The Sad Red Earth takes down Glenn Greenwald

A.Jay Adler links to a post by Reilly at Counter-dominance on Glenn Greenwald in regard to a piece he wrote following the death of Cristopher Hitchens. The whole piece is worth your time, but here is a choice bit:

Just as in the Hitchens piece, Greenwald diminishes the actual societal forces at play on one side and invents forces by elevating trivialities on the other side, so that both conform to his narrative. And again as in his Hitchens post, Greenwald, writing from his influential platform over which he has complete editorial control, strikes the pose of victim on whom “demands” are being made even as he spends most of his word count on conflation and inference rather than directly addressing an argument, and even though the oppressive forces he tilts against are little more than other people’s opinion.

Update: 4:13 PM.

Let the Church Say Amen

This morning, I was lucky enough to catch Let the Church Say Amen on TV, a moving documentary about the World Missions for Christ Church. This small church and its congregation has been making a positive impact on the lives of the poor in Washington DC for years, and the film received accolades when it was released in 2004.

A History of Socalism for the small screen

It has been out for some time but if you missed the opportunity to catch it on PBS, the film version of Joshua Muravchik's excellent book, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (hosted by Ben Wattenberg) is now available in its entirety on youtube (with multiple comments from the Hitch). For those unfamiliar with Muravchik, he is now a leading neo-conservative, but was once a leading figure in the democratic socialist left, heading the Young People's Socialist League in the 1960s. He would later drift right, but his work documenting various socialist movements last century is one that still contains a tinge of nostalgia and honesty about the desire for a better world imbedded in various socialist movements. The successes of social-democratic models in Europe, America, and Asia are also presented in fair, and positive light. Additionally, Muravchik's work focused on some lesser known socialist leaders and movements, such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Pandit Nehru in India.

Part 1: Part 2:

Elsewhere in 2012

Fine thoughts from Bob on the Stephen Lawrence case. A follow up here.

Anti-German Translation on the Hitler Youth haircut.

Adam Holland has provided great criticism and fact-finding related to Ron Paul. His most recent piece on the topic should be read by all.

The Fat Man ponders morality.

Marko's 2011 retrospective is worth the time.

Poumista on books and obituaries.

Johnny Guitar - Defending the indefensible with the absurd.

Terry Glavin on China.

Social Media and Insurgencies

Sean Kennedy has an excellent piece up at Small Wars Journal detailing the power social media has in changing the political landscape, while also providing a means to insurgent groups. Just a bit:

"Although social media has been widely lauded as a positive force for social change, the successes of insurgents in Egypt might be best explained by the Mubarak regime’s unwillingness to develop a proactive approach to the insurgency, and specifically his disregard of the Internet. Counterinsurgents of the future will likely conduct a pervasive, coordinated, preventive Internet propaganda campaign designed to undermine opposition groups. China and Russia already practice these methods with the purpose of preventing insurgencies from forming in the first place. Pro-regime forces in Syria have used the same new media tools as insurgents to disseminate information."

When Mitt Romney Came to Town

I would have never believed the following video would be released during a Republican primary by someone within the party, let alone Newt Gingrich. But it is great, and worth a watch.

Santorum: The Trojan Working-Class Candidate

Watching the Republican debates, I occasionally found myself nodding to Rick Santorum’s proclamations. Much like Ron Paul, Santorum seemed to be challenging the status quo of the Republican Party. Ron Paul looked to further libertarianism at every level of government, while Santorum argued that the trickle-down, pro-business model of social and economic order that has become the norm in the Republican Party hurt America and its culture. Having a Republican candidate talks about putting public funds towards supporting families or working to re-energize our manufacturing sector was the type of talk that could energize even a stalwart Democrat. Santorum quickly revealed himself to be a shill for corporate interests, as his actual polices demonstrate. Yglesias wrote:

“For A Working Class Champion Focused On Social Mobility, Rick Santorum Seems To Be Pretty Interested In Cutting Rich People's Taxes.”

Santorum may claim to look out for the working class (when he is not denying class entirely), but his candidacy is yet another in a long list of corporate minded individuals that works to pull support away from candidates that may actually support working class interests.

What is it that Ron Paul fans fail to grasp?

Andrew Sullivan (not a blogger I have the greatest respect for, but that I do find entertaining), seems unable to understand that Ron Paul's conspiratorial policies are exactly what makes him appealing as a candidate. Kevin Drum, writing for Mother Jones, notes the following about Ron Paul:

"Bottom line: Ron Paul is not merely a "flawed messenger" for these views. He's an absolutely toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger for these views. This is, granted, not Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time levels of toxic, but still: if you truly support civil liberties at home and non-interventionism abroad, you should run, not walk, as fast as you can to keep your distance from Ron Paul. He's not the first or only person opposed to pre-emptive wars, after all, and his occasional denouncements of interventionism are hardly making this a hot topic of conversation among the masses. In fact, to the extent that his foreign policy views aren't simply being ignored, I'd guess that the only thing he's accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a fringe view in American politics than it already is. Crackpots don't make good messengers."

To which Andrew responds:

"And yet many, many voters who watch and listen to the man do not see a crackpot. They see the only person in public life prepared to tell the truth: that America cannot afford its current military-industrial complex and entitlement state; and that America's lurch after 9/11 toward authoritarianism and empire has been disastrous for our interests and liberties."

Selectivity at its most obtuse. Andrew claims that he only likes Ron Paul for his "good positions" (something I am not entirely sold on, seeing how Andrew spilt plenty of digital ink on the Sarah Palin/ Trig conspiracy, and justifying the Bell Curve). I have no doubt that some of Paul's supporters like him for his "legitimate," and understandable critiques of the Federal Government and interventionism. What Andrew seems unable to grasp is that some Americans believe terrible, crazy things. Significant percentages of the US public believes the American government was involved or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Only 4 in 10 Americans believe in evolution. Shit, one in five Americans believe the sun revolves around earth! Why Andrew thinks that this same group of people would not also support a crazy, racist, conspiratorial crank is beyond me. Andrew has it backwards; it is Paul's craziest ideas that provides his most forceful draw. If people were simply drawn to him for traditional libertarian ideals and limited intervention abroad, they could have supported Gary Johnson.