Lies, Damnable Lies, and Political Commentary
Primary tabs
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
V.I. Lenin
Are there any limits to what can be said about political opponents? Should there be any limits? Does anything go, no matter who is the target? Are we all no better now than Karl Rove?
The moral reason we ought not to lie is because it damages others without justification, and that is as basic a human wrong as there is. The practical reason we ought not to lie is because it damages us; when we are caught, and liars always get caught, our credibility suffers and we can no longer participate in a conversation from a position of authority or respect. Telling political lies, as well as uncritically spreading them, is anti-progressive, un-liberal, and eventually ineffective in support of any agenda intended to improve the lot of humankind. It is an indefensible practice in political dialogue, and I have no patience for it.
What constitutes ethical reportage and discussion in the blogosphere? Are there standards? Should there be standards? What would those standards look like? Do they apply equitably, or can we employ baseless trashing of our perceived enemies while whimpering like little babies when it happens to those we support? If we employ a double standard, demanding that those who argue against us are despicable creeps when they make stuff up but insist that we can do it ourselves against those we oppose, do we really do ourselves and our cause any favors? Or do we so undermine our own credibility that no intelligent discussion can occur? If the latter, and I cannot see any plausible argument against it, who benefits? Not the downtrodden or the oppressed, that’s for damn sure.
When every crass lie and foundationless rumor is repeated and discussed as though it were real, on an equal basis with rational and logical positions, then every topic becomes suspect; when all sides are spreading baseless rumor and lies, then every commentator is seen as equally unreliable. When meaningful conversation is no longer possible, organized opposition to the established order also becomes impossible. I may be seen by some as old-fashioned with my rigid bottom-line morality and insistence on the societal value of gentlemanly ways, but I am absolutely certain that there is a depth to which we must not sink or all hope of progress is lost.
From the Clintons and Vince Foster to John McCain and his secret illegitimate black baby to Al Gore and the internet and Love Story to John Kerry and the Swiftboaters to every single public word that has ever come out of the mouth of George W. Bush, the VRWC lies as it breathes, without heed or concern for the consequence beyond the destruction of others and their own immediate gratification. The only long term plan is more and bigger lies.
For the rest of us, in trying to disarm and defeat the forces of tyranny and oppression, the most powerful weapon we can wield is the truth. If you don’t subscribe to that principle, you will be my enemy – just so we’re all clear with each other. If we allow ourselves to sink to the level of those we despise, we cannot win anything; we will defeat ourselves.
So how is that battle with our own better selves going? Lately, not so well.
Larry Johnson, Michelle Obama, and a great big pile of nothing
Johnson, for reasons that remain opaque but in my experience is probably due to his being a self-serving moron, chose to spread around a rumor about Michelle Obama. Why anyone would ever spread such vile rumor about any other human being is beyond me. Why someone who holds themselves out as a supporter of freedom chooses to employ the tools of tyranny cannot otherwise be explained except by the basest and most venal of self-interest and greed. There is no “good” explanation.
And he has gotten what he wanted. Based on nothing at all, he has become the recipient of a seemingly endless stream of attention and discussion. The number of search engine hits are extraordinary, for any topic, but one based on the rumor of a rumor? Here’s a recent comment here at Corrente, assessing Johnson and his methods:
I’m convinced that Larry is convinced there is such a tape. It’s entirely possible he’s the victim of a hoax, but I don’t think he’s lying.
And that, apparently, is all it takes. For myself, I would want more evidence than that for a report of a new sale at WalMart. Third or fourth or fifth hand or whatever it is by the time it got here shouldn’t be good enough for anyone about anything. All that has happened in the Johnson affair is a pre-existing anti-Obama bias has been supported by a rumor spread by someone else whose pre-existing anti-Obama biases and selfish desires are in turn being supported by the unsubstantiated rumor mongering and/or lies of unknown others, anonymous sources whose own agendas and motives remain secret and carefully hidden away. But hey, it’s fun! Pass it on.
Is it lying? Oh, hell no; innocent victim, that’s our Larry; dumb as a stump he is, wholly unable to see that anyone who would claim to have a devastating tape of the wife of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee but who also is not going to release it until some later, more devastating time, is an agent of the VRWC; so is anyone who would lie about the existence of such a tape in the hopes that someone gullible and selfish and dumb as a stump would spread it around. That’s a tough one to figure out, for sure. That Larry, less sense than God gave a cabbage or he would have been able to suss that out. Or wait; maybe he isn’t so dumb; maybe he does know all of that and he’s spreading the rumor anyway. Maybe he is a liar. Or maybe he’s lying and greedy and dumb as a stump all at the same time, and only appeared to be smart and liberal because he’s been critical of Bush - in retrospect, not all that much of a challenge.
What is the cost for spreading VRWC propaganda? Diminishment of an innocent woman, no small thing in and of itself, not to mention untold damage to the political prospects of the only human being standing between the whole wide world and the unfathomable damage that will unfold from another four years of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush/VRWC. Surely a cheap price to pay for those website hits. Great work, Larry; nicely done.
In Re: Steve Diamond
I know his work, quite well. He’s very smart, well educated, and for a teacher he is soundly grounded in real-world experience. It is on balance good to have him in academia. On corporate, labor and international finance law, he’s very rigorous and relentlessly logical. With labor practices and labor negotiations, he is well-meaning and more than decent in his intention but inclined to take a harder partisan tone than is sometimes beneficial – forgivable, if occasionally irritating.
But like so many people, people other than me, he has a flaw; once settled on a position, he will go to any lengths to promote and defend it. This is fine, even admirable for a courtroom advocate and useful sometimes for a labor negotiator, but as a political analyst it leads to behaviors that in my mind are not defensible. That’s what has occurred here; he has crossed the line from hard criticism to baseless, unprincipled trumpery.
To understand what has happened and why it cannot be allowed to stand, we should take a couple of steps back up the narrative get the bigger picture. As Sarah has suitably exposed here, this cycle will give us more of the same character assassination tactics from the VRWC and they will be spread by the corporatist controlled M$M as they so recently did to Hillary Clinton. The base units for these smear campaigns are again the “independent” 527s and 501(c)3s and the like, providing plausible deniability for the candidate who is in fact using the technique.
One of those VRWC front groups has exhumed the body and what is left of the congenitally deranged mind of an old acquaintance: Herb Romerstein. In his teens, Herb was an ardent Stalinist but he soon turned away and by the time he got back from service in the Korean War he was as fanatical an anticommunist as ever existed. He made his bones as a staffer for a New York State legislature committee investigating the Great Communist Conspiracy, eventually denouncing as Communist agents his high school teachers, summer camp councilors, family friends and assorted acquaintances; essentially everyone he had ever known who had ever uttered a kind word about any progressive policy, dozens of innocent lives ruined.
His zeal was great enough to catch the attention of national figures, and he moved up the Commie Hunt foodchain in the 60s to become Chief Investigator on the Republican side for the US House Committee on Internal Security – the renamed successor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). More than anything Herb wanted to be the next Joe McCarthy, and he was every bit as loathsome a character. For his final VRWC reward, he was appointed by Reagan to be Head of the deliberately misnamed Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, part of the United States Information Agency. Herb’s job there was actually to produce disinformation, with the intent to destroy the reputations of everyone seen as an enemy of the VRWC.
[One often repeated trope is that the current ideological struggle we are urged to “get over” by Obama and his supporters if that of the 60s; this is incorrect. The struggle is as it ever was, between Them As Have Got and Them As Have Naught. The objective of the VRWC is to roll back all progressive policies and return America to the pre-FDR glory days of financial domination by a 1% elite. The framing of the attack today is in the same terms used by the Plutocracy to attack the progressive policies of FDR, just substituting the conjured enemy’s name over time from Commie to DFH to Liberal and now back again to Commie.
[In one of the more interesting political twists of all time, it was fear of Communism taking hold in America during the Great Depression that drove FDR and his allies to institute the New Deal programs; FDR co-opted the very social changes being advocated by the American Communist Party and used them to promote and eventually stabilize a new American Middle Class as the dominant socioeconomic structure, the first time in history that was ever achieved. One could say, without any exaggeration, that the publically-voiced political deceits of the Communist Party (in private truth they were of course terrible totalitarians) saved American democracy – but that isn’t the way history is taught, is it?
[More on Herb and the great struggle is here, in a 1999 analysis written back when the New York Times actually employed journalists instead of VRWC hacks.]
Herb is one of those articulate, persuasive, socially functional paranoid delusionals who see Commie Sympathizers everywhere. He truly believes, and has spoken and written extensively about it, that Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest aide and advisor, was a Soviet spy who controlled FDR as an unwitting Soviet dupe; other Soviet spies he has helped “uncover” were J. Robert Oppenheimer, the brilliant scientist and compassionate human being whose career was destroyed and health ruined by the false accusations, and the great and good liberal journalist and author I.F. Stone. Herb Romerstein is a very sick and very, very dangerous man.
Which makes him the perfect choice for participation in a new disinformation campaign from an outfit called America's Survival Inc., originally funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Armstrong Foundation but supported exclusively from 2001 through 2006 by the Carthage Foundation – to the tune of $325,000. They’re big fans of Ron Paul (and David Vitter!) so plenty of badmouthing against Romney and McCain, but since April Fool’s Day they’ve swung their full attention to Obama. Every baseless screed you can think of they’ve posted on, but most of the emphasis is on Obama’s status as a tool of international Communism and the UN-mediated One World Order. For 325 large you can buy a lot of tinfoil.
This tiny, clearly fringe group consisting of a couple of flakes and a cadaver-in-waiting announced a press conference in DC for May 22, to be held in the basement of a DC coffee house. Not to disparage, but these kinds of little events go on all the time without notice from the press. (Go ahead; hold a basement press conference without a big name speaker on global warming or universal health care or the criminal conduct of Bush and Cheney and see what coverage you can get.) At best, some free-lance stringer might stop by to see if they can scrape together enough dregs for a spec piece to peddle to the Village Voice or McClatchy; no way would anyone of importance lower themselves to deal with this kind of trivia. The Washington Post sent Dana Milbank.
Soft-voiced, gentle, affable, charming, androgynously-named Dana, with his non-threatening big doe eyes and his please-don’t-punch-me glasses and his oft-repeated (see Lenin on lies) reputation as a trustworthy “liberal” and harsh establishment critic, had absolutely nothing better to do on May 22 of 2008 than to sit in a coffee shop basement and listen to a bunch of whackjobs – and nothing better to do that night but write about them. He delivered a full column’s worth the next day, as his bosses wanted him to, because in the whole wide world nothing more important was happening. Nothing mattered as much as making sure the message of the VRWC got the widest possible coverage.
And boy, did Dana deliver. Not a point-by-point takedown of scurrilous VRWC lies and trash-talking, no, and not a thoughtful explique on the sad consequence of cutbacks on out-patient mental health programs, oh no, not that either. What he did is what he does best, a full regurgitation of the VRWC talking points under the guise of criticism. Witness his lede, what the casual reader skimming through will assimilate and what the VRWC will be able to cut and paste as evidence that the Washington Post and even its Liberal Columnist Dana Milbank are seriously discussing:
Obama as You've Never Known Him!
By Dana Milbank
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A03Here are some things we can look forward to learning about Barack Obama:
• That he was mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party.
• That he launched his Illinois state Senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer.
• That while serving as a state senator, he was a member of a socialist front group.
• That his affiliations are so dodgy that he would have trouble getting a government security clearance.
• That there is reason to doubt his "loyalty to the United States."
There follows in the rest of the column a pretense at dismissal of these claims, all the while carefully repeating them along with a whole host of others; Milbank made very sure to give every one of the America’s Survival-VRWC talking points plenty of room to breathe. (Well done, Dana! Here’s another wad of cash to tuck in your pocket, along with a coupon for free eats at the next McCain BBQ. Enjoy!)
Which brings us directly to Steven Diamond.
Diamond, for reasons he best expresses himself, wrote an essay two days later on May 25 entitled Believe me, Barack is no Communist, But.... because:
Since I have been a critic here of some of the policies the Senator appears to support and people that he appears to be close to - and precisely because of their potential authoritarian implications - I thought I should address this issue.
Sure, of course. Never mind that the original source is a two-bit fringe group holding a meeting in the basement of a coffee shop, the Very Important and Well-Respected Dana Milbank is writing about it so I should write about it too because my opinions are also Very Important and Well-Respected. (Ego problems much these days, Steve?)
But wait; first thing, is there any substance to the claims about Obama and communism? Diamond says not, right in the title, and then offers more detail:
There are some indications that Obama brushed up against CP [Communist Party] members or fellow travelers in Hawaii (apparently Frank Marshall Davis, the black CP poet and journalist was friends with the Obama family in Hawaii) or in that Berkeley-lite, Hyde Park, over the years and these people may have influenced him to be more on the left side of the spectrum rather than the right. But that is a far cry from becoming a CP member or even a sympathizer. Believe me, the American CP had long stopped attracting young people to its cause by the time Obama was a teen-ager.
[Editorial aside; Hyde Park is “Berkeley-lite”? I like that; very much.]
OK, then; Obama is not a communist or a communist dupe. There is, however, that lingering “But” to deal with. Diamond has, as he says, written in the past about ties between Obama and Bill Ayers and through him to some “authoritarian Left” as Diamond would have it. Is there a real danger that the “authoritarian Left” controls or dictates or guides the policies and thinking of the next President of the United States? Here’s Diamond again:
But does this new "left" authoritarianism have the ability to control a presidential candidate, manchurian-style? Hardly, even if some in this movement had an interest in doing so.
Well, I feel better; no ability to control Obama, and no interest in trying. Even better, there apparently isn’t even an actual entity to worry about, no central organization and no discipline:
This new movement is very diverse in form and structure and plays in a variety of arenas, but has no central organizational structure or discipline.
Which would be even more of a relief to me, but Diamond senses their interconnectedness in more ephemeral ways:
There is, instead, a kind of shared, almost cultural or instinctual, identity with each other. This accounts, in part, for what is broadly known as "politcal [sic] correctness."
Oh, damn, the PC police; probably the same sort of people who natter on about my devotion to being a gentleman. So annoying, Steve; I know just what you mean. He almost has my sympathy, but then he lets slip his true self:
But the reality is that you can find these new authoritarian types all over the place: in higher education…Schools of Education…the labor movement...the Chicago anti-war movement….
OH NO! They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere! Grab the children, Ma, and head for the hills! In a darkened coffee shop basement somewhere, Herb Romerstein is smiling and nodding, gently nodding his approval.
Having dismissed claims of an Obama-communist link as well as saying that whatever sort of “authoritarian Left” there might be has no controlling effect either, Diamond still goes on to speculate. Within what looks to be some 2000 words or so, he scatters an endless stream of little rat droppings: the totalitarian regimes of Tito’s Yugoslavia and China, Che Guevara, the murderous cowards Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and their erstwhile Weather Underground associates and convicted terrorists Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Mexican Zapatistas, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Even the benign SDS and the perfectly fine and upright Carl Davidson (called by Diamond a “Fidelista” for opposing the continued Cuban trade sanctions) and Marilyn Katz, both of whom broke early and unequivocally from Ayers and Dohrn over using violence for political action, are seen as part of some dark design.
It is a tangled web that Diamond weaves; reminds me very much of those generated by spiders under the influence of caffeine; oddly beautiful and intriguing, but functionally useless. He’s been at this “authoritarian Left” business hot and heavy for a while now; his 2007 PhD thesis, 500 pages worth about the Sandanista Movement and associated influences, is surely much on his mind and his passion for finding some more contemporary relevance is understandable.
Still; when after 2000 words the conclusion is that
It is hard to believe that Obama really supports the full politics of Ayers and Dohrn (does he really believe, as they do, that living in the U.S. is "living in the belly of the beast"?) or Katz and Davidson.
what you’ve got is pretty thin gruel. It might be that Obama shares some views with Davidson and Katz, who are pretty unremarkable if solidly leftist, but I just can’t see Barry sitting around the kitchen table with Michelle and Bill and Bernie plotting to go blow up the Pentagon; he just doesn’t appear to have the temperament for explosives.
But hey; maybe with a little creative thinking there is a thread to pull here:
Nonetheless, Obama has been unwilling to explain his relationship to them;
And there ya go; Obama has failed to deny unfounded accusations – Gotcha now, you slippery bastard! Nothing happened, therefore it must mean something; it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Plus, there’s this stark evidentiary trail of philosophical collusion:
…his [Obama’s]education advisor advocates one of Ayers' key policies: repaying the "education debt" - race based reparations in the form of dumping more money into a broken school system; and Obama himself has spoken sympathetically of the same idea.
Damn; really nailed Obama there. As Diamond more thoroughly documents in earlier postings , Obama’s education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond co-authored a report from the Forum for Education and Democracy advocating an aggressive Federal push for improvement in public education with particular emphasis on the disaster that is entrapping our poorest children in a lifetime of ignorance and continued impoverishment. Obama has suggested, as have many others including myself, that the issue of slavery “reparations” can be addressed through collective investment in social benefit programs such as public education for both rural and inner-city poor, and jobs training and higher education assistance for poor adults.
Diamond sees this, the salvaging of public education and the providing of economic opportunity to the downtrodden, as evidence of “authoritarianism of the Left.” I say Diamond’s claim is bullshit.
But wait, there’s more. Let’s give Diamond his full due on this topic. He has also penned an article on April 22, now with several updates, entitled Who “sent” Obama? which attempts to tie Obama tightly to both the Chicago political corruption machine and the violent authoritarianism of Ayers. It fails at both, but this time it takes him 4500 words – the thing about bullshit is the higher you try to pile it, the more work it takes.
These are Diamond’s linkage words in the critical accusation (para # 25, m/l), dissected like bones from the covering fleshy text so we can see the strength of what he has to offer as proof:
I can only speculate…it is possible…That might have happened if…if…might have…My best guess….
That’s it. That’s all that Diamond has; speculation, ifs on top of ifs, capped by a guess. Very impressive though in its own malicious way, impressive enough to generate radio talk show appearances for Diamond
What is the influence of Bill Ayers on the Obama campaign? I will be discussing that question this Sunday (June 16) at approximately 11:30 PM West Coast time (8:30 East Coast) in part II of my chat with John Batchelor. Click here to listen live on the web on KFI-640 AM (LA).
Hot damn again! A real honest-to-goodness two-part radio interview! Respect! Fame! Knowing what it feels like to be a Very Important Person, just like Dana Milbank! Mission Accomplished!
And like all good demagogues, Diamond has now declared victory over the horrific influence of the “authoritarian Left” that he conjured but failed to document. In a column today, June 10, titled Obama's retreat from Bill Ayers begins - is there room under that bus?, Diamond writes:
Finally understanding that the links between Obama and former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers are toxic, the Obama campaign has begun a strategic retreat from Comrade Ayers. Now they are hiding behind the petticoat of Hizzoner Mayor Richie Daley as explained today at Hot Air.
If you’re into Ed Morrissey - and I will unhesitatingly and proudly state that I am not - by all means go and read, but again there is no there, there. No retreat from anything, in any way at all, except in the minds of Morrissey and Diamond and those who think like them.
Recap and Conclusion
In both cases discussed above, we see the same pattern. Some VRWC operative, known in one case and unknown in another, starts an unfounded rumor designed to damage Barack Obama’s chances for the Presidency. In Larry Johnson’s case he was approached by the VRWC operatives covertly, perhaps directly but probably through trusted intermediaries, and Johnson was used to spread the deceit through the blogosphere and eventually into the M$S. In Steve Diamond’s case, the overt VWRC operatives were first facilitated by the M$M tool Milbank, whose work was picked up not only by other M$M operatives but the blogger Diamond from whence it spread again like an infection throughout the web community.
The time course is terrifying; from a VRWC presser on May 22 to the MSM on May 23 to a colluding attack by a blogger on May 25. It couldn’t be infecting faster if it were Ebola. Clickety-click, the lies are spread about Obama just as they were about Hillary and Kerry and Gore and Bill Clinton and Dukakis and Carter and on backwards as far as anyone cares to look. This cycle, however, was a big step upwards in complexity for the VRWC with a very great many of the supposedly progressive blogs joining the M$M to destroy Hillary Clinton, the stronger of the two dominant Democratic candidates.
With her apparently out of the way the M$M is now beginning to follow the lead of the VRWC and turn on Obama, again aided by foundationless attacks from supposedly progressive bloggers. I am not alone in seeing this as cause for serious concern. Anglachel, concisely and stoutly, describes the magnitude of the hazard smartly here and again more recently here. I don’t always see eye-to-eye with her, but in these two posts she is spot-on. The progressive blogosphere is systematically destroying any chance of defeating John McCain and thereby enabling the continued horrific destruction of the Plutocratic Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
The question, of course, is why. Is it just the seemingly endless inability of the Left to get along, the apparently inevitable in-fighting that has allowed the VRWC to control the presidency or the Congress or both for such a large percentage of the last 40 years? Or is there something more going on here?
Since we’re all into speculation and supposition and connecting the dots, because it is so much fun, let’s have a go at it right here. It seems to me, looking at the above, that the migration of bloggers from the Right to what was widely seen as at least semi-progressive political positions was not what it appeared to be. Instead of being rejectionists of Bush and the Republican Party, these bloggers including Huffington and Sullivan and Kos and so many others were in actuality trained and funded operatives of the VRWC. They were sent to take over the blogosphere and allowed to establish a cover by attacking Bush et al because the VRWC powers knew that it wouldn’t matter; Bush/Cheney would just keep doing whatever they wanted anyway.
In this most perilous time, when the VRWC is on the one hand close to a full takeover of the Federal government by co-opting the courts while on the other hand teetering on the brink of possible real investigations and even criminal convictions should a Democrat gain the White House, the agents were turned loose along with the M$M to exclude Edwards and the other white males by ignoring them (Step 1) so they could focus on attacking Hillary Clinton. The Republicans knew that she would be a real threat in the general election, so she had to be shut down in the primary. It was touch and go, but with a level of virulent sexism and misogyny exceeding any plausible bounds of justifiable political discourse, they achieved Step 2.
Now, with the weaker national candidate chosen for the Democrats, the job of the VRWC is to damage him so completely that even with the American public completely disenchanted with Republican policies they will still elect John McCain (Step 3). Long buried secret agents like Steve Diamond have been activated to echo the VRWC anti-Obama talking points, so that he can seen to be under attack from both the Right and the Left for being an un-American secret tool of some kind of authoritarian conspiracy to sell out American freedom. If everyone is saying it, it must be true.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
V.I. Lenin
Now these lies and baseless character assassinations have been brought to Corrente, by anonymous posters who are either paid operatives for or agents of the VRWC – or, possibly, their unwitting dupes. If this scurrilous behavior, this concerted effort to destroy any chance of a Democratic victory, this full-out effort to ensure that the Republican McCain will be victorious, this unrelenting drive to make certain that the crimes and destruction of the past 40 years by one Republican after another will stay protected, continues here at Corrente it will have me as an implacable foe.
One more Presidential victory is all they need; after four more years the courts will be completely overrun by VRWC agents, from Federal District Courts to the whole of the SCOTUS. The operational branches of the Executive will have been totally restructured as tools of corporatist expansion, the social safety net and public education will be destroyed beyond rescue, American Empire will squat across the Middle East at whatever cost in blood and treasure is demanded, and the broader American public will be so demoralized and subservient that extraction of capital wealth for the benefit of the upper socioeconomic 1% can continue unabated. The Plutocrats will have won.
If this despicable, destructive movement cannot be stopped here, then where? If it cannot be stopped now, then when? I will not tolerate the spreading of falsehoods that benefit the cause of the VRWC. I will not tolerate the spreading of lies about the only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country.
I Will Not Tolerate It.

- bringiton's blog


- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Which lies?
Faced with the rich selection, that's a hard question indeed.
I'd like to advocate for going after the lies told by my friends, too. Funnily enough, political discourse is not just a battle where we try to annihilate "the enemy." Isn't that obvious from the effect of the Obama trolls on the Clinton refuseniks?
A few, very few, but maybe determinative few are persuadable. One reason I took a close enough look at Clinton's record and policy proposals to jettison my oh-so-predictable bias in favor of Obama is that his supporters started purveying obvious hateful lies early in the process. If they hadn't told those lies, who knows, I might still be all blissed out on our coming post-everything Presidency.
Lies told by my friends discredit me more than lies told by my enemies. Is that just too naively high-minded?
which lies to attack first? karma, and pb2.0
the popular interpretation of karma is something along the lines of what goes around, comes around, but i've always liked the interpretation if you see a bad situation that you can do something about, then it is incumbent upon you to step in and do what you can to right the wrong [or prevent something bad from happening if you see it coming over the horizon].
the corollary of that being that yes, sometimes people rush in on white horses, the horses trample the garden, thus destroying the food supply for that year, and in the meantime the riders in white hats don't take the time to aim their guns and instead of winging the bad guys they shoot all the kittens. karma also means that you must not shoot the kittens and trample the garden in your efforts to stop. bad. things.
pb2.0 can be our collective pool of karma, each of us can tackle those lies we feel equipped to handle and collectively maybe it adds up to enough weight to save the kittens [and the flowers and the veggies].
cool--i wish we'd aim at those with power
of all sorts, as opposed to one small blogger just passing stuff along.
bringiton
about context:
your post here puts on display your admirable erudition.
it is also emotionally overwrought.
there is a reason for that subtext of anger, bringiton and if you are as self aware as i think, you know very well what it is.
in this article you appear to be using your erudition to get at the truth.
when in fact, you are faking an interest in getting at the truth,
in order to use your erudition vindictively.
question for you bringiton:
spreading lies is dishonest
but is not, also, operating under the GUISE of seeking truth.
you can do better bringiton, and you have done better.
now about the diamond writings:
to me they seem relatively inoffensive, rather straightforward, and provide a specific view of chicago politics that i found interesting.
furthermore, i trust my judgment about how to interpret "propaganda" or "lies" better than i trust yours.
i would hope every reader of diamond would feel similarly.
are diamond's articles on obama's intellectual history so offensive that you need to verbally stomp on it and on diamond?
isn't what you have done here to diamond, what obama's true believers have done to senator clinton?
should we not TRUST voters, citizens, fellow readers at corrente to read diamond and make up their own minds what bits of info are useful?
i guess what leaps out from this article of yours, other than the subtext of anger, is intolerance for other points of view.
now about specifics:
i'm still not sure, after wandering in the maze that is the lush cornfield of your prose,
just what "lies" diamond is spreading.
diamond's prose is straightforward.
it is filled with the kind of insider use of language that one finds in the writings of every close observer of a field.
i just don't see the dishonesty,
in diamond.
all in all
i'd give you an a+ for rhetoric,
a d for a tightly reasoned argument,
and an f for abusing the trust of your admiring readers here, of which i am one.
Are the cases of LJ and Diamond then distinct?
Certainly LJ seems a transmitter in a different mode than Johnson, if that is what is going on.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
are you volunteering to chair the board of censors, bringtion?
this comment among others of yours seems rather authoritarian to me:
[ The problem, as I see it
Submitted by bringiton on Wed, 2008-06-11 02:16.
is giving any slack to this kind of behavior at all. It needs to be called out for what it is, either a lie or damn foolishness, on the spot.
.
.
The internet is an incredible force; for good or ill, depending on how it is used. When people like Johnson use it as he has in this case, for no beneficial good at all for anyone but himself, I say he needs to be condemned. Whether he is honestly propagating the truth, honestly propagating a lie, or knowingly being part of a deceit does not to me matter one whit. The damage comes from propagation of an unsourced, unproven claim that damages others. Too damn much of that going around. ]
a couple of small points:
we do not yet know that the tape johnson talked about does not exist.
are you forbidding talking about it?
are you forbidding political gossip?
what do you say to your readers if indeed such a tape shows up in september or october?
what do you say, "sorry"?
when i speak of your overwrought prose, i am thinking of comments like this:
{The damage comes from propagation of an unsourced, unproven claim that damages others.]
sounds reasonable, even admirable, doesn't it.
and very, very, very socially correct.
but about those specifics,
just how WAS obama damaged by the discussion of a cd starring his wife? i don't see it affected him in the least. all it really did was give noquarter a headache with their servers.
is it just POSSIBLE that larry johnsaon is as passionate an advocate as you are?
and is it just POSSIBLE that he knows more about the truth of what he was speaking than you do, bringiton?
and then there's this:
[for no beneficial good at all for anyone but himself,].
how do you know the truth of that statement, bringiton?
how do you know the truth of your own statement?
having read his work on outing valerie plame, on iraq, on the bush admin's pr for invading iraq, on iran
i would never in my life consider larrry johnson as acting solely in his own interest.
more overwrought language, bringtion.
Silliness
Assessing evidence and reasoning isn't censorship, for pity's sake. Substantive responses, please.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Yeah well dispiriting whatever. I am in a really foul mood
I am so disgusted with the Left right now, with the American people as a whole, I do not trust myself to fully vent. All through the early campaign, there was a sorting out amongst the blogosphere. Fair enough, to mull things around, but too much focus was expended on process not on policy. (Not here at Corrente; there are some places still with Liberal standards.) As soon as Edwards was gone, however, the vast majority of the higher traffic blogs all swung to Obama for apparently emotional reasons and they set about destroying Hillary with the same words and the same enthusiasm the VRWC had used for years – plus charges of racism, something even Karl Rove hadn’t the Audacity to try.
And it worked. Hillary is vanquished. All the Democratic Party has remaining is a flawed and tenuous candidate, who is in for a difficult struggle against the combined forces of the VRWC, the M$M and the openly criminal conspiracy that is the Republican Party and the full might of the Executive branch that they control. It is no exaggeration to say that the only person standing between ourselves and the final takeover and destruction of American democracy is, Goddess help us all, Barack Obama.
He’s all we have for now. He is all we have to work with, the only tool available with which to slay the Beast. And yet, what does the rest of the so-called progressive blogosphere decide to do? Attack him as well with the same words, and using the same talking points as, the VRWC and their lackeys the M$M. Of course. Grand. Just the right thing to do, because baseless character assassination and systematic political destruction of the only human being standing in the way of functional Plutocratic totalitarianism is - fun!
Same exact tools of character assassination and guilt by association and media manipulation as McCarthy, dot-dot-dot connection right from him and HUAC through to the present VRWC and the work of Johnson and Diamond. If you took their work, on Obama/Ayers and Michelle/whitey, and dropped it in with the posts up on America’s Survival Inc they would fit right in. Literally, in tone and content, you wouldn’t know they came from supposedly liberal, supposedly progressive authors.
I’ll tend this thread a while longer and then I need to step away; I am so disgusted, so repulsed, so offended by so many people right now I cannot express myself in any way close to cordiality. Some of this nonsense will, I know, wane as people’s feelings sort themselves out. Once they do, it will be easier to have sensible discussions about what to do next about the presidency. Meanwhile, there are other topics of interest to discuss, where I will be less likely to offend.
Apologies to all who may have been unfairly harshed on here, as collateral damage; I am, I confess, in a foul, foul mood. No apologies whatsoever to those who had this coming; stop your nonsense, sort yourselves out, identify the true enemy and put your effort there. Whether I like it or not, Barack Obama is my guy. Stop the unwarranted picking on my guy, or else.
If matters come down to "one man"....
.. that's a sign that the system is totally broken, and we are so fucked. Generally, such a man is found riding a white horse, and such stories tend to add badly.
I may be misinterpreting, but my $0.02....
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless
his (R) heart.
exactly--the guy sucks, so instead of defending bad
shit and bad policies and bad actions, etc, why not turn your focus to where the sausage really gets made--like Congress and state governments, etc?
There's really no reason to do Anyone but Bush/McCain/Reagan this time--he sucks--objectively.
Hierarchy of lies
Lambert, no real structure here for me in sorting out what to condemn. Perhaps a bit like dealing with biting flies; the ones that happen to come close to me get swatted. I could go out amongst the thickets and hunt them down, but likely not. When they come buzzing right under my nose, though - smack. Think of it as Nature's Way.
Of Fortitude...
Being a man of no faith, good luck with that.
See...
LOL
Or ELSE!!!!
WTF?
"Unwarranted"
Oh fuckin boy.
the system is totally broken, and we are so fucked
About sums it up, Lambert, thought we were in agreement on that at least. I'm not happy, but what are, exactly, my choices now?
Between Obama (are you sure white horse is OK to say?) who may indeed turn into a problem versus McCain who is 100% certain to be a problem, simple game theory compels me to be an Obama backer. 1/1000 chance of improvement, any chance at all, is better than none and with McCain, things will only get much, much worse than they are now. On a ten point scale, Obama may be at zero plus or minus not much; McCain is minus one hundred – on a ten point scale.
Meanwhile, where Obama has faults they need to be openly discussed, preferably with constructive improvements included. You Suck! may be true, but in and of itself it is not helpful. If as the summer progresses he does not gain traction and continues to lag behing McCain, then it should be clear to all that the problem with his polls was not Hillary or that people don't know him. In that case I will be right out front with a call for replacing him at the convention with Hillary. I am not a big fan of Barry's.
What I'm complaining about here, however much some may wish to deflect, is malicious unfounded accusations and lies. No patience from me for them being directed at Obama, or Michelle, or the Democratic Party or its leadership. There is real Evil to be vanquished, and I will not tolerate anything that gets in the way.
Anyone discomfited by that? Tough.
Check
Totally with you. That's why "unwarranted" is a key word, yes? IOW, the truthful calling of bullshit is to be encouraged, not deplored.
I'm intrigued by the argument above that lies by my "friends" are more important to combat than lies by my enemies, since lies by my friends discredit me, where lies by my enemies don't. If I don't distort the point made. Thoughts?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
About friendly lies,
just to take care of an obvious point:
Lies told about me by my enemies discredit me in the eyes of others, and badly, if people believe them, and must be fought.
Lies told by my friends, whether believed or not, discredit me absolutely if I don't disown them. Witness the way you (and I) feel about voting for Obama after the RFK episode.
I suppose there's a pragmatist's rejoinder that, then, we should make sure we all tell the bestest, most believable lies ever. I don't see that working out well.
There is real Evil to be vanquished
Too easy.
I'll just let that punchline die.
Hey willyj; you got a problem with my hyperbole?
Indeed there is a need to tell the difference between warranted and unwarranted attacks. When people just make shit up, or pass along shit that somebody else just made up, I put it in the "unwarranted" bucket. Your sorting system may vary, but that's for you to worry about, not me.
"Or else" is I come around and get all up on their ass, like this. It isn't much, but I'll do what I can.
Nice sentiment
BIO,
I agree with you about truthfulness, in fact it is one of my primary problems with Obama and the OFB. Not my ONLY problem, but very, very high on the list. Which is why I personally don't believe that Obama is the "only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country." You gotta admit, that is some very fine hyperbole there, no matter HOW much your mileage varies.
So having said that I completely disagree when you say
"Whether he is honestly propagating the truth, honestly propagating a lie, or knowingly being part of a deceit does not to me matter one whit.", because I think that in that statement you jump the shark. I don't agree with what Johnson did, I don't think he is a liar, I think he was a fool, which is worse. He was a fool to trumpet what people of obviously questionable motives said to him. He was a fool regardless of whether it was true or not, because what he said couldn't possibly damage anybody more than it damaged HIM.
But let's agree on the main point, I have zero truck for anybody spreading rumors, false or not. I also have very little truck for johnny-come-lately fauxgressives who are only in it for what's in it for them. I have zero truck for assholes like John Aravosis, Markos, Booman, WKJM etc. who's primary goal in life appears to be to destroy via unprincipled lies, sexism, classism and/or racism, at least half of the Democratic party and the integrity of the progressive "brand".
When compared to their crimes and impact, Larry Johnson and his stoopidity isn't even a zit on our collective ass.
Which is not to say we can't call him an idiot, just doesn't warrant sending in the carrier group (as you did here).
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
you missed the point , lambert
lambert sez:
[Silliness
new
Submitted by lambert on Wed, 2008-06-11 12:01.
Assessing evidence and reasoning isn’t censorship, for pity’s sake. Substantive responses, please.]
apple pie and patriotism and
"assessing evidence and reasoning"
are all wonderful things.
but writing ABOUT "assessing evidence and reasoning" is not the same as actually DOING them.
specifics:
do you, lambert, consider THIS an act of assessment:
bringiton writes:
[Larry Johnson, Michelle Obama, and a great big pile of nothing
Johnson, for reasons that remain opaque but in my experience is probably due to his being a self-serving moron, chose to spread around a rumor about Michelle Obama. Why anyone would ever spread such vile rumor about any other human being is beyond me. Why someone who holds themselves out as a supporter of freedom chooses to employ the tools of tyranny cannot otherwise be explained except by the basest and most venal of self-interest and greed. There is no “good” explanation.
And he has gotten what he wanted. Based on nothing at all, he has become the recipient of a seemingly endless stream of attention and discussion. The number of search engine hits are extraordinary, for any topic, but one based on the rumor of a rumor? Here’s a recent comment here at Corrente, assessing Johnson and his methods: ...]
is that really an analytical assessment?
sounds like angry rhetoric to me.
perhaps you'd like to provide specific illustrations of assessing evidence and reasoning in bringiton's article.
when commenting, i often cite SPECIFIC sentences or paragraphs from a post and then i comment on them.
i do this quite frequently here. perhaps you have noticed, e.g., Wed, 2008-06-11 11:47.
My very cheap two cents
I don't read NQ. I tried, but it got a little too foily there(the beliefs held by some front pagers that he wants to start a war against Israel on Palestine's behalf, etc cause it's FITH), and I could smell the ratfuckers in the comment threads, so I stopped looking. But Johnson does have some cred with people I have gained respect for, like Joseph Wilson, so I won't automatically disavow everything from NQ, it all needs to be researched and corroborated.
It seems to me that Larry Johnson started out doing oppo research on Obama, to find what the Repubs would throw at him, which is where this whole thing started.
To my eyes, it seems more of a "They are saying they have this, shouldn't somebody from our side find out for sure" sense to the whole "whitey" story(though that has evolved to some nasty shit, I agree), because if, Goddess forbid, it is true, the election is lost. It is sad to say that about our country, but that is the unvarnished truth.
What Obama's supporters should be doing, is finding out if it's true, instead of pooh-poohing it, b/c given Michelle's history of tactless speaking(not that that's a bad thing), it is too possible, IMO. And even if they don't, I'm sure that have some Uncle Tom Repubs ready to come out and say "Yes She Did Say It I was there", and it will run like Swift Boats, so Obama and his campaign have to demonstrate NOW that they can deal with this shit.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
"finding out if it’s true, instead of pooh-poohing it,"
exactly--and the fact that the messenger gets attacked instead of people taking all of these things seriously is why we saw Obama just today throw his "vetter" under the bus like Wright and Ayers and Phleger and tons and tons of others--after first attacking the questioners and dismissing the whole thing--he is terrible at all of this stuff---and no one does him or any of us any favors by wanting to shut down speech -- even lies and rumors and gossip.
He has to immediately stop dismissing all questions HE doesn't like and stop attacking the messengers--it's way way too GOP -- and it's also way way too selective to be honest.
"finding out if it’s true, instead of pooh-poohing it,"
exactly--and the fact that the messenger gets attacked instead of people taking all of these things seriously is why we saw Obama just today throw his "vetter" under the bus like Wright and Ayers and Phleger and tons and tons of others--after first attacking the questioners and dismissing the whole thing--he is terrible at all of this stuff---and no one does him or any of us any favors by wanting to shut down speech -- even lies and rumors and gossip.
He has to immediately stop dismissing all questions HE doesn't like and stop attacking the messengers--it's way way too GOP -- and it's also way way too selective to be honest.
That’s why “unwarranted” is a key word, yes?
That allows individuals plenty of wiggle room to define in their own minds what exactly is "unwarranted" and what isn't. (which was I think a part of Somerby's point, what happens when the Village hacks on YOUR side, who's making these judgment calls?)
Which may be exactly how we ended up in the position we're in now.
One of Atrios's excuses for what he did and did not bother to comment on, was the fact that it's his blog and he can blog what he wants to.
To reward Obama with "protection" after the fact might be more damaging than not. IMO. Let every wound and sore be exposed as far as I'm concerned.
Guilt by association
Bad idea, pretty much always, and I'm going to be real strict about personal responsibility. My friend lies, that is not my guilt nor is it my responsibility.
It is easier, one would hope, to sort through lies with friends, because there is some basis for understanding and communication. Assumes that the people you thought were your friends actually are your friends, and hasn't this winter been instructive in that regard.
Lies from your enemies need to be dealt with, but without the expectation that they will be convinced - the best that can be hoped for, my experience, is to thwart them. Doing that is a full-time job already. Making up and spreading more falsehoods from our own side about our own allies simply is not helpful to the cause, never mind being flatout morally wrong.
That this is even a subject of debate....
assessing
lambert,
would this be an example of the "assessing evidence and reason" you were talking about:
bringiton writes:
[Yeah well dispiriting whatever. I am in a really foul mood
Submitted by bringiton on Wed, 2008-06-11 11:48.
.
.
.
No apologies whatsoever to those who had this coming; stop your nonsense, sort yourselves out, identify the true enemy and put your effort there. Whether I like it or not, Barack Obama is my guy. Stop the unwarranted picking on my guy, or else.]
sounds like a statement of political preference/ political action to me.
i find the "...or else." telling.
you got a problem with my hyperbole?
Why yes.
Because I seem to remember one of the long running critiques of right-wing blogs was their frequent use of exaggeration to try to make their points...
seems to be what Sadly, No (dicks) lives for.
If we're trying to be consistent.
Ha!
Herb, this was not the carrier group
Just a routine patrol sweep, with a little light artillery for mop-up. You haven't seen the big guns yet.
Jiohnson's fate here came because he happened to be mentioned on the same thread with Diamond on a day when I'd just had more of this crap than I could stand. I'd feel sorry for him, but I don't.
aeryl
aeryl sez:
[My very cheap two cents
new
Submitted by Aeryl on Wed, 2008-06-11 12:45.
I don’t read NQ. I tried, but it got a little too foily there(the beliefs held by some front pagers that he wants to start a war against Israel on Palestine’s behalf, etc cause it’s FITH), ]
i understand exactly what you mean about the tenor of some of the posts and comments at noquarter.
some are eccentric, some clearly involve cheap political opportunism.
furthermore, no quarter is clearly a redoubt for the passionate supporters of senator clinton.
my view is that i can go there and read or refuse to read what i choose. just this a.m. i left a comment at a post there. the post was a strange one, though the poster often writes very interestingly, but i was happy to leave my two cents worth and go.
i don't know larry johnson's persona or his motives,
and i do not believe that bringiton does either.
if bringiton wants to condemn, impugn, call out, rake-over-the-coals, verbally assault, expose
larry johnson, that's his perogative.
i'm very happy to just go there and make up my mind what to read,
to go where my curiosity leads.
for example,
i STILL go to the great orange satan. i never went there regularly, ever, because the place did not have a good feel and much of what was written there was a bore to me.
but i do like some of their diarists, especially those who write about science and history. shall i cut off my access to interesting ideas?
nope, not me.
i have daily visited talking propaganda memo mostly to see how they are looking at the obama/clinton struggle. by doing so i learned a lot about how a fine weblog journalist, one of the few with actual journalism training, came to let himself and his weblog be ensnared in a trap of one sided, deceitful journalism.
did i stop going there because they were supporting obama in the most egregious journalistic manner possible?
nope.
and i learned from going to tpm what happens when the dynamics of a cocktail weenee eating circle of professional friendships and socially correct behavior meld;
the result is precisely the sort of thinking i am criticizing here.
yup--and everything has value--even shit--
look at how enlightening this election season has been--and how eyeopening and depressing and outrageous and ...
but it's been an education--the net really is always always one, even when it's lying to you. : >
bringiton hearts truth
bringiton,
you need to clear up something.
that something is this.
swift loris wrote above:
[...I might also note that when you originally referenced my comment via a link in the thread on your “Sack of Pus” post, and orionATL objected, you claimed you had “copied and pasted a link to the wrong screen” and that you only wanted to link back to your original post. Turns out that wasn’t true. You said you weren’t attacking me, but you’ve now made it clear that you were most certainly attacking my judgment. ]
bringiton,
i, too, distinctly recall your writing that your pointing the "purple prose" at swift loris' comment was just an accident - "those things happen", you wrote.
earlier today, when i saw you had once again pointed to the same quote by swift loris,
i went seraching for your comment to the effect that your pointing to it in the "sack of pus" article was an accident.
i couldn't find your comment.
i tried using "search" but was told by the software that i'm not allowed.
bringiton,
would you please find AND POST HERE your earlier disavowal of having purposefully pointed to swift loris' comment.
Crankiness
OATL, for reasons that I don't feel like explaining right now, I am working on a laptop, and your style of very short paragraphs combined with no indents for quotes makes it almost impossible for me to track your comments, given my small screen. So it's very likely I'm not following the thread of your argument, whatever it may be, closely.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
amberglow, come back to me again please
Didn't mean to be ignoring you, just too many thought-threads coming too fast for these old fingers.
I've gone back and read what you've written. Surely my limitations, but I'm not exactly clear what you are saying. Not useful for either of us for me to get it wrong, so I'd rather not start in where I'm not certain.
What I can see you saying is that everyone else is doing it (including Obama/Obama campaign/Obama supporters) and the end justifies the means anyway, so why not use lies and falsehoods and unfounded rumor. I hope you don't mean all that, because then we won't be able to have a productive discussion at all - I just won't bend on the need to have some standards for "truth" and "honesty". Understood those are subjective and often elusive, but it is the pursuit of them that matters most not the achievement.
You seem to be very agitated by what I've written - which may or may not be a bad thing. I'm more than happy to exercise this with you, but if you would do me a big favor first I'd appreciate it very much. Could you sort through and put your thoughts together into one comment? Sorry to be a dullard, but I'd rather not just chase all around and then find I've misinterpreted. Thanks in advance.
Totally OT, BIO
But I thought it interesting, in re the "ladies and gentlemen" discussion we were having the other day, and how using those terms is dangerous because everyone uses them differently.
This morning on the news, there was a story where a man was referred to as a gentleman, and it has stuck with me all day. The "gentleman" in question was a man who feigned car failure, enticed a woman to give him a ride, then forced her to drive at gunpoint to a local cemetary, where he raped her, then made her give him a ride back to his car.
The police spokesperson(a woman, no less) referred to this man as a "gentleman".
Shudder.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
busy at work today--it's that this post
did agitate me--you very very selectively expressed fauxtrage at 2 guppies and as a sidenote hit some big media people--but no one is exempt from what you accuse those people of. No. One. On. Any. Side. Anywhere.
And it smells when it's now that you call for truth--and now that you're all upset about a very very tame smear in the scheme of things--and in an evironment when there are hundreds if not thousands of these things flying around every single day.
It's odd--and it's not based on reason or any kind of realistic look at this whole seaso--or any election season. Was the whitey video talk the straw that broke your back? Why not the RFK thing? Why not any of the million of other things daily propagated with much much greater spread and impact?
It's like that Britney crying youtube guy in a way, i think--what do you want as a result of this post? Seriously--and what do you realistically think will happen?
And why not acknowledge that wanting some things stopped because they're not true is just what you want--that and 2 bucks gets you on the subway, you know? We're all just voices--and our voices do not drown out or counter others even when we're fighting a "good fight"--that's just reality.
also--and this is key--politics is filthy and all about lies
in service to power, in service to bad goals, in service to good goals, in service to evil, in service to improving lives, in service to ending lives, ... You have to get the office to start doing things, and that's what all this is in service to.
Whoever lies best in this country wins--and damn the consequences--that's just fact.
Venting is great and i do it all the time, but target it better maybe or id the real instigators of shit or something--or call for something that effectively fights this shit or something. Simply trashing people who spread this stuff means you really should have been hitting the big fish instead of these 2--or those of us who have been questioning both Obamas---based on their own acts and friends and statements, etc.
i found it
bringiton -
referring to my comment immediately above
you wrote in your sack-of-pus article :
[ For hell's sakes Orion, detune yourself
Submitted by bringiton on Mon, 2008-06-09 02:01.
I copied and pasted a link for the wrong screen; it happens. All I wanted to do is link back to my earlier post named Anticipating Hillary. No attack on anyone was intended.
If I go after someone, believe me, there won’t be any question. Everyone will know.
Swift Loris, good of you to come back. I’ve read several of your comments and you’ve seemed more than capable. ...]
the sequence of events was this:
- swift loris published a comment there
- bringiton pointed to that comment and criticized it.
- i objected to bringiton's criticizing a newcomer
- in response, bringiton wrote the above words averring that he had pointed to swift loris accidentally.
- today, we find that bringiton once again has referenced to that same swift loris' comment from the "sack of pus" article.
bringiton, this sounds a bit, hmm, shall i say disingenuous for a man of truth.
"man of truth"
bringiton, this sounds a bit, hmm, shall i say disingenuous for a man of truth.
I have to say I'm flabbergasted and disappointed by his behavior toward me in this sequence of threads. How can one take to heart the righteous rantings about dishonesty of a person who doesn't treat his readers honestly?
I really don't want to be given a pass because I'm a "newcomer," though. As I pointed out earlier, I'm not all that new; but why should even a newbie be excused for saying something offensive? Thing is, bringiton obviously misread my initial comment, but he has refused to acknowledge that as well.
Yeah Aeryl; Shudder indeed and not off topic at all
A lie is a lie is a lie. No gentleman at all, and wrong of anyone to say so - but…. The cops have been beaten around for using pejorative language - remember we were talking the other day on one of Sarah's posts about "rape" not being allowed into testimony about - rape.
There is now a whole industry on cop-speak, classes and books and guidelines about language so as to not end up with the courts having to deal with tainted jury pools and mistrials. Cops - and I say this with some sympathy and admiration - have a very wicked and cynical sense of humor. If they can't call somebody like this creep a "perp" or a scumbag or a hump or in some jurisdictions not even a suspect, what can they do?
What you heard is the result of PC run amok, and cop dark humor in response. I hear it all the time out here on the West Coast now, calling some absolute stone-cold red-handed guilty jerk a "gentleman". Appalling, but what can I do? I'll keep trying to use the term correctly; I refuse to surrender the language.
Oh, and, you’ll love this. To be perfectly honest, (and man-oh-man am I going to be walking that tightrope now!) I have a double standard here. While I would never call the guy you described a gentleman, I would refer to the lowest most pathetic scummiest crack-whore arsonist bank robber car thief ever as “the lady in question.” Why? Because it is the gentlemanly thing.
I try to be consistent, really I do, but sometimes there is a little hitch in my get-along.
I don't think so
Wouldn't the term suspect suffice?
I mean, it was a continous statement that was broadcast, she was saying everything this asshole did(and they didn't shy away from calling what happened rape, so yea a victory), then she said, "And then the gentleman forced her to take her back to his car" or some such. I was walking past the TV, and it brought me to a dead halt.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
I didn't see it so I'm just guessing, I guess
Could have been a brain-fart, could have been remembering getting dressed down by the judge and trying to strike a balance, dunno. You know me, always trying to think the best of people....
Could have been insensitive, stupid and thoughtless. Lot of that going around, too.
Roger Stone ran and funded Sharpton's campaign
for the presidency in 2004. Personally, I think it was a trial run to see if they could flat out take over a Democratic campaign. Look at Obama's legislative career and tell me how that man wound up running for the presidency with about 1.5 years of legislative experience to his name.
I think Obama is part and parcel of the VRWC boutght and sold. Let's remember that Rezko, to whom he is in debt, is a generous donor to the Republicans.
Individual
That is the word they use here. "This "individual" then...."
I'm sure "gentleman" was a snide reference.
-----------------------------
Good night and good riddance!
When I saw it
Nothing snide about the way the cop was talking.
Here's the news site, it's the lead story "Rape Suspect Sought", anyone who wants to watch it and put up their own impressions.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
basement angel, must not try my patience
ba: "I think Obama is part and parcel of the VRWC boutght and sold." And other people think that if they believe hard enough he will bring them a pony. Back up your contention, or put a sock in it.
ba: "Let’s remember that Rezko, to whom he is in debt, is a generous donor to the Republicans." In debt? Is there a loan we should know about? Some documentation you could share? Or do you think that a favor always incurs an obligation? Rezko spread money all over town, he didn’t care what anyone’s political affiliation might be; an equal opportunity scumbag. If there’s a criminal connection between Rezko and Obama, Patrick Fitzgerald will learn about it and if its actionable, he’ll bring an indictment. Or are we supposed to believe that Fitzgerald is in the bag too?
More character assassination and guilt by association. Shameful.
Not in debt
As in money debt, but as in owes favors to.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Yes, I think a $625k favor by a mob affiliate always
incurs obligation - 100% of the time. You may chose not to believe that.
BIO: you had the Boldies. I cured you.
please send me $5,000. if this blog were a matter of "health care," i could send creditors after you to make sure you'd pay. hehe.
Oh CD thank you so
I have always depended on the kindness of goddesses. Five large is not an option, but I will make a burnt offering in your honor.
So pleased, actually, that we trust one another enough that you know you can just step in and straighten me out any time - and I will always be grateful.
Ah, Swift Loris, hadn’t forgotten you
Where were we? Some lack on my part, to be sure.
But first, let’s chat about the truth shall we? As I said previously, I mistakenly copied a link to your comment on Johnson into a comment of mine where I only wanted to link to the entire Anticipating Hillary post and thread. I had a window open with your Johnson comment, specifically because I intended to use it in this essay. I copied the URL for the wrong window; a simple mistake, no intention at that point and in that comment to single you out, which is what I explained and you seemed to find reasonable. That was the truth then, and it is still the truth today; nothing about it has changed.
Comes this essay, and indeed I did choose to use your Johnson comment as an example of what is to my mind a sort of rationalization and parsing that is not justified; a making of distinction based on whether or not Johnson is lying about the phantom “tape”. From my POV, it is no different in terms of degree of reprehensibility; either way his behavior was damaging for no potential gain to anyone other than himself. If that effort backfired on him, well and good. What are we saying these days? Oh yes; He Deserved It.
SL: “But as I noted—and you haven’t addressed—we can’t lay the rumor about the tape at the feet of the VRWC if Johnson made it up.
I don’t purport to be able to read Johnson’s mind, nor do I know the truth about the mystery tape. And, I don’t care. Whatever the truth is will eventually come out to be dealt with, or not. Whatever it is, if it needs dealing with by me, it is something I’ll deal with then. What I’m on about here with Johnson is that his action was damaging to Michelle Obama and by extension to Barack Obama (orion pretends to not see how there could be any linkage, but…well…whatever). It is the effect that concerns me, not Johnson’s motivation. I tried to cover that; let me try again.
Does it matter if Johnson lied in terms of effect? No, it does not. There are to my mind only a few alternatives (feel free to add more if you see them.)
1) Johnson is lying, he knows there is no tape and he is simply trying to sabotage the Obama candidacy.
2) Johnson is telling the truth absolutely, and knows that the tape as described is real but refuses to identify who has possession.
3) Johnson is telling the truth dependently, based on his belief that someone else is telling the truth to him. He is correct in this belief, there is a tape as described, but he still refuses to identify who has the tape.
4) Johnson is telling the truth dependently, based on his belief that someone else is telling the truth to him. He is, however, not correct in his belief; his source is lying or mistaken. Still he refuses to divulge the source of his information.
For me, it is of no importance which of these is accurate. All that matters is that Johnson spread a rumor – a rumor – that cast doubt upon the character of Michelle Obama in a way that leaves her unable to defend herself. That is a wrong thing to do, for whatever reason. Barack Obama is damaged in the same way, by extension, and he too is left with no clear way to defend himself. That is also a wrong thing to do.
Surely no one believes that Johnson, who his defenders here keep describing as fully engaged, smart and dedicated, could have not foreseen the consequence of putting it out that an embarrassing tape of Michelle existed. Can he be that dumb? No.
What he decided to do was put out as a rumor, without providing any substantiation, a claim that Michelle had done something awful – supposedly in the best interests of the Party, or the public, or something. But Johnson had other choices; he could have simply not published. If his source demanded anonymity, so be it, but without attribution he would not publish. As someone pointed out, others were also soon spreading the rumor so it isn’t as though the safety of the free world rested on Johnson getting the word out. A simple decision to reach; spreading unsubstantiated rumors that are hurtful to others isn’t a morally defensible act – period.
Alternatively, if he believed the information to be true and he cares about the prospects for the Democrats, for the country, and sees disaster if the tape is delayed until after the Democratic Convention, then out the source. The future of the nation, of democracy, is at stake; no? Again, a simple decision to reach – save the free world, or burn a source. Judith Miller made similar choices and what has been said about her?
However it is sliced, Johnson’s act was either colossally foolish or fed by self-importance; regardless, either way, lying or not, it is indefensible. That is my point, and I’m sticking to it. Others who spread the rumor are, in my view, equally culpable; it should have been condemned at the source and then not further discussed, yet here we are still.
Your point, that it matters, in terms of a socioanthropological analysis of how information spreads on the web, whether or not he can in the moment be shown to have lied, is something I might have some interest in discussing but it does not address my main point here. I included it, however, as a demonstration of how the main point, the irresponsibility of his having said anything without saying it all, can get buried in the meta. As I tried to make clear but apparently further offended in the process, I am not in any way passing judgment on your judgment; you see it as you do and it is a very human trait to do so. I point it out as an example that I see as instructive about how we process rumor on the web, and how the discussion can be sidetracked by perhaps psychologically interesting but phenomenologically unsubstantiated further speculations.
Unless, of course, your contention – your belief – that Johnson is not lying is based on information you are not sharing. Have you had contact with Johnson or others and had your curiosity satisfied in some way? Do you know that Johnson is telling the truth? If so, please share how. If not, well then; you are certainly welcome to your belief.
As to the source of the rumor, let’s take your POV; that Johnson is earnest and telling the truth as he sees it. Where does that lead?
Could it be an Obama supporter who has it? Then why tell Johnson at all? If in confidence, why would Johnson spill it? The rumor itself can only harm Obama and the Democrats, and help Republicans. Keeping mum would be a good course. Also good would be to contact the Obama campaign directly; someone would call back, surely. Going public with an anonymous claim that can only harm Obama and help the VRWC? If so, pretty damn stupid and we’re all agreed that Johnson isn’t stupid – so that’s out.
Could it be a Hillary supporter? Why sit on the tape? Why not put it out immediately? How is Hillary benefited if it comes out later? Doesn’t make sense at all. Again, the only ones harmed are Obama and, if it is released after the Convention, the Democrats. Why would a Hillary supporter want to harm the Democratic chances in the general? Why not turn it over to Hillary and let her decide what to do? Why not a lot of things, but not this – so that possibility is out, too.
Leaves us with only one other plausible option – the ultimate source is someone from the VRWC. Feel free to sort out for yourself if Johnson is a recently activated VRWC mole or a simple dupe and a fool for doing their dirty work; I don’t care enough about him to bother.
Mystery tape
"Your point, that it matters, in terms of a socioanthropological analysis of how information spreads on the web, whether or not he can in the moment be shown to have lied, is something I might have some interest in discussing but it does not address my main point here."
That wasn't my point, sorry. How rumors spread on the Web and acquire accretions of mythology that have nothing to do with the original rumor is just a personal interest of mine.
You've provided a number of examples of such accretions because you haven't followed the details of the genesis of the rumor and have filled in with details you've made up your own.
You may not be interested, but I'd like to correct a few points for others who might be:
First, the origin of all the Web discussion was Johnson's posts about the alleged tape. Nobody, as far as I'm aware, heard about it independently.
Second, according to Johnson, the tape is and always has been in the hands of Republicans who plan to use it against Obama in the general. Johnson's primary motivation in revealing what he'd been told, according to him, was to pry it loose somehow so that it could be used against Obama in the primary and Hillary would be nominated instead.
I don't know why he didn't burn his sources--these were people who had spoken to people who had seen the tape, which he says they told him was being shown to Republican donors--but there could be any number of good reasons for not doing so, including that it wouldn't further his cause.
If the tape does exist, there is one potential benefit to Obama of Johnson making the rumor public: Obama, who surely knows what Michelle said, is now aware that a tape of it is in the hands of Republicans who plan to use it against him in the general. He thus has a chance to prepare a defense rather than being blindsided by its release. Granted, this wasn't Johnson's intention, or he would have let Obama know on the QT.
I don't think Johnson is doing the VRWC's dirty work. I think he saw a chance to derail the Obama Express and have Hillary nominated. (He says if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he'll vote for Barr.) He's got until the convention to find a way to make the tape public, if he wasn't lied to about its existence.
I'm not quite finished with what I want to say, but I'll have to get back to it; I have to attend to something else now.
Pages