> Barry genuinely doesn't understand this kind of > behavior. He doesn't read widely or attentively > enough to evaluate degree of bias, and he > attributes any criticism of the people he supports > to a bias against them. > Not to mention the fact that neither Barry nor John even live in the U.S. anymore - they don't vote, own U.S. property, or even pay any U.S. taxes. Why would they be interested in reading objective news reports or blogs? All those two are interested in is bashing Judy Stein, apparently.
Judy wrote: > (Barry's been in Yurrup so long he's forgotten how > to pronounce English, it seems, and thinks the word > "wrong" begins with a "wuh" sound...) > > Barry is so obviously thrilled to have found what > he thinks is an incriminating difference between > two of my posts to feed his Gotta Get Judy jones > that you almost gotta feel bad about having to set > him straight. Nonetheless, I shall persevere: > > > > > > > Did anyone else notice the thing that Judy > > > ...uh...failed to mention while blaming the > > > Treasury and blasting Politico for "repre- > > > hensible reporting?" > > > > > > Hint: It was her OWN "rephrehensible report- > > > ing" only a few hours earlier. See below. > > > > Notice the difference in *language* > > between the two paragraphs describing > > the same Firedoglake article? In the > > first (most recent), "Treasury" is > > the Bad Guy. But interestingly, in > > the earlier introduction to the same > > link, it's not "Treasury" at all; it's > > "the White House" and "the administration." > > Bar, here in the good old U.S. of A. we 'Murcans > use the terms "White House" and "administration" > to refer to what we call the "Executive Branch" of > the gummint (the other two being the Legislative > Branch--Senate and House--and the Judicial Branch, > the federal judiciary). > > Besides the president and vice president, the > Executive Branch includes the various > departments and the Cabinet, composed of the > heads of those departments, known as Secretaries. > > One of those departments is the Treasury Department. > Its head is Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the > Treasury, who is, of course, working very closely > with President Obama on the financial crisis. > > If you were to read either Glenn Greenwald's or > Jane Hamsher's posts to which I linked, you'd find > that the terms "White House," "administration," and > "Treasury" are used pretty much interchangeably to > identify those who are responsible for the AIG > bonus "carve-out" and who are now blaming Dodd for it. > > Barry's confusion on this point is amusing enough, > but it gets even better: > > > Methinks someone is still carrying a > > torch for Hillary and determined to find > > any way possible to demonize the (spit) > > man who "done her wrong." > > <cackle> Poor Barry! > > > Me, I don't give a shit about "Whodunnit?" > > in this case. In this case there seems to > > be little question that AIG's lawyers > > *would* have sued the U.S. government > > if the bill had forced it to abrograte its > > contracts with its hideously incapable > > employees. It was a monumental fuckup > > caused by pond scum (corporate lawyers). > > Actually, Bar, AIG is currently 80 percent > owned by the U.S. government (i.e., the > taxpayers). > > If their bonuses are abrogated, the AIG > executives who were to receive them might well > attempt to sue AIG, but AIG itself ain't gonna > be suing the U.S. government anytime soon. > > > It's just that IMO the public "blame game" > > is the work of petty, vindictive children, > > whether it comes from the right or the > > supposed left. BillyG and Willytex and > > others were using this situation to smear > > Obama and the White House, > > Actually (as Barry subsequently realized), > BillyG didn't participate in the thread about > AIG. > > Willytex was initially using the situation to > smear *Dodd* on the basis of the administration's > false accusations, but he's equally happy to > smear the administration if he can, because they're > all Democrats, y'see. > > for their petty, > > vindictive reasons; Judy was using this > > *same* situation to smear Obama and the > > White House, for *her* own petty, vindic- > > tive reasons. What's the difference? > > The difference, of course, is that Dodd is not > guilty of what the White House is trying to smear > him with. > > > Me, I'm just using the situation to *point > > out* those petty, vindictive actions, and > > remind people that sometimes the self- > > styled "voice of integrity" on this forum > > has none. > > And who better to point the finger at petty, > vindictive actions and complain about lack of > integrity than Barry? > > <horselaugh> > > Why is there such a difference > > in the language in the first quotes (which > > were posted twice) and the second? Could > > it possibly be an attempt at "spin" to > > "affix blame" where *she* wanted it affixed? > > No, it's because Barry's hopelessly confused. > The specific terminology was different between > the quotes, but not the folks the terms referred > to. > > For the record (as Barry would have realized if > he'd been reading my posts with any attention, > rather than simply looking for something to Get > Judy with), I think the administration is generally > doing a good job with the financial crisis. > > The AIG bonus mess was a slip-up, though, and > trying to blame Dodd for it was a dirty trick > for which the administration shouldn't get a > pass. On the other hand, the furor over the > bonuses is largely a matter of optics; they're > a tiny fraction of the amount of money involved. > > The administration is trying to "adjust" those > optics to mitigate the furor--especially the > complaints about Geithner, whose resignation is > now being called for in some quarters--so one > can understand the motivation if not approve of > the method. The popular (and largely ignorant) > outrage being fed by the right is likely to get > in the way of the administration's future actions > to solve the financial crisis, so assuaging it > is crucial. > > Unfortunately, the administration chose a bad > approach to covering up its responsibility for > the bonus gaffe. If Dodd had had his way, there > wouldn't have been a gaffe. > > (To his credit, Obama has explicitly taken > responsibility for what is being done--and > not done--to solve the financial crisis. It > would be even more to his credit if he were > to publicly exonerate Dodd of responsibility > for the bonus mess.) > > Since this is my last post until Friday, I'm > importing the following from another related > post of Barry's: > > > I think this is important to point out here on > > Fairfield Life at this point in history. A *lot* > > of what is posted here consists of people cutting > > and pasting their favorite "News sources" to > > support their own bias and "spin" the News and > > "affix blame" to the people that THEY want to > > "affix blame" to. Raunchy reads the pro-Hillary > > blogs and reposts them here to demonize Obama, > > the man who "done her wrong." Judy does the same > > thing from time to time, and cuts and pastes her > > own "preferred sources" to demonize the "culprit > > du jour" that *her* bias wishes to affix blame > > to. Willytex and some of the right-wingers do the > > same thing with *their* "preferred News sources" > > to cast the blame on the people *they* want to > > demonize. And ALL of them seem to imply that > > *their* News sources can be trusted. > > You'll notice, first of all, that Barry names > *only* those who post criticisms of Obama. do.rflex, > for example, is conspicuously absent from the above > rant, even though he posts nothing but pro-Obama > items, and cuts-and-pastes in far greater quantity > than anybody else. It seems Barry believes that > only criticism of Obama is "biased." > > That said, I can't even remember the last time I > posted anything from a pro-Hillary blog. Does > Barry assume that because Jane Hamsher is female, > therefore her blog must be pro-Hillary? I don't > even think it was during the primaries, but I don't > read it unless someone I do read links to it, so > I really don't know. > > Or does Barry assume that anybody who criticizes > Obama must be pro-Hillary? > > Glenn Greenwald certainly isn't. He supported > Obama in the primaries. > > More generally, the thing about bias in the media > (including blogs) is that if you're reasonably > intelligent and pay attention to what's going on in > the world, you can discern *degrees* of bias in > what people write and say, and if you want to be as > objective as possible, you avoid letting yourself > be influenced by those who are hopelessly biased > (in either direction) and stick with the reporting > and opinionating of those who demonstrate more > balanced views. > > Both Hamsher and Greenwald are progressives, but > they're among the more objective pundits on the > left. They both support progressive Democrats > over Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans, but when > progressives misbehave or show poor judgment, they > don't hesitate to criticize them. > > Barry genuinely doesn't understand this kind of > behavior. He doesn't read widely or attentively > enough to evaluate degree of bias, and he > attributes any criticism of the people he supports > to a bias against them. > > This shortcoming, along with his fanatical bias > against me, is responsible for the series of howlers > in his current spate of posts. >
