HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Glenn Greenwald - Progres...

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:42 AM

View profile

 

Glenn Greenwald - Progressive or Liberaltarian?

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:45 AM USA/ET - Edit history (3)

Just who is Glenn Greenwald, really. Is he a progressive? Or is he more of a liberaltarian?

His association with the Cato Institute, a Koch-funded libertarian think tank, argues that he may be more libertarian than progressive. Googling {"Glenn Greenwald" Cato} brings up a bunch of interesting links, which I'm now in the process of examining. What I'm finding so far is interesting, and may explain some recent articles he has written.

Perhaps others will enjoy looking at some of the links in that search, too. There's lots to read and analyze, so I'm not commenting much on individual issues at this point. I'm just encouraging other DUers to check out those links.

97 replies, 1709 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 97 replies Author Time Post
Reply Glenn Greenwald - Progressive or Liberaltarian? (Original post)
MineralMan Jan 2 OP
tabatha Jan 2 #1
MineralMan Jan 2 #2
tabatha Jan 2 #6
MineralMan Jan 2 #10
MH1 Jan 2 #29
Bluenorthwest Jan 2 #48
MineralMan Jan 2 #59
Bluenorthwest Jan 2 #64
DesMoinesDem Jan 2 #3
Autumn Jan 2 #4
MineralMan Jan 2 #7
_ed_ Jan 2 #5
MineralMan Jan 2 #9
_ed_ Jan 2 #14
MineralMan Jan 2 #18
_ed_ Jan 2 #26
MineralMan Jan 2 #38
Pholus Jan 2 #52
tabatha Jan 2 #62
tabatha Jan 2 #17
MineralMan Jan 2 #19
quinnox Jan 2 #8
whatchamacallit Jan 2 #21
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2 #11
MineralMan Jan 2 #15
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2 #33
A Simple Game Jan 2 #94
paulk Jan 2 #70
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2 #12
MineralMan Jan 2 #16
Warren Stupidity Jan 2 #46
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2 #60
A Simple Game Jan 2 #95
MH1 Jan 2 #39
Pholus Jan 2 #57
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2 #61
MjolnirTime Jan 2 #13
leveymg Jan 2 #20
MineralMan Jan 2 #23
Pholus Jan 2 #25
leveymg Jan 2 #43
PA Democrat Jan 2 #22
MineralMan Jan 2 #28
PA Democrat Jan 2 #55
A Simple Game Jan 2 #96
baldguy Jan 2 #24
MineralMan Jan 2 #32
baldguy Jan 2 #47
Luminous Animal Jan 2 #27
MineralMan Jan 2 #30
fascisthunter Jan 2 #31
MineralMan Jan 2 #34
JoePhilly Jan 2 #72
JackRiddler Jan 2 #35
smokey nj Jan 2 #44
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2 #36
Bluenorthwest Jan 2 #41
Bluenorthwest Jan 2 #37
JackRiddler Jan 2 #40
whatchamacallit Jan 2 #42
Warren Stupidity Jan 2 #45
JackRiddler Jan 2 #49
Warren Stupidity Jan 2 #51
JackRiddler Jan 2 #53
MineralMan Jan 2 #58
A Simple Game Jan 2 #97
getdown Jan 2 #50
Luminous Animal Jan 2 #54
getdown Jan 2 #56
frylock Jan 2 #63
Bluenorthwest Jan 2 #65
MineralMan Jan 2 #66
Bluenorthwest Jan 2 #67
MineralMan Jan 2 #68
Pholus Jan 2 #69
MineralMan Jan 2 #71
Pholus Jan 2 #73
MineralMan Jan 2 #74
Pholus Jan 2 #75
MineralMan Jan 2 #80
Pholus Jan 2 #91
johnaries Jan 2 #76
Pholus Jan 2 #77
girl gone mad Jan 2 #82
EFerrari Jan 2 #86
Puregonzo1188 Jan 2 #78
jpgray Jan 2 #79
AtomicKitten Jan 2 #81
jpgray Jan 2 #83
AtomicKitten Jan 2 #84
jpgray Jan 2 #87
EFerrari Jan 2 #89
AtomicKitten Jan 2 #90
freshwest Jan 2 #92
AtomicKitten Jan 2 #93
suffragette Jan 2 #85
MineralMan Jan 2 #88

Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:45 AM

1. Your link goes to Glenn Beck.

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabatha (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:46 AM

2. I discovered that.

View profile

For some reason the URL didn't resolve properly. I haven't been able to fix it, so I'll just let people type it into Google. I'm not sure what the problem with it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:52 AM

6. Try making a tinyurl.

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:53 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

However, I put in Glenn Greenwald into Google, and came across some interesting stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabatha (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:57 AM

10. It's easy enough to type in the link.

View profile

I never use tinyurl, since I won't click on such links myself. I'm still working on figuring out why my pasted link didn't resolve properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:12 AM

29. This link works.

View profile

(although technically it isn't exactly the same thing, it probably gets the same results)

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Glenn%22Greenwald%22Cato

I used <url></url> tags (with square brackets) and replaced the '+' symbol in your link (found in your edit history) with '%22' , like:

<url>http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Glenn%22Greenwald%22Cato</url>


It seems the bb code version DU is using doesn't like the + symbol. This seems like a bug to me, because it would be awfully annoying to have to replace the + symbols in google search links all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:35 AM

48. I suggest that linkiing to Glenn Beck on DU is a red flag shouting 'slow down and

View profile

think in your zeal to make hay out of some commentator'. My opinion, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:21 PM

59. Uh, I didn't link to Glenn Beck.

View profile

When I discovered that the link didn't work, I deleted it. I believe one person saw it before it was deleted. I did not design DU's URL resolving algorithm.

Have a nice day! I'm about to go watch the NU Cornhuskers kick South Carolina's collective butt in a bowl game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #59)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:57 PM

64. Sure, that's the ticket. Where are the other links?

View profile

And why, when others looked up the Cato study, did you refuse to discuss the actual nature of the study? Those who fling poo should stand up and defend that poo. You fling, then run. You make silly comments on game watching and yet, you do not respond to the actual questions that arise from the allegations in your OP. Many DUers asked you to address that. You failed to do so. Thus, the OP is not seeking discussion at all. It seeks destruction and insinuation. Without fact, without links.
Worthy of Tail Gunner Joe. In my opinion, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:50 AM

4. I got to pass on Beck coming up.

View profile

so I will not bother with looking any further

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:54 AM

7. It was an error in the way DU resolves URLs.

View profile

I deleted the link. You can Google the search I included, and not see Beck. I'm still trying to figure out why the copied URL didn't resolve properly when pasted into DU. Or you can skip the whole thing. It's up to you, really. Believe me, I didn't intend to send people to any links to Beck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:51 AM

5. A better question is:

View profile

"Is President Obama a progressive?"

Glenn is:
- anti war
- pro civil liberties
- against executive power
- against Iraq / Afghanistan
- Pro drug legalization (by the way, this is the issue he works with the CATO Institute on, see his analysis of Portugal)
- against media corruption

Does that sound like a Progressive? Where does Obama come down on those issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:56 AM

9. Well, the list you created

View profile

is also a libertarian list, for the most part.

But, Glenn Greenwald was for the wars before he was against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:59 AM

14. Greenwald supported the War on Terror?

View profile

You're just making stuff up now. Waiting patiently for a link where Glenn supports the War on Terror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:03 AM

18. He supported the Iraq invasion during the Bush administration.

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:05 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I did not say the "War on Terror." If I had meant that, I would have written that. I believe he also supported the Afghanistan war at that time. He doesn't mention that these days, though. Embarrassing, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #18)


Response to _ed_ (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:19 AM

38. Here you go:

View profile

Quotes from Greenwald himself in the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:39 AM

52. When you read this, skip that post and read the preface itself which is linked.

View profile

I find the context useful at times. Like this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:45 PM

62. After a post like this, I think the examination of the writings of any individual is valuable

View profile

especially to those who are unfamiliar with them.

It usually helps to make charges based on fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:02 AM

17. I thought he was supported Bush on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

View profile

"It is little known that Greenwald supported the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan before it. He does not mention it in writing anymore and rarely speaks of it. He supported the war for the same reason I did: he believed that Iraq possessed WMD and that the potential consequences of that possession could not be risked."
http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

Obama did not support the Iraq war. Obama - plus, Greenwald - minus

Obama is pro civil liberties, against executive power.

Obama is not anti-war, but against wars that are stupid.

Obama is not for media corruption.

As for pro drug legalization - I would think that banning meth is just as important as removing mercury from air and water. Marijuana is a different matter - I would like to see it legalized, so that people could grow it in their homes instead of in national forests, and people who need it could have access to it.

As for the Cato Institute, they get some things right, but an awful lot wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabatha (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:04 AM

19. All true. Thanks.

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:55 AM

8. I'm hoping someone can hack into his emails

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:56 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I'm thinking there is some real juicy stuff there maybe to be found, like maybe Greenwald used some really bad words or somethin'.

For the sarcasm impaired, SARCASM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:58 AM

11. You know what? I couldn't care less.

View profile

Glenn Greenwald is just another editorialist on the Internet - one of many. Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes I don't. He's as entitled to his opinions as anyone else, and he has every right to criticize Obama. And those who disagree with Greenwald are equally entitled to criticize him.

So I don't really understand all this flak over Greenwald all of a sudden. How is he different from the many other political commentators lurking on the Internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:00 AM

15. OK. However, Glenn Greenwald's writings are

View profile

posted here on DU daily, so he is of obvious interest to DUers. Those daily postings, sometimes duplicated several times, have been part of GD for a very long time. Why wouldn't DUers be interested in him? If you're not, it's easy enough not to bother with such threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:14 AM

33. What I'm trying to figure out is *why* DU is so obsessed with him.

View profile

I think that's a fair question. Why is Greenwald, who is, as far as I can tell, just another Internet commentator, such a BFD all of a sudden? I don't get it, and would be interested in some enlightenment on the subject. So far I don't especially care, and of course therefore I could easily ignore the whole discussion, but since Mr. Greenwald has apparently become the latest DU cause celebre (not unlike pit bulls, breast feeding and circumcision), I might be missing something. Maybe I should care; if so, why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:04 PM

94. I don't think we should care. It seems to me that this is just

View profile

the latest smoke screen to divert attention away from President Obama's latest misstep.

Every time President Obama does something that the majority don't like, a scapegoat is soon offered up. It's the old don't look here, look over there trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:31 PM

70. well, you know, last week it was Matt Tiabbi

View profile

this week it's Glen Greenwald, next week it's ...

who knows?

I'm sure they'll come up with somebody to distract with.

After all, it's a big bus...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:58 AM

12. Since libertarians can range from the far right to the far left

View profile

it could be both... but I am sure you knew this. It's not like it's a secret. The Right Wing of the Libertarian party is far more noiser, that is all. Oh and they are the third largest party in the US, and as far as getting them in one page... you thought getting democrats organized was hard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:01 AM

16. Yes. I'm well aware of libertarian political issues.

View profile

And, yes, they do pollute both parties. That's a long-time interest of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:27 AM

46. "they do pollute both parties"

View profile

ah that explains a lot.

So sorry to have polluted your party. To make up for it, I've composed a little ditty:

Every party has a polluter
that's why you invited me,
party polluter, that's me!

Fucking hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:25 PM

60. So caring about the law and civil rights is pollution?

View profile

Now am I glad I am an independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:14 PM

95. You don't think that some of the libertarian views are worthy of consideration?

View profile

So you support the patriot act, are against single payer, for indefinite detention, etc., the list is very long.

I, along with most people I know have at least a little libertarian streak in me, have for most of my life.

Authoritarians most likely don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:20 AM

39. Libertarianism is ultimately NOT consistent with liberal values. It just isn't.

View profile

Libertarianism is against government regulation of anything at all.

That it happens to oppose government regulations on some things that liberals would like to see less regulated, does NOT make it a liberal viewpoint.

For example, remove all regulations from food production, use of the environment, labor laws, advertising laws; and get back to me in a few years on how that's working out for liberal (or 'progressive' if you prefer) values.

Sure when it comes to what goes on in my personal home, that involves me as an individual and causes no harm to anyone else, you could call me a 'libertarian' - but it would be screamingly inaccurate because that little bit of libertarianism is about 1/10 of what the world is about. So I would say that anyone who thinks they are a 'left' libertarian needs to get out more. They need to think more broadly about the real basis of libertarianism and how that would affect the world.

Or in other words, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:50 AM

57. Sometimes shades of grey can be useful, sir.

View profile


So, in the end I STRONGLY agree with the libertarians 10% of the time and STRONGLY disagree 90% of the time.

Too bad you can't attach one word black and white labels to percentages.

However, I notice that when I do mention that 10% the party orthodoxy gets quite displeased...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:28 PM

61. As I said, the RIGHT WING of the Libertarian party is quite noisy

View profile

but that's not all that encompasses the philosophy (why it will never become one of the two leading parties by the way)

Civil Libertarians, who come straight from CLASSIC liberalism are the left wing of that party.

As I said, you though herding cats... er democrats was hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:04 AM

20. "Liberaltarian"? If that's a Left-Libertarian, how's that different from anti-statist Progressive?

View profile

Define your terms, particularly if you're going to make them up or borrow them from obscure sources. You don't want to be accused of being simple-minded, so be precise in your use of language.

So, MM, what's so bad about anti-statist Progressives? That's most of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:08 AM

23. No, that's isn't what I meant.

View profile

Libertarians often pretend to be other than what they are. As for being accused of being simple minded, Greenwald has already covered that ground. I use "liberaltarian" as a pseudo-political title. You may interpret it as you see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:10 AM

25. So you are saying that "liberaltarians" are deceitful anti-statist progressives then?

View profile


Your thread *is* kind of getting python-esque here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM

43. Since you're insinuating that GG is a false-flag Progressive, burden is on you to

View profile

establish what he "really is." What is he, really, and what's your evidence?

Otherwise, you're just another ghost of Joe McCarthy character assassin with a handful of names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:07 AM

22. Do you think Greenwald's writings will have ANY impact on the 2012 election?

View profile

Because I don't and I am at a complete loss as to why people are so obsessed with the guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PA Democrat (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:12 AM

28. I think Greenwald is about dividing people, so it may, indeed affect

View profile

the 2012 elections. I say "elections" because I am not really concerned with the Presidential election, specifically. That's not something I can really do anything about, and I don't think Greenwald can, either. I'm concerned with congressional and state legislatures. I believe that Greenwald's divisiveness may indeed affect those by lowering the turnout rate for people disaffected with the Obama Administration, which appears to be a constant target for Greenwald.

Those other elections, which I consider to be far more important than the Presidential election, often turn on a small number of votes. A diminished turnout by Democrats and other progressives, has the potential to be a disaster.

As for why people are interested in Greenwald, his articles are posted daily on DU. Daily. They have been for a very long time. That's why I'm interested in Greenwald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:44 AM

55. "Interested"? More like obsessed. Too many threads to count, too much of a pain to hide them all.

View profile

I'm neither a fan nor detractor of Greenwald, but the character assassination going on is excessive, over-the-top and distasteful.

The election will be decided mostly upon people's perceptions of who can best solve the country's economic problems. Bill Clinton said it best :"It's the economy, stupid." And here is a hint: 99.999999999% of Americans, I'd guess, are not relying on Greenwald's opinions to make that decision.

President Obama's poll numbers have improved when he started taking on a more populist approach and taking on Republicans as the enemies of the common good that they are. That's what I have been urging him and other elected Dems to do in my emails and phone calls.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:24 PM

96. Now that's funny. "his articles are posted daily on DU".

View profile

There's only about 5 people posting about Greenwald. Your one of them!! Personally I think it is a diversion tactic. I could be wrong. What do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:09 AM

24. The real question is: Do Americans have a right & duty to criticize the President when he's wrong?

View profile

And be able to do so without being unfairly attacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:14 AM

32. Of course they do.

View profile

I've attacked nobody in this thread. We all may criticize whomever we please, as long as they are public figures. Both Obama and Greenwald are in that category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:34 AM

47. The only reason Greenwald is being attacked is because he has been critical of Obama.

View profile

And don't act so innocent & naive. Linking Greenwald to the Koch Bros is an attack; it ignores the fact when he writes a column for syndication anyone who pays the syndication fee can publish it. That doesn't mean the writer and the publisher have anything to do with one another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:11 AM

27. Here, let me help you with that google search link.

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:13 AM

30. Hi. Yes, that works.

View profile

I don't use tinyurl links, myself, but thanks for posting that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:14 AM

31. conspiracy theories to smear the left

View profile

bye bye... welcome to ignore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:15 AM

34. Thanks for letting me know.

View profile

Had you not, I wouldn't have any idea that you were ignoring my posts. It's always good to know things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:37 PM

72. I always get a kick when some one ...

View profile

welcomes me to their ignore list ...

I usually thank them, because I'm probably being added to a list if folks I like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:16 AM

35. "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal" by Glenn Greenwald

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:18 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

That's the name of the paper he wrote with a Cato grant.

Greenwald's "association with the Cato Institute," when put out as a general statement without specifics, is yet another transparent smear.

As far as I know to date, Greenwald received a Cato grant to conduct one study, on "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal." He then participated as the pro-decriminalization voice in a Cato-sponsored debate.

I can't think of a better item for Cato to spend its money on, and for sure I'm not the only one at DU who would have been happy to take that particular grant and write a study on that subject. (I know this is tough for some who insist that all must be black and white, and if Cato says M&Ms come in several colors, they will insist there's only one.)

Study
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

Article
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

QUOTE:



On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

SNIP



Reading the above, I must say: My god! The monster! He hates America/Obama!!! It's all he does!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM

44. Thank you, JackRiddler

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:16 AM

36. Barack Obama - Centrist or Moderate?

View profile

His association with DLC'rs Joe Lieberman, the Clintons, and Joe Biden, argues that he may be more conservative than moderate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM

41. What of his associations and employment of Donnie McClurkin? Ex-gay hate preacher

View profile

who performed for the GOP many times prior, and had called for war on gay people? OFA cut checks to that guy, and defended his employment as surrogate to the candidate. Extremely conservative right wing preacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:19 AM

37. Glenn Greenwald" Cato shows that he worked with them on drug policy issues

View profile

particularly around Portugal's recent history of legalization. Is that supposed to sound wrong? Why?
Why are you posting without links, claiming I'll find trash? What is your issue with that Portugal study? Specifically.
Also, amazed at what you DID link to. That should alert you that you need to slow down.
Greenwald is just some commentator, and there are many of them. Take a deep one and think on that link you put on DU out of excess zeal.

Name calling and insinuations and attempts at personal destruction in place of the reasoned argument of ideas must always face strong rejection. And I do, strongly reject those tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:20 AM

40. I agree with the OP. It's important to attach an exact one-word label to everybody.

View profile

There are so many people! When I try to count all the people, my brain hurts!

And there are so many words, too! Look at all those words and words!

It's so very hard to use more than word per person. I need a word, one word, that tells me right away if I love someone or if I hate him.

Oh, how I hate people who have bad words attached to them! Hate, hate, hate! It's fun. Every day, for two minutes.

So I'm glad someone is pursuing this important question.

But please don't confuse me with big, non-existent words like liberaltarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM

42. Lol!

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:48 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

You're awfully simple-minded sometimes Jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:23 AM

45. Your allegation "his association with the Cato institute".

View profile

His association appears to be a) "He conducted research, commissioned by the Cato Institute, on the effect of the abolition of all criminal penalties for personal drug possession in Portugal, which occurred in 2001. "

source:wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

b) a book forum sponsored by the Cato Institute:

"Greenwald, Glenn. "Book Forum: A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency". Cato Institute, August 7, 2007. Panel discussion featuring Greenwald, "with comments by Lee Casey, Partner, Baker Hostetler." (Hyperlinked MP3 podcast and RealVideo formats.)"

sirce: IBID

I find your efforts here to tar Greenwald with some new made up term, liberalitarian, tortuous at best, and mostly just ridiculous. Really? You need to make up a word for somebody who agrees with right libertarians about the idiocy of drug policies? Here are some existing words: left libertarian, progressive, liberal, non-authoritarian leftist, etc.

Tarring Greenwald with the twitter rape joke allegation was much more successful. I have ot consider this OP FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:37 AM

49. Do you really think "liberaltarian" was an intentional coinage?

View profile

Doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:39 AM

51. uh yeah

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

" I use "liberaltarian" as a pseudo-political title. You may interpret it as you see fit." - mm upstream, link on the next edit.

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=103911

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:41 AM

53. Well then. I stand corrected.

View profile

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:02 PM

58. I didn't even coin the word. It's not original with me.

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:04 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

It even has definitions in the Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Liberaltarian

I don't coin words often. There are already plenty of them I can use.

There's even a whole website:

http://www.liberaltarian.net/

Have fun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:30 PM

97. Doesn't matter, it works. n/t

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:39 AM

50. Who's Glenn Greenwald?

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #54)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:46 AM

56. hahahahaha

View profile

Victory Gin all round

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:51 PM

63. GREENWALD MUST BE DESTROYED!!!1

View profile

kicking in hopes that OP corrects this Cato Institute nonsense that he's been called out to do throughout this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #63)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:03 PM

65. The OP refuses to address that nonsense. So many DUers calling out that smear

View profile

and the OP simply refuses to specify what his issues with the study are, or to defend his use of this study as an insinuated indictment. Really tawdry, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #65)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:31 PM

66. Not at all. Greenwald accepted a grant from Cato.

View profile

That represents a tie to that organization, just as I said. The nature of the study is not in question. Anyone can see what the subject of it is. I chose not to discuss the actual study, since I only said that he had links to Cato, which was founded by Koch. I said nothing that was not factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #66)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:07 PM

67. Right.

View profile

Sure. Such nonsense. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #67)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:18 PM

68. So, accepting a grant from an organization is NOT having

View profile

an association with that organization? I'm confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:25 PM

69. Interesting -- so is the converse true? Cato is liberal cause it paid GG?

View profile


After all, GG has had at least ONE liberal position in there somewhere....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:31 PM

71. I don't think so. The one who pays is the

View profile

one setting the rules, not the one who is paid. That's always been my understanding when I've taken money to do work for someone. Political organizations like Cato tend to fund people who will validate Cato's positions. The same is true for most political organizations, it seems to me.

For example, I had a request to write the content for a website for a conservative candidate for a state office here in Minnesota in 2010, through the web designer I normally work with. I turned down the contract, because I wouldn't be able to write anything positive about that candidate, and that would have been the job. Had I taken the contract, I would have been obligated to cast him in the best possible light. I can't do that, because I have higher principles than that. So, I did without the money I would have earned for that content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #71)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:46 PM

73. That makes ethical sense, but didn't Cato also make a big mistake by offering him money then?

View profile

The Koch bros. helped establish Cato and Cato paid GG. GG wrote one paper supportive of Cato's position but has otherwise written article after article critical of other things the Koch brothers like and desire. It seems foolish that they would have hired such an ideological loose cannon in the first place.

They certainly have a bevy of hacks lounging over in conservative think tank welfare land. Why could they not hire someone with a purer background to produce the same product? I admit in advance that I am being lazy -- I don't really care to dig into the Google search to figure out what made GG ideal compared to your standard hack like Jonah Goldberg and believe that you must have considered this already...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:54 PM

74. Skilled writers can pretty much write anything to suit the marketplace.

View profile

Greenwald is a skilled writer. There's no question about that. If he wrote something to suit Cato, then he probably tailored it to suit them. I used to write for several computer magazines. Each had its own definition of who its readers were. So, I wrote in a style and diction level that suited that definition of their demographics. Today, if I write a website for an HVAC company, it will be written in a completely different style and level of diction than one for a global translation company.

So, I would be surprised if Greenwald turned in work product for Cato that didn't suit them. They pay, they get something they'll like. Writers produce written material that suits those who pay them, or they go broke.

I've turned down many projects over the years when I couldn't ethically do what was wanted by the client. That meant less money in my pocket, but a clear conscience. Not all writers do that, to be frank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #74)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:07 PM

75. What if you generally disagreed with the client but ethically you supported this one job?

View profile


Would you take the offer? Greenwald has made no secret of his stand on "The War on Drugs"
so it seems like he would have been sympathetic to this one particular Cato project regardless
of his feelings about the rest of their endeavors. I would presume that before approaching him
that Cato made the same conclusions about Greenwald.

In the end I don't think this single association can be used to damn either one of them -- it just happened
that their interests aligned on a single special issue.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:59 PM

80. Personally, I can't answer that, because I don't know

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

what the situation might be. Not enough information. I can answer with regard to the Cato Institute. I would not write a word for them, ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #80)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:07 PM

91. Fair enough!

View profile


I know enough about myself to say that I can work with anyone, no matter my personal feelings, if it moves me towards my personal goals. In a way, I can even rationalize it because if I could take conservative money for a mutual goal I it does a small bit to remove that money from the conservative echo chamber.

I used to say if McCain won I'd start a sideline business selling red state memorabilia to the saps and then donate half the profits towards worthy liberal causes. Because in the end if you can't save the suckers from themselves you might as well take their money because in the end someone will and it might as well be you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:14 PM

76. I found this entry in Wikipedia VERY interesting.

View profile

In a discussion about Civil Liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that <two-party electoral> system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."

(emphasis added)

There ya go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnaries (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:20 PM

77. So I guess he doesn't like the two party system then...

View profile

Sometimes I can sympathize, especially when my own personal concerns are marginalized by both parties.

So the choices are: lie down and take it, try to work from within, try to end the two party system

Now number one has been given as advice to me on DU but it's just not my style, number two has generally been ineffective and led to the great DU schism and number three is being mentioned in this presentation as a hypothetical.

How does that quote stand against the entire body of work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnaries (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:34 PM

82. ...

View profile

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:36 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

In a discussion about Civil Liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."


IOW: Occupy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnaries (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:06 PM

86. His speech at FAIR has been running two and three times a week on cable.

View profile

Where have you been?

Greenwald has said over and over that this system is too corrupted to be used to change anything. And there are thousands of people on the street in the OWS movement that agree with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:21 PM

78. His work with CATO institute concerned studying drug policy in Portugal.

View profile

If I remember correctly from the health care debate he was pretty critical of the final bill not including a public option, which would lead me to believe he was a progressive.


Though as Greenwald himself has admitted, his political views have undergone a sort of evolution over the last decade. Having been aware of Greenwald since the Bush years I've noticed this myself in his columns--he's shifted more to the left as time gone on--though I suspect that's true of most rational people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:34 PM

79. Extraordinary rendition - good or bad?

View profile

What does that have to do with whether Greenwald is a Libertarian? Absolutely nothing. And that's exactly the point that has whizzed over so many heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:20 PM

81. I don't care.

View profile

That some hold him up on their shoulders as the purveyor of political gospel is beyond rational thought in light of some of his jaw-dropping positions that would otherwise be tough to defend. He's a pundit with an axe to grind, but lacks the class and wit of pundits like the sorely missed Molly Ivins. Use ignore/hide thread if his opinion screeds and fervent acolytes get on your last nerve and have a happy new year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:02 PM

83. Suspension of Habeas Corpus is a jaw-dropping policy that is impossible to defend

View profile

Yet many here will hold those who maintain such powers up on their shoulders, and see them as purveyors of political gospel. I don't see your avatar as representing something beyond rational thought - apparently you would?

I don't like Greenwald, but when he sees Bush-era executive powers as wrong and evil he is exactly right. Whatever Greenwald does or has done - whether he works for Cato, steals the shirt off an orphan, kicks puppies - is immaterial in deciding whether extraordinary rendition is abominable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:05 PM

84. He's no Molly Ivins.

View profile

He's a paid wrecking machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:09 PM

87. He's worse than Molly Ivins. He's right that the Bush-era executive must end - completely

View profile

One has nothing to do with the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:09 PM

89. That anyone could mistake him for a political pundit when his interest is civil liberties

View profile

is itself jaw dropping myopia or the kind of narcissism that only sees itself in any landscape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #89)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:15 PM

90. He certainly is a political pundit.

View profile

The fact that he is also a columnist, blogger, and attorney doesn't render that statement false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:15 PM

92. Good ideas and have a Happy New Year, AtomicKitten.

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #92)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:41 PM

93. Same to you.

View profile


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:06 PM

85. What is a "Liberaltarian"?

View profile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread