Thursday, December 22, 2011

Dave von Ebers Deals with the Brats

Chicago lawyer and blogger, Dave von Ebers, just showed the world why Glenn Greenwald was not only a failure as a lawyer, but also still is an emotionally-puerile bully (and, very probably, a racist one at that):-

Dave was certainly the adult in that room. He had me at "Grow up." Greenwald employs the time-honoured Teabagger tactic of moving the goalposts and twisting facts in order to make himself the victim. He's a word-twister also, accusing Dave of name-calling when he fired the first salvo by saying Dave was "intellectually stunted." Dave responded with a valid question, asking Glennie if he were a racist, as he - like many other Paulbots from the Left - seem to sweep Paul's documented racism under the carpet in order to mould him to their so-called Progressive image.

But Greenwald isn't a Progressive, although he's reasonably successful in masquerading as one. He's a bought-and-paid-for Koch whore ensconced in the Cato Institute and loving him some Citizens United.

You see, Greenwald never answers Dave's question. He never acknowledges Paul's racism, instead he tries to imply - perversely -that the President is the racist, for his policies in the Middle East and the number of "Muslim children" who have been killed by drones.

I'm sorry, but the "I have empathy for brown babies" line is as tired as the "I have black friends" meme as a strawman throw-out hide inherent racism.

And then there's Zaid Jilani.

Glenn Greenwald is the-bully-as-Peter-Pan, whose presumptive superior intellectualism is easily dismantled when someone like Dave von Ebers pulls the curtain aside. Greenwald has no argument. He resorts to robotic repetition of lines, ever panicking when the intended reaction from these lines does not compute.

But Jilani is the real deal. He is a child. He's 23 and writes for Think Progress. He is jejeune and naive. He mimics. He adopts the soundbytes and opinions of others without ever presuming to think for himself. He is the classic example of someone who is totally incapable of critical thought and analysis, and one wonders why an entity like This Progress employed such a dilettante. He is, quite succinctly, the hero-worshipping but annoying little kid who wants to play with the big guys.

But here's what's disconcerting and more than a little sad. Zaid is an American of Asian descent. He was born and raised in Kennesaw, Georgia, and calls himself a "proud Southerner." I have seen Zaid engage in several arguments on Twitter concerning race, and Zaid always sides with the white Progressives in denying that racism exists on the Left. In fact, he goes as far as saying he wouldn't know racism because he's not black, he's brown.

Seriously, this is a Muslim guy living in the heart of Teabagger country saying that.

Well, Zaid, honey, I - like you - am a proud Southerner. I'm a white woman who's people have lived longer in the South that you'll ever know and I can tell you one thing: For a lot of people in the South, brown is black.

In the above Chirpstory, Zaid is painstaking in echoing Glennie's soundbytes, whilst Glenn doesn't even acknowledge his existence. In fact, for Zaid, Paul's abhorrence of the US foreign policy in the Middle East cancels out any semblance of racism, documented or otherwise. Ron Paul does penance for grotesque racist ramblings by protesting the United States' perceived attitudes to Muslim factions in the Middle East.

But guess what? If this were 1941, and the Middle East were Germany, Ron Paul would be saying the same thing, about the foreign policy being waged by the same United States government who was lobbing bombs and missiles on blonde-haired and blue-eyed German babies.

Zaid truly needs to grow up. He needs to mature. He needs to stop being a token lickspittle to white privilegists, either on the Progressive side (yes, you Joan Walsh, who's taken Zaid as her "token" black brown protoge') or on the side where things always go better with Koch. The posture he strikes now is of the faithful slave who, rather than sample freedom and all the hardships it entails, keeps his head down and stays with Massa - because liberal Massa knows best.

He should be ashamed for himself that he even buys into the snark of a Joan Walsh who slips up on occasion to reveal her resentment of people of colour; he should be ashamed of his open imitation of Glenn Greenwald, an immature man who reveals his racism by open projection.

Zaid wants to be like them. He wants to be accepted by them. Sorry, Zaid, but any proud Southerner would know that there's a name for you in the South and it's not nice. It's "Oreo" - and that doesn't mean you're exactly a sweet cookie, but rather sad.

Anyone who cherrypicks the values of an open racist, who believes that poor people are that way through their own fault, doesn't deserve to think of himself, much less call himself a "Progressive."

And while you're looking in the mirror of your soul, Zaid, learn some respect for your elders. Dave von Ebers has accomplished some things of which you can only dream.

Grow up.


  1. I get your aversion for Ron Paul but I think you're failing to grasp the phenomenon.
    I think the left-wing voters who are considering paul are aware that he is a reactionary but they like him simply because they're desperate to challenge the status quo and they see in him a sort of protest vote because they are dissatisfied with the democrats, mainly on foreign policy and civil liberties.
    Personally I enjoy seeing this frail little elderly conservative use chomskyite rhetoric and talks of u.s. imperialism on the stage of the G.O.P., while making all of these other hypocrites uncomfortable because they know he's the only honest person there and that he's popular.
    I also love seeing him strip the corporate phony populist tea party republican candidates of their beloved pitchfork base. Think of the political earthquake it would be if this guy won the primary.
    And you know he can't win against the prez thow he would be a good independent candidate that could challenge the positions of both parties on many regards.
    If only the democrats were more consistent, we would'nt have this whole Ron Paul hype. And why dind'nt president obama veto NDAA!?! Big Mistake!

  2. Big mistake? Do you know what the NDAA veto would have entailed? It was a bill to fund the military - to ensure that the troops serving actually get their salaries which would support their families. It ensured that the military would be able to pay the people who provide them with the necessaries like food and soap and stuff like that. Veto that bill and thousands of small businessmen would go out of business in a trice. But you're all right with that.

    Go ahead and support Paul's foreign policy. It will also mean that you are tied inextricably to his domestic policy also, which means you're on your own. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no government assistance when places are devastated by earthquakes or hurricanes. No federal funding of education, no freedom of choice for women, and absolutely a return to Jim Crow. Support for Ron Paul means you support his racism, which is there for all to see. Both Ron and Rand have said that they would ensure that the Civil Rights' Act be repealed. But you ignore that, because a lot of Paul's policies are mainstream in the GOP right now.

    Please don't insult my intelligence with your strawman argument which you have presented so inarticulately. And please, whilst you're studying Civics 101, learn some English Grammar and spelling; and address your racism.

    Anyone supporting Ron Paul is NO liberal.

  3. So in order to keep our military running, we must accept to give up more of our bill of rights, and allow the military to arrest and hold us infinitely without a trial if they wish ( a loophole which was apparently pushed for by the obama administration ) ? you don't appear to worry because obama is the commander in chief, but suppose newt Gingrich was to take his place tomorrow. would you feel so safe then? but hey i'm a Ron Paul supporter right ? ( and former obama supporter ), so i should know better and take the good with the bad. By the way I don't WANT Ron Paul to win, nor do I think any self-respecting liberal or progressive actually does and i'm well aware of his discrete militia and racist tendencies. I just think Washingtonians of both sides are to wonder what his ascension actually means, and they should act upon it.
    I'm not aware of having said anything racist, if I did, forgive me father for I have sinned.
    What straw man argument?? and god forbid, forgive me for insulting your superior intelligence by presenting arguments and engaging in debate in such inarticulate vulgarity. I think I was polite, despite my peasant like grammar and spelling, and not aggressive nor condescending, but it's your blog, you can be like that if you like.

  4. Oh, please ... a sock-puppeting troll, who's too much of a coward to use any other handle than "anonymous" - and a bullying one at that. Changing the goalposts and applying the self-victimisation technique. Buddy, read the bill and spare me your Obama-hatred, because the language of subtle racism has evolved. Yes, I call your bullshit and I call your racism. And yes, it is my blog. I don't give a rat's ass for whom you vote. Vote third party, for all I care. Or don't vote. Just live with the fact that you'll enable whatever Republican asshole who gets in there. You people are brain-washed nincompoops. You rail about what you perceive to be "Obamabots," but you lot are as narrow-minded as the Teabaggers you disdain. Va fa culo, segaiolo.

  5. Ha!! Damn it, I guess you really can t tame a shrew!..

  6. Emilia...There's one more thing about Ron Paul that nobody in the chirpstory above mentioned. There is actually a picture of Paul with Don Black and his son. If you don't know who Don Black is, he's the guy who runs the white supremacist website Stormfront. He's a close friend of David Duke and his wife was Duke's ex-wife!

    It's also been noted that Black has contributed to Paul's political campaigns in past years.

    If you want to find the picture, just Google "Ron Paul and Don Black."

    The mere fact that Paul would allow himself to even be in the same room with the likes of Don Black demostrates to me that he's nuts. This is not a man who should be President of the United States!

    As for Anonymous, if you want to continue supporting Ron Paul, go right ahead. As for me, I'll pass. His support for the legalization of marijuana does little to outweigh all of his negatives (like him being a racist)! And I don't like the fact that if he (as well as his kooky son from Kentucky) had his way, businesses would be allowed to discriminate against me due to my race, sex, etc, etc.

    And please don't bring Obama's foreign policy into this. It's a sad attempt to divert attention from Paul's racism and his position on civil rights.

    I'm so happy that the issue of the Ron Paul newsletters if finally coming out! It's about time!

  7. Nabstentia, I know about Black and in another blog, I've included that picture. What's amazing to me is the number of people on the Left who are making excuses for Paul's racism in a futile attempt to mask their own.

  8. That's not my point. My point is that the left wing Ron Paul vote is a desperate, almost nihilistic one by those who had put too much faith in Barack Obama. it's a protest vote, not an actual, full endorsement.

    As for me I don't want Ron Paul to win, I just like that he's shaking things up, on the right and the left. Democrats should react to it.
    And of course we should expose his racism, but we shouldn’t forget why the guy has gained this much popularity.It's not by using racist rhetoric
    ( unlike many in the g.o.p. ), to the contrary, Ron Paul keeps that for the more obscure part of his base. It's not just because he wants to legalize pot. It's his way of doing politics, his consistency and his unhesitant, unorthodox way of standing up to the big boys.
    That's what people are looking for and were expecting from Obama but they don't feel like they're getting it, so quite superficially I concede, they turn to Ron Paul ( or they say they do, most people wouldn’t pull that trigger ). So the president has to fill that void if he wants those voters back. And he knows it, that's why he gave his Teddy Roosevelt speech.

  9. Oh, white privilege. You'd vote for a racist as your protest vote. Voting for a racist makes you a racist. And guess what? You are also ignorant. You invest too much in Presidential powers. You want the President to do more of your will? Give him a Congress that will lean that way. THAT'S who legislates. Either that or fuck off to North Korea, mate, because you want a dictator. And don't come on my blog again hiding behind the cowardly "Anonymous." Dipshit.

  10. Thanks for your posts, Emilia, especially the last one to the odious "anonymous" who doesn't have the courage to either post under his/her Google ID or name. Those who are sucking up to Ron Paul don't care that he's a racist and/or supports racism because it won't affect them one bit. The research I've done into who supports him reveals that his support consists overwhelmingly of young, white, straight males. I also took a look at Ron Paul's voting record, and he's voted against anything that could indicate he gives a damn about anything/anyone other than himself and his pet issues. He even voted against closing Gitmo.

    Ron Paul rages against the Federal Reserve and seems to have some people believing that he'll be able to abolish the FED if only they vote to make him president. It's all a big, fat lie, and Ron Paul knows it. I've taken so many advanced graduate level economics courses until econ oozes from my pores. The FED is an independent entity created by Congress, it is under the control of Congress, and it legally can never be controlled by the POTUS. Ron Paul has more power to influence what goes on at the FED as a member of Congress than he ever would have as POTUS, yet, he keeps selling this bull, and the gullible keep buying it because they're either unwilling, or unable, to do any kind of research to determine whether he's telling the truth or promoting a conspiracy theory that emerges from his fevered nightmares. BTW, it's the latter.

    Greenwald has never appealed to me because he lies when it suits him, refuses to admit when he's wrong, and appears to have a strong aversion to the truth. If he only became interested in opposing the war in Afghanistan since January 20, 2009, there's another motive besides ending the war behind his opposition, and imo, it's related to racism. He pretends that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't happening until BO became president. He pretends that our soldiers and others weren't getting killed and maimed until BO became president. He pretends he doesn't know that no U.S. president is a dictator. He pretends that there has been no obstruction in Congress of PBO's attempts to close Gitmo and wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. IMO, Greenwald is a one note Charlie, just like Ron Paul. They both have their pet interests that they use mainly to fill their bank accounts by manipulating the emotions of people who appear to be too lazy to do their own research, too gullible, and are far too willing to embrace conspiracy theories instead of facts. Ron Paul and Greenwald know their target audiences and they work them to benefit themselves financially and politically. Greenwald's latest attempt consisted of taking to Twitter to solicit donations to Dan Choi because somehow Dan Choi had been "disrespected" when he attended the courts martial of Bradley Manning. According to Norbrook's blog, he appeared in uniform at the proceeding, but since he is no longer a member of the military, the base commander ejected him from the military base. According to military regulations, there are only certain occasions when a former member of the military can appear in uniform and appearing at a courts martial isn't one of them, but Greenwald ignored all of this, went straight to crazy and followed up by begging for money.

  11. To maji, Paul actually voted against the legislation that prevented funds to be used to move prisoners from Gitmo.

    Actually, this is one of the few issues that Paul agrees consistently with liberals and progressives on. That and his support of legalizing marijuana does hold some appeal to a few on the left. However, his other political stances simply can't be ignored. Being an "one-issue" voter is foolish.

  12. Damn. I'm not gay, but I think I love you, Emilia!