A very partial list of people and stuff that no longer takes up space in my brain since I quit Twitter

• Molly Crabapple
• Chapo House 
• Umair H.
• Sarah Kendzior
• Hillary Clinton
• Clara Jeffrey
• Chris Hayes

I miss some of you though! (Not that you'll ever see this.)

FTF

Thursday, November 5, 2020

As they've done for more than three years, the players kneel.   Fists raised, heads bowed, they kneel.

It's eerily silent as the anticipation builds. No insults raining down, nor yells of support for the kneeling players. No one in the crowd of 80,000 dares take a breath, let alone utter a word. All eyes are glued to the field, where the players kneel.

And then she emerges through the tunnel and onto the field.  The president-elect strides towards the kneeling players. She walks right up to a hulking lineman, and looks him in the eye. The crowd, which had erupted into a frenzy when she appeared, is silent once again.

And then she kneels.

There's not a dry-eye in the house or an unkneeled knee. Everyone - the fans, the coaches, the referees - #takestheknee.

As the first familiar notes of the Star Spangled Banner start playing, she looks from kneeling man to kneeling man and fixes her strong, caring, dignified gaze on each one. And then she rises.

And one by one, the players rise. Hands on hearts. Eyes proud. They rise.

And the refs rise. And the coaches rise. And the crowd rises. And even Sam Grandy, the 88-year old peanut vendor who, if truth be told, had been ambivalent about kneeling in the first place because he feared this very moment, having to stand from a kneeling position, rises. Everyone rises.

The darkness has lifted. We are with her. And she is with us.

America rises.

The Resistance

Chapter 1

I don’t know what made me do it.  Maybe I was feeling reckless. Maybe I picked up a note of defiance in her voice as she ordered her latte. Or maybe it’s just that as long as humans can remember Freedom, we’ll never lose our capacity to Love.

I placed my order and as I followed her from the barista towards the cashier, I saw my chance. Reaching for my wallet, I leaned in and whispered, “#Drumpf.”

She didn’t acknowledge me or even flinch. Had I misjudged? I started to panic, and my eyes instinctively glanced towards the door, half-expecting to see the Trump Troopers. But all was quiet. She Foursquared for her drink and headed for the door.  By the time I had paid and generously tipped 12%, she was gone.

I walked out into the bright sunlight and pulled out my phone. A little crestfallen but also buoyed by the cherry notes of my espresso, I pulled out my phone, and, after a quick check of my surroundings, opened Twitter. I was just about to type in “#Drumpf” when a voice called out from the shadows, “Do you whisper Keith Olbermann’s secret hashtag of the day in every stranger’s ear or should I be flattered?”

It was her. And she was vaping.

Dear President Obama

Note: Italicized portions of this letter were written by my good friend Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Dear President Obama,

I am pretending to write to you because I am a fan of lazy rhetorical devices.

I know, in the wake of last night’s Democratic debacle, there is no shortage of people offering you advice.  Bomb Ebola. Make nice with the GOP. Stay the fuck away from Hillary. 

My advice is a little different: ignore all the advice and listen to your heart. Because in your heart-of-hearts, you’ve always known the right thing to do. And just in case you can't hear you heart right now, here's what it's telling you.
 

Double down. Go all-in. Go big right now.  Put your cards on the table. Pretend you’re going to fold, and then announce, “Fold? Me? Fuck you. I’ve got 4 aces. I’m all in.”  Look at Ted Cruz’s face when you say it. Laugh manically. Act big and act fast. Triple down. Take a smoke break. And then go the fuck all-in again. 

For 6 years, maybe even for your entire life, you’ve pretended to be someone you’re not.  The time for playing the long game is over. We’re in the home stretch. Take advantage of the end of this year’s election cycle—the next fifty or so days—to immediately try to change the subject, in a big way. Do all the things we know you want to do but haven’t done yet for reasons we don’t quite understand even though we’re damn sure they are good reasons. Dominate the news.

Cancel the Keystone XL. Recognize Palestine. Let the right-wing come unglued. Call off the drone strikes. Host a national teach-in with real climate scientists, on C-Span, and use it to drive a nail in the coffin of the fake, corporate-funded, “climate denial” science. Kick Dick Cheney in the balls. Nominate a diverse set of progressives to fill every judicial vacancy at every level.  Free Chelsea Manning. 

Change the media narrative. Nominate Karl Marx to the Federal Reserve Board. Pick a fight with Rick Perry and/or Jan Brewer, if need be, and be glad that you’re in a high-profile fight with them. Fly down to Guantanamo, unlock the cages, put all the detainees on Air Force One and drop them at Paul Ryan’s house. Force his hand. Make Paul Ryan stand on his front porch and say, “I’m sorry those Guantanamo detainees are not allowed in my house.”  Limit the pay of chief executives to some reasonable ratio to that of their average workers.

Those are my suggestions. I’m sure people as smart as John Podesta and David Axelrod can think of a couple more.

Be the change you want to see.

Sí, se puede,

Fire Tom Friedman

Mother Jones' David Corn Likes to Screw Goats*

This post has been sitting in my draft folder for at least a year now. There was, prior to me typing these words, no content except that title with its tantalizing asterisk. I'm sure at one time I intended to make some insightful observation about David Corn or Mother Jones or something for which David Corn's affinity for goat-fucking was only a jumping-off point, but I've long-forgotten what it was. It's probably better this way.

Does Prosecutor Who Investigated Todashev's Killing Know How To Use Google?

On May 3, a diligent blogger was able to identify the mysterious FBI agent who shot and killed Ibragim Todashev as Aaron McFarlane, thanks to the fact that Florida's Ninth Circuit State Attorney Jeffrey L. Ashton doesn't properly black out names in his redacted report on the killing. As a result of that error, the same blog and the Boston Globe were able to discover that prior to joining the FBI, Todashev's killer was a violent and dirty Oakland cop. Now the Globe reports that the prosecutor who found that Todashev's killing was justified was unaware of McFarlane's history. 

A spokesman for Ashton said this week that the FBI did not tell Ashton or his investigator about McFarlane’s past in Oakland.

“Mr. Ashton did not know any of the background of the officers,” spokesman Richard I. Wallsh said. “What we presented in our report was a full and exhaustive discussion of the information that we had in our possession.”

Even before Aaron McFarlane became a household name (in my house, at least, I say his name a lot), a quick search revealed that McFarlane was a former Oakland cop who was involved in one of the most notorious police corruption scandals in recent memory, and was the subject of two police brutality lawsuits. If Ashton didn't know McFarlane's background, either the man who flunked  Redaction 101 has also yet to master the simple Google search, or he's remarkably incurious.

It would be nice if people would stop calling Ashton's regurgitation of FBI talking points an "independent" report. There's literally nothing in there that the FBI didn't want in there. The fact that Ashton -- who spent pages and pages detailing Todahsev's  violent past including a rather bizarre obsession with his mixed martial art YouTube videos -- claims he didn't even know that the agent he was investigating was once accused of holding a man down while another cop stomped on him tells you all you need to know.

Ashton's job was never to get to the bottom of what happened to Todashev, but to polish a giant FBI turd and make the questions go away.  And they almost did -- mainstream media coverage about Todashev's death basically stopped after Ashton published his "findings."  But now, thanks to Ashton's incompetent redactions, maybe even our timid journalist class will find the courage to starting asking questions again. They can start with this one:

"Mr. Ashton, why didn't you Google Aaron McFarlane?"

The Todashev Files: The Questions Keep Coming

Conor Friedersdorf, who's done a decent job of covering the Todashev killing all along, asks some good questions at the Atlantic.  I'd like to ask a few of my own, starting with one that Friedersdorf doesn't go far enough on: What's up with the text that Trooper One sent to Trooper Two and FBI Agent right before Todashev allegedly attacked?

Here's a text sent from inside the apartment. "Be on guard. He is in vulnerable position to do something bad. Be on guard now. I see him looking around at times ..." Isn't that a weird text? So needlessly long and repetitive. Who texts like that? Especially when you're nervous about the guy you're supposed to be paying attention to?

Who texts like that, indeed. Well, not the guy sending the text, for one. Check out the other texts sent by this same trooper that same evening (pp. 2-3). "He signed his Miranda. About to tell his involvement." "He will be in custody after interviews." "whos your daddy." (Ewww.) Not one to mince words, this one. Why did he suddenly get so verbose at the very time he was extremely worried about Todashev doing "something bad"?  And then there's the fact that the text had no effect on what happened next -- except that it took Trooper One's eyes of Todashev at an absolutely critical moment -- because no one read the text when it was sent. Trooper Two was on the phone and didn't see it until after Todashev was dead. FBI Agent never looked up from his questioning of Todashev to read it. In fact, Trooper One claims FBI Agent's phone never "dinged" to indicate he had a new text, which is why Trooper One looked down at his own phone to see if the text actually sent, which is why his eyes were off Todashev when he launched the coffee table.

A uncharacteristically long, awkward text written at a moment when it was crucial to have eyes on Todashev  Since I'm a troll and not a Serious Journalist, I'll ask instead of tiptoeing around.

1. Was the infamous "Be on guard" text sent after Todashev was dead?

This question thing is fun. Here's some more:

2. Why did they interview Todashev in his home? 

According to the sworn statements of both Troopers and the FBI Agent (pages 26-48 and 55-57), they wanted to conduct the interview at the police station and were very wary of questioning Todashev in his home. They knew Todashev was prone to violence -- the FBI had watched him beat a man up badly in a parking lot just a few weeks before. (And didn't intervene - cool agency, that FBI.) They'd also spent a lot of time of watching Todashev's MMA YouTube videos so they knew he was really strong and tough.

And yet, when Todashev refused to come to the police station, they agreed to meet at this apartment. Why? Because Todashev was scheduled to fly to Russia two days later and they needed to talk to him before he left the country. So they decided the risk of putting themselves in a dangerous situation was worth it.

Did they not have any way of preventing Todashev from leaving the country? He was supposedly a suspect in a triple homicide. He had outstanding assault charges. Could they not have held him on some pretext? And we haven't even gotten to the fact that Todashev was a Muslim and a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- at the time Scary Terrorist # 1.  Do you really believe the FBI -- an agency that systemically surveills, harasses, and entraps Muslims -- was helpless to stop Todashev from flying out of the country?

If you don't -- and you shouldn't -- then it's really worth asking the reason the interview didn't take place in a secure (for law enforcement, anyway) police station.

3. Why didn't the Troopers or FBI Agent mention their video and audio recordings of that night when they gave their sworn statements the next day?

The day after Todashev was killed, both Troopers and FBI Agents gave sworn statements (pages 29-48 and 55-57) about the events in Todashev's apartment. Their accounts are pretty detailed, with the FBI Agent devoting about a 1/2 page to describing Todashev's final piss (p.46). But one pretty major detail gets left out of all 3 accounts: the fact that they had made video and audio recordings of substantial parts of the evening.

These omissions (or the attendant PR nightmare if discovered) were apparently very concerning to the FBI, which limited its only on-the-record followup interviews (pages 78-94) with the Troopers and FBI Agent to the subject of the recordings. (Guess there wasn't anything else to ask about).  Here's what each man said, with my annotations/questions interspersed.:

Trooper One:

I did not mention the recordings in the initial interview because I was concentrating on the actual shooting incident itself. [Not true. His account is of the entire evening, not just the shooting incident.]Furthermore, I was never asked. The recordings were made known to other people involved in the handling of this case. [Who? When? There is no evidence that anyone outside of FBI Agent and the two Troopers was told about the recordings for days.]. Also, the recordings were provided to District Attorney’s Office the day after we arrived back in Massachusetts. [When was this?] Nothing was out of the ordinary, as MSP tends to record subject interviews. [Ha! And more Ha! coming.] Had I known the Shooting Incident Review Team was not aware of the recordings, I would have told them. [The very non-threatening FBI's team responsible for investigating the incident -- the one responsible for clearing agents in 150 consecutive shootings -- didn't learn about the recordings for 2 weeks.]

Trooper Two's did not give a sworn statement, but his follow-up interviewe is summarized by FBI investigators:

[Trooper Two] returned to his department in Boston he checked his audio recorder and found it had recorded a large portion of the interview with Todashev. [Again, when was this? How long were recordings of that night only in the hands of those involved in the shooting? And really, Trooper Two? You weren't at all tempted to check what was on that recorder until you got back to Boston "and found it had recorded a large portion of the interview with Todashev.] He submitted the recorder to his department for retrieval and dissemination to the FBI.”

And the shooter himself? He didn't even know that anything was being recorded! 

During most of the interview of Todashev, I was sitting on the stairs and Trooper One was standing to my left and behind me. I did not see any recording devices or video cameras at the time we interviewed Todashev.

… I first learned the interview was recorded on Friday, May 24, 2013 [3 days after shooting!], when I received a message from Trooper One who advised videos were uploaded to the Google cloud. [FBI Agent's claim that he did not know the interview was recorded is contradicted by the fact that both FBI Agent admits -- and Troopers confirm (pages 78-94) -- that he was present for a conversation during the ride to Todashev's whether Florida was a one-party state (meaning they could record without Todashev's consent). They called someone at the Orlando Police Department, who confirmed it was a one-party state. So FBI was involved in a fairly detailed conversation about whether there would be a recording. He also knew that Trooper One had a video camera. And he also acknowledges that he heard Todashev say "Don't do that" to Trooper One when  Todashev noticed Trooper One was recording, but FBI Agent claims he didn't know what Todashev was referring to.] Once I located the recordings on the computer I found there were both audio and video recordings of the interview of Todashev. [He "located" the recordings. He doesn't say if he looked at them. But he sure didn't tell anyone!] I found out after the fact, Trooper One had used a high definition recorder which he had placed on the kitchen counter which eventually ran out of battery life, at which point Trooper One switched to his telephone to continue recording. I also found out after returning to Boston that Trooper Two had a recorder in his pocket during the interview. At the time of the interview, I did not know the interview was being recorded by anyone.

Trooper One advised he had passed the videos to other individuals who had a need to know in his department. After this had happened, I did not think about the recording. When I returned to work after being off for the injury I received as a result of the assault on my person by Todashev, I was contacted by REDACTED with some additional questions regarding my initial signed sworn statement. I mentioned to REDACTED something to the effect of, it would be nice if we released the video because it would refute many of the press’ allegations. [What a great idea. I wonder why the FBI didn't do this!] REDACTED was very surprised by this because he did not know about the video’s existence. [It's a couple of weeks into the FBI's most important internal investigation and the internal investigator at the agency doesn't know about the videos.] He advised he would need a copy. I mentioned to REDACTED that I had only learned of the videos after the incident. …”

These accounts seem very implausible and lead to more questions:

3a) How long were the three law enforcement involved in questioning the only people in the world that knew of the existence of these recordings. Did Trooper One or Two watch/listen to the recordings after the shooting before they turned the recordings over?

3b) Did the FBI or any law enforcement agency examine the camcorder or phones that were used to record for signs that any video or audio recordings had  been deleted? There's no evidence that they did.

3c) Why were only portions of the evening recorded?

Here's a summary of what Trooper One told the  FBI (pages 84-87):

He retrieved his video camera and began recording about 20 minutes in. A while later he noticed the camera had stopped because the video card was full. He deleted some family videos stored on the camera and began recording again. Again the recorder stop because of lack of space. He deleted some more family videos, along with the first part of the Todashev meeting which he deemed unimportant. A while later he noticed his camera battery died, so he began recording on his phone. He recorded on his phone until he needed to use it to text. Drat! He missed Todashev's attack and the shooting.

Here's what Trooper Two told the Florida Investigator about his partial recording:

When asked why an audio recording was not collected for the entire length of the interview Trooper Two informed, “The um, my recorder died. It ah, shut off and I, I think there was another part, I may have went to pause it, inside my pocket and then restart it when he came down from the bathroom, I think is maybe when I paused it. Ah, I don’t recall, but ah, I tried to turn it back on and it died again. I didn’t realize it was not working, until after everything was said and done and realized it had…”

Double drat! He missed the attack and shooting too.

A few things stand out. One, even if you accept the Troopers' explanation, the bumbling and fumbling and casualness with which the evening was recorded certainly doesn't read like a critical interrogation of someone who is suspected of committing three murders with the Boston Bomber. Two, the starting and stopping of the video camera would make it easier to delete selected files/moments, were one inclined to so. And, of course, all that on and off action begs the question:

3d) Were the recording devices delibrately shut off at various times because the law enforcement present did not want those moments recorded?

In addition to the questions raised in this post, there's also The Mystery of the Flying Coffee Table.

I'm not claiming that every single one of these questions has a nefarious answer, but I think they are all reasonable questions to ask and ask aggressively. And one gets the impression that the investigator for the Florida AG's office didn't ask any of these questions. Which, of course, isn't surprising because investigations of killer cops and FBI agents are almost always just for show.

Which is all the more reason we shouldn't accept their answers. 

The Todashev Files: The Mystery of the Flying Coffee Table

Given my propensity to write fake reports, I'm probably not the best one to break down the Florida AG's report on Todashev's killing. But I've spent a couple of hours with it, and there's a lot that doesn't come close to making sense. Let's start with the coffee table.

According to the official version of events,  Massachusetts State Trooper Number Two is outside the apartment, while Trooper One and FBI Agent are inside with Todashev. Trooper One is sitting on the stairs to the apartment's second floor. FBI Agent is sitting in a folding chair across from Todashev, who is sitting on a mattress. In between the FBI Agent and Todashev is a large white coffee table. Todashev is writing his confession on the table.  Here's a picture of Todashev sitting in front of the table without the FBI agent.

Trooper One is getting concerned that Todashev is getting more and more agitated after confessing to Waltham murders. So he texts Trooper Two and FBI Agent, “Be on guard. He is in vulnerable position to do something bad. Be on guard now. I see him looking around at times.” But Trooper Two is on the phone so he doesn't see the text and stays outside the apartment. Meanwhile, Trooper One does not hear a "ding" indicating that FBI Agent received his text so he looks down at his phone to make sure his message went through. At that moment, FBI Agent looks down at his notepad.

With no eyes on him, Todashev leaps into action. He flips the coffee table into the air, striking FBI Agent. He then runs into the kitchen and starts rummaging around. Todashev then picks up a red broom stick and charges Trooper One. FBI Agent, thinking both his own and Trooper One's lives are in danger, shoots Todashev 3 times. When that doesn't stop Todashev, he fire four more bullets and kills him.

OK. Back to the table. According to the official version: 1) Both Troopers and FBI Agent were very concerned about interviewing Todashev in his home because they knew he was violent; after all the FBI had witnessed Todashev beat up a man badly in a parking lot (without intervening) and also watched Todashev's MMA videos on YouTube. 2) Both Trooper One and FBI Agent were very concerned Todashev becoming increasingly agitated and going to try something. 3)Despite these concerns, one Trooper left the room while both FBI Agent and Trooper One took their eyes off Todashev. 4) Todashev attacked at the very instant he was unwatched.  (This version of events is found in both the State AG's report and his letter summarizing his findings.

But it gets much weirder. Here's a picture of FBI agent's head where he was supposedly hit by flying table.

Notice the gash is on on the back on his head. Now remember, he's sitting facing Todashev looking down at his note pad. How did the coffee table cause this wound? Go back and look at the coffee table. It's big. Granted, Todashev is one strong dude. But he threw the coffee high enough in the air to come down and land on FBI Agent's head from above?

And then there's this: When Trooper One submitted written testimony (p.34) the day after the incident, he wrote "I was sitting on the stairs across from SA (FBI Agent) , who was sitting in a chair directly across from Todaschev, who was sitting on the bed.  A small table (emphasis added) separated SA and Todaschev." 

But the real kicker is this:  The FBI Agent's description of what happened to his head (p. 46), also taken from written testimony the next day.

I was reading my notepad when I heard a loud noise and suddenly felt a blow to the back of my head. I was knocked partially off my chair, but  caught myself. I saw Todashev running past me and I tried to grab him. I removed my weapon from the holster and aimed the gun at Todashev who had run towards the kitchen.

To recap: In testimony the next day, FBI Agent doesn't even mention being hit with a flying table, just that he "felt a blow to the back of my head." Now I understand that he was looking down at his notepad, but he didn't happen to notice that the blow to his head was caused by that big (small?) coffee table flying through the air?

The official FBI and Massachusetts State Police version of the coffee table -- faithfully regurgitated by Florida DA -- is crap. And that's just the coffee table. There's so much more blatant and obvious bullshit in these here 500 pages.

Praise Jesus: An Exclusive Look at the FBI's Todashev Investigation

It’s been ten months since Ibragim Todashev was killed in his apartment while being interrogated by an FBI agent and two Massachusetts State Police officers. During that time, wild-eyed conspiracy theorists have engaged in irresponsible speculation based on the most minor of details. Some tinfoil hats have even gone so far as to suggest that the FBI agent who killed Todashev might have wanted him dead, simply because: 1) Todashev was interrogated in his own home and shot seven times, including once in the top of the head; 2) the FBI keeps changing its story and has claimed at different times that Todashev charged the agent with a knife, a pole, a pipe, a broom and a ceremonial sword; and 3) since his death, Todashev’s friends have been systematically harassed, arrested, and deported. 

Fortunately, the FBI has conducted its own internal investigation of the shooting with the thoroughness we’ve come to expect from the agency that has left no stone unturned in clearing its agents of 150 consecutive shootings. And while the FBI has not yet announced its findings with regards to Todashev’s unfortunate death, Fire Tom Friedman was able to obtain a copy of the still-classified report, a portion of which is produced below. At the FBI’s request, FTF has changed the names of the law enforcement personnel involved to appropriate pseudonyms.

On May 21, 2013, Special Agent Jesus of the Boston FBI Office and Officers Stellar and Awesome of the Massachusetts State Police traveled to Orlando for their annual trip escorting blind kids to Disney World. The following day, after tucking in the exhausted, smiling children, the three men decided to hit a local animal shelter to see if they could score some puppies for the kids. On the way there, their vehicle was cut off by a weaving Ibragim Todashev, who taunted them before speeding off. Concerned, they decided to forgo the animal shelter and began following Mr. Todashev’s vehicle. When Mr. Todashev pulled into an apartment complex and got out of his car, Special Agent Jesus approached him.

Todashev began cursing and gesticulating wildly but his demeanor changed as soon as Special Agent Jesus identified himself. “FBI? Oh man. Do I have some shit to tell you,” remarked Mr. Todashev. Special Agent Jesus urged him not to speak to law enforcement without a lawyer present but Mr Todashev insisted that the men come into his apartment. 

As soon as they were inside, Mr. Todashev broke down crying and said, “I miss my best friend Tamarlan Tsarnaev so much. You know the guy I mean? He bombed the Boston Marathon. We were very close – we did everything together.”

Special Agent Jesus consoled Mr. Todashev and gave him a big hug. While Mr. Todashev cried on Jesus’ shoulder, he sobbed, “When I say we did everything together, I really mean it. One time we killed 3 pot dealers in Waltham, Massachusetts.”

“Whoa, slow down,” said Special Agent Jesus. “You really need to stop right now and call a lawyer. Anything you tell me can be used against you in a court of law!” But Mr. Todashev insisted on describing in great detail how he and Mr. Tsarnaev committed the Waltham murders.  

Editors note: At the FBI’s request, we are not publishing Todashev’s description of the Waltham murders because doing so would undermine an ongoing investigation and also probably help terrorists kill some people. All you need to know is that Todashev and Tamarlan Tsarnaev are guilty of triple homicide.

Special Agent Jesus noticed that Mr. Todashev was looking dehydrated after his confession so he asked Officer Awesome to go the store and buy some PowerAde. A short time later, Special Agent Jesus noticed Mr. Todashev looked hungry so he sent Officer Stellar out for sandwiches. When Mr. Todashev was alone with Special Agent Jesus, he said, “I feel a special bond with you. I want to show you my most prized possession.

Mr. Todashev walked to a closet and pulled out a long metal pole. Attached to one end was a sharp blade. “This is a ceremonial Chechen weapon. We call it a knife-pipe. My grandmother made it for me. Isn’t it beautiful? It also comes with a broom attachment.”

After the men admired the knife-pipe’s craftsmanship, they resumed their conversation. Mr. Todashev continued to hold the knife-pipe.

Mr. Todashev said he wanted to sign a confession. Special Agent Jesus said he wouldn’t allow Mr. Todashev to do that without talking to a lawyer first. Mr. Todashev was furious. “I don’t deserve a lawyer. I’m a triple murderer,” he screamed as he charged Special Agent Jesus with the knife-pipe.

“Every American has a right to an attorney,” said Special Agent Jesus. “Please stop hitting me with the knife-pipe or I’ll have to shoot you, Ibby.

When Mr. Todashev didn’t stop, Special Agent Jesus reluctantly pulled his gun and shot him 6 times. Each bullet was expertly placed so as to slow Mr. Todashev without delivering a fatal blow. Mr. Todashev fell to the floor.

But as Special Agent Jesus called for medical assistance, Mr. Todashev rose to his feet. “I don’t want to live with what I’ve done. That’s why I’m committing suicide-by-FBI agent,” he screamed as he lowered his head and charged Special Agent Jesus once again. Mr. Todashev head-butted Special Agent Jesus’ gun, causing it to discharge in the top of his head. Special Agent Jesus burst into tears as he realized the man he’d come to regard as his flawed-brother was now dead.

Editor’s note. Hopefully this obviously true account will put all the conspiracy theories to rest. Tune in next week for another Fire Tom Friedman exclusive, when Special Agent Jesus travels to Chechnya to return the knife-pipe to Todashev’s grandmother and ask her forgiveness even though he did nothing wrong.  (If you’re wondering why the FBI hasn’t been able to produce the knife-pipe, this is the story for you!)

The Mismatch of the Century: Barrett Brown vs. Tom Friedman

Confession: I’m burnt out on Tom Friedman. I hardly ever read him any more, having digested the five columns he lazily recycles over and over far more times than is necessary to get the point or mock. I’m also tired of Friedman jokes, which also suffer from the same problem of being really repetitive -- cabdriver! Even worse, by focusing on his mangled metaphors and stupidity, Friedman’s critics tend to reduce Tommy to a harmless, bumbling caricature, which obscures the fact that, while he is most certainly a bumbler and a caricature, he’s actually been a very effective evangelist for imperialism.

Nevertheless! When I was asked to review Barrett Brown’s chapter on Friedman from his new book Keep Rootin' for Putin: EstablishmentPundits and the Twilight of American Competence, I leapt at the chance. For one, I’m a huge admirer of Brown, the investigative journalist and founder of Project PM, who has been imprisoned for 18 months and faces up to 70 years for the most ludicrous charges. If this review makes my 4 readers more aware of Brown’s plight or gets them to buy a book, the proceeds of which go to his defense fund, great! But the main reason I was so excited was that I would literally read Brown on anything, even boring old Tom Friedman. (If you haven’t been reading the series “The Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Jail,” put this “review” on hold and go do so.)

Brown doesn’t disappoint. His chapter belongs in the pantheon of great Friedman takedowns, alongside Matt Tiabbi, Belen Fernandez, and the Greenwash Guerrillas who pied The Stache. As always, Brown is a pleasure to read – his unique voice, comic detours, and impeccable timing had me laughing throughout the chapter. It also helps that many of the columns Brown skewers are not the usual ones we’ve come to associate with Friedman’s horribleness.

Take the 2001 column from which Brown gets the book’s title, a cringe-inducing paean to Vladimir Putin written after Friedman flies to Moscow and is blown away by the fact that one can get sushi there (“yes, from borscht to Big Macs to California-Kremlin rolls in one decade!”) He concludes -- based on this observation, another meal at “a combination art gallery-restaurant” and a conversation with his “Russian friend Viktor” -- that Putinism is a good thing. The column ends – seriously – with an exhortation to “keep rootin’ for Putin.”

Putin, Brown points out, was the former head of the FSB when agents were caught red-handed planting explosives in Moscow which they planned to blame on Chechen terrorists. Brown details how questionable attribution of other attacks in Russia was used as the pretext to invade Chechnya and how those who questioned whether the FSB might actually be the terrorists were strong-armed and undermined with dirty tricks. The war on Chechnya proved so popular with Russians that Putin, its champion and architect, easily won the presidency. All of this might have been cause for alarm for Friedman in 2001, but what’s war and manufactured terror attacks compared to the novelty of a “California-Kremlin roll.”

In Friedman’s defense, it’s possible his praise for Putin wasn’t genuine and the entire column was just filler because he thought “rootin’ for Putin” was really clever. One of my favorite passages in Brown’s chapter is when he destroys a column that’s constructed entirely around the fact that Friedman decides to call Colin Powell's military service America OnDuty just so he can contrast it with America Online. This allows Friedman to muse:

He spent thirty-five years of his life with America Onduty, as a military officer. But for the past two years he’s been associated with America Online, as a member of the AOL corporate board. So which perspective will Mr. Powell bring to his job as Secretary of State—the perspective he gleaned with America Onduty during the cold war or the perspective he gleaned with America Online in the post-Cold War?

Suffice to say, Brown has fun with this idiocy.

But back to Russia. It’s now 2008, Russia has invaded Georgia, and Friedman is no longer a Putin man. In fact, he’s so disgusted by Vladimir that he calls out those – like the Bush and Clinton administrations – who were guilty of “short-sightedness” with regards to Putin. Of course, there’s no mention of Friedman’s own Putin vision problem. Being a pundit means never having to say your sorry, or even being aware or honest about what you once said. (One of Friedman’s most frequent lies about himself is that he called for $1/gallon gas tax on September 12, 2011. In fact, he called for Muslim heads. He didn’t float his gas tax idea until October 5, 2003 – when the two wars he cheerled were well under way.)

Brown is a joy to read as a media critic and he expertly fillets a number of other Friedman columns. But its not just talent that sets Brown apart from the other 4,303,301,087 people doing media criticism on the Internet and Twitter. Brown wants to level our pundits not because he wants to replace them with better pundits (there’s no throat-clearing and pointing to himself here), but because he wants to do away with pundits altogether. And pundits need to be slayed not just because their stupid and wrong and always on the side of power, but because the Internet, through things like access to direct material and crowd-sourcing, offers a real and better alternative to our pathetic punditocracy. There’s poignancy in reading Brown's book knowing that he faces life in prison for acting on these ideals.

And then, of course, there’s the fact that while Barrett Brown faces life in a cage, the man he utterly obliterates in Rootin' for Putin lives here:

Free Barrett Brown.

And Fire Tom Friedman.

Imagine

A few weeks ago, protestors at Brown University disrupted a speech by NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and forced him from the stage.  It was a sad day for the great liberal values that make America and its elite universities great. It didn’t have to be that way.

As the protestors shout down Kelly, a lone pale figure dressed in tweed stands quietly.He approaches the loudest, angriest protestor and says, “I, too, abhor, police tactics that disproportionately target minorities. But you know what I abhor even more? Incivility! Have you just tried talking to Ray Kelly?”

The loud, angry protestor is taken aback. The man in tweed has touched something deep inside him. He gives one last shout, but this time it’s directed at his comrades, not the stage, “I think we should listen to what the Commissioner has to say.”

One by one, the protestors sit down. This time it’s Ray Kelly’s turn to be stunned. “You’ve taught me quite a lesson here today,” he says. “You had the power, but instead of using it to suppress me, you wielded it wisely and fairly. I had a lecture prepared but you know what, I’d rather listen to you!”

Once again, the protestors rise to recite their grievances against Kelly and the NYPD. But this time, they do in an orderly fashion. They wait in line for the microphone. They address Kelly as “sir.” They hand him pamphlets with beautiful fonts.

As Kelly listens to people tell him calmly and so respectfully how his police department has terrorized minority neighborhoods, tears stream down his face. “I cannot believe how wrong I was,” he wails.

“But we were wrong too,” say the former-protestors. “We should have put our faith in rational discourse.”

There is much weeping and hugging. Kelly announces, “I must call Mayor Bloomberg and tell him the NYPD must change immediately.”

Suddenly, Mayor Mike steps out from behind a tall plant. “You don’t have to call me, Ray-Ray. I heard the whole thing. We only have a few months left in office, but let’s reform the NYPD!”

Dedicated to Conor Friedersdorf, Katha "Weak Tea" Pollitt, and that dude who rightly reminded us that we're not Theodor Adorno.

Manning's "Struggles"

There's a pretty repulsive profile of Bradley Manning on the front page of the New York Times today, which declares, "the roots of Private Manning’s behavior may spring as much from his troubled youth as from his political views."  While it gives a nod to Manning's own statements that he was sickened by viewing videos of war crimes, The Times story is basically the latest attempt to assume that  whistleblowing and dissent must be rooted in pathology. So we hear yet again about Manning's conflicted sexuality, his clashes with his father, and some new gems, such as "he spent much of his childhood alone, playing video games or huddled in front of a computer."

I was fortunate to be in Fort Meade on June 3 when defense attorney David Coombs delivered his opening statement, and described the onset of Manning's struggles quite differently.

It was 24 December, 2009. He was 22 years young, in Iraq, his first deployment, his first unit. He was excited to be in Iraq, and he was excited to achieve his mission, and hopefully make Iraq a safer place.

The EFP [Explosively Formed Projectile] alert that went out on that day broke the silence of an otherwise calm Christmas Eve. EFP had claimed the lives of too many soldiers. So when an alert went out, everybody in the TOC [Tactical Operation Center] and in the SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] went into an immediate frenzy to get information.

PFC Manning was sent from the SCIF to the POC to find out what he could find out about the EFP. At that point all they really knew was that an element of the 210 was driving down a road that was rarely used and the lead element had been [inaudible to transcriber]

PFC Manning went to get some additional information but none could be found. They didn't have any updates, so he went back to the SCIF empty-handed. A few tense moments later came the welcome news. Despite the lead element being hit, no soldiers were killed, no soldiers were injured. Everyone in the TOC started celebrating, everyone in the SCIF started celebrating. Good news was welcome on any day, but especially on Christmas Eve.

A few minutes later came some additional news about that EFP, and the report indicated that as the lead element was driving down this road there was this civilian car in front of them, and that civilian car pulled over to the side, as was typical, to allow the convoy to go by, and they pulled over right in front of where that EFP was placed. The car had five occupants, two adults and three children. And that EFP went right through that car and hit that lead element. All five of the occupants were taken to the hospital, one died en route. Everyone in the TOC, in the SCIF was celebrating. Everyone was happy.

Everyone but PFC Manning. He couldn't celebrate. He couldn't be happy. The reason why is he couldn't forget about the life that was lost on that day. He couldn't forget about the lives and the family that was impacted on that Christmas Eve.

And from that moment forward PFC Manning started a struggle.

I may have missed it but I've never seen this story recounted in the mainstream media. It  certainly wasn't in today's Times. But there's a strong case to made that if Manning felt isolated in Iraq, it had less to do with the childhood video games than with the fact he didn't feeling like partying after an Iraqi child was killed.

It is amazing how little, more than 3 years after Manning's arrest, even well-meaning people know about the actual content that Manning leaked or his actual reasons for leaking.  For example, even among many of his supporters there's a sense that Manning leaked for the sake of transparency. But Manning, as least as I read his own words, believed in transparency as a tactic, not the end goal. He wanted to stop the U.S. from committing atrocities -- both of war and "diplomacy" -- in other countries and he used the only weapon he had at his disposal -- information -- to try to do so.

Michael Ratner has argued that one reason for the secret trial is that the government knows that Manning is such a sympathetic defendant.  I agree. Which is why it's so infuriating -- and telling -- that the Times would rather send its armchair psychologists to root through Manning's childhood than let his actions and words speak for themselves.

My Sequel to Zero Dark Thirty

From Sunday's LA Times:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who imagined and directed the 9/11 attacks, was captured by the CIA in 2003. For the next three years he was subjected to the harshest treatment we could stomach. No other Al Qaeda operative in our custody was subjected to so much.
The result? KSM, as he is known within the intelligence community, revealed nothing about the most valuable thing he knew — Bin Laden's whereabouts. He did not, for example, divulge the name of the Kuwaiti courier who served Bin Laden.

This is not coincidentally the piece of information that sets "Zero Dark Thirty" in motion. Mohammed had trained the courier and knew of his connection to Bin Laden. Instead, he sent agents on hundreds of futile chases, hindering the hunt for Bin Laden rather than aiding it.

The simple fact is you can't reliably separate the gold from the dross that torture yields. "He had us chasing the goddamn geese in Central Park because he said some of them had explosives stuffed up their ass," one FBI counter-terrorism agent said in frustration." 

We begin with the torture. A brutalized KSM resists and curses his torturers, but finally shouts out the goose plot.  The camera pulls back and we're in a room full of FBI agents who, we now realize, were watching the KSM interrogation on film.  A stern-faced senior FBI agent addresses the room.  "Gentleman," he intones, "We're going to need someone to look up inside a whole lot of geese's asses."

Boss FBI man scans the room, as the camera pauses over each young agent silently praying he won't be chosen for this distasteful task.  Until at last, we come to Adam Sandler, man-child, reading an Archie comic and blissfully unaware of all that's just transpired.

I"m still filling in some of the pieces, but here's what will definitely be in ZD 30-II: Wild Goose Chase:

1. A montage of Sandler chasing geese around Central Park.  He's inept.  At one point, he trips and loses his watch, which was given to him by his father, an FBI legend whose dying wish was for his own boy to join the Bureau.  (Hint: The watch will play an important role later).
2. Lots of hilarious goose poop jokes.
3. Sandler befriends a goose, who he names Archie.
4. A shy, lonely office worker, played by Zooey Deschanel, spends her lunch hours in the park feeding geese.  Zooey and Adam begin to notice each other.
5. Adam and Zooey talk. She's not at all put off by his whole man-child schtick. After all, she's a little quirky herself. And they both love geese.
6. Zooey and Adam fall in love. (Note: In a earlier version of this screenplay, Sandler falls in love with a goose, not a human.  Still wondering if this might be better.) 
7. A head-over-heels Zooey comes early to the park to surprise Sandler.  She observes from afar as Sandler holds down a goose and looks up its asshole.  He looks up and sees Zooey looking aghast.  Heartbroken, she runs off.  He yells, "It's not what you think," and starts to run after her, but, just then, Archie crosses his path. The goose has a mysterious metal object protruding out of its ass.
8. As Adam weighs chasing girl or goose, a sweet-looking boy approaches Archie with a piece of bread. It's time for the man-child to grow up.  He picks up the boy and squires him to safety.  Then he sprints and tackles the goose, and reaches up its ass and pulls out . . . his dad's watch.  With tears streaming down his face, he puts the watch on.  The camera pulls back to reveal a whole bunch of funny park-goers -- a tourist! someone on roller skates! a man with an afro! a drug addict! -- looking on in disbelief.
9. Zooey refuses to see or talk to the man she believes is a goose-fucker.  Adam is sad.
10. Adam sees Zooey in the park. Archie is with him.  She turns and it looks like she might give him a second chance when, out-of-nowhere, The Evil Muslim Terrorists grab Zooey.  
11. Adam and Archie pursue The Evil Muslim Terrorists.  Holy plot twist! The Evil Muslim Terrorists are not Muslim or Terrorists. But boy are they evil.  It's one of KSM's torturers and the senior FBI agent who assigned Sandler to goose duty in the first place. Turns out they always had a grudge against Sandler's old man when he was at the bureau because he hated torture!  Plus, maybe some outlandish plot involving goose smuggling.
12. Adam saves Zooey.  Now she understands.  
13. Adam and Zooey get married.  Archie is the best man. KSM (Aziz Ansari, who else?) is at the wedding too, wearing his infamous white t-shirt.
14. As the credits roll, we see lots of hilarious takes of KSM  being brutally tortured and making up other outlandish plots interspersed with scenes of Archie at the wedding getting really drunk and dancing with hot babes!  The closing joke: A hungover Lindsay Lohan wakes up, her bridesmaid dress crumpled on the floor of her trashed hotel room. She coughs . . . and goose feathers come flying out her mouth!

I'm convinced my sequel will be much better than the original.  Feel free to help me suss out the plot a little more in the comments.

Six Rules for Criticizing Obama Over Social Security Cuts

These are confusing times for liberals.  They’ve just awoken from a seven-week bender to discover that their number one sacred cow – President Obama – wants to take a butcher’s knife to sacred cow # 2, Social Security.  Libs are feeling angry, betrayed, and sputtery.  They want to hold Obama’s feet to the fire but aren’t sure how to do so in a way that reassures Obama that they will always have his back. 

Thankfully, liberals themselves have developed – and relentlessly enforced – a number of rules about whether, when, and how it’s acceptable to criticize Obama.  Libs love rules almost as much as they love their rulers so hopefully this will help them get through these troubling times.

1. It is not OK to criticize Obama for something he said he would do before the election.

This rule was best articulated by uber-lib David Atkins, who took to the Daily Kos in 2009 to excoriate the timing of those who dare criticized Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan in a piece titled, “Where Were All You People During the Campaign?”

I have watched with no small shortage of puzzlement as much of the progressive blogosphere has taken the Obama Administration to task for its plans to send additional troops to secure Afghanistan from the threat posed by the resurgence of the Taliban.  . . . (W)here was all this sturm und drang from the progressive blogosphere over the need to leave Afghanistan during the primary process, when all the major candidates had made their positions perfectly clear?  Where were the screaming cries of agony during the campaign?

You get that? As liberals will always tell you, the time to for frank criticism of their guy is during the campaign. And what was Obama saying about Social Security then? Well, in the first debate with Romney, he said, “I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position.” And as Matt Stoller documented back in July, cutting entitlements was always a major part of Obama’s agenda for his second term.

Bottom line: Obama told you he was going to cut Social Security – it’s not his fault if you were too busy monitoring GOP Twitter accounts to notice.  You missed your window for sturming and dranging, so STFU.

2. Obama is smarter and knows more than you do.

"I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust his judgment, and I still do." – Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

Why does Obama want to want to cut Social Security? We don’t know but the fact remains that we are not privy to everything that Obama knows – and we probably couldn’t understand it if we were.  Maybe Obama is banking on the fact by the Post Office will be closed by the time the cuts take effect so there won’t be anyone to deliver benefit checks. Maybe he realizes that shit will be so fucked up from climate collapse that no will live to see sixty-five in the coming years.

Bottom line:  Obama knows what he’s doing so STFU.

3. Always consider the alternatives.

For those complaining about Obama, ask yourself this:  Is there another politician you’d prefer to cut Social Security?  Because we don’t love in some utopia where grandma gets to pay for food and heating oil.  Your choices were Obama cutting Social Security or Romney  cutting Social Security. And personally, I’ll take Obama every time.  At least Obama will act humble and pained about fucking over seniors.  Are you honestly telling me you’d prefer Romney’s smirk?

Bottom line: Grow up and STFU.

4. Pause to smell Obama’s greatness.  And take gratuitous shots at Ralph Nader.

Last night, Chris Hayes took to Twitter to express his dismay that Obama was considering cuts. When friendly Tweeters responded that they were surprised that Hayes was surprised since Obama has clearly been gunning for entitlements for some time, Hayes quickly dropped his Social Security complaints and moved on to weightier matters:

Honest question for lefties who think Obama is horrible. Who do you see as better, more progressive American presidents?

To which Dan Savage replied, “Remember President Nader? He was so awesome.”

(For readers unfamiliar with American history, there was no President Nader! Savage is making a brilliant, biting joke designed to belittle anyone unhappy with President Obama.)

Bottom line: Grow up and STFU. And Fuck Ralph Nader.

5. Remember Obama’s heart is always in the right place. If you must criticize him, do so only on tactics.

As liberals will endlessly tell you, if Obama has one flaw, it’s that he sometimes thinks too much of people. He has, for instance, failed to recognize that the Republicans are the party of Satan.  He consistently tries to bargain with the GOP and sometimes, because of his desire to promote bipartisanship, Obama will sound and act exactly like the enemy.  This combination of GOP evil and Obama magnanimity occasionally leads to people getting screwed. Badly.  But we can all agree that that’s not what Obama really wants.

So while it would probably be best if you just STFU about Social Security, please remember the following if you feel, out of some nagging sense of principle or concern for humanity, that you must say something:

A. Anything bad Obama does is primarily the GOP’s fault.
B. You can criticize Obama for “caving.” You cannot criticize Obama for wanting to cut Social Security. (You might want to forget everything you read in rule # 1.)

Bottom Line: Fuckin’ Republicans.

6. Keep your eye on the big picture.

It is tempting to lash out at Obama and the Democrats for slashing  caving on Social Security. But remember, Social Security is an incredibly popular program and if voters start associating Democrats with benefit cuts, that’s not going to help come November, 2014.  Imagine Obama’s last two years in office if we win back the House and hold onto the Senate in the midterms. We could restore the Social Security cuts, ban guns, reverse climate change, and maybe even bring those Pakistani kids back to life.
 

But that’s not going to happen if you keep whining about grandma, is it?

Bottom line: We love you Obama.  And if we ever doubted you, that’s our failing, not yours. 

The Courage of the Progs

With all the horrific images and stories coming out of Gaza, it’s easy to overlook the true victims in this tragic story: progressive bloggers. Thankfully, Digby’s right-hand man, the courageous David Atkins, is here to shed some much needed light on the bombs of hateful comments being tossed their way.

Atkins’ piece is a response to criticisms that progressive bloggers have largely ignored the assault on Gaza. (While the assault was escalating this weekend, Atrios took to his blog to announce, “I Got Nothing To Say.") For Atkins, there are three reasons why progressive bloggers don’t want to get their hands dirty on this one. These reasons are neither accurate or legitimate, but they are unintentionally illuminating enough to rouse Fire Tom Friedman out of a pathetically long hibernation. So without further ado, here’s Atkin on why the progs are right to keep quiet:

1. Incoherent, hateful backlash. The fact is that it's impossible to say anything substantive about the Israel-Palestine conflict without being called a hateful anti-Semite, or a hateful bloodthirsty imperialist. Most hilarious is the notion that silence on the issue is caused by defense of the Administration, as if most of the progressive blogosphere had been somehow aggressive against the Bush Administration for failure to be concerned about the Palestinian people. If one examines the archives, one will see that most of the big sites from Atrios to DailyKos to TPM to Hullabaloo and the rest have largely refrained from commenting too much on the issue for years, long before Obama took office. That's in large part because nothing can be said about it without eliciting a horrifying deluge of asinine commentary that no other issue seems to generate. Especially for unpaid bloggers more concerned with climate change, the predations of the financial sector, the ongoing assault against the middle class and women's rights, etc., it's often not worth the headache of being called a vicious anti-semitic terrorist enabler and/or imperialist apartheid murderer--often for the exact same post. 

Really, Palestine – shut up about your dead kids. As Atkins so forcefully reminds us, the brave men and women who take to the internet several times a day to generate page views for their personal blogs and those of their employers have feelings, too. Do the people of Gaza know what it’s like to endure a “horrifying deluge of asinine commentary?” Have they ever been called “a vicious anti-semitic terrorist enabler and/or imperialist apartheid murderer--often for the exact same post?”

And as Atkins points out, it really is only “the Israel-Palestine conflict” that brings out this vulgarity on the internet. If only the commenters would be as restrained as they are when they discuss the recent election or immigration or marriage equality or anything having to do with non-Palestinian Muslims, I’m sure Atkins and co. would be happy to weigh in.

Easy mockery aside, Atkins does have one point. The idea that the prog blogs are keeping quiet because of who is in the Oval Office is demonstrably false. Those who are cowards today when it comes to calling out Israel for war crimes, apartheid, and occupation were cowards during the Bush years as well. But that's because it's party orthodoxy, not the presidency, that matters. Progressive bloggers didn't oppose Bush’s Israel/Palestine policies because the Democrats didn't.

Prog blogs have plenty to say on issues – and only on those issues -- where there are real (e.g. marriage equality) or perceived (e.g. climate change*) differences between the parties. But on Israel, the parties don’t even pretend to disagree (witness the Senate’s unanimous passage of a resolution written by AIPAC this morning) so there is simply no role for progressive bloggers to play. Maybe this is all just a long-winded way of saying progressive bloggers are Democratic mouthpieces. Not exactly news, I know. But it strikes me that by daring to talk about why progressive bloggers don’t dare to talk about Israel and Palestine, Atkins may have unintentionally exposed why the progressive blogosphere is so fucking harmful.

Atkins being Atkins, he lists two more reasons the progs don’t do Israel that range from horribly offensive to asinine. His next reason, “2) There are no good guys here,” got my hopes up, but it turns out he’s talking about Israel and Palestine, not the progressive blogosphere. There’s enough nauseating equivalence  between the occupiers and the occupied in this section to make you want to call Atkins “an imperialist apartheid murderer.” Do yourself a favor and skip it.

Atkins may save the best for last, though, when he writes, “3) There's nothing we can do about it. It makes sense to blog about things that we can theoretically do something about.” It may be news to you and me that cutting off subsidies for Israel’s war machine is something the United States can’t even do in theory, but we don’t get invited to the same DNC cocktail parties as Atkins. So maybe he’s right and progressive bloggers should focus on manageable, easily solvable problems, like climate change. They should have that one solved by next spring – just in time to sit out Israel’s next assault on Gaza.


*My favorite election season quote came from Matt Stoller, who wrote, "Partisans may enjoy Mitt Romney’s corrupt denial of man-made global warming, but nature doesn’t distinguish between Obama’s cynical lack of action and Romney’s cynical denial of reality. We simply do not have time for this nonsense anymore."

Meet Arthur S. Brisbane, Truth Vigilante!

Arthur S. Brisbane, the most timid in a long line of timid New York Times public editors, is having an existential crisis. Brisbane is supposed to be The Times’ “readers' representative . . . who responds to complaints and comments from the public and monitors the paper's journalistic practices.” Brisbane has sailed through his first 18 months on the job, but now one of those pesky readers he’s supposed to be representing has asked him a real stumper.

Shouldn’t the Times, a reader emails, point out when the subject of a story is lying rather than just dutifully passing along those lies? The idea that a reporter should challenge the falsehoods of the powerful is so foreign and radical to Brisbane, whose been working in the newspaper business since 1976, that he doesn’t even have a word in his vocabulary (“fact-checking!” “reporting!” “journalism!”) to describe it. So he settles on the most straight-forward, rolling-off-the-tongue phrase he can think of: “truth vigilantism.”

In a provocative piece entitled, “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” Brisbane asks what reporters should do if, say, Mitt Romney excoriates President Obama for “apologizing for America” when, in fact, the President has done no such thing? (Turns out the Prez is just fine with America being the world’s most destructive force.) Should the Times point that Romney’s pants are on fire or just what Mitt said? There are, Brisbane notes, “some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight.” Of course, it’s not just the distortions and evasions in public life that readers are fed up with; it’s also the distortions and evasions in The Times. And framing it as a question of "setting the record straight" ignores the fact that The Times isn't just reporting what the liars say; it's amplifying those lies.

Regardless, it’s a pretty remarkable piece that deserves to be read in its entirety, though preferably not while drinking a hot coffee or anything else that might damage your nasal passages. And Brisbane’s musings have already made quite a difference. For one, through sheer stupidity, Brisbane may have accidentally done more to draw attention to the fact that many of The Times “reporters” are mere stenographers than his three predecessors combined. And it’s propelled Brisbane from the guy no one knew existed to an Internet joke in just a few hours.

But alas, despite the fact that the 265 comments on Brisbane’s article all advocate for actual reporting, I predict that the only lasting result at The Times will be that Brisbane won’t be Public Editor much longer. Don’t cry for Arthur, though. I’m sure he’ll land a nice cushy job at teaching in the Truth Vigilante department at some prestigious university . . .

Some of My Best Friends Are Deroy Murdock

Move over Rosa Parks and James Meredith! There's a new civil rights trailblazer in town. Meet Deroy Murdock, the first black* speaker on the prestigious National Review Cruise! (OK, it's possible he's not the first, but there wasn't one last year which was the only other year I've tracked it.)

And while all the credit in the world goes to Murdock and the Cruise organizers, I can't help but think that last year's Fire Tom Friedman exposé played a small part. In that post, I pointed out that the speakers were 91% male, 94% white and their average age was 58.

I'm happy to say that progress goes well beyond Deroy Murdock. This year, males only make up 85% of the speakers and whites only 90%. And Ramesh Ponnuru won't be so lonely when the Asian Caucus holds its meetings at this year's cruise, not with John Yoo on board!
And who says all the young kids are busy Occupying Wall Street? The
average age of a 2011 National Review speaker is a frisky 55 -- 3 years younger than last year! It's amazing what happens when you replace octogenarian Phyllis Schafley with America's Sassiest Randian, S.E. Cupp.

Below is a complete speaker list so you can see what progress looks like.

Speaker	White?	Male?	Age
Bernard Lewis	White	Male	95
James Q. Wilson	White	Male	80
Cal Thomas	White	Male	79
John Sunununu	White	Male	72
Fred Thompson	White	Male	69
John Derbyshire	White	Male	66
Tony Blankley	White	Male	63
Elliot Abrams	White	Male	63
John Bolton	White	Male	63
Michael Walsh	White	Male	62
Victor Davis Hanson	White	Male	58
Andrew Klaven	White	Male	57
Mona Cheran	White	Female!!!	54
Charles Kesler	White	Male	54
John Fund	White	Male	54
James Lileks	White	Male	53
Mark Steyn	White	Male	52
Ralph Reed	White	Male	50
Tim Pawlenty	White	Male	50
Kevin Hassett	White	Male	49
Jay Nordlinger	White	Male	48
Charmaine Yoest	White	Female!!!	48
Greg Gutfeld	White	Male	47
Deroy Murdock	Black!!!!!!!!!!!!	Male	47
John Yoo	Asian!!!	Male	44
Rich Lowry	White	Male	43
Jonah Goldberg	White	Male	42
John J. Miller	White	Male	41
Roman Genn	White	Male	39
Ramesh Ponnuru	Asian!!!	Male	36
Kathryn Lopez	Hispanic!!!	Female!!!	35
S.E. Cupp	White	Female!!!	32
Tracie Sharp	White	Female!!!	????
Sally Pipes	White	Female!!!	????
Andrew McCarthy	White	Male	???
Jim Geraghty	White	Male	???
Rob Long	White	Male	???
Robert Costa	White	Male	???
Kevin Williamson	White	Male	???

* The original post referred to Deroy Murdock as the "first African-American speaker." On October 5, 2012, Mr. Murdock emailed a correction request (a FTF first!), asking that "African-American" be changed to "black."  The post has been updated to reflect Mr. Murdock's wishes.**

** The original correction contained two embarrassing mistakes: Mr. Murdock's first name was wrongly listed as "Delroy" and the last sentence read, "The post has been be updated to reflect Mr. Murdock's wishes" (emphasis added).  Those mistakes have now been corrected thanks, once again, to the diligence of Mr. Murdock.  I apologize to Mr. Murdock, who has been nothing but delightfully gracious  throughout this whole correction ordeal.  So much so that I'm tempted to make another mistake in hopes of hearing from him again . . . 

The Imperial Messenger: Part 2 of FTF’s Interview with Belén Fernández

Belén Fernández is the author of the brand-new The Imperial Messenger: Tom Friedman at Work. Below is part 2 of my interview with her. If you missed part 1 (how dare you!), it’s here. To learn more about the book, please visit http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger. This excerpt at Al Jazeera is also highly recommended. ”

Did you come away with a lower opinion of Friedman or of the people and institutions that continually give him platforms to spew his idiotic, loathsome views? I find it so telling that, when Friedman did his “suck on this” performance on Charlie Rose, Rose just nods and leans in for the next question instead of calling Friedman out for saying one of the most offensive things ever said on television. Or to put it another way: Do you think the New York Times would allow one of their columnists to consistently dehumanize entire groups of people – to the point of openly calling for civilian deaths in Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq – if those people weren’t Arab/Muslim?

Unfortunately, Orientalist dehumanization is institutionalized in US media discourse, the result being that there is no overwhelming public concern when over a million Iraq lives are lost thanks to America’s bellicose projects or when 1400 Palestinians perish in a matter of 22 days at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces.

It is utterly appalling that neither Charlie Rose nor anyone else in the US establishment media took issue with Friedman’s obscene proclamation, and that he was never required by his employer to apologize for it in the interest of maintaining a pretense of objectivity. One can imagine the uproar that would have ensued—and over which Friedman himself would have presided—had, for example, Yasser Arafat instructed Israelis to suck on things, or had Osama bin Laden justified 9/11 with similar terminology. Friedman, on the other hand, is permitted to continue blissfully peddling his contemptuous analyses of the Arab/Muslim world, such as his 2007 assessment—with regard to the US military—that Iraqis “don’t deserve such good people… if they continue to hate each other more than they love their own kids.”

Of course, it is safe to assume that most Iraqis exhibit normal human affection for their offspring, including for those millions of offspring that have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise made to suffer as a result of a US military-inflicted sucking, and that the half a million Iraqi children previously killed by US-championed sanctions were probably also loved by their parents.

Even if Charlie Rose et al. fail to comprehend that sucking orders do not qualify as proper journalistic etiquette, they should at least be able to comprehend that Friedman’s argument for why the sucking should occur is in complete defiance of logic. According to Friedman, Iraqis must be made to suck so that the US can effectively combat the “terrorism bubble” that has developed in “that part of the world” and that poses a “fundamental threat to our open society,” something Americans discovered on 9/11. However, this very same Friedman also explains that the real threat to “open, Western, liberal societies today” consists not of “the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables – the boys who did 9/11.” The resulting argument—made by someone who himself criticizes the Bush administration for implying a link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein—is that war against deterrables whose weapons are not the problem will solve the problem of undeterrables who are the weapons and who by definition cannot be deterred anyway.

Regarding your question of whether I have a lower opinion of Friedman or of those who encourage and promote him, they are all part of the same system that rewards the willful subversion of human empathy on behalf of empire and capital. The system would naturally exist without Friedman; he just does his part to sustain it.

As for whether Friedman will ever be made to atone for his crimes, I’ve personally found that one effective means of stress relief is to ponder reincarnation options for him, an activity that he himself actually used to engage in on occasion in order to highlight what he deemed to be unethical behavior by certain sectors of the US citizenry. In a 2004 column entitled “In My Next Life,” for example, Friedman sarcastically described his desire for reincarnation as a college or professional athlete:

For a mere dunk of the basketball or first-down run, I want to be able to dance a jig, as if I’d just broken every record by Michael Jordan or Johnny Unitas. For the smallest, most routine bit of success in my sport, I want to be able to get in your face – I want to know who’s your daddy, I want to be able to high-five, low-five, thump my chest and dance on your grave. You talkin’ to me?

Why athletic grave-dancing is more offensive than telling entire populations to “suck. On. This” is unclear.

I would meanwhile suggest Friedman contemplate reincarnation as an Afghan civilian, an aspiration that might merit the following description (as well as sudden re-reincarnation):

“Yes, in my next life I want to be an Afghan civilian. I want to meet my demise by American B-52, and, when I do, I want the foreign affairs columnist of the US newspaper of record to place the ‘civilian’ portion of my identity inside quotation marks. I want him to take time out of his busy schedule of complaining about his own horrific experiences and the tendency of other diners to interrupt his restaurant meals with their cell phone conversations, and I want him to debunk the blasphemous idea espoused by the European and Arab media, according to which I had not actually been ‘praying for another dose of B-52’s to liberate [me] from the Taliban.

Did you find that Friedman tries to rewrite his own role in history, even though it’s quite easy to fact-check these days? For instance, I’ve noticed he often claims that he called for a $1/gallon “Patriot Tax” on gas on 9/12/01 when, in fact, he didn’t call for one until more than two years later – after both wars he had cheerled for were well under way.

Yeah, it’s not clear whether Friedman intentionally rewrites his own history or whether the rewriting is just a byproduct of the fact that he is employed in a position that does not require him to understand or keep track of what he himself thinks about things.

To give a very simple example of self-contradiction, Friedman announces 200 pages into his book The World Is Flat that Globalization 1.0 was the era in which he was required to physically visit an airline ticket office in order to make his travel arrangements. According to the definition provided at the start of the book, however, Globalization 1.0 ended around the year 1800.

On the subject of India, Friedman goes from arguing that “Indian democracy” and “economic liberalization” have enabled the high-tech industry in Bangalore to flourish, to arguing two years later that Bangalore high-tech firms “thrive by defying their political-economic environment, not by emerging from it.” Indian “democracy” is meanwhile additionally credited with the fact that “rioting didn’t spread anywhere” after the 2002 pogrom incited by the Hindu nationalist government of the state of Gujarat, in which several thousand Muslims were massacred. The article is perplexingly titled “Where Freedom Reigns,” in spite of the massacre of Muslims.

A month after declaring the war-based democracy experiment in Iraq “the most important task worth doing,” Friedman announces that he doesn’t “want to hear another word about Iraq” given that there is a sniper on the loose in Montgomery County, Maryland, who is forcing him to become well-acquainted with the delivery man from California Pizza Kitchen and to “duck… behind a pillar” while filling up his car with gas. He fails to add this to the list of reasons America must cease its dependence on oil, though he does subsequently go from insisting that George W. Bush renounce his limousine and set a “geo-green” example to exulting the following year over the fact that he himself is being chauffeured around Budapest in one. (Friedman goes as far as to provide his driver’s website—www.fclimo.hu—so that everyone can witness the capitalist evolution and integration into the global economy of a “Communist-era-engineer-turned-limo-proprietor,” but refrains from mentioning that none other than Bush is listed as a reference on the company’s website.)

A few more quick examples of Friedman’s historical revisions:

In 2005 Friedman declares the need for “a proper civil war” in Iraq. In 2011 he miraculously displaces the blame for civil war-mongering: “For all of the murderous efforts by Al Qaeda to trigger a full-scale civil war in Iraq, it never happened.”

In 2002 Friedman informs Saudi crown prince Abdullah that “the Jews of the Clinton administration are gone” and that their replacement “WASPs” of the Bush administration “couldn’t care less about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It is not an issue that resonates with them at all.” In 2003 Friedman announces that the Bush team “has fallen so deep into the pocket of Ariel Sharon you can’t even find it any more” and that Bush may “be remembered as the president who got so wrapped around the finger of Ariel Sharon that he indulged Israel into thinking it really could have it all—settlements, prosperity, peace and democracy.”

And so on.

One of the more intriguing things about Friedman’s rewriting of history is that he relentlessly plugs his friend Dov Seidman’s book How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything … in Business (and in Life), according to which the centrality of blogs, Facebook, and YouTube to modern life ensures that “more and more of what you say or do or write will end up as a digital fingerprint that never gets erased.” Friedman provides the following illustrative anecdote in 2007:

Three years ago, I was catching a plane at Boston’s Logan airport and went to buy some magazines for the flight. As I approached the cash register, a woman coming from another direction got there just behind me — I thought. But when I put my money down to pay, the woman said in a very loud voice: ‘Excuse me! I was here first!’ And then she fixed me with a piercing stare that said: ‘I know who you are.’ I said I was very sorry, but I was clearly there first.

If that happened today, I would have had a very different reaction. I would have said: ‘Miss, I’m so sorry. I am entirely in the wrong. Please, go ahead. And can I buy your magazines for you? May I buy your lunch? Can I shine your shoes?’

Why? Because I’d be thinking there is some chance this woman has a blog or a camera in her cellphone and could, if she so chose, tell the whole world about our encounter — entirely from her perspective — and my utterly rude, boorish, arrogant, thinks-he-can-butt-in-line behavior. Yikes!”

It goes without saying that defending Israel’s strategy of inflicting mass civilian casualties in Lebanon in 2006, for example, does not in Friedman’s world qualify as rude, boorish, or arrogant behavior. This item from 2010 meanwhile suggests that Friedman is not overly preoccupied with the prospect of domestic cell phone cameras and blogs.

Punditry, like banking, seems to be a profession free of accountability. The more Friedman is wrong, the more Sunday morning shows he gets invited on. Is it time to Occupy Tom Friedman’s house? (He certainly has the room.)

It is definitely time to occupy Friedman’s house. I would advise incorporating an Arab and/or Muslim military into the endeavor and referring to the “occupation” only in quotation marks, as Friedman does following the US invasion of Iraq.

Incidentally, given the schizophrenic nature of his discourse, Friedman could conceivably be persuaded to advocate for the occupation of his own house if he were assured that in doing so he would somehow remain relevant to the effort to recuperate US glory.

Despite marrying into one of the one hundred richest families in the US, Friedman recently attempted to co-opt Occupy Wall Street by classifying it as an “effective” movement (in an interview with MTV, no less). Perhaps as a next step he should consider channeling his affection for Google Earth and the role it allegedly played in sparking the Arab uprisings—by alerting Bahrainis to the dimensions of the ruling family’s palaces—into an investigation of what his own 11,400-square-foot house looks like from the air.