Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:42 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
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
| Author | Time | 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
tabatha (17,632 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Your link goes to Glenn Beck.
Response to tabatha (Reply #1)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:46 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. I discovered that.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:52 AM
tabatha (17,632 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
6. Try making a tinyurl.
|
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.
|
Response to tabatha (Reply #6)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:57 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
10. It's easy enough to type in the link.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #10)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:12 AM
MH1 (12,067 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
29. This link works.
|
(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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:35 AM
Bluenorthwest (18,435 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
48. I suggest that linkiing to Glenn Beck on DU is a red flag shouting 'slow down and
|
think in your zeal to make hay out of some commentator'. My opinion, of course.
|
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #48)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:21 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
59. Uh, I didn't link to Glenn Beck.
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #59)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:57 PM
Bluenorthwest (18,435 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
64. Sure, that's the ticket. Where are the other links?
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:47 AM
DesMoinesDem (117 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
3. Progressive
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:50 AM
Autumn (7,598 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
4. I got to pass on Beck coming up.
|
so I will not bother with looking any further
|
Response to Autumn (Reply #4)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:54 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
7. It was an error in the way DU resolves URLs.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:51 AM
_ed_ (1,426 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
5. A better question is:
|
"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? |
Response to _ed_ (Reply #5)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:56 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
9. Well, the list you created
|
is also a libertarian list, for the most part.
But, Glenn Greenwald was for the wars before he was against them. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #9)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:59 AM
_ed_ (1,426 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
14. Greenwald supported the War on Terror?
|
You're just making stuff up now. Waiting patiently for a link where Glenn supports the War on Terror.
|
Response to _ed_ (Reply #14)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:03 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. He supported the Iraq invasion during the Bush administration.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #18)
_ed_ This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to _ed_ (Reply #26)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:19 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
38. Here you go:
Response to MineralMan (Reply #38)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:39 AM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
52. When you read this, skip that post and read the preface itself which is linked.
|
I find the context useful at times. Like this one.
|
Response to _ed_ (Reply #26)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:45 PM
tabatha (17,632 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
62. After a post like this, I think the examination of the writings of any individual is valuable
|
especially to those who are unfamiliar with them.
It usually helps to make charges based on fact. |
Response to _ed_ (Reply #5)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:02 AM
tabatha (17,632 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
17. I thought he was supported Bush on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
|
"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. |
Response to tabatha (Reply #17)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:04 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
19. All true. Thanks.
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:55 AM
quinnox (11,455 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
8. I'm hoping someone can hack into his emails
|
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 |
Response to quinnox (Reply #8)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:06 AM
whatchamacallit (6,280 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
21. Lol!
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:58 AM
The Velveteen Ocelot (30,334 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
11. You know what? I couldn't care less.
|
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? |
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #11)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:00 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
15. OK. However, Glenn Greenwald's writings are
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #15)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:14 AM
The Velveteen Ocelot (30,334 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
33. What I'm trying to figure out is *why* DU is so obsessed with him.
|
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?
|
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #33)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:04 PM
A Simple Game (3,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
94. I don't think we should care. It seems to me that this is just
|
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. |
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #11)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:31 PM
paulk (11,424 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
70. well, you know, last week it was Matt Tiabbi
|
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... |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:58 AM
nadinbrzezinski (101,890 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
12. Since libertarians can range from the far right to the far left
|
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...
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:01 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
16. Yes. I'm well aware of libertarian political issues.
|
And, yes, they do pollute both parties. That's a long-time interest of mine.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:27 AM
Warren Stupidity (25,568 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
46. "they do pollute both parties"
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:25 PM
nadinbrzezinski (101,890 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
60. So caring about the law and civil rights is pollution?
|
Now am I glad I am an independent.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:14 PM
A Simple Game (3,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
95. You don't think that some of the libertarian views are worthy of consideration?
|
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. |
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:20 AM
MH1 (12,067 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
39. Libertarianism is ultimately NOT consistent with liberal values. It just isn't.
|
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. |
Response to MH1 (Reply #39)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:50 AM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
57. Sometimes shades of grey can be useful, sir.
|
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... |
Response to MH1 (Reply #39)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:28 PM
nadinbrzezinski (101,890 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
61. As I said, the RIGHT WING of the Libertarian party is quite noisy
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:59 AM
MjolnirTime (566 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
13. Shitheel
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:04 AM
leveymg (20,974 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
20. "Liberaltarian"? If that's a Left-Libertarian, how's that different from anti-statist Progressive?
|
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. |
Response to leveymg (Reply #20)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:08 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
23. No, that's isn't what I meant.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:10 AM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
25. So you are saying that "liberaltarians" are deceitful anti-statist progressives then?
|
Your thread *is* kind of getting python-esque here... |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM
leveymg (20,974 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
43. Since you're insinuating that GG is a false-flag Progressive, burden is on you to
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:07 AM
PA Democrat (10,129 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
22. Do you think Greenwald's writings will have ANY impact on the 2012 election?
|
Because I don't and I am at a complete loss as to why people are so obsessed with the guy.
|
Response to PA Democrat (Reply #22)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:12 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
28. I think Greenwald is about dividing people, so it may, indeed affect
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #28)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:44 AM
PA Democrat (10,129 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
55. "Interested"? More like obsessed. Too many threads to count, too much of a pain to hide them all.
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #28)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:24 PM
A Simple Game (3,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
96. Now that's funny. "his articles are posted daily on DU".
|
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?
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:09 AM
baldguy (27,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
24. The real question is: Do Americans have a right & duty to criticize the President when he's wrong?
|
And be able to do so without being unfairly attacked.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #24)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:14 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
32. Of course they do.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #32)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:34 AM
baldguy (27,054 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
47. The only reason Greenwald is being attacked is because he has been critical of Obama.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:11 AM
Luminous Animal (13,180 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
27. Here, let me help you with that google search link.
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #27)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:13 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
30. Hi. Yes, that works.
|
I don't use tinyurl links, myself, but thanks for posting that one.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:14 AM
fascisthunter (26,190 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
31. conspiracy theories to smear the left
|
bye bye... welcome to ignore
|
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #31)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:15 AM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
34. Thanks for letting me know.
|
Had you not, I wouldn't have any idea that you were ignoring my posts. It's always good to know things.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #34)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:37 PM
JoePhilly (10,896 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
72. I always get a kick when some one ...
|
welcomes me to their ignore list ...
I usually thank them, because I'm probably being added to a list if folks I like. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:16 AM
JackRiddler (18,107 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
35. "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal" by Glenn Greenwald
|
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!!! |
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #35)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM
smokey nj (37,827 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
44. Thank you, JackRiddler
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:16 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (33,285 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
36. Barack Obama - Centrist or Moderate?
|
His association with DLC'rs Joe Lieberman, the Clintons, and Joe Biden, argues that he may be more conservative than moderate.
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #36)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM
Bluenorthwest (18,435 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
41. What of his associations and employment of Donnie McClurkin? Ex-gay hate preacher
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:19 AM
Bluenorthwest (18,435 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
37. Glenn Greenwald" Cato shows that he worked with them on drug policy issues
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:20 AM
JackRiddler (18,107 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
40. I agree with the OP. It's important to attach an exact one-word label to everybody.
|
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. |
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #40)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM
whatchamacallit (6,280 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
42. Lol!
|
Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:48 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) You're awfully simple-minded sometimes Jack.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:23 AM
Warren Stupidity (25,568 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
45. Your allegation "his association with the Cato institute".
|
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. |
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #45)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:37 AM
JackRiddler (18,107 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
49. Do you really think "liberaltarian" was an intentional coinage?
|
Doubt it.
|
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:39 AM
Warren Stupidity (25,568 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
51. uh yeah
|
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 |
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #51)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:41 AM
JackRiddler (18,107 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
53. Well then. I stand corrected.
|
Thanks!
|
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:02 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
58. I didn't even coin the word. It's not original with me.
|
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! |
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:30 PM
A Simple Game (3,081 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
97. Doesn't matter, it works. n/t
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:39 AM
getdown (525 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
50. Who's Glenn Greenwald?
Response to getdown (Reply #50)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:43 AM
Luminous Animal (13,180 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
54. Emmanual Goldstein...
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #54)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:46 AM
getdown (525 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
56. hahahahaha
|
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:51 PM
frylock (15,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
63. GREENWALD MUST BE DESTROYED!!!1
|
kicking in hopes that OP corrects this Cato Institute nonsense that he's been called out to do throughout this thread.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #63)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:03 PM
Bluenorthwest (18,435 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
65. The OP refuses to address that nonsense. So many DUers calling out that smear
|
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.
|
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #65)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:31 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
66. Not at all. Greenwald accepted a grant from Cato.
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #66)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:07 PM
Bluenorthwest (18,435 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
67. Right.
|
Sure. Such nonsense. Disgusting.
|
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #67)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:18 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
68. So, accepting a grant from an organization is NOT having
|
an association with that organization? I'm confused.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #68)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:25 PM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
69. Interesting -- so is the converse true? Cato is liberal cause it paid GG?
|
After all, GG has had at least ONE liberal position in there somewhere.... |
Response to Pholus (Reply #69)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:31 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
71. I don't think so. The one who pays is the
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #71)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:46 PM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
73. That makes ethical sense, but didn't Cato also make a big mistake by offering him money then?
|
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... |
Response to Pholus (Reply #73)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:54 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
74. Skilled writers can pretty much write anything to suit the marketplace.
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #74)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:07 PM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
75. What if you generally disagreed with the client but ethically you supported this one job?
|
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. |
Response to Pholus (Reply #75)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:59 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
80. Personally, I can't answer that, because I don't know
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #80)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:07 PM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
91. Fair enough!
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:14 PM
johnaries (9,474 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
76. I found this entry in Wikipedia VERY interesting.
|
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. |
Response to johnaries (Reply #76)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:20 PM
Pholus (1,446 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
77. So I guess he doesn't like the two party system then...
|
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? |
Response to johnaries (Reply #76)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:34 PM
girl gone mad (19,240 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
82. ...
|
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. |
Response to johnaries (Reply #76)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:06 PM
EFerrari (160,256 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
86. His speech at FAIR has been running two and three times a week on cable.
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:21 PM
Puregonzo1188 (1,574 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
78. His work with CATO institute concerned studying drug policy in Portugal.
|
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. |
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:34 PM
jpgray (27,758 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
79. Extraordinary rendition - good or bad?
|
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.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:20 PM
AtomicKitten (37,709 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
81. I don't care.
|
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.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #81)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:02 PM
jpgray (27,758 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
83. Suspension of Habeas Corpus is a jaw-dropping policy that is impossible to defend
|
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. |
Response to jpgray (Reply #83)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:05 PM
AtomicKitten (37,709 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
84. He's no Molly Ivins.
|
He's a paid wrecking machine.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #84)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:09 PM
jpgray (27,758 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
87. He's worse than Molly Ivins. He's right that the Bush-era executive must end - completely
|
One has nothing to do with the other.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #81)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:09 PM
EFerrari (160,256 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
89. That anyone could mistake him for a political pundit when his interest is civil liberties
|
is itself jaw dropping myopia or the kind of narcissism that only sees itself in any landscape.
|
Response to EFerrari (Reply #89)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:15 PM
AtomicKitten (37,709 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
90. He certainly is a political pundit.
|
The fact that he is also a columnist, blogger, and attorney doesn't render that statement false.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #81)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:15 PM
freshwest (7,968 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
92. Good ideas and have a Happy New Year, AtomicKitten.
Response to freshwest (Reply #92)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:41 PM
AtomicKitten (37,709 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
93. Same to you.
|
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:06 PM
suffragette (6,770 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
85. What is a "Liberaltarian"?
Response to suffragette (Reply #85)
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:09 PM
MineralMan (40,809 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
