Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 29, 2011

Joining Superman As A Pat Lang "Anti-American"

Pat Lang banned me from commenting at his SST blog. Such after earlier calling me a "plank-holder" of his blog, someone who traveled with his ship from its first voyage on.

He now says I am "anti-American". All I did was criticizing a foreign country's foreign policy. Pat himself regularly does the same with regards to not only U.S. foreign policies, but also especially Israeli foreign policies. Doesn't that make him "anti-American", like he accuses me to be, or even "anti-Semitic"? That's laughable.

The real reason for banning me, I believe, was me indirectly calling his harping for intervention in Libya dumb. He likely knew it was, but didn't want to admit it and damned me for telling him.

Now I seem to be in some powerful companionship. Superman wants to give back his U.S. passport. He dislikes its foreign policy, or maybe only being part of it. He endorses the UN General Assembly.


He also hasn't commented at SST for quite a while. Is he "anti-American"? Is he also banned?


Posted by b on April 29, 2011 at 19:21 UTC | Permalink


Welcome to the club! I've been banned periodically over there, the last time for pointing out that America has spawned few, if any, democracies during its 60 year stint as the "champion" of freedom and democracy. How can you put so many $Trillions into "freedom and democracy" and come up so empty? Maybe the US doesn't practice what it preaches?

Usually His Tyrannis gets over his fits of pique, but you never know.

Posted by: JohnH | Apr 29 2011 19:33 utc | 1

PL's stupid views on intervention in a civil war amazed me, way to go b.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 29 2011 19:45 utc | 2

b, put me on the "I'm ashamed to be an American" list. Like everything in life, actions should match the rhetoric. Very few policies this nation pursues meet that smell test. It's profits uber alles, and fuck everything else.

Wear the ban as a badge of honor b.

"Always drink upstream from the herd."...Will Rogers

Posted by: ben | Apr 29 2011 19:57 utc | 3

well, i am anti-american, if that means agressively opposed to the imperialist policies of a government that has sown terror throughout the world since its inception

i have never understood the fascination with mr lang even though i know that you & am & others posted there - i do not find anything particularly intelligent about the man or intelligent enough for me to want to read him regularly.

b is as incisive & covers such a wide area of the waterfront that as a man who reads & has read a dozen books a week in different languages for a long long time - for which my work has permitted me even in my parlous circumstances - i feel quite ashamed of the terrain b is capable of covering, with precision or with an instinctive intellect that i fully respect even when there is disagreement & i would have to say that the disagreements are very very rare indeed & are often about detail & yes sometimes has to do with the state i'm in - touched by fatigue as i imagine a great many of us are

this is the central source for me & has been since the beginning - b's blogroll & the other commentators here lead me into areas which are sufficient, sometimes more than sufficient

as old soldiers go (with the profoundest respect to my dear friend, anna missed) - i much prefer the rigorousness of bacevics to lang - his loss seems to inform his work a greater dignity than can be afforded to the sometimes boastful lang

b does not need to hide his light under a bushell, if that is the correct saying

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 29 2011 19:57 utc | 4

& i thought the left hegelian zizek was superman

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 29 2011 19:58 utc | 5

Pat Lang is a wealth of contradictions and cognitive dissonance on many fronts. His blog is certainly not one for any sort of wide-ranging opinions on the issues.

I am always amused at one of his criticisms of Chris Matthews--he slams him for ungentlemanly behavior towards guests, yet simultaneously acts as rude and abrasive towards his own posters.

Not a defense of Matthews here in any way, shape, or form. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

Posted by: sorta | Apr 29 2011 20:07 utc | 6

What does it even mean to be "Anti-American?" That most likely means many different things to many different people.

In regards to Anti-Semite, I no longer use that loaded term. It's also bandied about as a criticism of any one who negatively judges the actions of Israel, and yet it's not a fitting term. The implication is that if someone criticizes Israel, they are Jew Haters, or Anti-Jew, and that's absurd, in and of itself, but then when you consider that the Jews, or those who refer to themselves as Jews, are for the most part, not Semitic at all, but rather converts, and not the Jews of the Bible mythically spread throughout the Diaspora. IMO, there are no "Jewish" people. There are Jews, meaning those who practice, and are active in their Judaistic religion. Then there are Israel citizens who are non-Jews, meaning they either belong to another faith, or have no religion at all. And the God's chosen people trope is utter bollocks.

And finally, who is Pat Lang? I've heard the name in passing, but I've know idea who he is. This is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the name.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 29 2011 20:31 utc | 7

Plang is over sensitive, inclined to interpret the most innocent or banal statement as an attack on him, his country or his beloved army. The most innocuous sentence may draw a sneering comment that the writer is "supercilious. Very often, Plang (wilfully?) misinterprets something proposed, or frequently seems not to mhave understood the points made. He has an overinflated opinion of his own intellectual and literary abilitiies. It is interesting to read Sic Semper Tyrannis to hear the contributions of such as Habbakuk, Ali and sometimes Brenner. But Plang's own contributions, and those of his more sycophantic acolytes, are seldom worth more than acting as arsewipes.

Posted by: hilerie | Apr 29 2011 20:44 utc | 8

Christ. You're pathologically un-American. That is to say, if the US led a coalition to blow up an asteroid that was about to destroy the earth, you'd blog vicious denouncements of the act as imperial overreach.

Lang probably senses your anti-Americanism is totally unprincipled, which is a fact. But it's actually worse. I think it's important for American readers of this blog to get it through their fucking heads that b basically cheers any violence directed at the United States. How do I know? I have the MoA archive. Over the last 5 years, b never once had an unkind thing to say about al-Qaeda or OBL. Never.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 30 2011 0:32 utc | 9

slothrop, I actually had to ask myself "who is OBL" and laughed at my stupidity, O' the bearded one ... we'll maybe b has been silent, since OBL has been dead for over 5 years. That is if you believe the late Benazir and a who’s who of Pakistani’s and if he is not dead, then what happened to catch'n em'? Ten years not enough to get one old sick man?

Then again it is nice to remind us of that fifty four year old SOB, clutching his shot up kidneys and running for periodic dialysis checkups, when he was not holed up in a cave ... yes, he was the ultimate buggy man for a whole lotta’ folks, u can take that to the bank, i'm sure some did.

Posted by: Minerva | Apr 30 2011 1:59 utc | 10

What the hell are you bitching about? You've got a fine blog of your own, with some wonderful commentators and your analysis is always worth reading. I love Col Lang and SST, different blog, different analysis. Give folks some credit to read and think for themselves, christ almighty, quit your belly aching...

Posted by: grumpyboots | Apr 30 2011 2:06 utc | 11

AQ doesn't exist you moron sloth. And if they did they would be absolute pikers at murdering civilians compared to the goons in the employ of the US military and CIA, or the IDF for that matter. Also the US has never provided one shred of evidence that OBL was behind 9/11 or anything else.

Posted by: Ran | Apr 30 2011 3:13 utc | 12

I was under the impression that Superman was an illegal alien in the first place. I'm not sure how he was able to finagle a citizenship to renounce (I have never run across the foundling-under-the-age-of-five-crashing-to-Earth-and-possessing-extraordinary-abilities clause in any official documents), but the response to his recent decision by conservative writers is even more baffling. To begin with, if he had come to US territory originally on a raft made of inner tubes or had hopped over or under the border in any other way, these same conservative writers would have been screaming about how he had taken his job as a reporter away from qualified real Americans and they'd be offering to give him the boot themselves.

It really doesn't matter which strings got pulled or palms got greased, he obviously did get his citizenship somehow in order to renounce it, and, as an American, I have no beef with him for that. He has the right to renounce, denounce or recant anything he wishes to per his protections under the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. Once again, the conservative response here is baffling. If they accept that he was an American, as he obviously was until recently, they are decrying him now for acting as one within his legal rights.

The third and final mystery to me in all of this is that the conservatives who have responded to this development are behaving entirely out of character when it comes to the issue of national defense by trying to woo Superman back into the fold rather than dealing with him as the potential terrorist threat that he now is. What they are failing to realize is that Superman, now no longer a US citizen, is almost certainly going to be violating the sanctity of US airspace... and even if he doesn't, it is well documented that he can spy on America from his Justice League (of AMERICA!!!!) satellite, or even while just lounging about on Earth's moon. Even without his airborne abilities, his super hearing gives him the ability to eavesdrop on classified conversations going on in Washington, D.C. while eating a croissant at a sidewalk cafe in Paris. The man now poses a unique threat to US national security and must be treated as such.

If we accept the conservative doctrine of preemptive warfare as a matter of national policy, and we obviously have, we must be consistent in our application of it. Iraq was invaded, destroyed and occupied on the mere rumour of an ability to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes... the threat we now face comes from a man who can lay waste America's entire eastern seaboard just by sneezing!

I am recommending that an ad hoc think tank of America's best and brightest be assembled immediately to deal with this imminent threat. I would like to nominate the demonstrable patriot Lex Luthor to head this committee(...or if his schedule will not allow it, Brainiac, General Zod or Richard Perle would do) to design a weapon that will blow Superman's red and blue balls off before he has the opportunity to compromise the American way of life any further.

Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 30 2011 3:54 utc | 13

Oh well it was inevitable, my dislike of Lang and everything he stands for, from his claims of being actively involved in the empire's expansion to his unabashed efforts to make everything, no matter what, from a disagreement between a couple of Pakistani politicians to a sparrow fart, all about amerika, has been well documented in here and the old WB over the years. Last week when I saw all the fawning, bowing and scraping that went on after the thumbs up from one of lang's acolytes, I felt some discomfort. I don't care to be anywhere near where the cheerleaders for murder, rape and mayhem by the greedheads, gather.

The only thing I felt sure of was that their brand of elitist brown-nosing, which is to say they judge people solely by the 'quality' of the asses they lick, did mean the mutual admiration faucet would be shut off by that scum asap they got what ever it was they were after. This behaviour is absolutely par for the course from the lackeys and enablers of greedheads. Over the years I have seen similar vignettes played out on assorted real world friends & acquaintances who for whatver reason (most often political careerism) allowed themselves to believe the cloying flattery spread around by these derps like so much cow manure.

These types lick rich ass because they care for 'things' much more than people, and that means their boorish behaviour towards those who 'fail the test' for either not sharing that regard, or not being rich, is as predictable as their inability to comprehend life's sublime instants.

We should all rejoice that those creeps will sully this site less often.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 30 2011 4:04 utc | 14

@slothrop #9, Minerva #10, and Ran #12:

I would like to object that you guys are veering off the topic of this thread somewhat by debating fictional threats to the United States. We're supposed to be figuring out how to deal with Superman here.

Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 30 2011 4:29 utc | 15

General Pat is in his dotage. He's like the uncle that used to have an interesting perspective and cool historical stories only to become the cranky old man with an odd smell. Take away the guest columns and some of the commenters and there isn't much that remains. Let him stew in his own prune juice... or give him Sluttrop.

Posted by: Biklett | Apr 30 2011 4:58 utc | 16

Dude, Col Lang likes you, the best students: you get the hardest tests...I recall Col Lang called you an anarchist or're a lucky f**k

Posted by: jackiepressure | Apr 30 2011 5:37 utc | 17

i do not find anything particularly intelligent about the man or intelligent enough for me to want to read him regularly.

This Lang character laughs at the rag tag Taliban fighting force, he sneers at them using IED. Now this sneering IED has a 4 star general looking at research on how to prevent them, the cost with research and medical treatment nears $500B. If this is "Improvised" then hey give the designers some research grant and design some real cool arms!

Posted by: hans | Apr 30 2011 9:52 utc | 18

Monolycus@lucky 13_

You've nailed that one on the head. And funny too.

Of course those of us who support haberdashers that specialize in working with shiny metal materials think the Superman deal is to set Ameri(k)cans up for a one world government.

Honestly, I've no beef with the idea of a big peaceful world, I just don't see it happening in the way the neocons, the walcons, and plain convicts would like it to be.

I still can't figure-out the disconnect some folks have in their world view. How can people support the military and then complain about Congress and Oblamblam? Why can't people realize the whole shebang is part and parcel of the same imperialistic mess? Our corporations send our troops to fight to bolster their bottom line, and maybe to steal a few resources... and, (break out the tinfoil) I'd bet to also help give our strapping young impoverished youth an easy way to die. Leaves more resources (widows and the such) for the wrinkly old farts to steal.

America's wars since 2000 (probably all to a degree) are textbook examples of what socially and financially bankrupted empires do. They hardly bother to change anything, but go right back to the fine example set by the Roman Empire at it's collapse by over-reaching.

Isn't what we're watching just a repeat of the same old tired empire show? A massive false-flag attack (9/11) at the brink of a financial problem (tech bubble burst) combined with someone stealing the reigns of the empire (bush election) then massive funding of war industries while providing 'work' for the young and disenfranchised by pushing-out empire's borders (and reducing the number of angry, out of work men, who might protest)...

I've watched this show unfold many times over the past 1000 years... maybe not personally, but history books paint a pretty clear map of where we're headed, and it ain't pretty.

As long as my friend's husband continues to send me pro-military stories while complaining about how over-reaching the government is, I'll figure we're fucked. When he gets it thru his head that the military is the boot empire uses to keep EVERYONE in their place, and can admit how he was used by empire for that very thing (him and her were both in the army) then Ameri(k)ca might survive.

Of course the chance of that happening are... well about the same a a naked man surviving a week in Antarctica out on the ice.


Posted by: DaveS | Apr 30 2011 13:02 utc | 19

the main problem the world is facing today is Us imperialism; of a different type than all traditional forms of imperialism, because it doesn't take responsibility in imposing its law on other lands and their people, it only dominates the land and the resources, preventing anyone else from establishing any real form of government there; failed states are its signature;

the western left is filled with well-intentioned individuals blind to the root of the problem, that of the lawlessness and irresponsibility (besides the traditional criminality) of this new form of western domination, a blindness which unites neolibs, teocons, neocons, liberal interventionists, racists, antiracists, neofascists, neodemocrats, etc

Lang is simply only one of them. Interesting analysis here and there, maybe, but inconsequential and unhelpful for grasping the big picture.

Posted by: claudio | Apr 30 2011 14:17 utc | 20

Isn't Colonel Lang just another realpolitik realist, who proposes that force be used; but that violence and mayhem ought to be used in more intelligent ways--in other words--in the way he would use them. Also there's the unquestioned assumption of the "rational actors" view of human affairs, with war and the threat of war at the center of it all. But this represents a contradiction in terms, in a world governed by nihilism, bloodlust, greed, narcissism, and other symptoms of insanity.

And what's up with Superman? He's a little late to the party. How many decades ago has it been now, since the Kent State and Jackson State shootings? That's when Captain America broke down in tears, and understood that America isn't so cool, after all.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 30 2011 15:49 utc | 21

DaveS @ 19: You've nailed it!

As long as this nation has so many uber-rich that believe in the sociopathic ravings of the bitch Ayn Rand, the whole fucking world is in danger. When the US quits elevating greed and avarice to a virtue, maybe then, we'll all be better off.

Posted by: ben | Apr 30 2011 15:58 utc | 22


I did see the post where he banned you when you said 'payback' and he went off on about 'my' people. PL is ex-army, intel officer and as such is bound by oaths and his own beliefs on the supposed 'natural' order of things. I'd suggest, that there's no need to associate 'goodness' or 'morality' with Army folks, anywhere in the world. They're prone to see things as non negotiable especially when THEY hold the guns and power.

I simply see him as an American firster who believes that force solves lots of things and that American Exceptionalism is the natural order of things. And to top it, his Catholicism tends to confirm the 'White man' knows best behaviour. I see him useful as an analyst who might represent the cold war mentality that there are bad guys out there(conveniently omitting who set them up in the first place) and it's the American realist way of dealing with it via overthrow,assassinations and war if it comes to that. The only thing is, of course, they don't like it dished back to them, like the Iranians did for USS Vincennes.

Posted by: shanks | Apr 30 2011 16:02 utc | 23

Was wondering when some famous American would give up his nationality, beyond the passport burning of old, with fanfare, in public, and with some kind of justification. Realizing that the media might simply not report it, and that serious persons might consider such an act dangerous.

Now I know - a fictional character!

To renounce US citizenship one must meet in the flesh an Ambassador or Consular official. Read some of the conditions here.

...persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations..

Superman doesn’t have those problems! He is FREE (and as pointed out above originally an illegal alien.)

Wait times for an Embassy or Consular appointment are 18 months and more.

To acquire that precious 2nd passport, you can buy one in St. Kitts., reputed to be the cheapest. A free one ... well we have one guy in CH who has 16 different identities, all from ex-Yugoslavia countries (Macedonia also awards passports ‘on your word.’)

Never could stomach Pat Lang.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 30 2011 16:12 utc | 24

"failed states are its signature"

That reminds me of the saying "it takes a skilled craftsman to build a barn, but any jackass can knock one down".

Posted by: Watson | Apr 30 2011 16:27 utc | 25

Noirette, the impediments to renunciation of citizenship are truly chilling. It does make one realize, rather quickly if they have an open mind and are capable of critical thought, that this nonsense spouted by the Jingoists about Freedom and Liberty is only so much lip service.

Freedom, to me at least, is just as Janice Joplin said it was.....NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

Considering that, it won't be too long now that we will all be free, truly free, because there is not much left for us to lose.

Afterall, Janis is free, isn't she? But is she happy?

And DaveS, I appreciate the sentiment of your post, but take exception when you say maybe the U.S. will survive, as if it was something worth salvaging. It's not worth salvaging. That's something no one here should encourage, nor wish for. Also, you mentioned "our troops." Maybe that was just an oversight on your part, or force of habit, but I can tell you, unequivocally, they are not "my" troops, and I am a U.S. Citizen....involuntarily, of course, since I was born into it.

We had dinner last weekend with some Dominican friends. The Patriarch of the family, and I use that term because that is exactly how he acts, during a political discussion said "our Forefathers." I was flabberghasted to hear this coming from a Dominican Émigré, but after further reflection, it makes total sense. Afterall, he is part Spanish, because the Spanish cared enough about those they conquered to not only bed them, but also marry them, and so most Dominicans have some Spanish in their "blood," so to speak. As such, it's as natural for them to associate with the conqueror as it would be to associate themselves with the conquered. He, obviously, chose the former approach, hence the Patriarchal stance, and his fondness for Empire, Imperialism and Forefathers. Of no coincidence, his eldest son is in the military, and the next eldest son is contemplating the same. Of course, I told him, in no uncertain terms, that they were not my Forefathers. He was taken aback, at first, but quickly recaptured his tenuous footing, and retorted, "you live here, so they are your Forefathers whether you like it, or not." I repeated that they were not, and my living "here" had nothing to do with it. Stalemate.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 30 2011 16:47 utc | 26

Pat Lang is a grumpy old fellow, who frequently flip-flops in his positions, and regularly "bans" those who even mildly disagree with him. While his site is interesting, his seeming demands for a sycophantic cult of personality make interaction there tedious at best.

Posted by: commenter | Apr 30 2011 17:46 utc | 27

In lieu of an open thread, I'm transmitting a request, originally made to Angry Arab, but of interest to all.

Posted by: Maracatu | Apr 30 2011 17:57 utc | 28

it takes a skilled craftsman to build a barn, but any jackass can knock one down.......and a wise person who realizes the barn is a large part of the problem, in fact, right at the center of it.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Apr 30 2011 18:21 utc | 29

ô that barn has been burning since this day in 1975 in saigon when the empire heaved helicopters into the sea of china. defeat their only destiny

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 30 2011 18:54 utc | 30


I wasn't commenting on whether the U.S. should or shouldn't survive, but rather what it might take to make that happen.

And in today's world, it's odd discussing geopolitical regions when it appears the world is run by banking corporations that know no boundaries. Corporations are the true Frankenstein monsters, assembled from a mishmash of parts and pieces looking to smash and crash and steal the cash. I guess Frank's monster wasn't that bad... but the large, undying multinational corporations are just plain evil incarnate.

As for troops... yeah, I hear you. My brother's in the army and so I guess he's one of my troops. But as I said, I hear you. I wish more guys had guts like the dude in the video you shared does.

This empire's wars are no different than any other's and they'll soon bankrupt the government. What happens then is anyone's guess? At least if things become really ugly, I can go egg a few GulfStreams... ;)


Posted by: DaveS | May 1 2011 0:21 utc | 31

DaveS, and MB, and all - the thing is that *nothing* living survives. e.g. these bankers are at risk of having their 'wealth' turn into meaningless electrons. The only true wealth may turn out to be a knowledge of what is sustainable development, a well-honed sense of humor, and a great desire to nurture communities. And of course the non-destruction of everything!

Posted by: lambent1 | May 1 2011 1:04 utc | 32

An America that doesn't objectify itself in terms of dominance and superiority; that would be a country in which a citizen could have a sense of belonging. What exists now must be opposed. But we have been reminded of the reactivity of this kind of power, with the appointment of a general to head the CIA, and the appointment of a CIA civilian to become Secretary of War.

Empire dies; and its trajectory is predictable. It is reactive to the very end; it uses up the world in the way that Chris Hedges says corporations do--that is-- "to the point of exhaustion and collapse". Mercenaries take over its bureaucratic offices; corporations write its laws; its areas of military occupation expand without rational limits; its leaders boast of the nation's exceptional qualities while it slides toward irrelevance, and its economic planners offshore boatloads of dollars.

Dungeons, weapons making, surveillance, and the liquidation of plundered property, are its remaining growth industries. It's probably no accident that President Obama reacted to a pretty gentle heckling at a very exclusive fundraising event, by turning to Speaker Pelosi and asking if she had put the hecklers up to it; and just a few minutes later, he quietly pronounced Pvt. Bradley Manning guilty, saying "He broke the law".

Posted by: Copeland | May 1 2011 2:21 utc | 33

Ghaddifi and his wife survive assassination attempt, but a son and three grandaughters were killed in the NATO attack.

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, it was said, "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." In the Libyan situation, all civiians are innocent civilians, but some are clearly more innocent than others....

Collateral damage? Or just the cost of trying to take out Ghaddafi?

These are apparently still alleged deaths.

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi survived a NATO airstrike on Saturday night that struck a house in Tripoli containing several of his family members and killed his youngest son and three of the colonel’s grandchildren, a Libyan government spokesman announced early Sunday.

“This was a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country,” said Moussa Ibrahim, the government spokesman, adding that the airstrike proved that the NATO air campaign “has no moral foundation, no legal foundation and no political foundation.”

Mr. Ibrahim identified the dead son as Seif al-Arab Muammar el-Qaddafi, 29. He said that Colonel Qaddafi and his wife, who were in the son’s house along with “friends and relatives,” were not wounded in the attack.

The son who was said to be killed has a lower profile than much of the Qaddafi family. Western officials have said that he made his home in Munich most of the time, and did not seem to play as much of a role in Libya’s everyday affairs as some of his older siblings (including one with a similar name, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi). He has a reputation as a playboy, and the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in 2007 about an incident in which he was briefly detained by the Munich police after getting into a fight with a nightclub bouncer; no charges were filed.

Posted by: jawbone | May 1 2011 2:28 utc | 34

copeland, i feel & understand your growing melancholy but you are writing here especially well, clear

i am ,ot a fan of 'clarity' but confronted by the constant madness of empore & all its permutations in these dark dark time - i hunger for the clarity b & you & many others are capable to offer

i feel so close to fury, so close to rage a great deal of the time that i find it difficult to post coherently. i feel that rage in debs too - where sentences are hardly able to mount the fence of that anger, that fury

we are living in a time so dark so unrelenting dark & where the vulgar puppeteers - the kings-of-nothing-at-all plunder what conciousness we possess with their endless ceremonies & circuses. inane & savage. barbarous. completely without culture or even sense

this is hell & we breathe as we can - a person who can paint a more positive picture i have not yet seen & the greatest essayist in america, chris hedges is clearly almost overwhelmed by the profoundest sense of melancholy about where this world gone wrong is

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 1 2011 2:35 utc | 35

Not sure what to say about b's being banned at PL's blog. I imagine the "anti-American" thing is especially reserved for those who aren't actually American citizens - myself, being an American citizen, have been getting the domestic old schoolboy treatment of pointing out spelling errors, "learn some Arabic!", or the general brush off treatment. So I'm about outta there myself I guess. Too bad really, but things have been fairly volatile over there what with the surprising endorsement of the Libyan invasion (w/ in house conflict), that COIN post on de-radicalizing militancy, the pro-secession Civil war posts, the depiction of the Tea Party'ers as upstanding Constitutionalists, and such. Kind of a crazy inconsistent confluence of highly questionable hot button items to expect there not to be some, if not a fair amount of chatter in the ranks.

But then again it's his blog, and he can run it however, and for whatever purposes he see's fit. As he no doubt will.

Posted by: anna missed | May 1 2011 4:46 utc | 36

i thought he was totally off his rocker when he endorsed suleiman and sang his praises, so i'm in the biklett(16!!) camp.

monolycus, you rock best thread post!

b, i adore you.

Posted by: annie | May 1 2011 5:49 utc | 37

I am a U.S. Citizen....involuntarily, of course, since I was born into it. I 've watched this show unfold many times over the past 1000 years... maybe not personally, I would like to nominate Lex Luthor to head this committee; freedom, to me at least, is just as Janice Joplin said it was.....and the God's chosen people trope is pathologically un-American. If the US led a coalition to blow up an asteroid that was about to destroy the earth, you'd blog vicious denouncements. And what's up with Superman? He's a little late to the party.

Posted by: ratfink | May 1 2011 7:18 utc | 38

"Pat Lang banned me from commenting at his SST blog".

Surprised it took so long, really...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 1 2011 7:24 utc | 39

"i feel that rage in debs too - where sentences are hardly able to mount the fence of that anger, that fury" yr correct of course giap. When I do write I am so overwhelmed with a visceral rage I can barely comprehend what it is I am trying to say. My muse has well and truly left the building. So I only post when I reckon it matters. eg this thread where our host is feeling the pain and support is the best analgesic.

I am speechless over the deaths of the Ghadaffi children. Every bbc or aq propaganda piece on the illegal invasion of Libya has carried footage of wounded so called civilians the vast majority of whom have been young adult males. Yes it is bad that they are dying however it seems likely the blame for this should be sheeted home to the quislings who put them up to it.

There is no way that the casualties of this conflict come close to conforming to the profile of casualties from the slaughter of Gaza, or Beiruit or Fallujah where the casualty demographic pretty much conformed to those of the community which was under attack.

No one seriously mooted sending in an armed force to protect the people of Beiruit & Gaza from the IDF, just as no one attempted to take amerika's deliberate & carefully planned slaughter of the entire population of one of Iraq's largest population centers, to the UN. We know this but even in here when I write of the injustice of Libya's treatment, it seems one is obliged to put in a weasely denouncement of Colonel Ghadaffi as well, despite the fact his years in power as 'undemocratic' as all claim them to be, could never be compared with the crimes any of the last 8 amerikan prez's or israeli pm's, or english liars, or french felons or any of the scum currently sitting in judgement on the colonel. None of those leaders have done a hundreth of the good, humanist and committed actions that the colonel has instigated in his lifetime.

The fact that unwritten rule has even extended to this site really gets my goat because in a nutshell it highlights universal acceptance of the maliciously distorted reality we all exist within.

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 1 2011 11:05 utc | 40

This site has a design, with well-styled typography
...unlike that other one. You win there.

Also, (must I say?) some extremely articulate and informative posts and comments.

Posted by: Two Sense | May 1 2011 15:11 utc | 41

banning someone is a form of censorship, also a means of protection: from what the banned has to say, that may disturb their world view.
Anti-american? the only ones pro-american are those who US gives money of military support(aka the Libyan insurgents)

Posted by: brian | May 1 2011 22:08 utc | 42

>Libya is a case that has drawn support from a number of clueless left and left libersals, the latest victim being british journalist Yvonne Ridley who had aroad to Benghazi conversion..pity she didnt go to Tripoli and interview Gadaffi.

Posted by: brian | May 1 2011 22:10 utc | 43

lang has banned you previously so it's likely a temporary matter. that he pulled out the nonsensical descriptive label 'anti-american' is a hoot, but probably just his way of reacting to a breach of protocol from the authoritarian military worldview.

Posted by: b real | May 1 2011 23:53 utc | 44

Someone had to turn that Superman story on its head (to the glory of ObamaBumBum): An OpEd in El Pais: ‘Bin Laden y la última aventura de Superman’ by Ariel Dorfman,

From the blurb on the front page of the site atm: “Obama ha demostrado que sin el superhéroe puede defender a EE UU de los terroristas”

The sanctification of that guy (o.) is going on well.

Posted by: Philippe | May 4 2011 14:11 utc | 45

The comments to this entry are closed.