Subscribe via RSS Feed

Obama Stole My Car Keys

[ 118 ] November 28, 2011 |

Naomi Wolf has another conspiracy theory she wishes you to consider:

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

The implied logic seems to be as follows:

  1. Some of the local officials who cracked down on OWS and coordinated with each other contacted officials within the DHS.
  2. ?????????
  3. The attacks must have been initiated by the DHS with the approval of the White House.

Not only does the third not remotely follow from the first, but there’s not actually even any evidence for the first assertion.

It’s also worth noting that yet again there are reactionary assumptions embedded in what on the surface looks like a leftier-than-tthou conspiracy theory.   Her conduct in the Assange case involved using rape apologism to defend a whisteblower.  In this case, there seems to be an implicit states’ “rights” assumption at work — authoritarian actions could not be the result of our benevolent local overlords but must be the work of the big bad feds.    History does not provide much support for this assumption.

Comments (118)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Manju says:

    In this case, there seems to be an implicit states’ “rights” assumption at work — authoritarian actions could not be the result of our benevolent local overlords but must be the work of the big bad feds. History does not provide much support for this assumption.

    Zap! This is one of the finest plays of the race card that I’ve ever encountered.

    You can’t object. Taken literally, he’s simply correct. But the subtext screams: “She hates the President because he’s black.”

    That might be terribly unfair to Naomi…but when you flirt with the Obama-as-Fascist meme, as she as, you gotta be prepared for some hyperbolic blowback.

    Which of course Scott did not actually deliver, except within the subtext. But subtext is like context, it exists outside the author. He landed a punch he cannot be held responsible for. Brilliant.

    • Murc says:

      You can’t object. Taken literally, he’s simply correct. But the subtext screams: “She hates the President because he’s black.”

      Given the fact that Scott has never, EVER been shy about explicitly saying ‘these people hate the President because he is black and they are racists’ I can only say that you are wrong.

      Furthermore, I also feel compelled to say that YOU, sir, may go to the devil.

    • R Johnston says:

      Whatever medications you’re taking, you need to start taking either more or less because they’re not working for you.

      You do, however, win the award for the worst attempt at a concern troll in the history of the internet.

    • ploeg says:

      Well let me take a stab at objecting. There’s no “implicit states’ “rights” assumption” here. The assumption here is not that the local overlords are benevolent (in fact, the conspiracy angle works much better with the understanding that both the local authorities and the feds are authoritarian assholes). The assumption here is that local authorities needed federal help in coordinating their crackdowns, and could not simply watch the national news, see that other localities were cracking down, and decided for themselves that it would be a socko idea to follow suit.

      I find it noteworthy that even Rep. Peter King got dragged into the chain of command. Really, it’s not enough to drag in DHS and the White House, you need to drag in members of Congress too?

    • wiley says:

      My nigger disappoints me— he’s not the magic negro I expected him to be. He has not overridden every force that wishes to limit him. He is not my knight in shining armor. He is not the sun that has risen just for me and my wildest dreams.

      Boo-fucking-hoo.

      I am quite happy with President Obama, and am especially grateful for the work that he has done on non-proliferation and the reduction of nuclear arms.

      He, like every president before him, disappoints me sometimes on foreign policy. But I understand that most Americans are far to the right of me on most issues, and most definitely on foreign policy.

      If a Republican should take the White House, he will, in all likelihood, pack his cabinet with neo-cons and let them run riot with our foreign policy. I have suffered eight years under Bush and the neo-cons who elevated him to the presidency, and I’m not sure I can take much more. The neo-cons are a pack of thieving, murderous, criminal psychopaths. The world does not need them, and we as a nation should do our best not to inflict those bastards on a tenuous world. Being, at times, disappointed with Barack Obama is no excuse to let that happen. The stakes are very high and much bigger than the dreams of Progressives.

    • Dude, you’re dreaming up monsters under the bed.

      I love how punchy you people are about racial issues, though. You’re the guy diving under the couch when a car backfires. Ha ha.

  2. LosGatosCA says:

    Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like.

    I was kind of following it up to this point. Who’s supposed to wear the tin foil beany copter hats now? The protesters to protect themselves from incoming agenda ideas from the DHS? DHS to protect themselves from the mind control of the protesters? Or the pundits who may react to excessive bursts of megarays from Langley that force them to write hysterical columns when their brains get cooked?

    And is the Guardian trying to rebranded itself as the World Nut Daily for the Left?

    • sparks says:

      They already have vaccine and climate change denialism on their pages, it’s not much farther for them to go to total political incoherence. They’re sorta like the HuffPo of GB.

      • Warren Terra says:

        Do they? Didn’t know that.

        On the anti-vaxxer front, when I think of the Guardian I think of their columnist Ben Goldacre, who fights the good fight on this and other scientific issues.

  3. dave says:

    It would all make sense if this was late-Tsarist Russia, and the DHS was the Okhrana. But then to a certain kind of person, not once but whenever they want it, it’s always late-Tsarist Russia, and they can think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain…

  4. urizon says:

    While I wonder whether we should engage in conspiracy mongering, I also wonder why it is that liberals seem to attract so much state attention. It’s not like thy’re advocating anything of real value, after all.

    • BigHank53 says:

      What fun is it to have a massively oversized policing apparatus and then only use it on small-time drug offenders and brown people?

  5. urizon says:

    Put another way: a conspiracy is a bunch of assholes who think alike.

  6. wiley says:

    Of all the activist groups that I have known and been involved with, Earth Firsters were the only ones who did not create intrigue about being infiltrated by feds who would try to subvert them, even though Earth Firsters have died by the hands (writ bombs) of federal agents.

    • DocAmazing says:

      I worked with CISPES in the ’80s, which was rotten with infiltrators, and most of us had no idea at the time. Frankly, after COINTELPRO, the Patriot Act, revelations about ECHELON and CARNIVORE and PROMIS, and the infiltrators at the convention in Minneapolis, I think it’s pretty hard to be overcautious.

      Anyone who is worried about having their credit card number stolen but doesn’t acknowledge law enforcement surveillance of political activity and national coordination of law enforcement is pretty selective in his awareness.

  7. c u n d gulag says:

    As far as Naomi’s go, Wolf ain’t no Klein, and never ever will be.

  8. Walt says:

    It’s bizarre to me that this article has generated so much outrage. Sure, she doesn’t have concrete evidence, and she’s guessing. But it’s not like she’s guessing that Obama is in the employ of the lizard people. Why wouldn’t DHS encourage a crack-down on Occupy? This isn’t some unheard of action for a government to take.

    • ploeg says:

      Well, if you’re guessing, maybe at the very least you say that you’re guessing. Or perhaps hold off until it’s more than just guessing.

      Then again, there’s a difference between guessing and pulling things out of your rear end. And when you start saying that Mike Bloomberg can’t take a pee without the explicit say-so from DHS, Peter King, and Barack Obama, well….

    • Marc says:

      It’s lazy and sloppy. It presumes that local mayors and police forces can’t possibly make “bad” decisions on their own; everything has to come from some higher and more sinister source.

      It’s impossible to falsify conspiracy theories. They’re politically foolish, and they’re incredibly divisive.

      This is nothing more than a bunch of leftists who hate Obama trying to hijack an unrelated movement for their sterile (and unpopular) ends.

      • Walt says:

        But this is defining “conspiracy theory” down. “The CIA assassinated Kennedy because he was going to stay out of Vietnam,” a la Oliver Stone is a conspiracy theory. This is a completely plausible speculation. Why wouldn’t DHS organize a crack-down? This seems like a routine, albeit unattractive, action of a government.

        • Marc says:

          What evidence could possibly convince you that there wasn’t some secret conspiracy? This is a serious question, and it goes to the heart of why this sort of speculation is harmful.

          If you have actual evidence then the charges would be serious – for example, a lot of Bush administration prosecutors pursued trials of politicians that they didn’t like. That did lead to some speculation about central co-ordination.

          But in the absence of evidence this is utterly circular logic. “I think that everyone is conspiring against us, thus they are.”

          Why would the Obama administration want to suppress demonstrators who are making their case for increased taxes on the rich? Why would liberal mayors, the Republican congress, and a Democratic president all be in cahoots on this? (Remember, Wolf is postulating that Obama is conspiring with ultraconservative Congressional Republicans). Why is a federal role needed to explain what people are doing, as opposed to the idea that local governments are responsible for their own actions? The mayor of one city copying something that “worked” from another city isn’t exactly new, for example; why is anything more required to explain what is going on?

          • April says:

            Why would the Obama administration want to suppress demonstrators who are making their case for increased taxes on the rich? Why would liberal mayors, the Republican congress, and a Democratic president all be in cahoots on this? (Remember, Wolf is postulating that Obama is conspiring with ultraconservative Congressional Republicans).

            The folks involved in the Occupy movement are not Obama fans, by and large. They disagree with him on foreign policy and a number of other issues. That we all agree we want to tax the rich doesn’t mean occupiers plan to vote for him.

            All of the mayors from the cities who experienced the worst police brutality are Democrats.

            And please, answer Walt’s question. What on earth is so difficult to believe about the Feds coordinating to crack down on a massive worldwide movement that opposes just about everything the authority figures do?

            The backlash to Wolf’s article sounds more and more like “don’t you dare criticize my president!!!!!!!” to me.

            Nonsense.

            • ploeg says:

              What makes it difficult to believe all this? Occam’s Razor. Even if Obama and the DHS wanted Occupy to go away, there was no benefit to making Occupy go away all at once throughout the entire country, and Obama and the DHS would assume substantial risk if they got involved. Forget about the fallout among your base, the turf battles with the local governments and Congress would have been headache enough. Much better to let things run their course and let the local governments take care of it. Maybe offer advice if asked, but let the initiative remain with the locals.

            • What on earth is so difficult to believe…

              is a really lousy way to go about understanding the world.

              You sound like the militia kooks explaining that it just makes so much sense that the UN is going to send us all to FEMA camps. It’s just makes so much sense!

          • Kreutzer says:

            “Why would the Obama administration want to suppress demonstrators who are making their case for increased taxes on the rich? Why would liberal mayors, the Republican congress, and a Democratic president all be in cahoots on this? ”
            Because OWS wants quite a bit more than scraps?

          • Walt says:

            See, this is exactly what I mean. Genuine conspiracy theories require all kinds of precisely working moving parts. All this requires is DHS getting on the phone with big-city mayors and saying “This has gone on enough. Occupy is a threat to public order, and something needs to be done. The mayors of X, Y, and Z are already on board.” A really determined mayor could refuse, but it’s just not that far-fetched that DHS could have encouraged a crack-down. A single crack-down stands out and gets all of the media attention. If you coordinate a bunch of crack-downs, then each crack-down provides cover for the others.

            It’s just weird to me that you think that government officials aren’t capable of that level of cooperation. Are they too dumb to work the “conference call” setting on their phones, or something?

            • ploeg says:

              If DHS made the call to the local governments, the local governments would almost certainly tell DHS to piss up a rope and let the local government be the judge of what’s a threat to the public order and what isn’t.

              No, I would think that the call, if it happened, would go from the local government to DHS, and would at most be a request for advice. More likely, the mayors have each others’ phone numbers and would be calling each other and coordinating in that way. When you call another mayor, you know that the other mayor isn’t going to tread on your turf.

              • wiley says:

                NO shit. I remember when Ed Meese was calling librarians and telling them to take books off the shelves that had been previously declassified but then reclassified under Bush I, and the librarians told him to go fuck himself and hung up on him.

                • People have the wrong ideas about librarians. They see the shy, mousy characters in movies.

                  Librarians are fierce. They’ll lie down in front of the trucks.

                • DocAmazing says:

                  At least in San Francisco, City Hall employees ain’t librarians. During the Clinton years, they sat up and barked when the DNC called. If they got a call from the Feds, I imagine the scene would be similar.

                  Remember, we’re talking about law enforcement–they’re the chain-of-command, do-as-you’re-told guys, remember?

                • Except that local law enforcement is not in any chain of command that includes federal law enforcement. Quite the opposite, they tend to be zealous in defense of their turf.

                • Halloween Jack says:

                  Yep; I decided to become a librarian when my aunt–a liberal and former librarian–sent me an article from the Nation about how the Bush I FBI had shown up in public libraries demanding the circulation records of certain patrons, and the librarians told them to go stuff it. Later, the PATRIOT Act gave the feds authority to simply demand circ records whenever they felt like it, and many libraries simply started purging circ records on a regular basis in response.

            • It’s just weird to me that you think that government officials aren’t capable of that level of cooperation.

              Of course they’re capable of it. The question is whether they did, not whether it makes sense to you that they might, or whether it’s physically possible that they did.

              It’s physically possible for a group of Jewish bankers to meet together to conspire to manipulate currencies. And it’s quite easy to come up with a motive for why they might do so.

              So I guess the reasonable thing to do would be to assume that it had happened, unless it’s proven otherwise, right?

              But this is different, because “we’re the good guys.”

              • Walt says:

                Since both the theory is plausible, and the negation of the theory is plausible, the reasonable thing to do is to have no strong opinion.

                It’s bizarre to me that you think this is at like the “Jewish bankers” theory. It’s actually _not_ possible for Jewish bankers to manipulate currencies. The turnover in currency markets is between 3 and 4 trillion dollars. A day. Nobody (other than a sovereign government) can manipulate exchange rates.

                On the other hand, in the 90s it was rumored that Nasdaq broker-dealers were artificially keeping bid-ask spreads wide. The only evidence was indirect — they would always quote in round numbers (quarter points instead of eighths). The SEC investigated, and it turned out they were actually colluding behind the scenes. Sometimes people really do things, and manage to keep it secret for a while.

                • Since both the theory is plausible, and the negation of the theory is plausible, the reasonable thing to do is to have no strong opinion.

                  Um, no, it’s really not. What you just did was argue that it’s necessary to prove a negative.

                  The reasonable thing to do is look for evidence for the theory, and if there is none, conclude that it’s unlikely to be true.

                  The only evidence was indirect — they would always quote in round numbers (quarter points instead of eighths).

                  So, in other words, there was a great deal more evidence for the theory, than what we have here.

                • Walt says:

                  Sure, if you’re going to insist that a negative is true, you have to prove a negative. Life’s tough.

                • Sure, if you’re going to insist that a negative is true, you have to prove a negative. Life’s tough.

                  Did you crib this from a Bill Kristol column about Saddams nuclear program?

            • Hogan says:

              My police department drops bombs on people. No way they’re letting some pencilneck Washington bureaucrat tell them when it’s OK to break out the pepper spray and nightsticks.

              • Walt says:

                Notice that the mayor of Philadelphia has been slow to crack down on Occupy. As soon as the White House stops nagging him, he’s breaking out the C-4.

              • Malaclypse says:

                No way they’re letting some pencilneck Washington bureaucrat tell them when it’s OK to break out the pepper spray and nightsticks.

                Back in the 1970s, Frank Rizzo would not let the State Police patrol the parts of Rt 95 that lay within the borders of Philadelphia, because there was just no way he would let cops he could not control do anything in his city.

                Perhaps needless to say, local control under Rizzo did not go well.

    • Lee says:

      Walt, the article has generated so much outrage because its foolishness from a person who should no better. Has it ever occurred to Naomi Wolf and a bunch of mayors acting independently decided to cramp down on the Occupy movement without any need to coordinate with the Feds?

      • Walt says:

        You’re arguing that a bunch of mayors independently decided to all pursue the same policy? And you’re surprised that some people find this an inadequate explanation?

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          You’re arguing that a bunch of mayors independently decided to all pursue the same policy? And you’re surprised that some people find this an inadequate explanation?

          Why is this at all implausible? “Local authorities crack down on protestors as protests continue” is a dog-bites-man story if I’ve ever heard one, and I have no idea why you think they would need the DHS to coordinate.

          • Bill Murray says:

            It’s implausible because the mayors said (well Mayor Quan said that) they were in contact about the issue, so they clearly did not independently decide to all pursue the same policy.

            Now whether DHS was involved is a separate question awaiting FOIA request fulfillment. I would be surprised DHS wasn’t involved in the contact (which is not the same thing as DHS initiating the response) as coordinating forces is one of DHS’ primary reasons for existing.

            • Hold on. We know that local mayors were in contact with each other through the Conference of Mayors, and on a conference call through PERF.

              But we certainly don’t know that they proceeded to “all pursue the same policy.”

              In fact, we know that some of the mayors on those calls did not evict their OWS protesters, and we know that the evictions that did take place were carried out differently in different places . For instance, some of them were first negotiated with; some of them were first warned; some of them were taken by surprise by the raids.

              • chris says:

                We know that local mayors were in contact with each other through the Conference of Mayors

                …the existence of which is quite enough to explain coordination among mayors without dragging in DHS, *even if* coordination among mayors itself were proved, which it hasn’t been.

          • wiley says:

            Every election year local authorities crack down on gangs and do massive sweeps of the streets to arrest prostitutes and drug dealers. It satisfies the “law and order” types and makes law enforcement look busy and worthy of their pay.

        • Lee says:

          Yes, its really the most likely explanation. The mayor’s responses to the various Occupy movements isn’t really that surprising, it happened enough times in history in response to large mass protests.

        • ploeg says:

          I’m arguing that one mayor decided to crack down, it got on the national news, and a bunch of other mayors saw that and decided that it was time for them to crack down as well. Or if the mayors decided that they needed to coordinate their efforts, they have each others’ phone numbers, and they can do the coordinating on their own.

          Also bear in mind that the cops involved were local cops. DHS can’t just drop in and commandeer local cops.

        • You’re arguing that a bunch of mayors independently decided to all pursue the same policy?

          Uh, mayors all over the country independently decide to pursue the same policy all the time. Do we need a conspiracy theory to explain why they offer tax breaks to businesses to attract jobs, too?

          Not to mention, there are quite a few mayors – include the Democratic mayor of, oh yeah, Washington, D.C., where DHS is headquartered – that haven’t conducted crackdowns.

          So what we’ve got are some mayors deciding to remove protesters from public parks after several weeks, and some other mayors who didn’t. And?

          • ploeg says:

            A number of my neighbors put up strings of electric lights on their shrubs, around their windows, and hanging from their gutters. There something fishy going on here.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

        In what sense ought Wolf to know better? As Scott points out above, she often writes half-baked crap.

        I agree with Lee about the reaction to this column…though for somewhat different reasons. “Crappy pundit writes crappy column,” is not much of a story.

        As for the underlying issue: we don’t honestly know the extent of federal involvement in the crackdown on OWS. And the fact that Wolf’s column adds little to the discussion simply, well, adds little to the discussion.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      1)She states it as fact when she has no evidence.

      2)It wouldn’t be unheard of, but it’s much more likely that the repression of the protestors was done at the initiative of the local authorities rather than the feds, Wolf’s desire to play into reactionary memes notwithstanding.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

        I totally agree with your first point…but how is claiming that federal law enforcement cracked down on a left-wing social movement a “reactionary meme”? It wasn’t wingnuts who revealed COINTELPRO in the 1970s!

    • Why wouldn’t DHS encourage a crack-down on Occupy patriotic Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment and oppose socialism? This isn’t some unheard of action for a government to take.

      FTFW. Damn that Janet Napolitano!

  9. This has been a very depressing episode.

    The whole idea of the left as the “reality-based community” is bullshit. They’re just as willing to check their guts, assume that their ideology is all they need to draw conclusions, and assume that the facts just gotta back them up, as any Fox Nooz dope mouthing off about Saddam/al Qaeda links.

    It just makes so much sense! Sigh.

    • pete says:

      Word.

      (Also true of centrists.)

      • wiley says:

        Centrists? Those people who don’t know whether they want to vote for Jessie Jackson or George Herbert Walker Bush Senior? They’re just morons who have no idea what a president is supposed to do or why they vote, but they can, so they vote.

    • dave says:

      People are dumb. Not just dumb but delusional. This is becoming a scientific and cultural consensus. See for example the various examples here;

      The new publication summarised here;

      And the view on the endemic economic delusions of the 2000s here.

      If you don’t like the NYRB’s viewpoint, you can try Mother Jones

      Then take a deep breath and remember it’s not our fault. We’re only monkeys.

    • Glenn says:

      Not sure I am willing to grant Naomi Wolf status as spokesperson for “the left.”

      • Furious Jorge says:

        No, but this is how jfl does things. People he disagrees with – especially those who regularly criticize Obama – are placed into groups, like “Protest People,” which makes it easier for him to dismiss them and everything they say without actually having to put up much of an actual argument.

        • Kreutzer says:

          If in the coming months evidence emerges that there was indeed co-ordination of the crackdowns at a federal level will any of the Very Serious here have second thoughts about Barry and the Dems? I exempt Joe From Lowell from this as he has yet to show a first thought.

          • Malaclypse says:

            I will do what I always do, hold my nose and vote for the Dems, because I know that the Rs are dramatically, horribly worse. I don’t vote for Democrats (generally – I am looking forward to voting for Warren), but I always vote against the Republicans, and on a practical level, that really means the same thing.

            Even if Obama personally went house to house and protest site to protest site rounding up protestors, he will still be less awful than any of the Republicans running. I believed in heightening the contradictions 11 years ago. I was wrong.

            • Kreutzer says:

              You’re a disgrace to Discordianism-and not in a good way!

              • Malaclypse says:

                You know, burnishing absurdist credentials, while failing to vote against the party actively working to disenfranchise minority voters, seems a bad priority. My purer-than-thou phase is well past me. Now I just hope things get worse slower.

          • Scott Lemieux says:

            So, given that there’s now no evidence of federal involvement, I’m sure that’s given you second thoughts about “Barry and the Dems,” right?

          • Marc says:

            Careful there. Your “Republican plant” odor just got obvious.

          • I exempt Joe From Lowell from this as he has yet to show a first thought.

            Funny thing for someone who got the story wrong to say to someone who go it right.

        • Yeah, you know me, dude: never putting up any actual arguments.

          That’s me. No way you’re projecting.

          • wiley says:

            O.K. guys. Put away your peni— uh, swords.

            • ‘Penes’ (penis, penis, m. is third declension, like ‘index’, hence a plural in -es) or ‘penises’, but never ‘peni’.

              Ask me about ‘octipodes’ some time.

              • mark f says:

                What about octopenes?

              • Hogan says:

                Or octopodes, even.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  It is clearly antipodes, you revisionist splitter.

                • Hogan says:

                  Ah, the round-earth heresy rears its ugly head again. Now let us lower our ugly heads in prayer that the Lord will smite the unbelievers hip and thigh, O holiest of Gods with the wrathfulness and the vengeance and the bloodrain and the “hey hey hey it hurts me.”

              • wiley says:

                I’m not falling for that one. Uh uh. Not asking. No.

                (what about "octipodes"?)

                • ‘Octopus’ is Greek, not Latin, and third declension to boot, not second. So the plural ‘octopi’ although universal, is formed by false analogy to Latin masculine second declension nouns like alumnus > alumni. ‘Octopus’ isn’t even in Lewis & Short, the big Latin dictionary.

                  But the plural of ‘pous’, foot, is ‘podes’, as correctly used in ‘Antipodes’, for Australia and NZ.

                • ajay says:

                  Nope, “Octopus” is not Greek or Latin, it’s English. It’s in the dictionary and everything. “Eight-armed marine cephalopod.” Look it up.

                  There’s a Latin word as well, octopus. It means “octopus”. It’s in the Latin name of the octopus, Octopus vulgaris.

                  The English word is derived from the Latin word, and the Latin one comes from Greek roots, but the word “octopus” is an English word and we can make whatever the hell plural we want from it, because English is a living language. I personally prefer “octopusses”.

                  The plural of the Latin word “octopus” is “octopi” because it’s a regular second declension noun. The plural of the Greek word “oktopous”, meaning “an octopus” would be “oktopodes” but we aren’t speaking Greek. Or Latin.

            • You’re just jealous because these people don’t ritually chant your handle to make themselves feel better when they’ve been caught with their pants down.

              (Hmm…is “these people” a group, or do I actually need to come up with name? Because I can totally come up with a name!)

      • Not sure I am willing to grant Naomi Wolf status as spokesperson for “the left.”

        No, but she’s certainly not alone in this. This bullshit story has quite a following on the (looks around cautiously for Jorge, who hates descriptive terms with a white hot passion) the left.

        • Glenn says:

          I must say that I read quite a few “left” blogs and the only way I even heard about Wolf’s thesis was through Scott’s smackdown in this post. So, I guess unless you’re willing to pony up a little more info about this wide-ranging leftist buy-in to her argument, I’m going to stand by my original assumption as to your comment. I.e., that it was just intellectually lazy pox-on-both-houses contrarian bullshit.

          • Really?

            I guess those blogs you read don’t include the Daily Kos diary section. I guess your exposure doesn’t include Keith Olbermann’s show. I guess your conception of the left doesn’t include Michael Moore.

            I congratulate you on your taste in blogs, but it’s a good idea sometimes to cast the next a little wider, and get an idea of what the people you didn’t carefully select for the proximity of their viewpoint to your own, have to say.

          • wiley says:

            You haven’t heard of FireDogLake? Or Digby (who used to be a lot better, imo), or Huffington Post (what a fucking rag, if you want to know where the idiot liberals are, read the comments there), or Daily Kos, or Information Clearinghouse, or Counterpunch…

            • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

              In fact, digby has done nothing of the sort (here’s her reply to those demanding that she apologize for the Naomi Wolf piece of which she was entirely critical).

              Far too much of the criticism of Wolf’s (pretty predictably) idiotic op-ed has consisted of people trying to tar by largely imaginary association other progressives who happen to be supportive of OWS and critical of the Obama administration (as this thread nicely illustrates).

          • Ed Marshall says:

            It lit up all over my Facebook. You don’t know any occupy people.

          • Ahem.

            But it’s also now confirmed that it’s now, as some Justice Department official screwed up and admitted that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated the riot-cop raids on a dozen major #Occupy Wall Street demonstration camps nationwide yesterday and today.

            • DocAmazing says:

              Since the story at the Examiner was from an unnamed source at Justice, what part of this is inaccurate?

              • The entire thing. You should have clicked the link.

                Had you clicked through, you would have learned that the “confirmation” in quesiton refers to that very same Examiner story about the alleged Justice Department source.

    • chris says:

      The whole idea of the left as the “reality-based community” is bullshit.

      Well, not completely. The reality-based community is mostly a subset of the left because many current right-wing orthodoxies are violently incompatible with reality. (Creationism, climate change denial, EMH, Laffer… you get the idea.) But it’s still a *subset* of the left, not the whole left.

      You can’t be rational and be on the right, except in a Straussian “I don’t believe this crap but it suits my purposes to have the rubes believe it” sort of way, which is to sociopathic for most people to either stomach or pull off. But you certainly can be irrational and on the left.

  10. wengler says:

    It saddens me to see that multiple websites I frequent consider this something worthy of thousands of words of commentary rather than the over 4000 people arrested for resisting the corporate takeover of the government.

    We can assume that any number of governmental tiers from the local, state, and federal governments have been involved in discussions about the Occupy movement. Sounds like a great idea for an investigative report. Perhaps we will get one from Seymour Hersch in a couple years.

    • Kreutzer says:

      National healing requires we look forward no back dont’cha know

    • It saddens me to see that multiple websites I frequent consider this something worthy of thousands of words of commentary rather than the over 4000 people arrested for resisting the corporate takeover of the government.

      I agree. The OWSers, or their online fans, really stepped on their own dick bushing this bogus story, instead of sticking to a message that was growing and resonating.

      Take a look at the type of posts that were running on LGM before this fanciful little narrative started taking up all the oxygen.

      • wengler says:

        Yes, the OWS movement is horribly hurt because of a poorly sourced article written by Naomi Wolf in a British newspaper.

        I think posts like this suitably reflect the uncomfortable relationship between OWS and prominent bloggers in the left blogosphere, many of whom have an interest in protecting and promoting the Obama administration.

        Yes, the article might be shit but the truth is we have no idea what type of coordination there is.

        • It saddens me to see that multiple websites I frequent consider this something worthy of thousands of words of commentary rather than the over 4000 people arrested for resisting the corporate takeover of the government.

          Yes, the OWS movement is horribly hurt because of a poorly sourced article written by Naomi Wolf in a British newspaper.

          I’ll leave you two alone.

        • I think posts like this suitably reflect the uncomfortable relationship between OWS and prominent bloggers in the left blogosphere, many of whom have an interest in protecting and promoting the Obama administration.

          Or maybe – just maybe – the story is bullshit, and objecting to bullshit doesn’t require an explanation accusing people of unacceptable ideological deviationism and other forms of wrongthink.

  11. [...] Alternet, but Holland’s criticism mirrors my criticism, as well as karoli (Crooks and Liars), Scott Lemieux (Lawyers, Guns, and Money), Corey Robin (Al Jazeera English), and Will Wilkinson (The Economist) [...]

  12. [...] Alternet, but Holland’s criticism mirrors my criticism, as well as karoli (Crooks and Liars), Scott Lemieux (Lawyers, Guns, and Money), Corey Robin (Al Jazeera English), and Will Wilkinson (The Economist) [...]

  13. [...] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}Following up on last year’s discussion of Naomi Wolf’s credulous, implicitly anti-federal power conspiracy theorizing, Corey Robin [...]

  14. [...] the need to invoke a federal role.  As Scott Lemieux (“Lawyers, Guns and Money”) put it mockingly — he seems not to be able to help himself — Wolf’s position implied that [...]

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site