Rachel said accountability. How quaint.

Good morning, Pups! This is disgusting, as is Obama’s decision to target a U.S. citizen for assassination, no matter how radical he may be, without any due process.

How is this change we can believe in??

Confirmed: Obama Authorizes Assassination of U.S. citizen

Rhama must be looking at some polling, yesterday DoD said there was nothing to review, no review to be done.

But, but, even the ultraliberal Center for American Progress:

Ken Gude, a human-rights expert with the Center for American Progress, argued that the government’s policy would be justified in the case of al-Awlaki, because of his suspected role in assisting the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

“There is much debate about how broadly both the Bush and Obama administrations have interpreted [the Authorization to Use Military Force], a concern that I share, but this instance is not one of those cases,” Gude says. “It cannot plausibly be argued that Awlaki, who is mentioned repeatedly in the 9/11 Commission report as having assisted the 9/11 hijackers, is not a person who aided the 9/11 attacks.”

Rudy 9/11, a Noun and a Verb couldn’t have said it better.
The Veal Pen has branched out to cover other issues, and
I doubt we’ll be hearing much from them about the helicopter video.

How is the Penatagon going to review a video of which they cannot find their copy?

Rachel Maddow – what a perineum.

Mornin’, BT, pups

Secretary Gates: “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

Download it from YouTube?

You must be very certain of that, being one yourself.

You are no longer subject to the rule of law in the US. The criminals have long since taken over government. The justice system belongs to them. And they have their enforcement division, the US armed forces.

Going backwards at dizzying speeds now. Amazing to witness. The impotence of the (allegedly) sane majority who don’t want any of this. I’m not so sure of that majority. I think believing in it is the product of the bubble of normality offered by FDL. But the bubble’s getting smaller, not bigger at the moment.

Classy.

The bridge dwellers are up early today.

I found this at Brad Blog. Details soon…

Brad Guest Hosts ‘Malloy Show’ This Week!
GUESTS THURSDAY: Marcy Wheeler, Kate Sheppard
Join the live chat here from 6p – 9p PT (9p – Mid. ET) Call-in#: 877-520-1150 | More details soon…

Indeed. The Corporate Stooge in Chief has already spoken.

We should just all ‘move on’ and forget those incidents of torture, murder, kidnapping, rendition, and other sundry human rights violations. They were decisions taken by brave politicians who meant well.

But if you (an ordinary and possibly starving pleb) steal a loaf of bread…..Eric Holder has a hundred year sentence waiting for you. That’s right. Get the priorities straight.

Staff Sgt. Crips, I would like you to meet your new company commander, Lt. Bloods.

The hearts and minds I am concerned about after listening to this unfold and watching the video for three days are the Americans at home in the United States. I understand that our war media is censored and unless a person goes looking for war news there are only nostalgic and sentimental pieces about soldiers in the New York Times At War articles. The video represents the daily carnage inflicted upon countries Americans are occupying. These are not exceptional events or anomalous occurrences. These murders are standard operating procedures.

Any person who identifies as an American should be depressed and angry that these murders continue in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Special Ops McCrystal is in charge should be a red flag. The attitude of that is just how war is, is unacceptable as violations of the rules of engagement are routine. The army lied about the actions of the copter crew, the government is practicing avoidance by being silent now. For those who missed out on the Vietnam experience, here’s a clue: lying is standard operating procedure for military and government.

I despise the psychologists who condition soldiers to kill and who excuse and provide rationalizations for the soldiers to shoot at anything at any time. The only RPG sized objects to look for in the videos are the noses of the lying helicopter crew, their command, the reviewing team, and the Pentagon deniers.

Amy Goodman’s guest is a journalist who was on scene the next day after the helicopter attack on civilians in Baghdad in 2007. He just discovered last night that the wikileaks video was precisely that incident.

Classy.

Thanks! Nice to know others here aren’t blind to succinct accuracy.

xin loi

The reporter is Rick Rowley. Said he was told that the reporter the tank ran over was alive.

The individual you see running to the right is the man run over by the Bradley.

SD, Good Morning. I saw your other note….I’ve missed you as well. And Caturday. Need to get back. ;)

Mornin’, RevBev. Yeah, I’ve missed seein’ ya here and there.

The Court Martial of the Seals for punching their suspect in the mouth while in custody is nice tho /s

At least it’s high profile

I have to set aside time to watch the whole (complete version) of that video. Can’t do it at work, and last night when I got home I was tired and stressed and not in the frame of mind I need to be to absorb it. But what I’ve heard is pretty horrific.

And let’s all ignore the Rachel trasher this morning, shall we? She’s doing a lot of good reporting IMO and is digging into stuff where others don’t. She’s not perfect, but she’s damn good and we should quit the purity testing.

Do I understand O’s new nuclear policy review that the U.S. will only use them first against nations that don’t have them? Isn’t that even more incentive for other countries to get them?

Don’t worry your pretty little heads, and most of all don’t get too emotional.
The newspaper of record has it covered:

Psychologists Explain Iraq Airstrike Video
…

The video’s emotional impact on viewers is also partly rooted in the combination of intimacy and distance it gives them, some experts said. The viewer sees a wider tragedy unfolding, in hindsight, from the safety of a desk; the soldiers are reacting in real time, on high alert, exposed.

Pay close attention to the comms.

.

Nice apologists. Might work for low info folks but for combat vets, horseshit.

The psychologists the article quotes are military stooges, except for the one at Cornell. I’d like to see his consulting contracts.

I ain’t going to study war no more.

This video, which I have refused to watch, has something to do with turning reality into a video game show. This is another step in the legitimization of dehumanization for the coming large scale thinning of the herd.

If the guy that was run over by the tank is alive is anything like my buddy that was run over by a 10 ton forklift he has to look forward to over 50 operations to heal him. I’m sure we got his information so we can supply his medical needs in the future because we are so compassionate to the damage we inflict.
Christ we can’t keep track of the film which can only mean that the room is so God Damn big and stacked full of films of episodes just like this, that no one can sort them out.

Pay close attention to the comms.

Comms? Sorry, don’t understand that…

EDIT: Don’t understand this, either:

.

I see it occasionally and it puzzles me.

comms = radio dialogue between pilot, gunner, control

Had a browser blip and ended up with double comment, replaced with dot.

hey SoDragon

They’re using 30mm explosive fragmentation tipped.

I don’t recall the Convention very clearly anymore, is that stuff OK’d for use on humans?

I believe the restrictions on explosive rounds is limited to hand held weapons. We used both 20mm Gatling guns and 40mm Bofors guns on AC-130 Spooky gunships in Nam.

New post up top…

the Convention

If you mean the Geneva Convention, hasn’t that been relegated to the dustpile of history, as being “quaint” and “outmoded?”

… and, the all-too-expected decision was just announced: no further inquiry by the army.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,390

US KIA Afghanistan: 1,037

Iraki and Afghan casualties: estimates vary to over 1.5M

US MBS 2010: 12,028 and counting

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

I dont get FDL’s obsession of Rachel “Corporate Shill” Maddow. Lets just look at the clip you cited. First off, it shows barely anything of the video, and clearly leaves out all the parts most likely to upset the american public. Nice job sanitizing Maddow. You make your corporate masters proud.

More morally bankrupt and unethical though is her conclusion. Forget talking about how this is normal daily occupation by US forces. She seems to pretend it some sort of abberation. Forget all the details of the second story of pregnant women being bound and executed. Those details could actually upset americans.

For her the issue is just a big PR snafu.
First off the problem is that the video was released, ie, its negative PR during our hearts and minds campaign.
Second, its how will the miltary deal with the negative PR. IE, how will they respond.

Forget all the actual moral, ethical, or legal issues. Thats not what corporate propogandist Maddow is about. Its just a negative PR issue. Nothing a few good press releases cant clear up right?

FDL should stop promoting this corporate shill who is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

yep, I was ecm/ew on ac’s – nkp

But my memory was that there is a bullet weight classification. Under a certain bullet weight, we weren’t allowed to use fragmenting on humans.

fire control guys would know

I know there’s a new post up top, but I have an OT question, so I’ll ask it here. Did Jane go on the television again? ‘Cause I’m seeing so many names that I do not recognize. Here and at the new post. Sometimes I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole. Help please.
‘

Will this picture of a soldier with an rpg-7 help illustrate Tom Thumb’s point? Several more photos here.

I can’t keep track. She does radio, too. Busy lady.

Oy! In my next life I must remember to sleep more.

Let me put it this way. I don’t eat food I dislike. I don’t read books I don’t like. I don’t watch movies that I don’t like. Someone please tell me why folks come here and diss. Why come here and tell FDL what they should and shouldn’t do. Makes no sense to me.

can’t speak for anyone else demi,

hcr brought me to this place

Those are some fancy lookin’ cameras! /s

Yes, very. Have a great day, SD. I’ll keep a whistle on my desk in case I need you. :)

Gives ‘em a sense of accomplishment? Helps ‘em soil their jammies? I dunno.

4.1M views on YouTube. Wonder how many of those were from Arab countries? Al-Jazeera English is showing the unedited 38 minute version.

Not everyone has the same rules….not so bad to read opposing opinion, IMO

FDL should stop promoting this corporate shill who is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. FDL promotes freedom at least they never stifled me. If you want to flame FDL there is plenty of ammo because people vigorously argue most sides of controversial issues. I myself have criticized Rachel for slandering ACORN. But Rachel is NOT a shill. She probably has to compromise with her corporate employers. Rachel did correct the record about ACORN.

I am still wating for CREW to apologize to ACORN or I may write another post about it.

I’d be careful with a clarinet around some people too, from the look of it. Who cares if it’s pointed the wrong way?

You also can see both the full and the shorter version here:

http://collateralmurder.com/

You’re right. We don’t all have the same rules. I guess you’re more tolerant than I.
Or, maybe I’m in a bad mood today. It happens to the best of us, doesn’t it?

I don’t get some folks’ obsession with calling people corporate shills. Rachel covers stuff others won’t touch, but if she doesn’t show enough of the video to suit you or say the right words, suddenly she is a “corporate shill.”

Give it a rest. Please.

the way Rachel is forced to handle this issue is depressing…literally a day late…and to my mind, definitely a dollar short…that had to sting…

Perhaps my perceptions here are still skewed by what MSNBC did to Ashley Banfield for expressing her views on the war, but I had hoped Rachel had more clout, if not more guts, to feel free to speak her mind…obviously not.

I love you to death Ms. Maddow, but if it were me, I would start looking for the exit door…time to use your considerable gravitas to trade up to a venue where you are less forced to muzzle your well educated, and respected, analysis freely…before your integrity is compromised to the point it begins to seriously erode your reputation…JMHO

actually it hasn’t. Use of unauthorized or incorrect stuff can result in ‘crimes against’ charges at the Hague

MSNBC is corporate propoganda masquerading as news. Compare Democracynow’s piece on the same stories yesterday and Maddow’s. One is actual journalism, the other corporate propoganda. Can you even tell the difference?

Is your problem with Rachel, FDL or other commentators? GE tee vee is a lying liar! Who could have predicted! Stop watching the tee vee and read a book. Or watch internet tee vee. Rachel is OK and sometimes excellent.

Personal attacks are discouraged here. Molly is a very bright person and I see no reason for you to question her senses.
Thank you for your understanding.

Whats the personal attack?

Edit: FYi, If anything I wrote actually bothers you, you should quit the internet now.

Can you even tell the difference?
Implication there, pal.

You realize by picking a fight for her on her behalf you are basically encouraging me to further describe how she doesnt seem to understand what a whitewash looks like or how it looks when a corporate propogandist deals with a story that they have to deal with because its getting so much press everywhere else. As another poster mentioned, it was a day late. Likely they hoped not to have to cover it at all.

Do you realize that when you leap to someones defense like some internet knight in shining armor you just make them more of a target right? You make them seem impotent, weak, and in need of defense.

Nice work.

How about erasing those lines in the sand …

I’d like to take my flak jacket off now

For some folks it falls under: “it’s not how I would do things therefore it’s wrong”

Variants are: “I didn’t do it, therefore, it’s wrong” and “I’m not in charge, therefore it’s wrong and to be condemned”

A fifty-seven word sentence. We all should conserve more “.”‘s (periods)

Anyway, you’re probably right that the progressive movement is far too big and tolerant to have any real effect on anything that matters. We really need to purge and alienate all but the purest starbellied sneetches. I’m sure we can get it down to around five or six people who agree on everything and won’t call each other vile names.

is that all you got from that post Frank? too bad….I say “spend’em if you got’em”…

At least I made points as to why I take issue with Maddows coverage. Those who objected to what I wrote didnt offer a single objection to the points I made. Instead it was just variations of “geez get off her back already! We are here to offer adulation to Maddow. Sheesh get with the program.”

I take offense with the ‘tone’ you took with other members

Give it a rest. Please.

I responded with the tone that was used toward me in response to my original post.

And if you are going to respond to this, explain the difference between telling someone to “give it a rest. Please.” and “Shut up. Please.”.

I find it interesting that you all jump to the defense of someone who is telling another poster to shut up for commenting on the topic of the thread.

Give it a rest

Oh I forget. Those upset just came here for your daily echochamber. My bad.

Just a friendly reminder folks: Here at Firedogleke, spirited debate is encouraged but personal insults or attacks are not.

Also, please try to stay on the topic of the post.

Thank you.

Rachel…she’s damn good

I disagree with that. Vehemently.

I’d say that she’s in general a hyper-partisan apparatchik of the Obama administration, and in this particular case a willing defender of authoritarianism and murder.

(For those who watched her rabid and biased cheerleading for the health insurance bill, condescendingly criticizing and ridiculing any who would dare disagree, this behavior should already be clear. And read even a little of what Glenn Greenwald has said about these stories for an example of what good coverage looks like.)

WikiLeaks released this video at the National Press Club on Monday morning, and it was clear within Washington long before that this was going to be a big story. Did she cover it that night? No. One of her staffers posted a short note about it on the blog on the MSNBC site. And even that miniscule commentary?

Hit the comments with your observations. My first? How weird it sounds to hear the pilots and gunners sliding from “keep shooting” tough talk and cackling to the dry sound of military commanders, and then the oddly distant rat-tat-tat of the guns.

Innocent people are murdered and the first reaction is simply the audio quality.

Second, look at how much air time she gives these two events – less than 4 minutes. I’ve seen her spend more than that showing people how to make mint juleps. It’s a clear statement to the audience of how they’re supposed to rank the importance of this story.

Most of all, listen to what she says.

She simply reports what the Pentagon says in response, then after less than 60 seconds she detours into the recent Afghanistan murders, even referring to a NY Times story about it. But even there she covers for the Pentagon, responding to the question of whether the Pentagon covered up the murders with a misdirection:

But as to the specific allegation of a coverup, they have denied attempting to retrieve any bullets from the bodies.

Notice that not attempting to retrieve any bullets isn’t the same as the Pentagon not having tried to cover up the murders. It’s misleading the audience with an unverified and logically fallacious defense – and like all the other Pentagon statements it’s presented unquestioningly, even though this story is about three years of Pentagon lies.

And now we get to the worst part of her commentary.

Most of her time is spent not condemning the sociopathic slaughter of innocents, or considering what murders and coverups say about the entire basis of American wars and America itself – but instead she simply critiques these murders as ineffective US military policy.

What’s also important is what these incidents mean for Americans, for all of us…What the American government is counting on to win these ongoing wars, the way out we have chosen, is counterinsurgency…And what that strategy depends on for success is a lack of civilian casualties.

They’re not people gunned down in cold blood, children orphaned, families destroyed – they’re just carelessly spoiled product affecting the P&L of the business.

Jesus wept.

And of course, there’s all she doesn’t say.

She doesn’t talk about how the Pentagon lied with their initial report of both events.

She doesn’t talk about how the NY Times, whose name she used to lend an air of authority earlier, happily reported the Pentagon’s cover story.

American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

“There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

She doesn’t talk about how Obama, through his mouthpiece Robert Gibbs, is stonewalling and avoiding getting involved (just like with the parts of insurance bill that would benefit the public).

I do not know whether the President has seen the video that was released on the internet. Obviously it is very graphic in nature, and it’s extremely tragic. For details of the investigation that the Defense Department, the Pentagon, did on that, around that incident, obviously I would point you over to the Department of Defense.

She doesn’t talk about how in the story she used to deflect discussion away from the Iraq story, the story of the murders of the pregnant Afghan women, it’s already been established the Pentagon lied to cover it up from the beginning and attacked the western reporter (Jerome Starkey) who revealed their deceit.

Lastly, she doesn’t talk about the enthusiastic complicity of the media in the coverups of these sick murders, and in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

To her, there’s no human tragedy here. To her, this whole thing is simply sloppy business.

Rachel Maddow is a cross between Lisa Simpson and Mean Girls, with a talk show.

In essence – a perineum.

If you think it’s such an echo chamber, why are you here?

I do believe you just proved the point we all were making, bless your heart.

I said those upset. That would suggest I dont think everyone is here for an echochamber. For exmaple, like EternalVigilance who evicerated Maddows behavior.

Still waiting for anyone to defend their paragon of journalism with actual points instead of attacking the poster.

Editted out because in rereading your post, I have no clue what you are even talking about.

I think they were. These mods are good.

If you think it’s such an echo chamber, why are you here?

Ahh, that familiar old attack from the Viet Nam era – “America: Love It Or Leave It.”

Perhaps gnomedigest is willing to work to prevent one of the few places in the political public commons where serious, critical, self-aware discussion can take place from being turned into yet another bleating barnyard pen of herd animals.

That’s why I’m here, anyway.

Rachel is a great reporter digging in on difficult issues. There’s an article floating over the news cycle today that 47% of US Households don’t pay Fed taxes.

Does the Organization that put out that report pay taxes or is it a non profit?

Can someone report on these so called non profits, by name, that pay no taxes? Why do non profits pay no taxes yet they hand out pay checks?

As someone who lived through the Vietnam era myself, how do you get “Love it or leave it” from my question?

And as someone who has been hanging around FDL for a few years now, I’m quite aware of FDL’s standing as one of the sane areas of the net.

Coming in and chastising folks who disagree with you and calling them all cheerleaders for the status quo since they don’t believe as you do, is not necessarily the way to gain adherents.

Especially when chastising folks who have been contributing to FDL comments for longer than I have.

But as always, YMMV

Edit: And if FDL survived the primary battles without becoming “another bleating barnyard pen of herd animals” without folks attacking others, I imagine we can survive other issues as well.

I watched the whole 34 minute video. I can say this, other than the extreme callousness with witch these guys engaged, where was anyone at anytime fired upon, where was their ever an RPG the pilot himself claimed existed?

These guys were just walking around on the street! And then when they blew the shit out of the minivan killing unarmed people who were doing presumably what any one of us would do; pick up a wounded man and try to take him to the hospital; this is when they also gravely injured at least one child.

It makes me ashamed to have at one time wanted to be an Apache pilot. Our military is being trained to not give two shits for loss of life, even bystanders and children. They are behaving like the fucking Nazis when they were fighting against the partisans by killing random people just to make a point.

The thing is, so much of our so called “news” is coming from
non profit, non tax paying “organizations” with political agendas.

Occasionally she is.

Sometimes she acts like a disgusting mouth piece.

Just a small if trite example of how moronic she can be:

When she was cheering on DST recently praising how she gets to sleep in that extra hour when in fact, when Spring ‘rolls forward’ you are advancing timing and therefore losing an hour!!

D’uuuuh. PHD huh? Ooookaay.

Well, anyway, can we start a campaign to abolish DST? Please? Surely the veal pen can at least get that done. It’s just a small request.

“The video’s emotional impact on viewers is also partly rooted in the combination of intimacy and distance it gives them, some experts said. The viewer sees a wider tragedy unfolding, in hindsight, from the safety of a desk; the soldiers are reacting in real time, on high alert, exposed.”

“Experts”… Expert apologists? Expert lackeys? Expert excuse makers?
Some experts is right.
There is no ambiguity in the footage where the dying man is being carried away. The rules of engagement, which the gunner clearly outlined in his probably amphetamine-laced plea “pick up a weapon, pick up a weapon,” were totally disregarded. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. He had visual information he conveyed as misleading verbal ques to his commander to obtain the “permission to kill” he wanted. He wasn’t scared. He wasn’t taking fire. He was murdering people not combatants. They were bent over trying to carry a wounded body. No doubt, no fog, no confusion, pure blood lust.

I am with you on abolishing the DST that was put into place so business could make more money. I have read there are more accidents the Monday after the time change.

Thats definetly part of it. I also see parralles between how Obama is turning previously radical and unlawful positions into centrist ones as far as the national diaolgue in concerned.

The ammount of validation Maddow receives from internet cites to me is setting up a similair sort of dynamic where people will look to her for the serious, rational position. I dont think we should glorify faux journalist this way.

Rachel’s firmly on message when push comes to shove. Does anyone need another example after healthcare? Amazing how so many folks default back to ‘believing’ the stooges sincerity almost immediately.

Anyway, Corporate Stooge in Chief says we must ‘move on’ and ‘look forward’, but if Rachel wants to pretend to be shocked and appalled a bit, she’s allowed to. Probably better to give the impression of criticism at least. Or you’d be exactly like Vladimir and Dmitry…mind you, I bet the CS in C wouldn’t mind being as rich as those two chancers :-) After all, he’s got a healthily American love of filthy lucre.

You can watch her forever and you would never know that the Israelis spit in the face of Biden while he was there by announcing 1600 new settlements or that Netanyahu refuses to work at all towards any solution in the area that calls for sharing the land with the Palestinians.

Nor will you ever hear her make an analogy between Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s illegal possession of nuclear weapons which were no doubt obtained through American sources within the government, people who see nothing wrong with betraying their own country for their religious soulmates.

Iran at least is a signatory to the NPT.

The military’s responses to the Haditha massacre and to this incident tell the same story. In essence, they are telling us that the rules of engagement were not binding. Our forces kill unarmed civilians so routinely that commanders turn a blind eye rather than conduct investigations that higher HQ will dismiss anyway.

dakine01 @ 78 :

If you think it’s such an echo chamber, why are you here?

and

dakine01 @ 85:

As someone who lived through the Vietnam era myself, how do you get “Love it or leave it” from my question?

Because I’ve always heard “if you think it’s so bad why are you here?” as substitute for “we don’t appreciate your criticism, go away.” I’ve never heard it used otherwise. It was the classic attack against non-conformists and those who would criticize the established social order, both in the 60′s and now.

A different question would be to lose the prejudicial “if you think it’s such an echochamber” and say “I don’t understand what’re you trying to accomplish here. Can you tell me what it is you want?”

So, that’s how. If you had a different meaning and intent, then I’m sorry I misunderstood you, and I’d be interested in learning what that other meaning might be.

(In either case gnomedigest doesn’t need to defend or explain to anyone why they’re here.)

On to respond to the rest of your comment.

(Editorial note: One of the unfortunate limitations of text-only discussions is that so much of the energetic subtlety, and thus the real intent of the speaker, is lost. I’m about to go through your statements point by point, and depending on your state of mind that may seem unexpected and even harsh. My goal in doing so isn’t to attack you personally, but it is to point out what I think are real problems (to me) in what you wrote, whether you intended them or were even aware of them. So what follows is an exercise in collective edification, not attacking you.)

And as someone who has been hanging around FDL for a few years now, I’m quite aware of FDL’s standing as one of the sane areas of the net.

I think this is another example of the prejudicial qualifier. Since there wasn’t any debate about FDL’s status on the net, this sentence mainly emphasizes your own perception of your status within the in-group.

Coming in and chastising folks who disagree with you and calling them all cheerleaders for the status quo since they don’t believe as you do, is not necessarily the way to gain adherents.

Especially when chastising folks who have been contributing to FDL comments for longer than I have.

“Gaining adherents” is exactly the opposite of what I want. It’s the behavior of “adherents” that I’m trying to fight. To be an “adherent” is to avoid critical thinking and self-examination and to mindlessly follow:

Main Entry: adherent
: one that adheres: as a : a follower of a leader, party, or profession b : a believer in or advocate especially of a particular idea or church

“Adherents” are the problem. Your implication that the goal of the in-group – those who have been “hanging around FDL for a few years now” – is to “gain adherents” illustrates perfectly the attitude I’m working to keep from gaining any further hold.

Next, I’d like you to point out where I chastised anyone. I simply disagreed with people, specifically msmolly and yourself. It may be the case that you feel chastised; that may be your own internal criticism of what you write here, a tendency to take criticisms of things you do as criticisms of you, a projection onto me of the collective behavior here to attack the messenger and avoid the message, or something else entirely.

I believe you have the right to say whatever you like here. I believe I have the right to respond to it. While I don’t believe that one can write here and not expect to have one’s statements debated, holding a different opinion and expressing it is not chastising you.

All in all, I’d put my money on the projection of “chastising folks who disagree with you.” (Particularly since you assume that’s what I did and then talk about it not just once, but twice.)

And the “especially when chastising folks who have been contributing to FDL comments for longer than I have,” combined with the previous “And as someone who has been hanging around FDL for a few years now,” can be easily read as a not-so-subtle “don’t criticize your social superiors.”

But as always, YMMV

Indeed. Perhaps more than you expected!

Edit: And if FDL survived the primary battles without becoming “another bleating barnyard pen of herd animals” without folks attacking others, I imagine we can survive other issues as well.

Again, there’s that projection of attacking others.

I will always state my preferences, and also try to explain why they’re my desires when anyone asks.

But (strongly) stating my (strong) preference that FDL not become “another bleating barnyard pen of herd animals” isn’t a criticism of you or anyone else. It’s not even a criticism of people acting like herd animals. It’s me stating I don’t want that here, because it’s very easy to get elsewhere, and having it here means there’s less room for critical discussion and effecting positive change.

And what is “I imagine we can survive other issues as well” other than a statement, given without supporting evidence, that the issues that seem important to myself (and perhaps to gnomedigest and others) don’t matter?

Your entire statement, even if it wasn’t intended as anything other than casual and friendly conversation, is a reflection of the mindset that I want to illuminate, and eventually break.

I want to do this so we can better improve our society and our world.

I hope you can hear all this not as an attack on you, but as an explanation of why.

I am still wating for CREW to apologize to ACORN or I may write another post about it.

Now might be an excellent time for CREW to post its apology. I’m betting that ACORN would be on top of [and defending borrowers against] the foreclosures-without-the-documents events that are accelerating these days, and about which there was an informative diary here a day or two ago.

Without folks like ACORN, people who are losing their houses to these fraudsters are on their own; Obama & pals sure aren’t helping them.

Well this from your comment #83:

Perhaps gnomedigest is willing to work to prevent one of the few places in the political public commons where serious, critical, self-aware discussion can take place from being turned into yet another bleating barnyard pen of herd animals.

is telling me that we just have to have the wisdom that you bring in order for us to not de-volve into “yet another bleating barnyard of herd animals”

So you are the one thinking we need to be saved. It implies that we are already on the path to “bleating barnyard of herd animals” if we don’t see things as you see them.

My statement was that it really doesn’t matter much the issue, folks at FDL are not members of the veal pen, though you seem to believe we are on the path to it.

So why are you trying to fix something that isn’t broken? Apparently because some folks believe differently than you do as to the worth of Rachel Maddow. Doesn’t make them wrong or you right. It just means folks disagree on the worth of one specific person/talking head.

So pardon me, if I am skeptical on how much you’re trying to fix/break things to make FDL in your image. It doesn’t reflect you or me or anyone else personally. It reflects a community of folks who don’t always agree on every topic.

So it doesn’t need for you to fix or break how it operates.

Good Advice. Rachel (also Keith and Ed the other so-called liberals) rolled over on health care reform – became cheerleaders for insurance reform that benefits insurance companies over the citizenry. No Public Option. No cost controls. Madated purchase of insurance. Sick children still denied “coverage”.

Rachel and the other stooges are lying on their shows or allowing others to lie about the HCR bill. They have therefore lost their credibility. I cannot watch them anymore.

It is good advice for Rachel – the best of the bunch – to quit while she may be able to recover some dignity.

Like health care reform, Her “coverage” of this military slaughter of innocents was absolutely pathetic.

That would refer to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 banning explosive or incendiary projectiles with a weight under 400 metric grammes.

The USA is not a signatory but has a tradition to comply to it voluntarily.

I have to agree with you.

I’ve had to stop watching Rachel, Ed, and yes, even Keith when their positions on healthcare reform became crystal clear.

Ed jumped the shark, imo, when he actually, literally BEGGED progressives to “suck it up” and pass the bill.

Rachel had shill Ezra on almost every night; funny thing — unless I missed it, I don’t remember her having Jane Hamshir on. (I could have missed it since I no longer waste time watching her show, but I never saw Jane on when I DID watch.)

Then there’s Keith….Ah, Keith.

He went from an excellent Special Comment in which he pledged civil disobedience regarding the mandate, and urged his viewers to do the same to —- silence — until recently when he basically said: ‘The mandate won’t be enforced, so it’s all good.’
Of course, that’s my paraphrased translation, but his regular’healthcare’ guests were also Ezra. Kos, too.

You’re again projecting your own internal mindset and intentions onto me, without any indication I can see that you’re willing to examine your own behavior.

You’re welcome to do that as much as you like, of course, and in truth none of us has any choice either way – it’s the nature of egoic perception. We don’t have a choice about doing it. We only have a choice about self-examination.

So you’re welcome to do it, but I won’t let the accuracy of your statements go unchallenged.

And you’re not even arguing any of the points I raised. You’re simply stating by royal fiat how things are for everyone. “So why are you trying to fix something that isn’t broken?” To paraphrase a sadly inappropriate Monty Python sketch, an argument isn’t simply saying “no it isn’t.”

What you are doing is saying opinions with which you disagree – and most importantly, the people who hold them and their experiences, desires and concerns – don’t matter.

But until I hear more of a specific response and some self-reflection, rather than just how you happen to feel, I won’t put any more time into responding to you. Like I said, the effort was for the benefit of the group, not just you.

I suppose that might sum it up – it’s not about you.

So until I hear more about the content, rather than your feelings, I’ll defer to the wisdom of an old proverb:

“None so blind as those that will not see.”

Bingo.

Her “coverage” of this military slaughter of innocents was absolutely pathetic.

Unless one understands “coverage” to mean “ability to cover, to obscure, to hide.”

Then it was absolutely what was intended.

You are the one trying to keep FDL from becoming “bleating barnyard of herd animals”

I do not believe folks at FDL are in danger of becoming so.

That’s the sum total of the point I have been trying to make.

You keep doing an analysis of what you perceived I was saying and I’m the one projecting?

I see no need for any “self-reflection” on what I’ve been saying nor with what you contend is my need.

I don’t particularly care one way or another if folks agree with me or not. Especially when I offer opinions.

And you’re correct, I may not pay all that much attention to folks with whom I disagree. Doesn’t make me a bad person and it sure doesn’t make you correct (or me for that matter). It’s what is.

The ammount of validation Maddow receives from internet cites to me is setting up a similair sort of dynamic where people will look to her for the serious, rational position. I dont think we should glorify faux journalist this way.

I agree we shouldn’t glorify faux journalists of any flavor.

But I see Maddow as more of MSNBC’s version of Glenn Beck (as Keith O’Reilly is the balance to Bill Olbermann). O’Reilly and Olbermann are the more forceful, masculine ones, and her role is to be the more emotionally available one (even if those emotions are only amusement and condescension), like Beck.

Of course, they both serve to obscure the issues – by appearing to thoughtfully discuss them, while carefully controlling the range of what can be discussed.

I also agree that cheerleaders for an administration that’s effectively to the right of Dubya are intentionally being held up as the far left limit of acceptable social discussion, exactly as Obama is held up as a radical socialist, with the intent of removing from the public imagination anything more caring than the corporate oligarchy we have today.

Though one should note the simultaneous limits on the right – those who stand for individual liberty (as opposed to corporate and plutocratic liberty) are being similarly constrained.

It’s the funneling of the animals into the chute for slaughter.

But I see Maddow as more of MSNBC’s version of Glenn Beck (as Keith O’Reilly is the balance to Bill Olbermann). O’Reilly and Olbermann are the more forceful, masculine ones, and her role is to be the more emotionally available one (even if those emotions are only amusement and condescension), like Beck.

A very interesting observation. Makes one wonder if MSNBC’s branding is that specific or if they just stumbled into it.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with finding fault in the reporting content of Rachel, Keith or other MSNBC commentators employed by GE (or is it now COMCAST ?), there is also nothing wrong with considering these MSNBC stars (these shows are as much entertainment as news)as simply one source of information among many. Democracy Now is another great source, but it simply doesn’t have the same reach as MSNBC. I like to check in each morning with Glenn Greenwald, but some of his positions and articles do not reflect my understanding or analysis of particular issues and leave me fuming. My point is that no single news source is “perfect” for all issues all of the time; some are better than others; some don’t seem to have any clue whatsoever; so we all need to mix it up and compare and contrast and reach our own conclusions.

I conclude, from the lack of time devoted to and any real analysis of the content of the Wikileaks video, MSNBC and their “progressive” anchor Rachel Maddow gave it “token” coverage and in so doing are working to let it die the same inattentive, drowning death the Pentagon wants it to. This is just more “move along, there’re commercials and lots more stories we have to go to” material.

Rachel is operating in the capacity of a deflector, not a revealing, hard-hitting reporter. She needs to be made aware of it.

48 cents of every dollar Rachel, for indiscriminate killing. Still we have to fork it over to the extortionists for crappy insurance, denials, high co-pays, higher premiums, cancellations, fines and promise breakers who’ll never fix it later. Whose side are you on?

But Rachel is NOT a shill. She probably has to compromise with her corporate employers.

So which is it? Is she not a shill, or is she a reluctant shill (‘forced to compromise’)?

I really can’t agree that the former is a possibility. In this particular case the latter might be. Or she could just be an out-and-out shill who’s really good at making herself not look like one if you’re not looking too closely.

She certainly didn’t seem reluctant while aggressively shilling for the health-care ‘reform’ sham near the end (one of many observations from EternalVigilance @ 77 which saved me a lot of typing). And virtually all of her substantive programming these days is directed at the idiocies of the Republicans – which may be amusing but which her viewers likely don’t really need all that much educating about (whereas the treachery of the Democrats might be rather illuminating for them).

I couldn’t care less about people trying to get Maddow critics to shut up (does anyone actually pay any attention to such silliness?). But Maddow herself has some significance (and some relevance to the current topic).