPR & the NYT & other apologist outfits way more than Fox News, because they worked to convince the only people who might have resisted to shut up and go along.
And this in turn is why the centrist Democrats & the media toadies who support them are always the most dangerous people in a crisis: the one thing they are good at is propping up the status quo and slandering critics.
Yeah but this is a double-edged sword. Kinda, you know, german troops cursed Stauffenberg for an assassination attempt on Hitler, and that makes perfect sense. After all military could try a coup at any time, but they chose year 1944, when the war was already lost. He could just come and shoot the guy with his walther or whatever he had, but he planted a charge which did not work. The result was the nazi party tightened the grip on the army, SS and gestapo frenzied – people who could potentially lead Germany after the defeat, were crushed. Goebbels promised wunderwaffe and some chose to believe it, they did’t blame him, as they fought for their country, but they blamed traitorous resistance. “What difference at this point does it make?!”, HRC. That’s how psychology works. “Role of a person in history”: do leaders and the media control the mass, or does the mass define their actions.
“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
That’s fascinating about 1944, whatever it was you thought you said there.
I said that real men returning home from war pay zero respect towards treehuggers that used sit under their mom’s skirt and blame the media for the negative outcome once it is already known that the war was lost. Do you agree?
“real men”, “treehuggers” “their mom’s skit”
what “negative outcome”? and what “war” was lost?
Go away idiot, you are either an incoherent drunk or an exceptionally stupid sober person.
I’ll take a stab though: while I don’t blame people who just believe the lies they are told because of an understandable lack of desire to find out things that might make them unhappy, “real men” (and in this century “real women”) resist becoming pawns for the out-of-control imperialist fantasies of beltway power suspender fucks.
I pity those that put their lives on the line for those assholes, which is probably not the level of respect they would like be given. Too bad.
ISIS lunatics freely rampaging on territories from Turkey to Mali is a pretty negative outcome of the war on terror if you ask me. Have things went the other way i.e. stable iraq with the US garrison in it, democracy and light spreading everywhere, make war not peace hippster trendies would have had their tongues shoven in one place. But I’m not attacking you, sir. I just speculated all these media wars is not the most significant moment for families tied to the military. And all fighters with ‘imperialism’ (term developed by Lenin) will simply have to respect their patriotism and sense of duty nevertheless. Just thoughts.
Freudian slip, make peace not war ofcourse.
About the brave warriors of the invisible front deciding outcome of things, there was this article:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
Finally, PBS news had interview with Dean Yates – bureau chief reuters in iraq 2010 who had to read about the murder of the reporting team by the US army in a paper only AFTER wikileaks put the video out there – which was never made available with a FOIA request.
Were it not for Wikileaks, the US military could simply shoot anyone at will and claim anything.
Npr is funded by PeterPeterson and since then there has been a noticeable change.
They cannot stay alive or funded. Guess this has to be compromised to keep SesameStreet going?
CrookedClintonnconcept of center is bs– there is no constituency in the center, there is only an empty aisle. You have to be on one side or the other, you are either alive or dead, not in between!
tx for the info!
how do you use HTML tags here?
inquiring minds…
Hmmm… I figured it out, it seems
haven’t done this in years
what’s the tag for quoting something? is it ?
before selected quote use the following:
blockquote
be sure to place a after the word with no spaces
after the quotation, insert the same as before, BUT use a backslash just before the word blockquote
Here’s a handy link:
http://www.w3schools.com/TagS/
LOL NPR is funded by one guy.
What is the fascination among conspiracy dipshits with their nursery school pictures of the world in which the party (ideally one guy) that “controls” stuff is so easily identified?
Grow up. The world is complicated. Embrace the difficulty rather than retreating to a retrograde simple-minded fantasy worldview of all-powerful single actors.
National Public Radio whose name falsely indicates it is for the benefit of the public actually relentlessly serves the oppressive elite’s agenda in their coverage. They constantly present the views of the elite in their airing the philosophy of the Heritage Foundation and the like.
Just recently NPR put on a representative for billion dollar Cinnabon LLC. He expressed that we need to acknowledge that we live in a capitalist society, which has to honor shareholders interest first, and then he went on to trash the concept of a $15 an hour minimum wage.
Why is it that we have to honor the shareholders of a company that cannot pay their workers a living wage, which only produces a product that is not even healthy for those that consume it?
NPR drives me up the wall, although I am getting even more exasperated with people who actually think they are getting “unbiased” “neutral” “fact-based” “balanced” anything when listening to them. They have this way of eager saber rattling that is worse than anybody else.
My favorite “love to hate” character is Scott Simon, the Fighting Quaker (no really, he’s a professed Quaker). That guy wants us to go to every war that ever even gets suggested – he wanted us to invade Syria real bad – and always comes up with some sanctimonious “think of the children” bit. I mean, think about THESE children, not the ones whose bodies we will blow to bits…
Oh and another thing. Popes, Supreme Court Justices and NPR hosts get hired for life, so far as I can tell.
” Embrace the difficulty rather than retreating to a retrograde simple-minded fantasy worldview of all-powerful single actors.”
Yes indeed. Embrace the idea that 911 was a coup d’etat and not the result of 19 “all-powerful single actors”, who managed to defeat every air defense and collapse 3 buildings into their footprint, all from Saudi Arabia.
pretty shitty for a coup d’etat: they only got what they already had
“pretty shitty for a coup d’etat: they only got what they already had”
The Constitution was dispensed with on 911. Several trillion$ later, multiple wars, and a million+ dead; pretty shitty alright.
bullshit, nuf said, utter bullshit.
everything that happened during in Bush’s presidency was an extension from Clinton’s presidency. everything that happened during Obama’s presidency was an extension of Bush’s presidency.
But we didn’t have a coup d’etat, and the Const was not suspended.
you obviously haven’t the faintest idea of what a dictatorship would look like since you actually fucking imagine you live in one now, you dope.
I see some more kernels rolled out of your ear.
You are right about the continuity but Cheney jumped the shark by collapsing 2 towers on top of a bunch of fire-fighters.
clutching pearls Vic knows the government didn’t do that. He has faith in the NIST. They certify seed numbers for encryption that is impossible to crack. They have to be trusted.
Vic thinks we live in a democracy. His government has said as much.
dude, if Cheney collapsed the towers then they would have declared martial law. Why go to the trouble just to have power for the usual 8 years?
And if it’s so easy to pull off a 9/11 — you know, with absolutely no fingerprints and no negative consequences for those who pulled it off — then why not do another one about fifteen months later, just when people are starting to relax again?
I don’t have faith in the government you dufus. I have faith in this:
(cue stirring patriotic music)
no fucking moron has ever crashed planes into buildings and then control-demolished them too. Because nobody in the world is this moronic.
This I Believe.
oh yeah, and truthers are numbskulls
“dude, if Cheney collapsed the towers then they would have declared martial law. ”
Why do you think there has been no investigation of the towers, save the government’s own ‘investigation’? Gitmo is open for any who dissent too far. Do you think they’d put it in the NYT; Martial law to take effect at 12AM … they would just quietly tell Nancy ‘off the table’ Pelosi, don’t even think of stopping our war.
“no fucking moron has ever crashed planes into buildings and then control-demolished them too. Because nobody in the world is this moronic. ”
You don’t need to tell us again how moronic your thinking is; we got it the first time.
Crashing planes into buildings is not sufficient to bring them down. This fact escapes your corn-addled argument because you are, as even Sam Harris notes, inseparable from your politics.
You have no idea of what it takes to erect or collapse a building so you stand firm on the government’s position … salute, pal. You tell yourself it’s obvious – who needs math to describe what I can see with my own eyes! The government is not going to knock down towers and then lie about it!!
I didn’t realize Sam Harris was talking shit about me. Lemme at him! I’ll show that guy a thing or two.
“Crashing planes into buildings is not sufficient to bring them down.”
There it is. The money shot. Truther post hoc logic at its finest: making the point of 9/11 to make buildings fall down, rather than create a huge terror spectacle.
The reason you think the whole point of the exercise was to make buildings fall down is that you think your best bet for upsetting the basic “planes crashed into buildings and explosions happened” scenario is to concentrate on them falling down. Never mind the rest of it; this is the really important part. For some of you WTC 7 has assumed a greater importance, even though it was the least noticed (making its collapse the opposite of the point of terrorism, but all important to you dorks).
But since when would the point have been to bring the buildings all the way down? Why? Why wasn’t merely crashing highjacked airplanes into the skyline of NYC on national TV (the 2nd one, anyway) sufficient?
I take it you think nobody would have been impressed with planes merely crashing into them? Yeah, man, that’s how I remember 9/11. Everybody was like “oh well shit happens” when the planes crashed. But then when the buildings fell down people were like “no way! dude, we’ve been attacked!!” Yeah that’s how everybody remembers it.
What was really impressive to truthers? The buildings falling down. Yeah.
Why wouldn’t it have been just as impressive, and terrifying, if the flames had burned out, and the NYC skyline had been left with two smoking torches? How ominous that would have been, don’t you think?
Also — this is also totally fucking hilarious and another stupidity of truthers — I like your confident statements about what would or wouldn’t have been sufficient in terms of jet airplane crashes into skyscrapers.
Your confidence is, of course, based on all those other times when jet airplanes crashed into very big skyscraper. ALL THOSE OTHER TIMES when this happened, that created a sense of “what NORMALLY happens when jet airplanes crash into very large skyscrapers.” Yes, the events of 9/11 were certainly different than all those other times.
Keep it coming dwid.
“Also — this is also totally fucking hilarious and another stupidity of truthers — I like your confident statements about what would or wouldn’t have been sufficient in terms of jet airplane crashes into skyscrapers.”
Dude, I’m an engineer and metallurgist with explosives training. I know what I’m talking about.
Those towers were designed, with a Safety Factor, to survive the impact of a fully-loaded 747 because the engineers knew it might happen. That’s why the towers didn’t collapse right after impact.
I doubt you could read a graph showing the stress/strain relationship, Young’s Modulus, of a steel beam let alone discuss the information it contains.
Ceramics can be stronger than steel; why don’t we build tall buildings out of ceramics?
Ceramics lack toughness (the area under the curve of the stress/strain graph). The towers collapsed as if they were made from ceramic material when we know they were made from steel. Explosives make steel behave like ceramic material.
The steel acts like ceramic and then the buildings fall as they did on film. That is how buildings are demolished. It can be no other way.
If you are thinking of using the ‘jet fuel melted the steel’ falsehood then perhaps you could correlate the ‘Flame Temperature’ of jet fuel with the actual temperature of combustion of jet fuel (those are 2 different things). The over-riding factor in combustion temperature is Kinetics, assuming the Thermodynamic properties of the substance allow combustion, yet the NIST report discusses Flame Temperature instead of actual temperature. Only someone with knowledge of Thermodynamics, like a Metallurgist, would note this discrepancy. The NIST would not make such an omission by accident. As proof they have had years to correct the glaring error but have not.
Its presence on a laptop is alarming since it indicates that Russian hackers were at least attempting to infiltrate an electric utility’s network. If it weren’t detected, on can surmise that once the code was activated, it might’ve spread into areas that could be dangerous. It’s hard to dismiss Russia, when their history of meddling in elections is well known (without dismissing our own meddling). Also, looking at what has happened in Syria makes one wonder just what kind of man Putin is. One without a soul?
It proves someone clicked on a malware site while surfing porn or such.
Nice assertion; who doesn’t know the “well-known … history of meddling” now that you’ve cited it as fact. (do you intern at CFR ?)
Putin helped kick the CIA-funded terrorists out of Aleppo. Assad remains as Obama leaves. That is Putin’s crime. Syria, like Libya, was on the list. Just what kind of soulless monster is Obama?
WAPO: Help! I’ve fallen down and i can’t get up!
In the past (during the days of Ben Bradlee), the Post actually did good work. Woodward and Bernstein were actually readable. Now, just like the late great Jaosn Robards said in “All The President’s Men”, where’s the goddamn story? If it’s anything critical of Russia, it’s always the same pattern:
No sources will go on the record. Instead, it’s always “unnamed highly placed intelligence sources”.
No one bothers to explain the difference between a high probability of certainty and an actual fact.
McCain, Graham and the other neocons love this “proof” of Russian hacking. Why? Because they say it’s classified. Which means it will never be fully disclosed publically. They can use it to justify pointless investigations, boring and false soundbites on cable news. What they REALLY want is to overthrow Putin and finally install some goddamn American “democracy”. Nobody cares what the Russian public thinks. Really? Over 80% of them support Putin. There has to be a logical reason why.
Instead, it will be Faheed Zakaria, Chris Matthews, Stephen Cohen and all the rest of the Inside the Beltway Power Elite pushing really boring Putin bashing. Putin is Hitler? One of the most moronic things ever said in US politics.
Nixon tried to drain the swamp during his second term.
I recently heard that Post owner Jeff Brazos hired a lot of new reporters. A lot of good that’s done them by putting out lies like this. Also, not all but many of their reporters (who also work for MSNBC because Brazos is so cheap) have a real elitist attitude when it comes to dealing with reader criticism.
A small sample of comments:
How much does Hillary pay you to be their monkey boy?
Is there are Post reporters that don’t work for MSNBC?
Time and time again, I see the same Inside the Beltway attitude from these people. If you don’t like me, you can fucking kiss my ass. Fuck off.
And the Post wonders why they’re so hated.
PropOrNot?
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-OPM-Data-Breach-How-the-Government-Jeopardized-Our-National-Security-for-More-than-a-Generation.pdf
WORSE THAN McCarthyism?
So Mr Greenwald we meet again? and who is this strange fellow who who is inclined towards typos rather than not ? Is it possible that there is something so insidious and vitriolic that it is worse than McCarthyism?
McCarthyism was the vitriolic anti-communist political poison that infected a nation in what tainted America to this day based on unfounded lies that were created by the cottage industry that sprang up to nurture McCarthyism. A period of time in America that was based almost solely on the Cold War rhetoric and hysteria manufactured by Democrats and Republicans for their self-interests.
Today that vitriol has been taken one step further by the internet and self-serving bloggers with little insight to convey, and where they contaminate society as a whole!
Republican Democrat Socialist Communist Labor Capitalist all races all genders, all sexual life styles, all religions, all nationalities, all educations because social fabric of society has been desecrated by a corporate mass media of zombie vulture culture that often is produced in third world countries like Macedonia.
Where Macedonians in revenge of US involvement in their countries, like many people in many countries have no empathy and moral restraint that they enact for payment as low wage countries whose citizens earn good money to spoof the America political system and sociopathicly not give a damn where they can recycle the spent uranium shells used by the US military to poison any thing American for the simple fact their country was destroyed and suffered due to that very same disease. Yugoslavia and the American propaganda factory.
Imagine a country where “nothing is real”? Aren’t we getting very close to that Mr. Glenn Greenwald? Where I could write from now to Armageddon and many in your position can not heard acknowledge as in their Ivory towers they are protected by the very same travesties they allegedly oppose. Right Mr. Glenn Greenwald? For there are many who prostitute their writings like David Fokenflkik as fair minded writer whom I noticed plastered a larger than life photo of Donald Trump because in effect he Fokenflik did not mind publicizing CHUMP but acted as his publicist hidden in plain sight.
“So Mr Greenwald we meet again? and who is this strange fellow who who is inclined towards typos rather than not ?”
Provocative. Thanks for stopping by, Mr. strange fellow who who is inclined towards typos rather than not.
Not sure the point you are implying but if it is facts you need, start here.
8 JUNE 1967.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
pretending this did not happen can be your own personal fantasy
have a nice day
Another epic takedown of the Ministry of Truth-I mean, “news media”. Keep ’em coming Glenn!
So why – Glenn Greenwald, Trump and Tucker Carlson seems to believe the same thing?
Or they don’t believe the same thing and they are just members of the same transformational artistic group?
Glenn also seems to admire Breitbart for its alleged “editorial independence”. Anyone who thinks this dude is a straight shooter hasn’t been paying attention.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Since you asked the same loaded question a second time, here is the same response.
It’s a loaded question. Weak and devoid of fact. But that’s why you put it out there without context.
It’s still just as weak now as it was previously. Your losing points on creativity.
‘here is the same response.’
Which is not very helpful as I read the article:
‘Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson Unite to Dismiss Russian Hacking Allegations’
And as Trump dismissed Russian Hacking numerous times – why do Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson and Trump seem to believe the same thing – or they don’t believe the same thing and they are just members of the same transformational artistic group?
Repeating the same loaded question doesn’t somehow not make it a Loaded Question.
Perhaps you should be reading other things. Try Dr. Seuss. He’s quite popular this time of year.
‘Repeating the same loaded question doesn’t somehow not make it a Loaded Question.’
As I never denied to have asked a loaded question – I really suggest you should read: ‘Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson Unite to Dismiss Russian Hacking Allegations’ – and then try an answer to the question which really seems to be quite interesting: Why did Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson ‘unite’ in this case?
I did. The author is lying when he states that the government and media have laid out in excruciating detail(s) of Russian Hacking.
Your very premise for believing in this article is flawed.
Many (should be all) have skeptism regarding unsubstantiated government claims. So, unless you’re Craigsummers in disguise, you are also part of your Transformational Artistic Group.
‘Why did Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson ‘unite’ in this case?’
Or the question could be:
If Glenn Greenwald gets invited by somebody like Tucker Carlson to answer the loaded question about a Russian Hack – shouldn’t Glenn Greenwald be clever enough to answer such a question not in the manner of a Madeleine Albright?
‘Many (should be all) have skeptism regarding unsubstantiated government claims.’
I have skeptism not only regarding unsubstantiated government claims but also about unsubstantiated non-government claims.
That is why I suspected Trump wouldn’t believe the claims of his (soon to be) own government. And we probably are both aware why Carlson believed the unsubstantiated non-government claims. And as we both might have to believe the headline of the article in question that Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson united in this case the only (artistic) answer I can think about is
that indeed we are all a part of a Transformational Artistic Group.
Right? And I have it on good authority that the three of them also believe grass is green.
Case closed!
Case closed!
Not really – as the believe that grass is green -(or sometimes brown) is a fact – while the unsubstantiated believe that Russia hacked – or not depends on the believe of somebody once called F…face von Clownstick.
And if others – who never have been called ‘F…face von Clownstick start to believe similar… things it gives the impression the agree with a F…face von Clownstick?
there isn’t any solid evidence. if you want to rationally justify a belief that russia hacked…something (the election? the electric grid? one laptop with malware?) you need to provide evidence. still waiting.
Remember when major media outlets, the intel industry, and their politicians agreed to sensationalize a dictator? It was also a Slam Dunk.
The war machine is cranking up again and we haven’t even cleaned-up the mess from the last time.
Should we wait until the Russian hackers grilled the electricity grids and report it later and say: yeh, they did it. I think Russ-Putin hypnotized 49% of US citizens and had job done to put a American czar in White House. Do we have to blame Russ-Putin or our mainstream ‘propaganda.’
Wow! So because the laptop which contained the malware and belonged to the Vermont Utility was not connected to the grid (at that time), nothing to worry about! It’s like – we found traces of cancer in your brain, but nothing to worry about, we’ll wait till it’s a full blown cancer to see if we will worry about it or not. Shame! Only this time it’s America’s brain and the cancer is full blown, by the name of Trump & Co.
Laughably bad analogy, unless you are able to remove your brain from your skull at will? And for the record, I am an elected Green Party Precinct Committeeman; as such I believe the rot is in BOTH ruling parties.
craigsummers v craigsummers
it’s new year, but the contradictions haven’t changed:
– craigsummers explaining why evidence isn’t needed.
– craigsummers citing a motive for the DNC hack.
– craigsummers denying the motive for the DNC hack.
– craigsummers citing the US-sponsored coup as another motive behind the DNC hack.
– craigsummers denying the US-sponsored coup.
Happy new year. Thanks for the post. You just have to love the duplicity.
DocHollywood
“……..The US did not plot a “coup”. The US did not violate the interests or sphere of influence of Russia. No such entity exists! Russia signed two agreements recognizing the sovereignty of Ukraine which they violated. The FSB “plotted” to keep the Russian puppet, Yanukovych, in power……”
“……..There was no US sponsored coup Doc. There were dissatisfied Ukrainians rightfully protesting against a Russian puppet. However, there was also intent by Russia to do everything possible to hold on to the cold war country of Ukraine. Jesus, where do you think Yanukovych fled to after his government was brought down?…..”
DocHollywood [corrected]
January 1 2017, 12:30 p.m.
craigsummers v craigsummers
it’s new year, but [there are no contradictions]
“The motive for Russia hacking the DNC seems to be avoided by you and most other pundits except for former Intercept employee, Marcie Wheeler, which I have posted a number of times.
. . .If motive counts for anything in the hack of the DNC emails, then the “conviction” of Putin is a slam dunk.”
– craigsummers explaining why evidence isn’t needed [completely false statement by DocHollywood]
“[The US misled] the UN to sanction the Libya intervention based off the claim that it was about protecting civilians as opposed to regime change.
– [Marcie Wheeler] citing a motive for the DNC hack
“This particular war [in Libya] was driven entirely [emphasis added] by western acknowledgement and support for the Arab Spring, and humanitarian concerns including the prevention of a possible civilian slaughter.”
– craigsummers [explaining the reasons for the intervention in Libya]
“Removing Viktor Yanukovych to install a pro-NATO government.”
– [Marcie Wheeler] citing the US-sponsored coup as another motive behind the DNC hack.
“You gotta love that reply which provided not one shred of proof for the fabricated “coup in Ukraine”. When you come up with concrete evidence of the “US sponsored coup”, let me know. In the mean time you were lying.”
– craigsummers denying the US-sponsored coup. [true enough]
One has to be careful to differentiate between what Wheeler and Putin believe – and what craigsummers believes. Craigsummers’ previous positions clearly spelled out on the removal of Yanukovych from office:
“……..The US did not plot a “coup”. The US did not violate the interests or sphere of influence of Russia. No such entity exists! Russia signed two agreements recognizing the sovereignty of Ukraine which they violated. The FSB “plotted” to keep the Russian puppet, Yanukovych, in power……”
“……..There was no US sponsored coup Doc. There were dissatisfied Ukrainians rightfully protesting against a Russian puppet. However, there was also intent by Russia to do everything possible to hold on to the cold war country of Ukraine. Jesus, where do you think Yanukovych fled to after his government was brought down?…..”
I don’t know why The Intercept and Glenn Greenwald are working overtime to deny any attribution to Russia hacking but it makes me highly doubt the nature of their agenda.
I commented on this earlier, but since the comment got lost in a flood of other comments and nobody else seems to wonder, I ask again why the statement from Glenn Greenwald that
“Since it is so often distorted, permit me once again to underscore my own view on the broader Russia issue: Of course it is possible that Russia is responsible for these hacks, as this is perfectly consistent with (and far more mild than) what both Russia and the U.S. have done repeatedly for decades”
is important.
Is it that we, by the authority of Glenn Greenwald, have to believe that ‘these hacks’ were made by Russia?
And do we also have to believe, by the authority of Glenn Greenwald, that Russia is doing this hacking into foreign elections all the time?
Why?
Wait…wut? You’re just taking the view from one extreme to the other without any consideration for what was actually stated.
Because he is saying it is possible is not the same as him saying it is so…really what else can he say…that he is certain Russia did not do it as it wasdone from a DNC leak… how would he know anything for sure?
It’s important to Glenn because, as he says, his POV on the issue is often distorted, especially by others in the media.
I doubt that he cares whether it’s important to you. If it isn’t, you are permitted to ignore or forget it.
Nope. Hope this helps.
That helped.
Thanks Doug
”Why”
Because the statement:
”Of course it is possible that Russia is responsible for these hacks, as this is perfectly consistent with (and far more mild than) what both Russia and the U.S. have done repeatedly for decades”- while at the same doubting Russia’s hacking in a certain case – is a far lesser artistic expression than Trump’s statement about ”no computer is safe,” or telling us that he has a boy who’s 10 years old and can do anything with a computer and if ” you want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier.”
i get what you’re asking. i’m sure if denmark were accused glenn would use “denmark” instead of “russia” and would provide documented evidence of denmark’s past hacking as exists of us’s due to snowden. as i’m sure exists of russia’s someplace. anyone’s help locating it highly appreciated. as is that of denmark’s.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/?comments=1#comment-329447
Wasn’t your questions answered by this comment?
Yeah, they were! Greenwald directly answered his accusively toned questions, yet he demands further explanation?!
Plus, he’s spelling his name wrong: should be “W-I-L-L-I-A-M” – not “willem”.
A few things are clear:
1) the media are totally in disarray of President Donald J Trump
2) it’s clear the MSM is in the tank for the democrats, leftists, illegals and Muslims
3) President Trump will never get a fair shake with the media so it doesn’t make sense to try
4) hacking is ongoing between all 1st world nations and super powers
5) wikileaks exposed podesta emails showing the Clinton campaign rigged the primary against burnie in addition to being in cohoots with the MSM to help Hillery
6) based on assange interviews it sounds like a disgruntled burnie supporter DNC staffer leaked the emails
7) there was no hacking of the 2016 presidential election by Russia
8) massive illegal alien voter fraud was detected in democrat strongholds all over the country
Dispite all the above Donald J Trump beat Hillery fair and square and the democrats are a bunch of loser liars.
There now we can begin the battle of 2017 to restore the republic.
Oh PLEASE! If the corporate MSM were in the tank for actual leftists, they’d spend less time attacking or in most cases ignoring the Green Party and its candidates. Even YOU have to admit that that is not the case.
I agree that much of the MSM is pro-Democrat, but these days that is not necessarily the same as being pro-leftist; the so-called Democratic Party is awash in authoritarian, warmongering, economic conservatives like Obama and the Clintons. The ACA is not a left-wing idea, for example; it was originally a Republican idea, and its focus was on helping health insurance corporations get more $$$ instead of helping people get healthcare. An actual left-wing idea would be Single Payer health care (which many countries, including the UK and Canada have), essentially an expanded Medicaid/care for all.
– or what is the difference between Donald Trumps 10 year old son, Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson?
my computer is kind of slow today. putin! you’re naive if you don’t believe that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Loaded Question argument. And not a very good one either. Another way people who can’t present fact-based arguments.
Typical.
‘Loaded Question argument.’
Hopefully loaded – as it is deeply disturbing if Glenn Greenwald, Trump and Tucker Carlson seem to believe in the same thing.
LOL, now you’re just being circular. Yet, another tactic that is used by persons who can’t present fact-based argument.
‘Yet, another tactic that is used by persons who can’t present fact-based argument.’
Lol – could be – or that I never wanted to present a fact-based argument – as we are discussing the believes of Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump.
Correct. The outcome of this would be a lie. Or at least, a statement or observation devoid of fact. Thus your statement about Greenwald, Carlson and Trump on agreeing or believing something in unity is nothing but a lie or false claim devoid of fact.
If you want to know what their beliefs are, then read their statements.
Thanks for at least admitting your fact-free behavior.
Its deeply disturbing that 3 or more persons seem to “believe” the same thing?
I hate liver. If I find 3 persons who seem to believe they love liver, its deeply disturbing. It must be a conspiracy.
You are a moron, a writer for the Post, a liar or a bot. Or all.
‘You are a moron, a writer for the Post, a liar or a bot. Or all.’
You forgot the most important one: I am a ‘nastywoman’!
Hey look! Somebody has decided to immortalize a shortlived tactic by hillbots as its posting name.
Oh, I remember that “nasty woman” thing. And I remember that “bigly thing”. I even remember “binders full of women”.
What they all have in common: the idea that making a big deal about some dopey thing that comes out of some dopey guy’s mouth is the equivalent of political vision. Of actually wanting to achieve something beyond a tiny verbal score.
‘Somebody has decided to immortalize a shortlived tactic by hillbots as its posting name.’
Not really – as I had to to use that posting name because Glenn get’s a bit… nostalgic if I would have used my favorite delicious name…
thanks for letting us know you are the sock of a previous blowhard
That would be Shooter242, right?
My computer is not working at all. It has a virus. !Bloody Russians! !
And I don’t feel like doing my work at all today. Russians hacked my hangover.
The owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, has a major conflict of interest, i.e. Amazon’s $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud services. Given the CIA’s lead role in the Syrian civil war, training fighters and supplying weapons to every anti-Assad force in Syria since 2011, from the FSA to Al Qaeda and ISIS, it’s no surprise they’re upset at Russia intervention in Syria on Assad’s behalf.
The other issue is that Obama and Clinton supporters want to blame their disastrous election outcome on anyone other than the corrupt Wall Street-tied Democratic leadership; blocking DNC reforms is at the top of their agenda (superdelegates, debates, leadership, etc.) and thus blaming Russia for their electoral failure is a way of avoiding responsibility for the outcome.
There are two parties that are upset with what’s happening in Syria. One is Saudi Arabia (together with their cohorts) and the other is Israel. CIA does not have a policy. They are paid servants and will do what policy-makers decide. Now, a few in CIA may tweak those policies, but overall they are just robotic servants. They get upset over nothing except when their boss is unhappy. So you are wrong on that count about CIA.
You are also wrong on the other count regarding Obama. He is a very nice slimy chap, and he does not have much qualms about Hillary getting the boot. The people who don’t like Trump are the non-functional heads of the intelligence agencies (who will be replaced very soon) and the special interests whose hives have been smoked. They are now floating like butterflies and stinging like bees like my favorite BLM boxer.
Russia is a convenient punching bag, but this Putin chap is a much better chess expert than the lousy Kasparov who even lost to some Pakis a few years back. When Sony was hacked it was North Korea and we gave them a mouthful, but Kin Un Jong played deaf – that was really frustrating. Just after that Obama had China cornered for hacking and trashing all our patents, but unfortunately for him Edward Snowden made his disclosures the night before Xing Ting Li of China came over, so Obama could not rebuke him for blatant disregard of international laws since he was equally guilty according to Snowden. This time also Trump has called his bluff about this Russian ghost, so please have pity for this young chap who has weathered a lot of storm and was forced to happily sign off drone kill lists much against his self-professed ethics, though he still retains the moral authority to lecture Putin.
Your Comments on the CIA –
I think people in the CIA care what happens because (i) there must be money corruption involved; (ii) CIA people who commit crimes and huge frauds like 9/11 and ISIS would do anything to prevent the truth coming out; (iii) and so they get invested in outcomes and cover-ups.
There are probably factions in the CIA. And of course the politically appointed heads have agendas.
The CIA/ deep state antagonism to Putin is partly due to fear of exposure. Putin has spoken the truth on ISIS. He has practically accused the US of creating ISIS on camera.
Obama and Hillary’s (and the CIA’s during their time) worst legacy will be ISIS and much will be done to prevent the truth about ISIS emerging in public discourse.
It is no surprise that a fraud as huge as ISIS which had to involve the US President happened during the Presidency of the CIA POTUS Barack Obama.
what do you suspect about the CIA and 911?
read the comments at https://theintercept.com/2016/07/15/saudi-ties-to-911-detailed-in-documents-suppressed-since-2002/?comments=1#comments
You have no idea about CIA, which is how it should be. They are actually very good, patriotic people. Please do not ascribe wild rumors to them. For the last eight years they have been working with their hands tied behind their backs. After January 20, 2017, they are going to get a lot more freedom. We will first use their expertise to build the wall and after that get them to fight ISIS properly.
Trump and the “very good, patriotic” CIA make for interesting headlines. Here is a sample –
Trump’s dangerous diss of the CIA – The Washington Post
Trump and CIA, stop the fighting (Opinion) – CNN.com
Alex Jones: The CIA is trying to assassinate Donald Trump – Salon.com
CIA report: Russia hacked the Democrats to help Trump – Vox
Former CIA chief calls Trump ‘Moscow’s useful idiot’ | Public Radio …
Donald Trump picks a fight with the CIA – Financial Times
Donald Trump rejects CIA Russia hacking report – BBC News – BBC.com
Trump’s CIA Rebukes Create ‘Unprecedented’ Feud With Intelligence …
Trump’s War on the CIA Has Deep, Right-Wing Roots | New Republic
The Deep State versus Donald Trump: Stop the CIA Coup | Global …
And here are some Trump and the CIA headlines before Nov 9.
Trump Before CIA Intelligence Briefing: ‘I Don’t Trust Them’ » Alex …
CIA Director: Trump Lied About His Intelligence Briefing | Daily Wire
Ex-CIA boss Hayden: I’d be ‘frightened’ by Trump presidency – BBC …
Trump rhetoric making US ‘less safe’, says ex-CIA chief – AJE News
A former CIA operative is running for president to stop Donald Trump …
Former CIA director questions Trump’s loyalty to the US: report | TheHill
CIA Chief: I Would Refuse Trump’s Orders to Torture | US News
Harry Reid: CIA Should Give Trump Fake Briefings | The Run 2016 …
CIA isn’t spilling its guts to Trump, Clinton: Column – USA Today
Former CIA Director: Trump Cannot Credibly Serve As President | The …
Why a Former CIA Chief Says Trump Is a ‘Threat’ to National Security
Trump’s ‘erratic’ behavior could test nuclear protocols, former head of CIA and NSA says
Trump Blackmailed by Putin, According to Former CIA Agent – Santa …
Calling Trump ‘dangerous,’ former CIA director endorses Clinton | PBS …
Trump: CIA officers helped Turkey coup attempt, evidence available …
and amazingly
Aangirfan: TRUMP – CIA ASSET?
sure appears as if the beltway media is an arm of the CIA which is in the business of influencing elections.
“There are an endless number of examples of what we are told we must believe in the mainstream media today – for instance, Putin and Russians are bad, America is always on the side of truth and justice in the world…” https://freedomfromconscience.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-media-is-lies-and-propaganda/
The true conspiracy people are not conservatives or Trump supporters but the left. This whole “Russian conspiracy” is going absolutely insane!!
Glenn wrote “Is it not very clear that journalistic standards are being casually dispensed with when the subject is Russia?” Even Paul Krugman whom claims to be the “Conscious of a Liberal” in his NY Times columns and blogs is really a pundit for the ruling elites as his writing in the Op-Ed of 12/30/16 here indicates: “…if the man who squeaked into power thanks to Mr. Comey and Vladimir Putin wasn’t determined to betray his supporters, and snatch away the healthcare they need.”
Paul K like so many other promoters of the corrupt two sided corporate coin will not accept that it was no one else’s fault other than those that clandestinely worked to select the epitome of what corruption their party now represents in Hillary Clinton. They arrogantly selected a very flawed candidate even with the knowledge that Bernie Sanders was polling far better against Trump than Hillary. So now they choose to blame it on the Russians rather than see their shameful failure to serve the interests of the people is clearly at blame.
“Even Paul Krugman whom claims”
**who**
When in doubt, replace ‘who’ with ‘he/she’ and replace ‘whom’ with ‘him/her’. That should help to see if the statement works and is grammatically correct.
Hope this helps.
Please help this Fellow a bit more with free grammar lessons. See the second last word.
It really gladdens my heart to see citizens helping fellow citizens now that Trump will get Mexico to pay for the Wall and so that we can chuck over all the aliens, most of whom are pretty bad in English. Not that we are any better grammatically, but at least we need some space.
To: OraleHohms & General Hercules
Happy New Year
To: OraleHohms & General Hercules
By the way how do you feel about…? Paul K like so many other promoters of the corrupt two sided corporate coin will not accept that it was no one else’s fault other than those that clandestinely worked to select the epitome of what corruption their party now represents in Hillary Clinton?
Paul Krugman is not an economist. He is a hack who cracked his way to fortune by telling lies that suited the group of special interests who were promoting him. His papers can best beautify my toilet tissue roll. His crappy theories ruined our jobs, so we have to throw this fellow over the Wall. Let’s talk about someone else.
And here’s wishing you a very Happy New Year, lots of good health and lots of jobs, jobs, jobs, as my dear friend who we all elected with so much hope in a landslide victory says all the time.
All the President’s men seem to have found a new home…
It really is mystifying to me that anyone trusts any US politician on any topic absent being able to prove they are being either accurate and sincere in any statement or position they take–and by prove I mean with documents taken together with consistent statements and actions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
US politicians, regardless of party, will sacrifice the lives any human being, even its own citizens’ lives, for individual or partisan advantage.
Who knows how many American and Vietnamese lives could have been saved but for the desires of Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon and all the immoral “bureaucrats” fighting the boogiemen of their ideologically fevered imaginations?
And nothing really changes in that respect in America–same propaganda to get Americans on board with their bloody capitalist adventures, same self-delusional self-mythologizing public eager to gobble it all up just so they can feel “safe” and “exceptional”.
Tragic.
You were told to avoid computers when dealing with delicate material. “It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,”
This is your last warning!
this may shock nastywoman but nobody actually cares about some remark by trump.
nastywoman named itself after a remark by trump, so this is obviously a cognitive chasm it can’t get across.
using nastywoman as a moniker is merely the highest form of flattery to trump. this kind of lib is the reason why democrats have been losing all over for years and years, letting the republicans dominate everything.
rrheard, thank you for your continuing fine comments.
Glenn Greenwald knows things that other people don’t know about the hacking, and he will reveal the information on Tuesday or Wednesday in an effort to seek the truth.
He just wants them to be sure because it’s a pretty serious charge,
And he knows a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And he also knows things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.
So you’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday until then he advised people to avoid computers when dealing with delicate material. “It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,”
“I don’t care what they say, no computer is safe,” he added. “I have a boy who’s 10 years old; he can do anything with a computer. You want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier.”
Why are you attributing Trump’s comments to Greenwald?
‘Why are you attributing Trump’s comments to Greenwald?’
It’s an artistic effort about the linguistic transformation of thought.
In what different ways can one express the same thought?
I see. You mean you like lying.
Thanks for clarifying. This is often the tactic of people who can’t provide a fact-based arguments.
‘I see. You mean you like lying.’
No.
I like to point readers to the fact – if there is no proof for the hacking by Russia the thought that Russia didn’t hack is just a believe as the believe that Russia hacked and then we need to talk about why Glenn Greenwald, Trump and Tucker Carlson believe the same thing?
The end result may look the same, but the road there was quite different. Trump thinks it is about him, while Mr Greenwald thinks it is more about probabilities – math, and science. Tucker Carlson: I don’t care,
Will you please stop?
i think correct the record made some similar linguistic transformations in the service of art. or lying, whichever.
I have no idea what you are trying to achieve here . . .
Flashback: circa Dec ’14 – [ht` Free Love’n]
..
Donger’s ‘Festivus’ Wish List..
THE // INTERCEPT – Mr. Bill Owen to remedy this archaic commentating functionality as of now.
Ms. Poitras – A job.
Mr. Greenwald – A link to your *archive in its entirety.
Mr. Scahill – An article.
Ms. Weinberger – Coffee?!
Ms. Winter – A pulitzer. (ht`bah)
Mr. Thompson – Soothing chap-stick for his ‘wasabi-encrusted’ lips.
Ms. Vargas Cooper – Apricot-danish from el Belwood Bakery Cafe. (summa cum laude #bruins)
Ms. Cora Currier & Mr. Morgan Marquis-Boire – **More please.
..
Safe Travz to all..
..
* http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.ca/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html
** Leaked Files: German Spy Company Helped Bahrain Hack Arab Spring Protestors – 08/07/2014
Dude.. that is such a perfect post. You should also include a comment rating system from Bill Owen. Your comment would be through the roof.
Great work, Glen, as always. I sometimes think you’re the only true journalist out there, so sad what the media has become!
Ronald. Ditto everything you said. Without Glenn and Robert Parry over at Consortium News, I would be nucking futs! This whole ” debate ” about Russia sounds just like the insanity that was on the evening news when I was in 7th thru 10th grade–red baiting, lefty blaming, fear mongering and people in middle America stupider than hair. Ahh the 50’s. No wonder I grew up to be a Hippy. And here we are again, only this time it’s brought to us by the Damn Dems. Go Glenn!!!!!!
Do you care about the Truth, Glenn?
Well, I do (too.). That’s why I posted a link to your Guardian ‘fake news’ shakedown, along with a few kind words, here … Do you care about the truth? Help the Guardian sort fake news from reality
https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/dec/21/guardian-membership-fake-news
… but they deleted my comment. I blame it on Mona and P’ska. *to be fair the Gruan Mods deleted the whole thread, of which my comment was merely a reply.
But nevermind all that. The Taibbi cuts to the fu*king chase: to hear Obama/Intell tell it It’s A Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin Coup … y’all.
Thankfully, calmer heads prevail. Trump, the object of Putin’s affection “Hacking The Election”, will meet with all the Chiefs of the vast U.S. Intelligence agencies for a briefing, soon ish, and try to sort this out. Giddy up.
Happy New Year … *burp.
Happy New Year, Glenn. Thank you as always for your continuing fine work.
The software is not Russian made. It is made by an individual in the Ukraine.
US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware.
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/
You don’t even have to buy it. Apparently it is a free download.
The proof that the Russians did it comes from the fact that there is no indication that the Russians did it. Remember when the proof that Saddam Hussein had WMD was that the weapons inspectors could not find any WMD. That was used as proof that he was hiding them.
Well that Officially Stamped New Year Bullshit has passed .
The scientific model says that the planet , our home earth , will not reach the perihelion of its elliptical orbit for two more weeks ,, in human time .
That’s not a truth ,, its just HUMAN IMAGINATION trying to figure out what the hell is going on .
The Sun ,, that fiery ball in the day sky , is the foci about which we* orbit. The Moon and us do a monthly dance ,, approximately twelve beats yearly with a leap year day thrown in every four years, Our model works !! Oh yeah , the Earth spins about an axis inclined 23.5 degrees to the plane of its orbit , and the spin rate is called a day . That 23,5 degrees tilt explains our seasons .
*The CG of the Earth-Moon is We
Why smear the moon have its dark side ? Why does the Moon show only one side to us ?
Now comes conjecture .
To me , and my mentor , Englebert Shucking , it is a given :
The Moon was a part of the early Earth/Moon smear that got separated by centrifugal force .
Our sun’s orbit is much broader. For our sun, a year amounts to around 230M years. Its a beutiful thing :) What does it orbit around?
This is a bullshit fake news article. Burlington Electric has confirmed the hack
got a link? all i saw was they found a laptop with malware which could have come from anywhere, possibly downloaded by an employee surfing porn.
Important achievement of Obama presidency: future US Intelligence reports come with disclaimers and front page news in WaPo, the Guardian and NYP come with editor’s note.
*NYT
lol – so this is what our gov has come to
instead of being all accurate, they get all legal schmegal
perhaps a simple disclaimer might be better..
Here is my report – American foreign policy is a complete disaster contrived by ill meaning persons intent on robbing Americans. No disclaimer.
In a certain way Hillary’s 4 years as secretary of state destroyed 8 years of Obama’s presidency.