On Glenn Greenwald and His Fans - The Nation

[flamingdem]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174860/glenn-greenwald-and-his-fans#axzz2Wrr6twCv

--- snip
Glenn Greenwald, I’ve been learning, is different. Here’s what he said out of the box about my argument that he may have made a mistake in his claim about how PRISM works: that it turns “the eagerness of Democratic partisans to defend the NSA as a means of defending President Obama.” I’m one of the propagandists referred to in his piece’s title. Not correct. Not clear. Not profound. But most of all and most importantly, not useful. Let me say a bit as to why.

For one thing, I couldn’t care less about defending Barack Obama. I think he sucks at most parts of his job as I understand it—tactically, strategically, ideologically, rhetorically, intellectually, ethically—but I’m not going to get caught in a pissing match establishing my bona fides on the subject. Should I link to this so that I’ll maybe “win” the argument? I’d rather not. Too late, because I just did—the temptation of intellectuals to make this “about us” is too great. We’re human. We have egos. (“If you’re reduced to implying that Rick Fking Perlstein is overly solicitous of this administration, it’s time to lose all the fanboys and come back to the pack a little”: Thanks, Charlie Pierce!) But I wish we didn’t, because ultimately, it’s not about us. Our power to unmake a president, or bear him aloft with the sheer power of our prose if that’s what we prefer, is nugatory anyway. All we can do it try to tell the truth as we understand it, without fear or favor.

I feel incredibly fortunate to be have been allowed to do so without trimming my sails or looking over my shoulder, which is a good thing, because I have no idea how I’d survive if I had to change how I wrote to please a patron. My writing brain, for good or ill, just isn’t built that way. Some readers will look at my work and say that isn’t possible, pointing to all the ways I fall short of some abstract standard of anti-institutional purity. It’s an unfortunate logical fallacy on the left: that you can weigh a writer’s “radicalism” on some sort of scale, and from that arrive at a surefire calculation as to whether his or her heart is for sale (“How much did Big Data pay u to play Judas?”). Some simply can’t believe that “liberals”—even centrists!—might arrive at their positions through independent thought.

Now, am I “Democratic partisan”? Maybe a little bit, sometimes. In the final analysis, yes, Rick Perlstein prefers a strong Democratic Party to a weak one. That said, I think I understand more clearly than most the corporate corrosions that make it such a pathetic vehicle for those who aspire to justice. Unfortunately, given the rules of the American political game, people who try to participate by self-righteously refusing to identify with one or the other of the two parties are like people who say they love to play baseball but refuse to join a team. The name of this game—a loooooong game—is ideological civil war for the soul of each party. And one you can’t win if you don’t play. I don’t write that because I’m a partisan, or because I prefer a two-party system. I write that because I think it’s true.



Read more: On Glenn Greenwald and His Fans | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174860/glenn-greenwald-and-his-fans#ixzz2WrrJO0Ew
Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook

[randome]

1. Did you see the thread about how much Snowden's resume was fabricated?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698

If Greenwald wants to be a 'real' journalist, his next story should be about that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

4. That's quite a story

I'm guessing Glenn will end up as a host on cable somewhere

[msanthrope]

2. Very insightful piece on Greenwald. Ultimately...his own hubris will do him in. nt

[Eddie Haskell]

3. The Nation is a CIA rag.

[flamingdem]

6. and the New York Times is controlled by

Moonies, I hear

[MineralMan]

5. Now, that's gotta sting a bit.

Excellent rant!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. He also gives credit to Greenwald for what they did and calls them "courageous".

From the blog:

He’s right, and he’s wrong. So far Greenwald has been lucky, and because he has been lucky, everyone who cares about fixing our puke-worthy system of “oversight” of the American state’s out-of-control spy regime has been lucky too. Yes, clowns like Peter King and irrelevant throwbacks like Dick Cheney cry treason and call for death squads or tumbrels or whatever. But the bottom line is that for whatever reason (reasons I think will only become clear in the light of later history), the American establishment seems ready to think about this story—ready to give a hard look at what our surveillance state has become. The evidence is there in thoughtful and detailed reporting and analysis on how PRISM might actually work, for instance in this Associated Press piece (which is far more usefully critical than the typical piece on the Bush administration’s lies about Iraq’s claimed weapons of mass destruction in 2003, which the American establishment was not ready to think about), and this analysis by technologist Ashkan Soltani—both of which sort through the available evidence far better than Glenn Greenwald does, but also would not exist without what Greenwald and Edward Snowden courageously did, however flawed Greenwald and Snowden might be as messengers. Life can be complicated that way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. That he points out where GG's work has resulted in good deeds proves that he's

credible.

I may take issue with his opinion about Obama "sucking," but that doesn't mean that I dismiss everything he has to say after that. I think he makes a compelling case re: GG.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Do you agree with him that what Greenwald and Snowden did was valuable and courageous?

[uponit7771]

25. To the American public? Hell naw! To the M$M? yeap

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Valuable in terms of opening up discussion. Valuable in the sense that it is time to demand

demand that Congress exercise it's oversight powers and reduce the president's war powers. Valuable in that I hope it brings awareness as to what is happening and that people demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.

Sheila Jackson Lee was on Ed's radio show the other day, and she said that in terms of highlighting this issue, yes, these two men were courageous. However, that they went to the press and now Snowden is in China, no...that's not courageous. She said that she and many others on the progressive side have been hammering Congress to increase its oversight powers, and that includes not only of the NSA but also the FISA Court and how we have allowed private organizations to make a profit off of national security.

The biggest scandal is the latter: that we have shifted our responsibility for national security to privately-owned companies. The Military Industrial Complex is in full effect and has been for many decades. It existed way before Barack Obama was even born.

[Enrique]

8. fair enough

Greenwald might end up apologizing to Perlstein, who knows.

[whatchamacallit]

9. So by posting this it can be assumed you agree

with

For one thing, I couldn’t care less about defending Barack Obama. I think he sucks at most parts of his job as I understand it—tactically, strategically, ideologically, rhetorically, intellectually, ethically—

?

[flamingdem]

12. Yeah, that line was not especially necessary

but I guess he thought it was

[whatchamacallit]

13. It's as valid as the rest of his message

Own it.

[flamingdem]

16. He should or I should?

[whatchamacallit]

17. You should

If you're endorsing this guy's views, don't cherry pick.

[flamingdem]

20. I'll be as cheery as I want!

[whatchamacallit]

22. ...

[bunnies]

26. First time the use of an eyeroll smilie...

has actually made me lol.

[flamingdem]

31. not fair you fixed your typo

making my joke less funny on purpose. Own it!

[JaneyVee]

44. By ur logic, if u don't agree with the Greenwald section then u don't agree with the Obama section

either then, right?

[Bobbie Jo]

54. lol

Gotcha FAIL!

[phleshdef]

51. Thats horse shit. You can endorse one view and completely reject another.

You honestly think its all or nothing? The world does not work that way at all.

[redqueen]

34. LOL, wow...

That's some contention... that if you don't agree with every word someone writes, that you can't agree with any of it.

[flamingdem]

35. Thus we are forced to "own" every word of anything we post!

alrighty then, thanks for accurately observing this latest example of DU lunacy!

[BumRushDaShow]

41. And then they cherry-pick out what they agree with

and try to force you to be a zombie-basher like they are!

[flamingdem]

42. I had to google "zombie basher"

is this from a teevee program?

[BumRushDaShow]

45. OMG

[flamingdem]

48. It's the New Troll!

zombie bashurz 2.0 .. "Own it" tm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Didn't you know? "He sucks" is an indcator of true journalism.

[whatchamacallit]

24. Instant bona fides

[JackRiddler]

10. So much throat clearing and

bloviation about imagined psychology and irrelevant terms. tldr. Does it ever get to a relevant point about the NSA global warrantless spying machine one way or another?

[bvar22]

29. Same Impression I had after working my way through the word salad.

ALL of THAT to say the Greenwald hurt your feelings, and you're pissed because Greenwald didn't genuflect after you attacked him?

There is no THERE in this opinion piece.

[Octafish]

11. Why would Rick Perlstein do a hatchet job on Glenn Greenwald?

All Greenwald's done is help expose massive -- and illegal -- NSA spying.

I'll stand with Greenwald.

Why? Because even if we disagree, he respects my right to do so.

[HardTimes99]

27. I disapprove of the NSA spying and surveillance. One of the main reasons

I dispprove is that the spying is 'legal' (not 'illegal'). Please note that its legality does not make it constitutional nor moral. I object to it because it is unconstitutional and immoral. If I thought it were illegal, I would have no choice but to call for Obama's impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

So I must ask, if you think the spying is 'illegal,' are you therefore calling for Obama's impeachment?

I agree with a lot of what you write, but disagree on whether this spying is 'legal'. Not trying to pin you down per se - just tryng to get words used precisely.

[kentuck]

28. Excellent point, HardTimes99

The Congress made it "legal" with a simple vote after it "illegally" used by Bush Jr. However, just as slavery was "legal", it was not moral or constitutional, per se.

The President has followed the letter of the law as far as we know. There is no reason to believe that he hasn't but that doesn't make it right or constitutional.

[Octafish]

30. No. The NSA domestic spy op is illegal.

Transparent Citizens, Invisible Government

Elaine Scarry
Boston Review, June 18, 2013

Editors' note: In 2004, Elaine Scarry described in Boston Review how the Patriot Act inverts the Constitution's commitment to government transparency and citizen opacity. Laws and official actions, Scarry explained, are to be visible for all to see, while individual lives are to be out of government's sightlines. With the recent revelation that the National Security Agency, following authority supposedly granted by the Patriot Act, has been secretly collecting information on millions of Americans, Scarry's idea has been echoed by numerous observers and reporters, such as Glenn Greenwald. Here is an excerpt from her 2004 story, Resolving to Resist. For more, buy Scarry's book Rule of Law, Misrule of Men.

If many members of Congress failed to read the Patriot Act during its swift passage, it is in part because that act is almost unreadable. The Patriot Act is written as an extended sequence of additions to and deletions from previously existing statutes. In making these alterations, it often instructs the bewildered reader to insert three words into paragraph X of statute Y without ever providing the full sentence that is altered either in its original or its amended form. Only someone who had scores of earlier statutes open to the relevant pages could step painstakingly through the revisions. On the issue of electronic surveillance alone, the Patriot Act modifies the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Cable Act, the Federal Wiretap Statutes, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Reading the Patriot Act is like being forced to spend the night on the steps outside the public library, trying to infer the sentences in the books inside by listening to hundreds of mice chewing away on the pages.

The hundreds of additions and deletions do, despite appearances, have a coherent and unitary direction: many of them increase the power of the Justice Department and decrease the rights of individual persons. The constitutional rights abridged by the Patriot Act are enumerated in the town resolutions, which most often specify violations of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and assembly, the Fourth Amendment guarantee against search and seizure, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process, and (cited somewhat less often) the Sixth and Eighth Amendment guarantees of a speedy and public trial and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The unifying work of the Patriot Act is even clearer if, rather than summarizing it as an increase in the power of the Justice Department and a corresponding decrease in the rights of persons, it is understood concretely as making the population visible and the Justice Department invisible.

The Patriot Act inverts the constitutional requirement that people's lives be private and the work of government officials be public; it instead crafts a set of conditions in which our inner lives become transparent and the workings of the government become opaque. Either one of these outcomes would imperil democracy; together they not only injure the country but also cut off the avenues of repair.

CONTINUED...

http://bostonreview.net/blog/transparent-citizens-invisible-government

[randome]

32. Really? 2004 Bush era crap?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

40. PATRIOT Act goes against most of what the USA stands for.

It's no surprise that you don't get that.

[kentuck]

33. If the NSA did not follow the new rules and guidelines...

as lenient as they are, then they could be breaking the law. Both the President and the Republicans in Congress have stated what they are legally allowed to do. If they did extraneous spying, outside of those rules, then it the NSA that is acting illegally, not the Congress and not the President, unless he gave them orders to do so. Which I seriously doubt.

[Octafish]

52. ''The rule of law is better than that of any one individual.'' -- Aristotle

Secret government has thrown checks and balances out the window.

President Obama told Charlie Rose the system is "transparent."

To whom? Him? Certainly not us, as in "We the People."

[HardTimes99]

36. My sacred honor is not at stake here, so I

would merely note that there exists a meaningful distinction between 'legal,' 'Constitutional,' and 'moral.'

[Octafish]

49. True, there are distinctions.

When it comes to the Constitution, there's no place for secret interpretations by secret courts in secret proceedings.

The document makes clear "We the People" are the government. To do our job as citizens, we need the facts. Parts of that comes from open government, a free press, and free expression of ideas.

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, HardTimes99.

[HardTimes99]

53. Thank you. I have enjoyed reading your posts and find I agree with you on

many matters large and small.

I would go far as to argue that in a democratic republic, the idea of a 'secret court' is, if not an oxymoron, then certainly an affront, as Jefferson wrote, to "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." But said secret court is 'legal,' having been duly authorized by Congress.

Interesting and momentous times, eh?

[leveymg]

15. This is more an indictment of his own Twitter feed than of Greenwald. Live by the Tweet, die by it

Yes, there is plenty of obnoxious sentiment out there on both sides of the great Obama NSA partisan-critic divide. Short attention span communications like Twitter just distill all the bile and obnoxiousness down to their most oversimplified, poisonous essence. That's why I do not consider Twitter to be a worthwhile forum for political discourse that requires paragraphs of thought to express intelligence and convey meaning, not a mere 144 characters.

Twitter might be useful for some things: "meetu@6 BYOB," and the NSA likes it because its easy to digest. But, it just destroys the quality of political debate.

[flamingdem]

19. Very interesting point about Twitter, it fails to advance understanding of

complex ideas and can lead to inflaming sensibilities.

As on DU but worse!

[KoKo]

43. Agree...and often-times reporters jump the gun and shoot off a tweet

that get's misunderstood and then another reporter comes back and other tweeters or their fellow reporters get into the fray. It begins to look like "battle of the ego."

Some seem to use it to keep up a following or create a "buzz" for their articles. They post teasers and such with back and forth banter to attract other twitter followers if they have an article or a book coming up.

It gets misused so much I gave up going over there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Don't discount it as a traffic reporting site

For that, it is ideal.

[kentuck]

23. Must be something personal?

Between them?

[flamingdem]

37. well he sure picked an unattractive photo for the article!

.. if he picked it that is - otherwise it might be the work of an anti-Greenwald intern

[kentuck]

38. Either that or he is one of the worst writers around...

As someone said above, it was nothing but a "word salad". Definitely no Will Pitt.

[flamingdem]

39. I like his writing

he shows his thought process thus making his work a bit more honest, imo

[closeupready]

46. Right - lawbreaking by our democracy's institutions is not the story;

the story REALLY is the journalists who scooped the story and their personalities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Keep making it about the person

Oy

[Octafish]

56. Smear the messenger.

Erase the message.