Yesteryday [sic], I wrote a post pointing out that the hordes of right-wing pundits condemning the Larry Craig outing have no standing to voice such complaints, since the very tactic that they were purporting to condemn (publicizing innuendo about private sexual behavior and exploiting sexual morality for political gain) is one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over, as one of its central weapons. I cited countless examples -- including some from this week, along with others throughout the last 15 years -- which demonstrate that the right-wing of the Republican Party centrally relies upon tactics indistinguishable from the Craig outing, and that unlike the Craig outing (engineered by a single, obscure individual), the entire right-wing political movement traffics continuously in those tactics.That's atrocious writing. Edit, you idiot. Absurdly, his next line begins "As was painfully clear to anyone who can read..." Well, Glenn, it is painful to read your prose, and anyone who can read and has any taste at all will turn away in disgust at writing like that. (Really, why is his blog popular?) This post, which he titles "Introduction to Logical Reasoning 101," as if it's going to be to the point, is almost 2000 words long -- twice as long as a newspaper op-ed.
Let's skip ahead to the last sentence:
And since responding to these types of Bush followers is usually a waste of time and energy more than anything else, I thought it would at least be fruitful to try to illustrate some points about how Bush followers reason, just as a way to have this exercise be something other than a complete waste of time.Speaking of "waste of time"... do you think you could waste some of your own time paying a little bit of attention to your ridiculous writing, like maybe by not writing the phrase "waste of time" twice in that laughably verbose sentence?
Someone throw a copy of Strunk and White at that man!
Anyway, why am I bothering with this mindnumbingly bad blogger? Well, I saw in my Site Meter records that I was linked somewhere on his page and went over to see what was up.
Oh, here it is:
Right-wing pundits this week spent several days expressing such intense outrage over the outing by Mike Rogers, claiming that the conduct of this single, obscure blogger somehow shows how depraved and evil The Democratic Party itself is.This post of mine is linked at the word "pundits." I can't tell if he means to be saying anything about me or is just linking to me because I linked to two "right-wing pundits" in my post. Am I one of the "right-wing pundits" he's railing about? Quite aside from the question of whether I'm right-wing, I didn't spend several days, express intense outrage, or even mention the Democratic Party. All I did was write one post speculating about the strategic thinking of "aggressive characters like our 'lefty blogger'" and opine that the strategy would probably backfire.
Maybe someone who's actually taken the time to slog through Greenwald's execrable writing and understands his approach to "Logical Reasoning" can explain in a few crisp sentences what he means by linking to me like that. I get the impression that he is insinuating that I support right-wing efforts at gay-bashing. If so -- and I'm not going to put up with reading his crap to find out -- that is utterly despicable and false.
पोस्ट्स
१८७ टिप्पण्या:
Ann, his blog isn't that popular. His traffic is driven by an endless array of Greenwaldian sock puppets!
Greenwald is one example of a blogger that forces me to ask: "Why the hell is he so popular?"
His endless, disjointed rants are a wonderment to behold. In his case, quantity does not come close to quality.
He seems to get 30,000 visitors a day! Why???
Ann:
Glenn is a semi-famous member of the incestuous cabal of left wing blogs. If you have a bad case of BDS, and Blog, you receive lots of links from sites like Daily Kos and Firedog Lake.
His writing has often been debunked, as has his sock puppetry, by moderate and conservative bloggers. This merely enhances his prestige in the eyes of the moonbats.
...one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over....
Hoo boy is that a turn of phrase that will live forever.
I'd imagine that his readers are the sort of people who drive around in cars with one big bumper sticker that says something like "IF YOU AREN'T OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION"-- folks whose primary political commitment is to their own quivering self-righteousness. They're the ones who show up here and try to convince us that we're raging right-wingers. And why wouldn't they want to? If they succeed, their enemies are that much more powerful, and it's that much more of a thrill to speak truth at them. Everybody wins!
He often smears people with guilt my association or other false accusations. He questioned one right leaning blogger on why he never complained about Ann Coulter, only to have the blogger point out numerous instances of his complaints against Coulter.
I read a recent post on another blog that described his tactics and the similarities between Greenwald and Coulter in their dishonesty.
Eric, if you want to know why he is so popular, you should ask him, or one of his many alter-egos, he will have no problem filling another rambling post with praise for all things Greenwald.
I'd imagine that his readers are the sort of people who drive around in cars with one big bumper sticker that says something like "IF YOU AREN'T OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION"--
Funny you say that. A lefty friend sent me a Greenwald link the other day. And she does in fact have that bumper sticker on her Prius. I think her e-mail said something like "I can't believe you aren't up in arms about this. Can't you see that George Bush is trying to take over the world? Don't you realize he's out to get us?"
People wanna know why his blog's so popular? Because there are a lot of crazies out there.
Paul: LOL. He's finding new ways to be verbose.
Notice how I'm more pissed at him for writing badly than for slandering me... if he's slandering me. He's such a bad writer I can't even tell. I'm also pissed that he gets 30,000 readers a day. Who are those people? I'm pissed at them for their foolishness. They can't actually be reading the writing, can they? Maybe they just glance to see who he's attacking today, feel smug, and leave.
Actually I thought that was a great post. A little long winded, yeah, but it was kind of like a stream of consciousness. But he had some good points.
Not sure how he's any different than Hugh Hewitt though, who also rambles on and on and on.
Anyway - his point was extremely valid. He said that right-wing bloggers had zero credibility on this issue, since they will use people's private sexual matters to attack Democrats all the time (i.e. Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, Bill and Hillary have a loveless marriage, Ann Richards is a lesbian, etc.). He didn't comment at all about outing - just about how Republicans are hypocrites on this subject.
So right-wing blogs came back and attacked him for supporting outing, when in reality - he never expressed his view on that subject at all. That was the point of his post.
I think he linked to you, because many of the other blogs linked to your post. I didn't get the sense that he was attacking you. I think he was attacking Republican lap dogs like Patterico.
Strunk and White is a very thin book and unlikely to do much damage. May I suggest the complete Oxford English Dictionary?
DTL: From your explanation, Greenwald slurred me. If that's an incorrect inference, please explain why. He has a lot of nerve arguing that other people have no standing for saying thing if he implies things about me with no basis for knowledge. I consider him a sleaze. If he's not, say why. Because he didn't bother to find out anything about me before lumping me together with other people he had reason to say something about? That's not good enough at all.
I just read his most recent post where he called you a right-winger.
That's obviously false, but I don't think right-winger is a slur. Sloppy on his part though.
But his real beef was with the people who responded to his first post and said that Greenwald favors outing. That is what he was annoyed with and that was what his "illogical reasoning" post was about. Since you never wrote any post about how Greenwald favors outing, I don't think you were the subject of his post.
But I understand how you could be pissed about this. He did lump you with the other bloggers. But he did link - and people can then see exactly what you said on the subject.
Ann,
Present company excepted, good writing apparently has little correlation to blog popularity.
Take Kos, Greenwald, FDL,...please.
The better writers are workmanlike and clear. Others at least have the good sense to be brief. And then there's Greenwald.
Hissy fits apparently sell if you're shrieking the right message.
Ann, to be fair Greenwald didn't repeat himself. He said, "usually a waste of time" and "a complete waste of time". Now as a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging conservative I can see the difference but will admit that his usage is simply too nuanced and subtle for me to understand.
"He posts endless massive blocks of overlong, tedious, unedited sentences."---Althouse
It's not HIM, it's YOU.
YOU have the problem. You have such a short attention span, that you can't hold a single thought longer than a few syllables, or a few words.
The Digital Age, with it's endless tickers, clickers, multi-tasking text messages, cheap soundbites...
....has destroyed people's ability to focus on a complete thought, spread out over several parentheticals.
PRESCRIPTION: Read William Faulkner's 'Sound & Fury'. It was an Oprah pick in 2005.
We, in the Oprah Bookclub know how to follow a single thought, spread out over many clauses---and no punctuation necessary.
Greenwald is simply doing Faulkner, and savvy readers don't need punctuation!
Peace, Maxine
What ARE your politics? Michael Berube called you a conservative airhead, and so I started to read your blog. But you don't strike me as a conservative or as an airhead.
Could you give us your voting record, please?
Also -- where do you stand on --
War in Iraq
Abortion
Lieberman
Lutheran surrealism
Paradise Lost
You don't always make it clear.
I get 40 hits a day on my blog. I think quality does matter. So what if you get 30,000 national socialists hellbent with fury and looking for someone to stoke their anger? If you go for that as does Berube, you're still Hitler.
Kirby: I've stated my voting record many times. I've voted for Democrats since 1972. The only exceptions -- in elections at all levels -- are Ford in 1976, Bush in 2004, and once for Tommy Thompson for governor. So that means, for example, that I voted for Russ Feingold every time he's run. I normally don't contribute money to anyone, but I have given about $1000 to Feingold over the years.
Maxine: The digital age, with it's misplaced apostrophes (apostrophe's?)...
Professor A, do you read Tom Maguire? I like to think I'm well on his left, but, _God_ I love reading him -- clever with a touch of that neurosis which makes Mickey Kaus such a blast -- and basically the reason I read Greenwald on occasion is so I can understand Maguire's delicious shredding of him when it occurs...
In this case, it appears that Greenwald was lumping together pundits but using your post (perhaps for the reason that DTL suggested) in illustration.
It strikes me as a relatively mild and indirect attack with regard to you specifically, in contrast to previous posts of his in which he's been quite overtly dismissive of, if not hostile toward, you. Based on how often he appears to read you, it's hard to understand how or why he could think you support gay-bashing of any stripe.
I have no ideas what Greenwald's blog stats were like historically. But isn't it likely that they were boosted by the publication of his book "How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok"?
In any case, I think the title of the book goes a good long way to the attraction of many to Greenwald.
... "toward explaining" the attraction ...
Apostrophes are about ownership.
I toss in apostrophes anywhere and everywhere because I'm out to colonize and own....to take control of,
.... have dominion over.....
that's what an apostrophe represents.
ALSO, anyone can SAY they voted this or that way. There's no way to prove who voted for what.
Peace, Maxine
Sanjay: I should read him more. Haven't see the GG takedowns.
Reader: I chose to write about this one not because he's attacked me -- my normal policy is to refuse to link to or even read nasty attacks -- but because I wanted to make fun of his incredibly bad writing.
I love the way he writes.
I don't agree with his opinions, but they are well-stated nonetheless.
Anyone who doesn't like his writing must have a problem with Ann Coulter as well. She uses a lot of non-sequiters (sp?). You never know what's humor and what's not, with her. And, she goes off on tangents without concluding the previous thought.
Very loopy and jarring---Ann Coulter's writing is.
Funny, the people I agree with the most, ideologically, are the ones whose writing I have a problem with.
The reason is ....that....60s liberal reaped the benefits of a far better education than today's yuppie conservatives. And, most of 'em majored in the Humanities.
Too many of the younger conservatives majored in accounting and econ, and didn't learn how to write in the subjunctive, passive case.
You don't learn how to structure and form, much less read and comprehend that kind of complex sentence and evocative writing....in Business and Econ classes.
Peace, Maxine
Three strikes and you're out, Maxine: first, it's the misuse of apostrophes. Next, the abuse of ellipses. And now, the pronouncement that Greenwald's opinions are "well-stated."
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
And how can you accuse Ann of having too-short an attention span when she's a law professor? It's her job to read obtuse verbiage! I don't blame her one bit for being put off by Greenwald's overwrought ramblings. And as for Ann's voting record, what possible reason would she have to lie? Sheesh.
Ann, so you voted twice for Republicans and that's enough to earn you the sobriquet of "conservative" from Berube.
He is not very precise with English although he is ostensibly an English major.
Thank you for this answer.
Berube is a powerful writer but the ideology is straight out of Revolutionary Kampuchea. Not sure what's worse: a person who can't write, or a person who writes well, but has an icky ideology.
dtl,
than Hugh Hewitt though, who also rambles on and on and on.
Politics aside, Hugh is actually one of the more pithy and precise writers on the web and in columns. As with Ann, he is a Con Law prof, and they tend to write well. Additionally, they both are published in major newspapers such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.
I believe you may be frustrated by Dean Barnett, who is the other person writing on Hugh's blog. Dean Barnett also writes Soxblog. Though I agree with many of Dean's views, I confess to finding the majority of his writing to be tedious reading.
"If you have a bad case of BDS, and Blog, you receive lots of links from sites like Daily Kos and Firedog Lake."
DING DING DING. This is the whole of the answer to why Greenwald is popular.
He's a liar, a fraud and a bad writer, but he's infected with BDS. He supports every far left position one can imagine, so the kings and queens of the nut/// I mean netroots send him boatloads of idiots/// I mean traffic.
By the way, I'd like to take issue with those who say Glenn did not endorse outings. In his original post on the topic, Glenn wrote the following:
"As should be painfully obvious, the issue with Larry Craig—or with pointing out the wildly promiscuous recreational-drug-aided sexual behavior of Rush Limbaugh, or Newt Gingrich’s multiple, overlapping broken marriages—isn’t to apply our moral standards to their private lives, but is to apply their own publicly claimed moral standards, as well as the core tactics of the GOP, to document that they live in utter contradiction to the sexual morality they relentlessly embrace for political gain"
How is that not endorsing the tactic?
"I'm not going to put up with...."---Althouse
In other words: I-Don't-Have-The-Attention-Span-For.......
--A lack of patience.
--The unwillingness to dig deep, even when you disagree with someone.
Entertain me. And if you fail to entertain me, I'm gonna take my marbles and go home.
Amuse me.
And if "I" fail to be amused "YOU" are the one who has a problem.
Because it couldn't possibly be me and my jaded short-attention span, which can't focus on anything but meaningless soundbites.
--Clipped non-sequitors.
--Generic one-notes.
--Disposable cliches.
--Sanitized Bile.
It's always someone else's fault. Never one's own. Never.
Peace, Maxine
Too many of the younger conservatives majored in accounting and econ, and didn't learn how to write in the subjunctive, passive case.
Subjunctive is a mood. Passive is a voice. Writing in the passive voice is poor form, or so I was taught...I mean, so my English teachers taught me. (See, if I use the passive voice, you don't know who taught me that. It permits the writer to be evasive.)
Sure, Ann, it's about the lack of editing.
In that post, as in other posts before it, you joined the right wing chorus in imagining some massive campaign by liberals to out gay Republicans.
If you keep sounding like a right wing hack, people are going to mistake you for a right wing hack.
Derve wrote: *I wonder who would win in a Joan/Maxine nitpick competition*
I suspect the nits.
And if you keep sounding like a 21 year old writing a C-grade paper for a community college creative writing class, people are going to mistake you for a 21 year old writing a C-grade paper for a community college creative writing class. Strangely enough, Greenwald is a published author! They must have good editors up there at Crown! Greenwald, like Ann, claims to be "neither liberal or conservative", but according to Feindoyle, what you sound like is what you are, so Greenwald is a 21 year old writing a C-grade paper for a community college creative writing class. Or he's a pretentious mediocrity (his next book is called "Bush Agonistes") who, like Andrew Sullivan, has learned which buttons to push and when to push them in order to generate "buzz" and rake in the cash for their lazy thinking and writing.
Things are tough in Ashcrof...err Bush's Amerika. Perhaps Greenwald will move to Brazil permanently; his Wikipedia article states that he spends part of his time there because "Brazil recognizes his same-sex relationship with his Brazilian partner, while the United States does not". I'm sure that he'd be much happier living in the paradise that is Lula's Brazil than he is here in the gulag of Manhattan.
Or perhaps to beat the Bush Blues the "sock puppet" master should simply slip his hand up his Kermit the Frog muppet's backside, crouch down behind his kitchen island and sing "It's Not Easy Being Greenwald"...
Regarding GG's argument that "the other side outs, too." I see everybody nodding. But is that really true? Specifically, which Republican(s) on which date(s) made precisely what claim(s) about which Democrat(s)?
I understand that the Democratic party had nothing to do with outing Larry Craig, but that's not relevant to my question.
My theory is that rabid partisans like Greenwald are not really engaged in politics, but tribalism. The Republicans/conservatives are not his adversaries, they are "the other." From an anthropological standpoint, "the other" can be accused of virtually any crime, including cannibalism, and among members of the tribe, the accusation will be credited. These myths about "the other" are used to justify atrocities practiced by the tribe to individual members who might otherwise be horrified by them.
So, in the present case, most Democrats know deep down that what has been done to Larry Craig is evil, and that anyone who spread such rumors is complicit in that evil. So there must be a rationalization, and that comes from statements like Glenn's; that any critics of the outing are hypocrites because, of course, everyone knows the Republicans do this kind of thing all the time, doncha know. They called Hillary a Lesbian! And Ann Richards, too!
Republicans ought to quietly demand evidence from Mr. Greenwald. No need to shout him down. Just ask him politely to prove his statement with specific citations. In the age of Google, this should not be hard.
"Even after reading her for months, I’m still not sure where I would place her on the ideological spectrum."
That's the mark of an independent and intelligent person. The idea that you would proudly accept a packaged political ideology is an unpleasant one and I suspect it might be the same for Ann.
"And yes, he does claim that the Republican ideology and the dominant Republican political strategy are much more riven with internal contradictions than are the Democratic equivalents."
Lol. Funniest idea this whole thread. Perhaps the Democrats don't suffer from these "internal contradictions" because they don't actually have an ideology or a political strategy. I'm not saying that the Republicans aren't conflicted and confused and horrid, just that it's hilarious to assert that the Democrats have any sort of unity at all.
To paraphrase Will Rogers, "I don't belong to any organized political party: I'm a Democrat."
Greenwald didn't sockpuppet. Not all IP addresses are unique (proxy servers). He comments under his own name.
He also makes no bones about his loathing of the Bush administration and the right wing. He advocates the election of Democratic candidates.
Meanwhile Ann purports to be totally off the field of play, removed from all this nasty partisanship. This doesn't prevent her from antagonizing Democrats and liberals at virtually every opportunity, though. It often gets her a pat on the head from Reynolds.
"...he's not writing for a populist audience after all. It all makes sense (irrespective of whether or not you agree with the sentiments) and I'm rather surprised you have difficulty with it."
Oh, for the love of...
Listen, I didn't say I couldn't read the sentences if I wanted to. I said they were crap sentences, disgustingly ugly, and I'm unwilling to read them. I read judicial opinions all the time, and they are usually badly written. I read them because it's my job. I reject bad writing when it's not my job to read it.
The notion that writing like that is at a higher level -- not for a "populist audience" -- is stupid beyond belief. First, he is writing for a populist audience. He's not a fancy intellectual! Second, if you have sophisticated, intellectual ideas to convey, you have all the more reason to express them well, which means writing clearly and elegantly.
This sort of verbosity, with overlong sentences, is at best an effort to seem smart, which is the mark of an inferior mind. It's what you do when you're afraid what you have to say isn't really enough. it's the way students who haven't done their work write term papers!
"SouthieFL said...
How about a Law Professor making this statement in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Althouse's comment in an Op-ED in The New York Times, Aug, 23, 2006: We ought to wonder why a court gets to decide what the law is and not the president. Why should judicial view prevail over the president's? We ought to wonder how anyone who makes that statement gets hired as a law professor."
Southie: Did you take that out of context on purpose or did you really completely fail to understand that op-ed? If the first, you are dishonest and despicable. If the second, go back and reread it, try to understand it, and ask questions if you still are having trouble. I'll be happy to answer.
Hint: question marks have meaning. Heavy-handed hint: I am genuinely asking you to think about why courts have the power of judicial review.
This is a pretty basic civics lesson. Learn about Marbury v. Madison. You can do it. It actually is possible to raise your level of understanding about law.
You know, I originally declined to write that op-ed because I thought it was too obvious of a civics lesson. But the difficulty some people seem to have understanding it has proved me wrong and really shocked me. I am embarrassed for all the people who are attacking me the way you are, because you are revealing what I consider a sub-high-school level of understanding of American government. (That's assuming you aren't deliberately distorting what I said, in which case, you should be embarrassed to be so deceptive.)
I bet this post didn't do much to endear you to Greenwald, either.
downtownlad said...
"Not sure how he's any different than Hugh Hewitt though, who also rambles on and on and on."
Well, certainly different, but not necessarily any better. Hugh Hewitt lost all credibility over the Miers fiasco,so far as I am concerned: it wasn't just that he supported the nomination, or even that he did so vocally, it was that he was so completely, blindly and unthinkingly supportive of the nomination and never offered any reason for it beyond fawningly repeating the President's remarks, that he argued in such utter bad faith, and that he attempted to take the lash to those of us who opposed it as if we were the enemy. There is no one in this world so useless as someone utterly, uncritically and blindly devoted to one man's every pronouncement, and it doesn't matter if that man is Karl Marx or George Bush.
Greenwald and the President share at least one thing. They're both bad with the King's English.
But at least the President doesn't pretend to be Winston Churchill. He's a smart man trying to be Ronald Reagan.
Greenwald is a dim bulb trying to be Andrew Sullivan.
I'm still in shock at people who don't see the connection between sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.
Ah, the special academic writing style.
The method is to precisely follow the rules of grammar, while producing turgid, lifeless monstrosities. The reader is supposed to then respect the writer's intelligence, on the theory that if it required great intelligence to read, it must have required great intelligence to write. To support this ego-stroking celebration of mutual intelligence, those who actually point out that the writing it atrocious are to be dismissed as dimwitted.
It doesn't matter that it produces heaping piles of shit, because the intent never was to communicate clearly. As long as the intelligence-signaling function is performed, the writing is a success.
I don't know, Oddd. That case didn't seem quite bulletproof. As long as IP addresses are not unique to users, and there's no smoking gun, I'll be skeptical. Also, he's not accused of using pseudonyms on his own blog, which is what a self-obsessed sockpuppeteer would do.
His writing does get away from him occasionally, but he's really good, and gets twice Ann's traffic for good reason.
All the greats write in the passive voice, and the subjunctive case.
It's very soothing and meditative.
Elegiac and lyrical.
Go look at Winston Churchill's "Our Finest Hour" speech, or even President Reagan's "A Time For Choosing" speech.
Can you imagine those speeches in a staccato subject-verb, subject-verb, subject-verb.... style of writing???
Sad that good writing must be nothing more than clipped soundbites to be good.
Peace, Maxine
Greenwald is an idiot. Just glancing through the comments here I didn't see it mentioned, but he also called Kirsten Powers a rightwing pundit.
Maxine:
So when "our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," that's passive?
The great ones use language that serves.
Somewhere there is a tongue most firmly ensconced in a jowl.
And we wouldn't want Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall...rather we'd want the wall, separating east and west, to be dismantled, nay decimated, nay Greenwaldized, by the honarable premiere of the state sometimes compared to that most noble of creatures..the bear.
I wouldn't go that far. I just like the writing, not the ideas.
The writing isn't esoteric at all. The ideas are.
Peace, Maxine
OOooops.
I meant Edward's post.
I agree with Old Dad, I think?
Peace, Maxine
Edward,
Let's compress Greenwald's argument.
"Sure some on the left are behaving like amoral opportunistic assholes, attempting to ruin lives willy nilly, but so what?
You're one too!"
I could go on, but less is more. Right?
I think it's funny that anyone thinks Greenwald is even intelligent. Just reading him occasionally, I am quite confident that I am superior to him in almost every measurable way, especially with respect to intellectual matters. All he does is sets up clumsily constructed strawmen (which, being rather unintelligent, he doesn't recognize as such), only to knock them down in long rants expressed though mediocre use of the English language.
Basically, Greenwald is your typical faux-intellectual leftist, who hopes that exorbitantly verbose prose will confuse you into thinking he knows a thing or two.
Edward said, "What’s even worse, in my estimation, is the near-universal Republican opposition to a whole host of laws that would clearly reduce any remaining social stigma that attaches to being gay."
This is what I'm talking about when I say faux intellectual. Where on Earth did you get the idea that state recognition of marriage was ever devised so as to "reduce any remaining social stigma of being gay"? Where did you get the idea that laws forbidding murder or relevant sentencing guidelines were ever intended to "reduce any remaining social stigma of being gay"?
You either have horrible logical reasoning skills to have come to that conclusion, or you have a gross disrespect for our laws, choosing to view them as tools for the advancement of your own social agenda.
In either case, you don't come off well.
Dave S.,
OMG! A perfect parody. Pure genius.
Almost too good.
Are you a Greenwald sock puppet?
If not you could be. Might be some dough in it.
Well, I never even knew who Greenwald was until Althouse brought him to our attention.
Kudos to Althouse for tossing even more attention and traffic his way!
Peace, Maxine
Shorter Althouse:
"Reading is hard!"
Hanging chad,
I'm glad to be providing food for thought. :)
As far as signing statements are concerned, I have just the post for you, here. In general, I think signing statements - as an expression of how the President will interpret the law and how he expects his subordinates in the executive branch to interpret it - are fine, but in practise, I think you kind of have to break it down into two classes. Where there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of the law, I think that's fine too, and I don't think anyone's really worried about that. The second class, though, are signing statements which say that "the President will construe this act in a way he deems consistent with his Constitutional authority and obligations." That second class is the kind that sets off alarm bells, and on that front, I'm right there with you. Because that kind of language, to me, rings loud and clear as politician bullshit code for "I think part of this act infringes on my authority under the Constitution, so I'm going to construe the act as if this part wasn't in it" - and I think that's a reprehensible position to take, because if you're the President of the United States, when you're presented with a bill from Congress to sign, if you think as much as one sentence of it violates the Constitution, you need to take out your veto pen and send it back to Congress. That is precisely why the President has a veto. So I'm not opposed to signing statements as an idea, but I share, to some extent, liberal concerns that they're being used as a backdoor line-item veto.
(That's a thirty second summary - the problem is actually considerably more rich and complex than I'm implying, and I'm not pretending that the foregoing is an exhaustive survey - if you want an example of a gray area consider a Presidential signing statement that part of a statute legitimately could be equally construed one of two ways, one of which violates the Constitution and one of which doesn't: should the President veto the law, or sign it saying that he does so because he understands that the ambiguity in §618 actually means A not B? Another point to consider, offered by Steven Calabresi in a recent article, is that anyone who believes that legislative history has probative value as to the meaning of a statute -- which excludes Calabresi, Scalia and I, but per a case from last term called Zedner v. United States, apparently includes Alito, Thomas and Roberts -- must give at least as much weight to signing statements as to committee reports).
I think you're also asking about the unitary executive doctrine, so I'll address that point too. As I see it, the Unitary Executive doctrine isn't quite the same thing as the question of how much inherent power the Constitution gives the Presidency vis-a-vis the other branches of government, it's a theory of how the executive branch has to be structured. It's essentially an attempt to give content to the use of the definite article in Article II - "the executive power shall be vested in a President...," rather than, as Scalia's Morrison v. Olson dissent put it, "some of the executive power. And the practical import of that is the creation of a procedural doctrine: that, at the very least, for any federal activity that is purely executive, the Constitution's vesting of THE executive power in the President means that the President cannot be divested of control over that activity. So the most obvious example is the investigation of the Clinton Administration by an "Independent Counsel" who wasn't answerable to Clinton: absolutely forbidden by the Unitary Executive doctrine.
Think of it like this: we all know Truman's famous sign that used to sit on the Resolute desk: "the buck stops here." Well, why is that the case? The reason is that in an executive branch that is shaped like a pyramid, all authority flows down from the top, but all responsibility equally flows backup to that pinnacle. If you agree with Truman's view - that the President is ultimately responsible for anything the Federal government does, you have to wonder why that would be the case if the executive branch isn't a pyramid capped by the Presidency.
Now, a lot of the people who support the unitary executive doctrine are also believers in giving Article II what I would regard as an exceedingly broad reading, to give the President avast repository of unenumerated "inherent powers," which the President can use as a stick against Congress. (Although it's important to note that there is no one "fedsoc position" on the unitary executive, the powers of the President, or for that matter, on more-or-less any other issue). I'm not on board with that project, and to me, that's a different question to the unitary executive. For what it's worth, let me say a brief word on that point: I’m an originalist, and a textualist, but I’m not a strict constructionist, and so I categorically don’t demand the narrowest possible construction of Article II, any more than I demand the narrowest possible construction of Article I, or the bill of rights (this position sometimes puts me on your side, and sometimes it doesn’t). But in my Scalia groupie way, what I do want - almost always, almost without exception - is a criterion. It seems to me that if one wanted to argue for a broad construction of Art. I §8, the text and structure of the Constitution and Article I itself seem to impose inherent criteria for how broad a construction, say, the commerce power will support. But what scares the hell out of the textualist in me about construing Article II is that there doesn't seem to be any inherent criterion in Article II for construing the inherent powers of the President, and the advocates of this very broad construction (who in the main, by the way, would recoil in horror if anyone proposed to construe the Fourteenth Amendment so broadly) haven’t offered one. And frankly, that bothers me a great deal. I find that very troubling, not because I find it particularly unthinkable that the President has implied powers (liberals, of all people, who have spent decades reading substantive content into the due process clause in spheres such as abortion and criminal procedure, should not be afraid of implied provisions), but because I want to have some confidence that we can find its boundaries. Or, for that matter, that there ARE boundaries. What worries me is that the construction urged by folks like John Yoo would invest the President’s Article II authority with “a breadth never yet exceeded,” as Chief Justice Marshall once said about Congress’ commerce power.
Moreover, even setting aside Constitutional concerns, although I subscribe to the unitary executive doctrine, I think you’d find that - for a Republican - I have an unusually narrow normative preference where the power of the executive branch is concerned. Unlike most Republicans, I grew up in England, a country where the executive dominates the legislative power as Jupiter dominates the Jovian system: inherently, irresistably and completely. As a consequence, I have a much dimmer view of the executive’s virtues, and a much greater suspicion of its potential for abuse. So I actually agree with a lot of liberals that the Bush administration’s work towards expanding executive power (which is really Cheney's project, actually) is troubling (although I add the caveat that I sense that what most liberals are really concerned about isn’t the aggrandizement of the Presidency, as an institution, but rather, that of the present incumbents.
Well,that didn't turn out to be a short answer, but hopefully it answers your questions. If not, post back or shoot me an email. :)
Edward, reading your comments is like pawing through a soggy box of tissues looking for a dry one. You try to pull two ideas apart but they're all so wet that they just disintegrate into a pink pulp. I know you think that you have righteousness on your side, and that if everyone just felt more, then sunshine and fluffy clouds would once more tickle the dark Heartland of America. But it doesn't work that way. You said "What’s even worse, in my estimation, is the near-universal Republican opposition to a whole host of laws that would clearly reduce any remaining social stigma that attaches to being gay. Enactment of these laws would greatly diminish the shock that accompanies each outing, because homosexuality itself would be far less shocking and much more accepted."
Huh? Laws reduce social stigma? What laws? I know that liberals tend to think of laws as if they are some sort of soothing ointment that, liberally applied, reduces swelling and cures nasty red rashes. However, the purpose of law is not to "reduce social stigma" or make people feel better. The purpose of law is to uphold and protect our innate rights as humans and Americans, not to change society. If I knew what you were talking about, I'd talk about it some more, but post-Lawrence v. Texas, it doesn't make much sense.
Anyway, back to Greenwald and high-falutin language:
"Because it's full of things that are only correct because they're grammatical but they're tough on the ear. This is a very wearying one, it's unpleasant to read. Unrewarding."
You all should be ashamed. It's just that you don't appreciate the subtle stylistic underpinnings to his writing and for which he has deep roots.
Ann: "it's the way students who haven't done their work write term papers!"
Are you saying...[gulp]...professors know about this?!?
Ann wrote:
"Why is this (greenwald's) blog so popular?"
1. Greenwald shamelessly and diligently markets himself as some kind of intellectual giant and moral and legal guru on the left, even using sockpuppets to advance and/or defend himself.
This gives cover to the shrill-o-sphere when he makes their same insane points, but in a psuedo-intellectual/legal manner. "See, even a brainiac like greenwald thinks so!"
He also attacks prominent righty bloggers in nearly hysterical terms to get backlinks (righty blogs actually linkback, unlike kos and atrios, who only link to lefties who bash righties), upping his hitcounts. More self-promotion.
B. He is a knee-jerk Bush-basher and far-left "progressive".
He also uses the flexible device of retro-actively deciding his stand (like recently on gay-outing) after someone calls him on an idiotic or contradictory pose.
III. He very early started cultivating the 'big boys' of the left, echoing and expanding on their views. This is valuable and important because some of them (kos and atrios for example) don't really write much, but they love to link.
So its handy to have glenn-the-sockpuppet-farmer expounding on your one-liners for 2000 or more words. linky linky.
That's why. But its mostly he's a reliable bush basher in all things and on every subject, and he does so under the cover of his supposed 'rationality' and deep thinking, giving cover to the moonbat fringe, but when you strip away the crap he is just like them.
Hi Ann,
I only copied and pasted these two words from you: you idiot.
That is your criticism of Glenn Greenwald in a *nutshell* -- you must have used those while getting your degree, no?
I've visited your blog from time to time -- nice pictures. Your political analysis is quite lame. Someone before me must have pointed that out.
You are located in Madison. I once loved their drum and bugle corp. I even had a t-shirt. They were great.
I haven't read all the comments yet, but the last one -- Maxine -- grab a clue and count up how many best sellers Anny :) has and how many Glenn has. Perhaps that rock you've been under suits you Maxie :)
FYI Ms. Althouse, I used my WORK blog id to get this published. Lots of people don't use blogger. I use wordpress for my personal blog. If you insist upon only blogspot commenters -- well you get an oh-so-limited-crowd.
Remember who called whom idiot :)
You know what sends up a red flag for me? Someone who goes on and on with provocative, pointless comments, then signs out 'peace'.
As if.
Would you rather I signed out "War"?
How about this:
Love, Maxine
Glenn is so unimportant that only 107 have posted comments on just how unimportant he is.
And sentences exist to be aesthetically pleasing as opposed to doing anything so mundane as actually convey information.
Thanks folks, I've learned so much today.
Well, the runner up to the 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest simply must be cited here:
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
Stuart Vasepuru
Edinburgh, Scotland
Palladian: Loved that link.
Michilines: grab a clue and count up how many best sellers Anny :) has and how many Glenn has. Perhaps that rock you've been under suits you Maxie :)
Why would you post something that almost no one except Greenwald would post when he has a history of sockpuppetry? Almost as though you'd like to implicate him here...
Mark, thanks for your comment. Back in the day -- the first days of Glenn's blog, "All Things Beautiful" called Glenn an 'idiot' and I tried to make her -- Ms. Van Whatever -- take it back. Now we have Ann Althouse calling Glenn an idiot. Is Ann slow or are we still required to stomp the same ground.
Ann, you are a law professor. BFD. You have a blog. BFD. You write. BFD.
Lots of people do what you do. You are not the best at what you do by a long shot.
I suggest you stick to pretty pictures.
freeman hoot
I have read Glenn Greenwald from very nearly when he started. You clearly have not. The sockpuppet *thang* was homophobia writ large.
Care to explain your fear, freeman?
The only people who think that Greenwald isn't guilty of sock puppetry must be the same people who are gullible enough to think that letters to the Penthouse Forum are real. Just like both the letters to Penthouse and the comments from the same IP address defending Greewald, the tone and the content is very similar.
I never thought this would happen to me, but after I got home from my job as a pool cleaner, where I banged these two hot asian sisters, I read this conservative blog that dared to criticize Glenn Greenwald. How could this right wing hack say anything about Glenn, who is a New York Times best seller. He has been quoted by Senators on the Senate floor. Glenn's brilliant blogging has led to front page newspaper stories.
Sincerely,
Rick Ellensburg AKA Wilson,Thomas Ellers, Ellison, et al
Ann: May I ask the question that has been flitting through my mind as I went about real life since early this afternoon?
When you wrote parts of this post, could you perhaps--unconciously or not--also have been responding that NYT lip-gloss article?
To wit:
It began in the early 19th century, with the technical advances that the historian Daniel J. Boorstin, in his proleptically anti-Camp manifesto, “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America” (published in 1961), termed the Graphic Revolution; sped up in the late 1800’s with the invention of dry-plate photography and then the camera; and acquired a plangent but heartless mood of its own with Christopher Isherwood’s Sally Bowles as well as a bit of philosophical heft after Walter Benjamin wrote his 1935 essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” From there it was a hop, skip and jump to the club scene on the Rive Gauche, where the competing egos of the young Yves Saint Laurent and Karl Lagerfeld used to hang out, as evoked by Alicia Drake in her fascinating account of the two designers’ rivalry, “The Beautiful Fall”: “There were pockets of homosexual life and men cruising all over Paris, but Saint Germain in the 1950’s was known for its folles, the name used to describe camp gays of the moment who were recognized by their bottom-swivelling walk and deliberately effeminate ways, including a habit of high-drama shrieking.” By the late 80’s and early 90’s, Spy magazine, ever alert to the taxonomy of the risible — and newly available for scrutiny in what is itself a swishy form of homage, a book titled “Spy: The Funny Years” — was busy attending to the climate change, teasing out the fine line between “Camp Lite” (attending the Warhol auction) and “True Camp” (attending the Warhol funeral) in one issue, and again, almost three years later, charting a graph of camp icons with the aid of categories that included the “Healthily Campy” (Robert Goulet), the “Forgiveably Campy” (Henry Kissinger), the “Rather Sad” (Priscilla Presley) and the “Just Pathetic” (Sukhreet Gabel). True to Sontag’s dictum that the ethos does not allow for the possibility of tragedy, Spy allowed for none, either.
I count just four sentences in that thar 'graf--and I almost lumped the fourth with the third, so suspicious was I that the latter was destined never to end.
And Maxine, a question for you as well: Does the referenced paragraph do it for you? ; )
Amiably signed, tongue partially in cheek,
One Whose Encounter With That NYT Article Left Her Relatively Numbed To Greenwald's Post, Stylistically Speaking, At Least
Greenwald's general argument was still spot on.
For the right-wing bloggers to try to say that THEY are the ones who are looking out for the best interests of gay people is a COMPLETE AND UTTER FRAUD.
It is disgusting. Equivalent to the KKK saying that they are looking out for the best interests of black people.
And Glenn Reynolds is also pushing that disgusting argument. Which to me - highlights the fact that Instapundit is either a complete moron or a true homophobe of the worst kind.
Last commenter,
Wow, you managed to ball up :) every name and every reason to diss Gleen Greenwald. What you failed to do with your cutsie nonsense is refute what he has said.
Anny nonny has done much the same.
I see now why you limit your commenters. You might just turn into balloon-juice!
There are some out there -- Paul? sys? We could create the same here. I'm willing to try. Are you with me?
Looks like Greenwald mixed his red and white sock puppets in a hot wash cycle.
neddy, it's quite easy to read and understand Glenn Greenwald's posts. I manage to do it every day. I have done it for many months now. I have done it since last October.
If you are challenged, then I empathise.
old dad
oops, you are wrong.
Oh, you have a bloggy blog
nice
Ann, by requiring your commenters to have a blogspot, you limit your input. I can understand that, but it ignores those of us who don't use blogspot. You can see that, can't you?
You can also see that many of you commentors believe in the well refuted fact about Glenn. You allow that drek to be published so anyone can associate you with the nonsense that passed for *serious* commentary a few months ago.
Ann, you are why I never went to law school. Glenn is why I wish I had.
For what is it worth Ann, you have had three times as many profile views (128,000) as Greenwald (40,000). From what I could tell, he has been on blogger for a year. I don't know about you.
And I bet the eyeballs you draw are more desired by advertisers because they have higher incomes,and net worth (you know a lot of yacht owners)and your visitors are way smarter than Greenwald's.
downtownlad,
Equivalent to the KKK saying that they are looking out for the best interests of black people.
Are you claiming that right wing bloggers (the ever-fungible right wing bloggers) torture gays with propane torches, castrate them, and hang them by the neck from trees? Do they burn crosses on gays' laws, or indeed anybody's lawns? Do they even accuse gays of being, in a literal, genetic sense, subhuman?
You're an idiot.
I don't even read Greenwald, his posts are long-winded, but I came to that post through some other bloggers the other day. And I still think the general thrust of his post is spot on.
By the way - how come nobody is even mentioning the fact that the Republican candidate for Governor in Florida is gay? He's been outed several times. But I guess because he was outed by a former Republican and not a "lefty" blogger - then there's no issue.
Greenwald is being very dishonest in his argument, and I am not even mentioning his dishonesty in trying to link Ann's previous post to an expression of right wing outrage. His dishonesty occurs when he claims that this outing of Craig was simply the work of an obscure character and outing isn't part of the left wing MO.
This obscure blogger went on the largest left of center radio show, Ed Shultz, in an attempt to humiliate a US senator, to end his career and possibly end his marriage. Greenwald then complains about right wingers endorsing these tactics in the past, yet as the link to Kos indicates, there is an overwhelming endorsement of these sleazy tactics by the leftist, nutroots community.
Just go on a left wing messageboard and see the glee they express when they find out a republican is gay. Listen to them gossip about how this guy or that guy is really in the closet. So spare me the superior attitude that Greenwald and other liberals express on this matter.
P. Froward - Actually the right-wing Republicans are about 1000 times worse towards gays than the KKK are towards black people.
The KKK at least has the honesty to say what they think about blacks. And the official policy of the KKK is not does not advocate breaking any laws. They are just exercising their right to free speech, albeit admittedly disgusting speech.
The Republican party on the other hand has an official policy for the following:
1) Making gay people second-class citizens through the enactment of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
2) Passing state amendments that outlaw any benefits whatsoever for gays.
3) Repealing Lawrence V. Texas and reinstituting sodomy laws, which would mean gay people would go to jail for having sex in the privacy of their own home.
4) Rejection of anti-bullying laws in schools, because those laws are designed to protect gay people.
5) Propagation of the lie that being gay is a "choice" and encouraging harmful, repudiated psychotherapy to try to "cure" gays.
You, of course, probably agree with all of those positions - which makes you one big anti-gay bigot. And for you to then make the bogus claim that you have the best interests of gay people in mind - also makes you a liar.
If I could explain that, I'd be able to tell you why Keith Olberman has his own cable show.
SouthieFL: "Ok Ann, here's the rest of your statement: After all, the president has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution; he has advisors, and they've concluded that the program is legal. ...?'
No, that's not the "rest" of the statement. Read on and stop being a fool or worse. You have not understood the piece. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Here's the whole op-ed. The part that follows what you took out of context is:
Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?
This, of course, is the most basic question in constitutional law, the one addressed in Marbury v. Madison. The public may have become so used to the notion that a judge’s word is what counts that it forgets why this is true. The judges have this constitutional power only because they operate by a judicial method that restricts them to resolving concrete controversies and requires them to interpret the relevant constitutional and statutory texts and to reason within the tradition of the case law.
This system works only if the judges suppress their personal and political willfulness and take on the momentous responsibility to embody the rule of law. They should not reach out for opportunities to make announcements of law, but handle the real cases that have been filed.
This means that the judge has a constitutional duty, under the doctrine of standing, to respond only to concretely injured plaintiffs who are suing the entity that caused their injury and for the purpose of remedying that injury. We trust the judge to say what the law is because the judge “must of necessity expound and interpret” in order to decide cases, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury. But Judge Taylor breezed through two of the three elements of standing doctrine — this constitutional limit on her power — in what looks like a headlong rush through a whole series of difficult legal questions to get to an outcome in her heart she knew was right.
If the words of the written opinion reveal that the judge did not follow the discipline of the judicial process, what sense does it make to take the judge’s word about what the law means over the word of the president? If the judge’s own writing does not support a belief that the rule of law has substance and depth, that law is something apart from political will, the significance of saying the president has gone beyond the limits of the law evaporates.
Why don't you get it? It's not that hard. The point is that the judge's opinion only gets to trump the President's because the judge follows a judicial method. If the judge doesn't follow a judicial method, the reason for the judge's opinion prevailing over the President's is lost.
Do you really still not get it? Because if you don't, you are so lacking in intelligence that I really don't know how to talk to you. This is an eighth grade civics lesson.
Doug is also being dishonest.
Michael Rogers has been outing people, including DEMOCRATS, for years.
And somehow Doug, and the right-wing lapdog blogosphere, thinks it's just awful that Kos linked to the outing.
Well - guess what. Ann Althouse linked to the outing story as well. Doesn't that make her just as guilty as Kos???? Give me a break. The story was out there - and Kos has just as much right to comment on it as Ann does.
And Mike Rogers has the right to out whoever he wants to. It's a free country. How dare we try to suppress his free speech rights.
If you don't want to be outed, then don't have gay sex. Or have better judgment about who you sleep with.
The Republican party on the other hand has an official policy for the following:
1) Making gay people second-class citizens through the enactment of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
downtownlad, why did Howard Dean go on Pat Robertson's show and brag about how the Democrats have in their platform that marriage should be between a man and a woman? The platform actually doesn't say that, which makes Dean's bragging even more puzzling.
As for the second class citizenship, wasn't it a Democrat that signed the Defense of Marriage Act in the 90's? The idol of modern day liberals, Paul Wellstone voted with the republicans on DOMA. Are Clinton, Dean and the late Paul Wellstone 1000 times worse than the KKK?
And somehow Doug, and the right-wing lapdog blogosphere, thinks it's just awful that Kos linked to the outing.
don't pull this shit, I never once complained that Kos linked to the outing, if you can find that in my post, I would be very interested in seeing it. My mention of KOS was to state that a link to Kos that Ann provided showed that 70% of the people on his site who responded to a poll said that outing was kosher. My point was not to admonish posters on KOS for linking to the Craig story, it was to criticize them for the endorsment of the outing tactic.
To your other point, I didn't say they should be legally stopped from outing, or that their free speech should be infringed upon. They have the right to be assholes, just like Holocoust deniers have the right to be dickheads,or Ann Coulter has the right to spew her venom or Jets fans have the right to be drunken idiots. I am not saying they can't out people, I am saying they should have the decency not to.
Once upon a time, Democrats told us what happens in a politician's private life is no one's business.
To whoever is complaining about having to register in Blogger to comment: This is necessary to keep out spam. There's no other reason. I don't like it, but I'd have to spend all day deleting robot droppings if I didn't do it. So your big ideas about my motivations are quite wrong. You ought to apologize for jumping to that conclusion. And you don't have to have a blogspot blog to register in Blogger.
I like it that Ann picks on other people's writing. People need to be more conscious of their prose. Maxine's comments (and michilines) are a perfect example of How Not to Write, at least if one wants to be taken seriously. (And dang it, there I went into passive voice!) If other people want to make political points and score hits off each other, they have blogs to do it. Ann chose to use her blog to criticize a bad writer. Sure, it stings, but why should she "the rules" limit her only to substance? Style is an important theme on this blog, and if people don't like it they don't have to read it. Duh.
The fact that the Democratic Party is essentially gay-friendly whereas the Republican Party is essentially hostile to gay rights makes all the difference in the world in the moral value that one should attribute to the outing each party practices.
Just to clarify, this particaular liberal's position is that ALL people should be afforded the same rights under the law and that the fact that there are instances where gay people aren't is just a particular example of a larger problem. Also IMHO outing gay people who choose to be closetted is a violation of privacy that I would consider equivalent to someone pointing out in a public forum that I have ED or perhaps am partial to online erotica.
It's nobody's business but my own and the degree to which it is anybody else's business is the degree to which our political discourse make contact with the gutter.
Well welcome to the real world.
Of course all of this is off-topic, the topic being whether or not Glenn Greenwald is a good writer. But that would be off topic as well if the actual question was "Is what he is asserting true?"
Edward, I have never tried to argue that republicans are better on gay rights than dems, I am pointing out the fact that Clinton and many other democrats treated gays as second class citizens and wondered if it was different when an R does it or a D does it. From what I can tell, when a republican does it, he is called 1000 times worse than an organization that murdered black citizens. When a democrat treats gays a second class citizens, it is rationalization and excused by saying that Newt was going to be mean to Slick Willie.
The DNC ran ads on religious radio stations publicizing that Clinton signed this act. Hillary still states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Also, the blowback on gays in the military strongly came from Sens. Sam Nunn and Robert Byrd, both democrats. At the time, the democrats controlled both sides of Congress.
I think gays should be allowed to marry and serve, republicans don't agree with me, and many democrats don't either.
Fundamentally, it is the right to behave in one’s personal life as one sees fit. It is a right that bears upon action, not upon information.
I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is this the generally accepted notion, in law and otherwise?
Greenwald simply doesn't proofread. About a year ago I took issue with one of his sophomoric Iraq=Vietnam posts. I explained that he was correct in the sense that the terrible mistakes in the reporting of the Tet Offensive were being repeated in Iraq.
Glenn flew into a snit and lectured me about what a tough enemy the "North Koreans" were. Strunk & White can't help stupidity.
The sockpuppet *thang* was homophobia writ large.
You are so looking like Greenwald. No one except Greenwald would both mention his books *and* dispute his sockpuppetry, especially in the same thread of comments.
My right to privacy is protected
There is no right to privacy, despite the Supreme Court's tortured attempt to create one. The pseudo-right that currently exists was entirely an activist construct by liberal Justices in order to legislate from the bench.
It will one day end up on the same ash heap as "seperate but equal".
If the Founding Fathers had intended there to be a right to privacy, it would be there, in Amendment 1, 3 or 4.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
Damn those justices for thinking that security in houses, papers and effects for having anything to do with privacy.
Next they'll be declaring that
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
means that they can legislate habeus corpus off into the ether on a whim as well....
To the person wondering why Andrew Sullivan frequently pats Greenwald on the back, I've wondered about that too. I suspect it's because Sullivan wants traffic from links and thought kissing up to another "club" would help.
Sullivan reads a lot into other bloggers linking to blogs he find disreputable. I noticed him praising the New Republic for firing Lee Siegal over sock-puppetry yet did not say one word about Greenwald doing the exact same thing.
The popularity of Greenwald's blog has made me lose some respect for the blogospehere. He smears, he misrepresents links, he's a shameless liar. I used to believe a blogger couldn't get away with that on a regular basis because people of all persuasions wouldn't abide it. But nowadays people tolerate anything from partisan blogs that are on their "team." I used to believe that one of the ways bloggers rise to popularity is by, over time, demonstrating how seriously they take their credibility. I now see that the fast track to blogger stardom is being a partisan propagandist.
Greenwald once claimed that a "staple" of Instapundit is “extremist rhetoric, vicious character smears, and deliberate incitement to violence." I understand Instapundit rubs some people the wrong way, but come on!! Link: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/journalists-its-time-for-some-articles.html
And, yeah, he is a tedious blowhard to read.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
Damn those justices for thinking that security in houses, papers and effects for having anything to do with privacy.
Surely if there was a right to privacy, these things would be secure from any search, not just an unreasonable one.
If the Founders had believed in a right to privacy, it would surely be included in this amendment, if even only as dicta (such as the militia language in the second amendment).
If the Founders had believed in a right to privacy, it would surely be included in this amendment
The founders were addressing the concerns that specifically caused them to rebel in the first place. As such, they focussed on the invasions of privacy to which they were subject as opposed to the invasions that may have cropped up down the road.
and yet you cannot argue any of his posts or opinions, other than sock-puppetry heresay
You mean "hearsay."
That comments were posted across the internet under various alternate names from Greenwald's PC in his home was proven beyond all doubt. Greenwald admitted that much, and suggested it was his boyfriend posting them.
That these were posts Greenwald himself wrote was proven beyond reasonable doubt when the blogger Ace of Spades found that some of these comments coming from Greenwald's home PC included exact phrases that wound up in posts on Greenwald's blog shortly thereafter.
As far as I can tell, Greenwald does not use sock puppets anymore. But he still lies, smears, and misrepresents. He's a sleazeball.
He seems to get 30,000 visitors a day! Why???
I suspect that 29,500 of them are readers of the blogs he likes to attack, following links from the blogs in question.
It seems unlikely to be due to the quality of the blog itself. You can get better-written versions of the same crap, in greater quantity, at DailyKos.
The founders were addressing the concerns that specifically caused them to rebel in the first place. As such, they focussed on the invasions of privacy to which they were subject as opposed to the invasions that may have cropped up down the road.
No No No! They were creating a document meant to last for the ages. They spent hours arguing over punctuation and word choice for exactly that reason.
For instance, they deliberately refused to use the term "slave" or "slavery" so that no one could point to that term later, and claim that slavery was a right guarenteed by the Constitution, because the Founders included references to it. That ius why they used the term "all other persons". I note that they also never used the word privacy.
The Founding Fathers would have been perplexed by the idea of a right to privacy, especially in matters of sexuality and reproduction which is where that "right" is mainly exercised today.
When that right was written, abortion and homosexuality were illegal in almost all places. I assure you, if they meant to enshrine these rights, even if only with a penumbra, it would be there.
My last paragraph should read:
When that document was written...
Ann,
You appear to be having one of your emotional meltdowns when forced to confront valid criticism of your opinions. Glenn linked to your blog, because you did take a right-wing stance on the lefty outing of a senator. But you have a protean personality, continually shape-shifting on each issue or topic under discussion in your blog. Glenn merely pointed out the obvious fact that Republican operatives have played dirty tricks against Democrats when it suited their needs. Politics is a blood sport in America, war by other means, because Americans worship at the altar of the bitch goddess Success, as Norman Mailer pointed out in his Advertisements For Myself.
As a Vietnam veteran, I thought the swiftboarding of John Kerry in the last presidential campaign and John Murtha when he announced his plan for a redeployment of American soldiers in Iraq are only two glaring examples of the usual mud-slinging Republicans have engaged in ad hominen attacks against political opponents. To use two adjectives that you employed in your emotional rant against Glenn, they were "sleazy" and creepy."
By the way, I opposed the Iraq War even though both Kerrey and Murtha voted for the war resolution. Historians will not be kind to them when the tragic narrative of the Iraqi foreign policy debacle is written. Like McCain, Kerrey and Murtha are Vietnam veterans, who have seemed to learn nothing from their experiences. But Gore Vidal long ago in one of his essays called America the "United States of Amnesia."
I said you were having one of your emotional meltdowns in the first sentence in this e-mail. I am referring to your political faux pas over the blogger of Feministing when she appeared in a group photograph of bloggers with former President Bill Clinton during a long lunch and conference at his office in Harlem.
Once again, when valid criticism in the blogosphere (see a representative example in the Broadsheet section of Salon) was directed against you, you threw a hissy fit. You acted like a scorned woman rather than an established and tenured law professor and respected blogger. And hell haith no fury like a woman scorned. But that's what makes you so interesting to me. You are openly vulnerable in your emotions, which I find an intriguing aspect of your blog. Of course, I disagree with your opinions on certain topics, such as the Ellen Barkin piece in the NYT, the Feministing controversy and now your personal attack against Glenn. But I can live with that? Can you?
But thank you for giving Glenn a lot of free publicity for his blog, Unclaimed Territory. I will conitnue to read his blog in the future along with yours.
Perhaps you could arrange an exchange between you and Glenn on bloggongheads.tv? That would be entertainig and interesting, right up there with the recent Corn/York thrilla in Manilla.
Leftists think that they read the smartest guy on the 'net, therefore they are smart.
If you started posting naked pictures, you'd get more hits. If you started bashing Bush, you'd get more hits.
Not that you need more hits, mind you. I'm just explaining Greenwald's mystifying success.
I'm glad I missed the current Greenwald discussion. He was absolutely proven to be using sock puppets but didn't have the guts to admit it. As a result, all of his writings are suspect for accuracy.
Face it, Greewald doesn't write, he types, repeatedly, over and over again, repetitively pounding out tired phrase after phrase after phrase, copying at length from himself, forever stamping out the same coin, reweaving the same basket, thesaurusizing his verbiage, ...
...sorry. He's a virus, Greenwald. Best use antibacterial lotion on the keyboard after reading his blog.
P.S. for george:
Anyone quoting Gore Vidal except to ridicule him is by definition a moron.
P.S. for salvage:
Greewald's main points are too stupid to respond to, or too badly written. besides, how do you know he's writing them?
Greenwald's content is like pornography for the Left.
Leftists think that they read the smartest guy on the 'net, therefore they are smart.
If you started posting naked pictures, you'd get more hits. If you started bashing Bush, you'd get more hits.
Not that you need more hits, mind you. I'm just explaining Greenwald's mystifying success.
"Perhaps you could arrange an exchange between you and Glenn on bloggongheads.tv?"
How could that work? My problem with him is that he's boring and longwinded. How could that make a good show? He drones on and on and then I occasionally say things like "Are you done talking yet?" and "Man, that was a lot of words amounting to almost nothing" and "Sorry, I was in a coma." Or I could comically walk off screen, come back 5 minutes later with a sandwich, and the funny thing would be that Glenn wouldn't have noticed.
But I like your typo "bloggongheads.tv." My head would feel like a gong if I had Glenn's words banging on it for an hour.
On that point someone just made about how people think Glenn is really smart. Well, that's sad. I hope anyone who reads Glenn and believes he's seeing a strong intellect does not have a job that involves reading students' term papers.
Anderson said...
"Uh, Simon, you just posted a comment including *entire paragraphs* and *complex sentences* on a thread lambasting GG for not writing in op-ed style. I salute your sense of irony, sir."
Well, let's put it politely: Ann is far more interested and concerned with blogs having the quality of being "bloggy" than am I. Concision is one thing, but terse is quite another; it seems deeply misguided, to my mind, to shackle a medium that promises to free us from the drugery that is the terseness of newspaper columns with precisely the same demand. Why import a soundbite culture into a medium which does not require it from a technical perspective?
Which is not to say that, in this instance, she's wrong. I think what Ann's criticizing isn't that Greenwald is writing full sentences, or that he isn't writing "op/ed" style (I like Ann's scholarly writing, her blogging, and her op/eds, in that order - and the op/eds finish a distant third, not because there's anything wrong with Ann's writing, but because there is something inherently wrong with the newspaper format: its sarifice of precision and elegance in favor of utilitarian brevity), but that he's a bad writer. While my writing may not be the most elegant ever to grace these pages - as the preceding sentence demonstrates, LOL - it runs circles around Greenwald's turgid prose. But of course, so would a hundred monkeys with a hundred typewriters given a hundred seconds. ;)
Almost all of Greenwald's minions who've come over here to rant and rave about his wonderful, erudite writing have displayed very poor writing skills themselves. Funny, that.
george: "To use two adjectives that you employed in your emotional rant against Glenn, they were "sleazy" and creepy.""
George, your commenting would be better if it didn't contain egregious errors like that. What you call an "emotional rant" was not directed at Glenn. It was about some other blogger engaged in outing a politician. And are you saying it's not "sleazy" and "creepy" to out gay persons? I don't think that's ranting. It's a statement of opinion. If you disagree with it, say so. And you'll look bad.
And let me clear up a misreading about my comparison of Glenn's post to op-eds. Op-eds are usually 800 to 1200 words long. I consider that extended compared to a good blog post. Every time I've written an op-ed that was to be based on a blog post, I've had to elaborate and add more. So for a blog post to be twice the length of an op-ed is ridiculous. I'm not saying blog posts should be like op-eds!
Well, all this posting certainly proves one thing.
If Ann wants to drive her traffic up, all she has to do is write about boobs.
if one is a Republican or agrees often with Republican positions, he/she is much more likely to find Glenn's prose terrible and obtuse
For lack of any more substantive criticism, apparently.
Ann's just doesn't like Glenn for being an unabashedly shrill partisan who often calls out Bush sympathizers like herself.
Re: salvage said...
"Ann? Sweetie? Deep breath now cuz I’m about to say something shocking.."
Anyone calling someone "sweetie" who isn't your own six-year-old child bringing you a martini or your spouse making you a bowl of ice cream smothered in chocolate is an insufferable ass.
A post from Eyes Wide Open, who doesn't have a blogger account and therefore can't post here herself (but who isn't a troll, from my own personal knowledge).
And Ann, I'm a different Thersites than your occasional nemesis Thers, though we hold similar views (and therefore chose similar names...)
***
Ms. Althouse poses her question to those who read and like Glenn's blog and as I am one of those I'd like to respond:
10) I find Glenn's writing brilliant and entertaining: concise in getting Glenn's multiple points across and clever and subtle in its use of humor.
9) Glenn has a patent on using certain emotive adjectives in a unique way that conveys his passionate intensity about his ideas without his having to resort to hysteria.
8) Glenn's posts fall into four main categories, three of which are partisan tactics, the role of the media, and the hypocrisy of some of the leading Republican (and Democratic pundits) as demonstrated by the inconsistency between their past and present positions.
But the thing that put Glenn on the map and keeps him there is an issue which paleo-Republicans, classical liberals, libertarians, principled Democrats and every other patriotic American share: a dedication to the values and the system of government upon which this country was founded.
7) Glenn has an internally consistent value system. Never in Glenn's writing will one find the type of disconnect evidenced by the article cited above that Ms. Althouse wrote for the NYTimes and her notion of herself as a sophisticated legal mind who endorses our system of a Constitutional Republic.
8) Glenn is wickedly funny but not frivolous or silly, as some. He's not trying to attract the American Idol crowd.
7) The reason that principled conservatives and old school Republicans and other independent thinkers who are not Lefties stay with his blog during a partisan time such as the upcoming elections is they believe Glenn when he outlined his strategy for effectuating change in this country. Those who read his blog understand it is a two prong strategy which is currently in its first stage, which he believes is necessary to get to the second stage.
6) This particular reader finds it amusing, but not uninformative, that a Blog host who had on her site a video of herself indulging in some of the most drawn out, incoherent, mindnumbingly idiotic ravings would choose to criticize and dismiss a serious individual like Glenn Greenwald because she cannot force herself to focus long enough to follow Glenn's well written and easily understood articles.
5) Some people prefer to read about lip gloss, when they want to read about lip gloss, in In Style magazine and not on a political blog.
4) What some people find incomprenhensible is why a person who doesn't characterize herself as "right wing" would vote for a fascist agenda in 2004, long after the proof was right out there for all formerly unsuspecting voters to see. Or did Ms. Althouse fail to ever read the Patriot Act? Did she object to the "writing" and dismiss it out of hand?
3) Independent thinkers who are not partisan one way or another would be unhappy at FDL, Daily Kos, Instapundit, Frontpagemag.com or other blogs of that ilk. Where do you suggest they go?
2). The way in which Glenn addressed the false charges of sockpuppetry (which your own commenters introduce into this discussion as if those charges were accurate) with elegance and class tells a lot about the person himself---that is for those who are good enough readers to recognize class when they see it, and are not overcome by a case of easily induced attention deficit ennui.
1) NUMBER ONE REASON. The neocon agenda with its dangerous, immoral foreign policy and its eagerness to substitute a domestic Orwellian Police State for the Constitutional Republic that Glenn's readers prefer is what most explains the 30,000 hits.
Re: "Stewart and Colbert are comic geniuses"
They are comics, both very bright young men, and have moments of genius, without a doubt.
But their content is highly variable in quality, and the sheer repetition by Stewart becomes tiresome. He's simply not inventive enough. He'd be great to eat lunch with in high school, but it's a schtick. Great mock textbook, however.
Colbert? Funny, inconsistently so. The character in the Colbert Report has become a victim of over-exposure, like an SNL bit made into a movie. Good in small pieces, dull at length. Should be seen perhaps every 3 months or so.
Comic genius? Chaplin, Keaton, Lewis, Newhart, Cosby, Pryor, Monty Python, and others. These two aren't even in the foyer of the hall to the plane that flies to the land of comic genius.
"utterly despicable and false"
There, you just summed up GG's blog in four words.
Edward, regarding your long post on "outing," I don't use this term lightly, but for saying the following things, I think it is fair to describe you as having a fascist mentality. You frighten me. You'd be putty in the hands of some future dictator, because you're the type of person who could rationalize "informing" on your neighbors.
A fundamental problem with opposition to outing is that it always trades in the notion that homosexuality is shameful.
That's a huge and pernicious assumption. There are a lot of people who are opposed to outing because it is an invasion of privacy, and a deprivation of the "outed" person's rights.
Doctrinaire opponents of outing are also wrong when they can’t speak respectfully about those who at least support outing powerful public figures (who already have a greatly diminished expectation of privacy), and especially those who support outing politicians who daily do harm to the gay community.
"Doctrinaire" opponents to outing are simply committed to a basic right to personal privacy. Where do you get off instructing anyone to "speak respectfully" concerning benighted idiots who think they have the right to invade someone's personal privacy? If I went through the contents of your desk and publicized what I found on the Internet, would you expect to be admonished for showing "disrespect" by calling the police and having me arrested?
And why is it up to you to decide what "expectations of privacy" public figures should have? Where do you draw the line? Outers think it should be at the point of a public figure's sexual practices. What if my passionate activism concerns, say, the use of certain prescription drugs. Does that give me the right to "out" a public figure's medical privacy? What if I said, "I don't think anyone who has ever been treated with anti-depressants should be able to keep that a secret?" You would have zero basis to object. In fact, according to you, you'd have to show me great deference and respect.
Also, what constitutes "harm to the gay community" on the part of a political figure? Is there a single standard, and is the outer the sole judge of that standard? It's not as if the outing victims are being accused of physically assaulting gays, or sending police to break into gay couples' homes. These are policy debates. Lots of gays vote Republican, and I'm sure they have their reasons. It's not up to you to decide, unilaterally, that their reasons are wrong.
Who, in their everyday lives, hasn’t engaged in conversations speculating about whether such-and-such a person is gay? Everyone has, and we all know that.
And this justifies what exactly? There's a lot of gossip on the Internet. Does the appearance of this gossip mean all of it is fair game to be used as a cudgel against the subjects of this gossip?
To varying degrees, opposition to outing always trades in homophobia (however attenuated), and such opposition always gives effect to and reinforces homophobia (however slightly).
No, outing trades in homophobia, as the latest outers gleefully admit. The political gain expected from the Foley case as well as the Craig allegations is that hard-right religious homophobes will stay home on Election Day. If there was no such thing as homophobia, outing would have much less impact. In a disarmingly honest post on Huffington, Nora Ephron admitted to these concerns, although she hoped the recriminations for the arousal of homophobia would only start after the election.
In many parts of American society, homosexuality is so well accepted that talking about whether someone is gay is just a casual part of everyday conversation. It’s not considered “outing.” It’s just life in a modern, diverse, and tolerant society.
Again, you're assigning all the rights to the people spreading information about third parties, and taking away all rights from the person being discussed. It is none of anyone's business what consenting adult another consenting adult sleeps with, except perhaps in the case of marital adultery. That's an evolution liberals like me thought was an accomplishment -- one that you're now willing to abandon for perceived political gain.
It is terrific that gay life is now so mainstream that many homosexuals can be free and open about how they live--if they so choose. But it is no one's right to make that kind of decision for them, anymore than it is my right to disclose publicly what medicines you take, what you eat, what TV shows you watch, or how you treat your goldfish.
Outing is evil. Period. Don't do it, don't condone it, don't coddle it. And certainly, don't try to find rationalizations for it, because that road leads straight to fascism.
Dave S. said...
I think it's funny that anyone thinks Greenwald is even intelligent. Just reading him occasionally, I am quite confident that I am superior to him in almost every measurable way, especially with respect to intellectual matters.
not to go to his credentials, but lets go to his credentials (nyu law, then employed for a decade by the nation's most prestigious and selective firm, wachtell lipton). i'm sure he's quite inferior, yes, quite, "dave s."
ann -- please demonstrate how the following could be dramatically improved, improved to a degree that justifies your ad hominem attacks (such as "idiot"):
Yesteryday [sic], I wrote a post pointing out that the hordes of right-wing pundits condemning the Larry Craig outing have no standing to voice such complaints, since the very tactic that they were purporting to condemn (publicizing innuendo about private sexual behavior and exploiting sexual morality for political gain) is one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over, as one of its central weapons. I cited countless examples -- including some from this week, along with others throughout the last 15 years -- which demonstrate that the right-wing of the Republican Party centrally relies upon tactics indistinguishable from the Craig outing, and that unlike the Craig outing (engineered by a single, obscure individual), the entire right-wing political movement traffics continuously in those tactics.
cheers.
Anne:
You asked if "someone who puts up with Glenn Greenwald's prose explain something to me? How can people bear to read Glenn Greenwald?"
I don't just put up with his prose, but I enjoy it, so I will attempt to answer your question.
People read Glenn Greenwald because he is a great writer and an astute political thinker.
I guess that means I have "no taste", in your opinion, but it is the truth.
As far as your next question:
"Maybe someone who's actually taken the time to slog through Greenwald's execrable writing and understands his approach to "Logical Reasoning" can explain in a few crisp sentences what he means by linking to me like that."
He meant that it is hypocritical of you to call outings "slimy" and "creepy" when you yourself have suggested that someone is sexually "deviant" and therefore lacks political legitimacy.
One example of this behavior on your part is when you suggested that a blogger did not represent "feminist values" because she posed in a picture with Bill Clinton in a way you considered sexually provacative.
Does that answer your question?
I guess it makes sense that Ann would object to Greenwald on stylistic as well as political grounds. His writing is almost as dense as Ann's is fluffy.
But there's also the underlying difference that Glenn thinks Bush is a tyrant and Ann thinks he's dreamy.
Re: "People read Glenn Greenwald because he is a great writer and an astute political thinker."
Yes, but only in the old Marxist tradition where impenetrably obscure prose is perceived as intelligent and its author an intellectual precisely because his writing is too opaque to decipher.
The highlighted paragraph surely means something, but robust defenses could be mounted for many meanings, and ultimately, who cares?
Fenris -
What about Glenn's confession? Shouldn't you back up your statement before slandering him any further?
Why not ask him yourself?
Because I read his explicit denial of it, and only clowns like Patterico still propogate the accusations.
Re: "Doyle: What about Glenn's confession? Shouldn't you back up your statement before slandering him any further"
Answer: IP address 201.37.43.117
Several sock-puppets, including "Rick Ellensburg", "Thomas Ellers", & “Ellison” shared an address space with Greenwald on the Brazilian Telemar Norte ISP in late 2005 and early 2006. This is based on Greenwald’s having posted comments under that address space on numerous blogs in early 2006, including Protein Wisdom in January 2006.
Greenwald blamed his boyfriend.
Heh.
Well, Edward, I had a feeling you would complain about my detection of fascist tendencies in your thinking, so I'm prepared to defend it.
I agree, fascism has a specific historical context, although it does not have a precise meaning. But most definitions of fascism would encompass the notion that there is no individual right to privacy because everything is a matter for politics, which organizes all of society, including formerly private spheres such as sexuality.
Mussolini expressly contrasted the "individualistic" tendencies of the 19th century with the "collective" notions of political control in the 20th. An "outer" is clearly expressing sympathy with the latter view, e.g. one who behaves a certain way privately must have that behavior exposed because party politics demands that it be so. An individualist would say a person's behavior is not the business of the state or political parties.
Another aspect of fascism that "outing" recalls for me is summed up in this definition by the author of "The Anatomy of Fascism":
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
The concepts of personal privacy and autonomy are related to the ideals of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution, which saw such rights as God-given, a part of natural law. The notions that such "democratic liberties" should be abandoned in a spirit of "redemptive violence...without ethical or legal restraints," seems a close cousin to the idea that an individual's sexual identity is the property of the political realm, to be exposed and utilized for purposes of political or ideological advancement.
See, I think gays are just like anyone else -- capable of having an array of diverse, even contradictory opinions. A gay person can be opposed to gay marriage, can believe in Jesus Christ and prayer in schools and other doctrines of the right. That same gay person could be "closeted" for completely different reasons -- a sense of personal privacy, a concern about the feelings of a family member, or even fear of discrimination. It doesn't make them a hypocrite, and thus fodder for political zealots to make hay with. It's just part of their individual identity, with no particular political meaning whatsoever. What's fascistic about outing is its complete denial of individuality, and its claim to the right to trample on personal privacy simply for the sake of politics.
I doubt you're a fascist, Edward. But I think you need to think through your support of outing. Because every argument you make for it can be made about any other aspect of an individual's personal life that someone else might want to drag into the political realm. By condoning "outing" you are giving up your right to object to the fascists who will always be tempted to try it. A commitment to individual liberty -- the philosophical and moral root of tolerance -- must be held consistently; even for those you deem to be hypocrites.
Pogo -
a) The question was about Fenris's mystery confession.
b) If your so called evidence begins "Several sock puppets..." it is not evidence but just the accusation restated.
Similarly the case can't be "based on Greenwald’s having posted comments under that address space" because Greenwald's authorship is what you're trying to prove.
P.S. Fenris must be trying to become as unpopular here as I am.
"THAT's what people should be up in arms about; not about whether someone's sentences are sufficiently crisp, IMHO."
A careful, intelligent writer would NOT use the cliche "up in arms" when talking about an amputee. You must be a Greenwald reader.
Pogo:
You wrote described Glenn Greenwald's prose as "impenetrably obscure."
Do you really feel this way? Because I find his prose quite clear and relevant. And I am neithier a young nor an old Marxist.
You also wrote:
"The highlighted paragraph surely means something, but robust defenses could be mounted for many meanings, and ultimately, who cares?"
30,000 vistors, on a daily basis, seem to care. No?
the Master of Sock Puppets is of little consequence.
Then why do you continue obsessing. If he were of little consequnce, then you could safely ignore him.
Re: "30,000 vistors, on a daily basis, seem to care. No?"
An appeal to popularity? Hundreds of thousands cheered on Mao and Stalin, so they must have been right, right?
The Beverly Hillbillies was watched by hundreds of thousands? So it's good, right?
Hundreds of thousands of people eat frozen pizza, so it must be good, right?
Lots of people enjoy crap. It's proof only that people have no taste or are ignorant. Don't be a fool.
And Badger, you misunderstand the IP address stuff. Greenwald had several sock puppets defend him from his own computer, and blamed his boyfriend for it. He acknowledged (because he couldn't deny) the posts came from his CPU.
Fenris doesn't need an admission of guilt. This is DNA. Greenwald lied.
Re: "You wrote described Glenn Greenwald's prose as 'impenetrably obscure.' Do you really feel this way?"
No; I think his writing is awful. I was being impenetrably obscure to make you feel better about liking execrable prose.
The Exalted said...
"please demonstrate how the following could be dramatically improved, improved to a degree that justifies your ad hominem attacks (such as "idiot"):
'Yesteryday [sic], I wrote a post pointing out that the hordes of right-wing pundits condemning the Larry Craig outing have no standing to voice such complaints, since the very tactic that they were purporting to condemn (publicizing innuendo about private sexual behavior and exploiting sexual morality for political gain) is one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over, as one of its central weapons. I cited countless examples -- including some from this week, along with others throughout the last 15 years -- which demonstrate that the right-wing of the Republican Party centrally relies upon tactics indistinguishable from the Craig outing, and that unlike the Craig outing (engineered by a single, obscure individual), the entire right-wing political movement traffics continuously in those tactics.'"
Oh, come on - no one's going to pick up that baton? *Sigh* Okay, here's one pass to improve it:
"Yesterday, I argued that the right-wing pundits who criticized the Larry Craig outing as innuendo about private sexual behavior have no standing to voice such complaints. I cited several examples, spanning the last fifteen years, to demonstrate that the tactics now condemned by those pundits have routinely been used by their own political movement, and that unlike the independently-engineered Craig outing, such tactics are mainstream in right-wing circles."
Presto! From 126 words splattered awkwardly across two badly-written and almost unreadably-turgid sentences, down to 68 words. And I'm the most verbose poster here! Surely, "Exalted," you aren't seriously suggesting that Ann's attack is inaccurate? You might have something if you said that the manure of the writing contained a beautiful orchid of an idea that made slogging through the manure worth it - but the prose is indefensible. It really isn't difficult to improve on.
Monkey Faced Liberal: "Anne...As far as your next question:'Maybe someone who's actually taken the time to slog through Greenwald's execrable writing and understands his approach to "Logical Reasoning" can explain in a few crisp sentences what he means by linking to me like that.' He meant that it is hypocritical of you to call outings "slimy" and "creepy" when you yourself have suggested that someone is sexually "deviant" and therefore lacks political legitimacy. One example of this behavior on your part is when you suggested that a blogger did not represent "feminist values" because she posed in a picture with Bill Clinton in a way you considered sexually provacative. Does that answer your question?"
First, spell my name right. Second, when did I suggest someone is sexually "deviant" and therefore lacks political legitimacy? It never happened. You owe me an apology for saying that. As to the blogger who posed with Clinton, I criticized her behavior, which was the prideful posing with the man, who I think feminists should be critical of. That's not an accusation of sexual deviance, but an acccusation of insufficient commitment to feminist values. I stand by that and assert that it is utterly consistent with being critical of people who out gay persons for political reasons.
I have no respect for you, so the fact that you enjoy Greenwald is another mark against him.
Okay, here's one pass to improve it: "Yesterday, I argued that the right-wing pundits who criticized the Larry Craig outing as innuendo about private sexual behavior have no standing to voice such complaints. I cited several examples, spanning the last fifteen years, to demonstrate that the tactics now condemned by those pundits have routinely been used by their own political movement, and that unlike the independently-engineered Craig outing, such tactics are mainstream in right-wing circles"
Shorter yet:
"Yesterday, I showed that right-wingers regularly attack the sexual behavior of their opponents, and therefore have no standing to criticize the Craig outing".
And link the word "showed" to the post in question. There is no reason to exhaustively summarize old posts when you can just link to them instead.
Fenrisulven said...
"Edward ... do you support mixing males and females in the barracks, on ship, in the foxhole? If not, how is it any different? Why shouldn't females be forced to shower with the males?"
Dang, it's such a shame that the ERA was defeated and we therefore don't have to ask difficult questions like this as a matter of Constitutional law rather than simply sound policy, right? ;)
simon,
your version is shorter, but it lost some of the content. i think its pretty obvious that writing is subjectively measured, and, having read plenty of "bad writing" in my day, greenwald's is nowhere near.
and yes, i do like greenwald's writing. i have been known to write similarly . . . i guess i'm a mental midget also. if only ann taught at nyu instead of WI, my papers could have bled red.
ann,
"prideful posing" with someone that YOU think "feminists" aren't allowed to pose with?
she posed in a picture with a former president of the united states. thats it.
while we're at it, clinton had 60+% approval ratings throughout his second term, including after (because?) his impeachment. does this mean that 60+% of americans aren't "serious" about "feminism?"
seriously.
Edward: "Ann claims that Greenwald’s essay makes no sense, and she even seems to suggest that his entire thinking on the subject of outing is confused, as is reflected in his bad writing."
I'm in no position to say the essay makes no sense, because I refuse to read it. I hate the writing style. If a writer doesn't show basic respect for the reader by composing clear sentences and editing, I return the disrespect by refusing to read him. In this case, since he wrote some damned thing about me, I wanted to call attention to the fact that it is apparently a disgusting lie and to give his supporters a chance to defend him. And let me say that no one has said one persuasive thing that defends him from my suspicion that he has despicably lied about me.
The Exalted (r.e. revenant's post) - there, you see? If you take out the self-important Greenwald crap AND the stuff I'm too self-important to remove, and just write like a normal human being, you can cut that waffle down to a single 23-word sentence! That's less than one fifth of the words, and the message is exactly the same.
But to be sure, Revenant, you could go even further, and cut everything Glenn Greenwald has ever written down to three words: "Fuck the GOP". That has about as much reasoned analysis and substantive value as the sum of his writing.
seriously, exalted, can we lose the e e cummings approach? its faux humility pose bugs me and i don't live where always its spring and the flowers pick themselves
Exalted: You can disagree with me about whether feminists should give Clinton a pass about how much he hurt feminism, but you can't say that I said that posing with him was "sexual deviance," which is what I'm talking about with monkeyface.
The Exalted-
"Simon, your version is shorter, but it lost some of the content."
Your problem appears to be that you confuse "words" with "content." Nothing of any value was cut in my version (even assuming, dubitante, that ANY of it has value). As revenant pointed out, it is meaningless to exhaustively summarize a post that you can link to in a subsequent blog post, or that can be cited in a footnote of any weightier commentary.
The mind boggles at the idea that people not only like such convoluted writing, but worse yet, seek to emulate it.
ann,
why should anyone bother to read the piece to defend it to you if won't even read it yourself? rather strong to claim he "despicably lied" when you admit you haven't even read it.
simon,
you really think he makes no substantive points, at all? only a hack thinks the GOP can stand on two legs when it comes to defending political opponent's privacy. i find greenwald shrill at times, but his content is always there. and when you're dealing with the content he covers, daily, its easy to get shrill.
Exalted: I read the part about me, made an accusation, and invited his supporters to explain it. They haven't. I still won't waste my time reading his unedited drivel. I have my opinion of him, based on a fairly derived presumption, and I'm giving you an opportunity to rebut it. You apparently can't. The presumption stands.
On the one hand, you have people arguing that it's confusing, dense and indecipherable, and on the other hand, you have people complaining about its verbosity and sentence length.
The above is, ironically enough, another example of bad writing. The "on the one hand/on the other hand" construct is used for comparing two opposed things. Greenwald's long-windedness does not stand in opposition to his inability to make a point.
fenris,
you really are daft. he's not justifying anything. he's calling the right "hypocrites." look up the word, it should clear your confusion.
only a hack thinks the GOP can stand on two legs when it comes to defending political opponent's privacy.
True, but the bloggers criticizing the Craig outing aren't the GOP. Most of the bloggers have never attacked an opponent's sexuality and are therefore on firm ground in criticizing the outing.
Sure, Greenwald tends to lump all of his political enemies into one enormous mass and make sweeping statements about it, but that's because he's not a very good thinker. The people in that Greenwald-defined mass have their own histories and political views, and aren't accountable for the behavior of a political party they have no authority within.
Exalted: I read the part about me, made an accusation, and invited his supporters to explain it. They haven't. I still won't waste my time reading his unedited drivel. I have my opinion of him, based on a fairly derived presumption, and I'm giving you an opportunity to rebut it. You apparently can't. The presumption stands.
i went back and read his post, and your post to which he linked. you're right, you did not say or intimate what he claims you did. is it truly a "despicable lie" though? i mean, seriously. to me, it looks like he "saw" what he was looking for, if you catch my drift -- a mistake, not a deliberate lie.
Fenrisulven said...
he merely observes that the other side is hypocritical for criticizing the very same behavior that it regularly engages in.
Thats a stupid generalization. Please list those Republicans who have:
1) outed homosexuals
2) criticized the Left for outing homosexuals
The other side Is his logic really that weak?
you are purposefully obtuse. the point is that the same pundits expressing shock and outrage over this incident have either idlely sat by during or actively engaged in similar smearing behaviour in the past. the only difference between this incident and those prior is the party affiliation of the target. if you want examples, put on your mask and wade through glen's post.
cheers.
In this case, we have the viewpoint that his writing is unreadable because it's so dense. We also have a viewpoint that his writing readable but so verbose as to be excrement itself. These two views conflict.
You said nothing aout "readable" in your previous post. You added that now in order to sound less ridiculous. Your original dichotomy was between its being "confusing, dense and indecipherable" and its "verbosity and sentence length", which are not contradictory.
why address the content when you can attack the message format for free?
The reason for not "addressing the content" is that it consists of the same generic leftie talking points available in a better-written, more-concise form on dozens of left-wing blogs, as well as from countless left-wing commentators.
For instance, the oh-so-insightful "Republicans out people too" point had already been made repeatedly in the comments section of this very blog well before Gleen decided to belabor the obvious.
no, you are the one moving the goalposts.
right wing pundits express outrage over republicans getting smeared, but not the other way around. their outrage is a one way street.
get it?
Edward said:
"For several years now, all the polling has shown that a clear majority of Americans support allowing to gay people to serve openly in the military."
I challenge you to prove that assertion as written!
Ann:
Lets look at the situation you find "creepy" and "slimy."
A public person (senator) engages in some behavior (having sex with members of the same sex).
Someone finds out about this behavior and brings it up, because they feel that the person's behavior (engaging in sex with someone of the same sex) is in conflict with their stated political position (they do not support equal rights for gays.)
Now lets look at the example I referenced in my post:
A blogger engaged in some behavior. (having their photo taken with the former president of the United States).
You found out about this behavior and brought it to the attention of others because you believe it conflicted with their stated political postion (that they are a feminist).
Specifically you noted the blogger's "three-quarter pose and related posturing" and that "posing in front of him [Clinton] LIKE THAT [my emphasis] irks me, as a feminist."
This is how you described her behavior at the event:
"She wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?"
You didn't JUST say that she shouldn't have posed at all with Clinton.
You specifically noted how she posed and the clothes she wore, and you strongly implied that she was highlighting her breasts in the picture and making a sexy pose. Right?
I will admit that "deviant" was too strong a word to describe your interpretation of the event.
But you definately seemed to say that she posed in a sexual manner, in front of a man who you think was a sexual harrasser.
And that this type of behavior was inappropriate given the fact that the blogger states that she is a feminist.
In both cases:
A person behaves sexually in a certain way. (Be it "a sexy pose for a camera" or "having homosexual relations")
Someone else sees or finds out about this behavior and thinks it conflicts with the person's stated position. (Eithier on feminism or homosexual rights).
This other person points out this behavior in an effort to erode this person's credibility on a political issue.
Given this, I don't see how, in saying that I could see how GG found you hypocritical, I was wrong and therefore offer you an apology.
In one instance you found certain actions creepy and slimly. In the other case you yourself engaged in in similar actions.
Please explain.
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
P.S. After a single comment in which I actually try to answer a question that you yourself asked you state that you have "no respect for me."
That seems rather harsh and unfair, doesn't it?
If you didn't really want people to try to answer your question, why did you ask it?
Was it merely a rhetorical device?
"Edward: I don’t quite understand why Ann won’t just buckle down and read Greenwald’s essay."
For the same reason I won't buckle down and mow his lawn or rake his leaves.
"A blogger engaged in some behavior. (having their photo taken with the former president of the United States). You found out about this behavior..."
Found out about it? The photo was proudly posted on a blog! It wasn't private or secret. It was put up for the admiration of all and it didn't get admiration from all. It got some mockery. Big deal. You analogy is absolutely ridiculous. I was expressing an opinion about an open fact not revealing a secret.
Chickenlittle:
Here are some facts I easily found on Google regarding public opinion regarding gays in the military:
Pew Research, March 2006
"The public supports a policy of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military by a margin of 60% to 32%."
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273
NY Blade, September 25, 2006
Multiple polls by the Boston Globe, Pew Research Center and Gallup have found that anywhere between 60 and 79 percent of Americans favor letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military.
http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/9-25/news/localnews/policy.cfm
December, 2003
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has found that 79 percent of all Americans believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
An August, 2003 Fox News poll found that 64 percent of the public believed that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel_2003_1223.htm
Challenge won. Do I get a prize?
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
Sorry, you ignored a couple of conditions implicit in my "as written" proviso
Ann,
If nothing else, this little adventure should offer you some incentive to vote Republican for Senate and President. If this chap is what the left considers a great writer and a great legal visionary, just imagine...Put a Democrat in the White House and you might have to put up with Justice Greenwald in a couple of years. ;)
Closeted gay men and straight men already share communal showers in the military and have since the founding of the American Republic.
And the reason that doesn't bother anybody is because they're closeted.
Forcing a bunch of hetero men to shower with an openly gay man is essentially the same as forcing a bunch of women to shower with a hetero man. Saying "oh, that's ok, he promises to be professional about it" is not going to cut it. You're correct that hetero men shower with homosexuals every day without knowing about it... but the "without knowing about it" is the key part of that sentence. Women shower every day without knowing that men are peeking in on them, too -- that doesn't mean it wouldn't bother them if they found out about it.
Ann:
You wrote "I was expressing an opinion about an open fact not revealing a secret."
So the only reason the behavior is "slimy" or "creepy" in one case, rather than the other, is that the behavior in question was "secret"?
Yet, if such behavior is know by a blogger like Mike Rogers, such behavior is not much of a secret, is it?
After all, an "open secret" is not really a secret at all? Is it?
And why does it matter if the behavior is secret or not? As a public person, a senator can reasonably expect his private life to examined to a certain extent, especially his private behavior conflicts with his public positions.
For instance, I would want to know if a senator who supported legislation to outlaw smoking indoors smoked in his own private office. I think such information would hurt his credibility.
As another example, imagine if there was no Paula Jones lawsuit. In such a case would you have called the exposure of Clinton's legal and consensual affair with Monica by others outside the affair "slimy" and "creepy"?
Finally, you did not address my question in the PS.
I tried answer your question.
After doing so you stated that you have "no respect for me."
So again I ask -- if you didn't really want people to try to answer your question, why did you ask it?
Was it merely a rhetorical device?
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
So the only reason the behavior is "slimy" or "creepy" in one case, rather than the other, is that the behavior in question was "secret"?
I'm amused that you actually need it explained to you that revealing personal secrets is bad in a way that commenting on public statements is not.
Chickenhawk:
What "implicit" conditions? Please explain.
This is what was written:
"For several years now, all the polling has shown that a clear majority of Americans support allowing to gay people to serve openly in the military."
The polls go back several years to 2003 -- in fact, if you read the Pew research study, it found that way back in 1994 "52% favored allowing gays to serve openly and 45% were opposed."
"all the polling". It is true I did not research ever single poll on this issue. But unless you can point out a poll that shows something different, I think three different polls (Pew, Gallup, Boston Globe) that demonstrate that the majority of the country supports gays serving openinly in the military demonstrates that this is the view in the country.
Do you not think 60% not a clear majority?
And all of the polls asked about letting gays serve openly, right?
Unless you can find a poll from organizations as credible as Gallup and Pew that refutes the idea that a clear majority of Americans support gays serving openly in the military, I can't see how you can argue that I didn't win your challenge.
Can you?
"As another example, imagine if there was no Paula Jones lawsuit. In such a case would you have called the exposure of Clinton's legal and consensual affair with Monica by others outside the affair "slimy" and "creepy"?"
Sure. My problem with Clinton has to do with sexual harassment.
Seven Machos:
I find it a little ridiculous that because these third party polls were referenced on "pro-gay" sites you therefore think these numbers are inaccurate.
Did you go to the links and see the references?
In any case, let me give you some "objective" likes that reference these same polls.
"The public supports a policy of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military by a margin of 60% to 32%."
Pew's Web site
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273
"A Gallup poll in 2004 found that 63 percent of respondents favored allowing gay troops to serve openly, and a similar survey, by the Pew Research Center this year, put the number at 60 percent; Gallup Poll in 2004"
NY Times -- article references both Pew and Gallup Polls.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/us/14gay.html?ex=1315886400&en=ac2f510a085b476a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Also see Gallup's web site (does not have all data from poll)
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=14419&pg=1
"And 79 percent of respondents said gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 57 percent in a 2000 Opinion Dynamics Poll."
Boston Globe 2005--
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2005/05/15/one_year_later_nation_divided_on_gay_marriage/
As you can see, according to the Boston Globe, even six years ago 57% of the population thought that gays should be able to serve openly in the military.
Isn't this a little like saying that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of mandatory school prayer because it says so right there on the website of the 700 Club?
It doesn't matter who is reporting the poll, only who conducted it. The polls on the websites you mentioned were conducted by independent researchers and mainstream pollsters like CNN, USA Today, and Gallup. So even though activist organizations are the ones promoting the poll results, they weren't the ones asking the questions.
But in any case, some less-controversial sites reporting solid pro-gay majorities on the military service question can be found at CNN and the Pew Forum. Also, your comparison of a UC Santa Barbara research organization to the 700 Club is a bit over the top.
Seven Machos:
You wrote:
"If the Washington Blade and the New York Times find huge majorities of Americans support gays in the military, then, clearly, it must be true."
You still do not seem to understand.
Pew Research, Gallup and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center found that clear majorities of Americans support gays serving openly in the military.
The NYT, Boston Globe, Blade, etc., just reported thse findings.
You seem to suggest in your post that these findings are not credible.
So let me ask you directly. Do you think that Pew Research, Gallup and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center results on this question are not to be trusted?
If so, why?
As far as your question on "why hasn't Congress responded to this?"
The reason is that while a majority might support a position, a more passionate minority might oppose it.
If the majority does not feel as strongly about the issue as the minority does, often politicians will side with the minority, in order to get their money, votes, etc.
See stem-cell research (majority supports it, passionate minority against), gun control (majority for stricter control, passionate minority against) etc.
For instance, I disagree with Mayor Bloomberg regarding his position on bringing the Olympics to NYC.
However, since I did not feel that passionately about the issue, and agreed with him on other issues I felt more passionate about, I voted for him.
Do you understand now?
I concede that a clear majority of Americans support allowing to gay people to serve openly in the military.
I want to thank you for opening my eyes and for making me aware that I belong to "more passionate minority" -I will redouble my efforts!
All I know is that Glenn Reynolds is one of the most homophobic bloggers on the net. Did you see the disgusting diatribe he posted today, about how BAAAAD Democrats are are for gay people and how much better the Republicans are for gays.
What a load of crap.
And let's also not forget that Glenn Reynolds regularly links to Clayton Cramer - who claims that all gays are child molesters. Does Reynolds agree with that? You betcha. As does that other noted anti-gay bigot, Volokh - who actually had Clayton "God Hates Fags" Cramer as a guest blogger.
Yes - that's nice that Glenn supports gay marriage, but he's still a bigot.
I still think it's funny when anti-gay bigots like Instapundit try to tell gay people what is good for them.
How utterly condescending. Pathetic really.
But it's the same on this thread - all of the anti-gay bigoted commenters are claiming that they're really out to help gay people by stopping outing.
Dudes - get a life. Gay people don't need help from any straight people thank you very much. And we really don't need the bigots pretending that they really want to help us. Puhleeeeze.
Well tell me Seven - why do they link to Clayton Cramer on a daily basis? Clayton is well known for his anti-gay diatribes, where he demonizes all of them as pedophiles.
Because they're bigots that's why.
Why does Eugene Volokh have posts that say "of course" gays try and recruit straight people?
Because he's a bigot that's why.
You're also anti-gay seven, so like I've said, please spare us with your ability to judge whether someone is anti-gay or not. You are not in a position to judge.
Now Glenn and Volokh have every right to be anti-gay bigots. And since they support gay marriage, honestly, I don't give a damn. Which is why I actually don't say much on this subject. I just choose not to read them. It just happened to be relevant to this comment thread.
But that doesn't mean I have to demean myself by actually respecting them.
DTL said:
"I still think it's funny when anti-gay bigots like Instapundit try to tell gay people what is good for them."
But even more people laugh when anti-straight bigots like yourself try to tell straight people what is good for them.
All I know is that Glenn Reynolds is one of the most homophobic bloggers on the net.
Bwahahahaha!
Oh, man. That's a good one. Tell the one about how Kos hates left-wingers next.
Some people are puzzled by my talking about one post when the link to me is in a different post. But that post begins with a link to the older post and talks about it. That is, GG sloppily caught me up in a lot of indirect references, and I did not like it. Those who think I've emphasized form over substance are being obtuse. It is GG's crappy form that is catching me up in references that don't apply to me, which I don't like. It's not superficial for me to talk about this problem. It's really important. This guy writes badly, and I don't want to read it for that reason. But it's more than just that. His writing is bad in a way that is viciously unfair. I'm writing about it because it injured me. This man needs to get at least enough control over his writing to stop this kind of damage to other people.
downtownlad said...
"Gay people don't need help from any straight people thank you very much."
Really? How many black people voted for the Fifteenth Amendment? How many women voted for the Ninteenth Amendment? How many 18 year olds voted for the 26th Amendment? If you want to legalize gay marriage, you categorically DO need help - and votes - from straight people. And lots of them.
Isn't it interesting several of those defending Greenwald here are blogger accounts of, shall we say, a recent vintage? ;)
If you want to legalize gay marriage, you categorically DO need help - and votes - from straight people. And lots of them. - Simon
Wrong. I'm smart enough to realize that 70% of this country are hardcore anti-gay bigots, and that gay marriage is not coming to this country in my lifetime. Sure - it might come later, but who freaking cares - I'll be dead.
So no - I don't need straight people. And I'll live my life as best I can and to the fullest, despite whatever obstacles bigots try and throw at me and the gay community.
And in another outing story, the right-wing anti-gay Prime Minister of Poland - was just outed as well.
The right-wing blogosphere is silent of course.
http://www.towleroad.com/2006/10/homophobic_poli.html
Personally - I'm glad that this self-loathing low-life was outed.
And in another outing story, the right-wing anti-gay Prime Minister of Poland - was just outed as well. The right-wing blogosphere is silent of course
Also, John Ngubu diddled Tommy Kwalzi behind the schoolhouse in Lower Buttfuck Africa, and Ann Althouse *totally* failed to weigh in on it, even though Tommy was totally bragging about how he loved chicks. Can you believe the hypocrisy?
Well Revenant - I see that the Republicans have absolutely zero qualms using someone's private life against them.
Senate candidate Harold Ford had the audacity to GASP! go to the same party at a Super Bowl that some Playboy Playmates showed up at.
So - somehow it's ok for the Republican National Committee to advertise this (which I guess implies he's straight or something - he's not married), but it's not ok for one lone blogger to advertise the fact that Senator Larry Craig likes to suck cock in a public bathroom.
Please explain to me how that works again. Harold Ford didn't break any law. He didn't even do anything wrong. So who the fuck is the RNC to judge him.
So - somehow it's ok for the Republican National Committee to advertise this (which I guess implies he's straight or something - he's not married), but it's not ok for one lone blogger to advertise the fact that Senator Larry Craig likes to suck cock in a public bathroom. Please explain to me how that works again.
That your parents failed to teach you how to be a decent and moral human being does not mean the job falls to me.
greenwald's problem isn't just the verbosity and long-winded jeremiads, its the fact that he uses this technique to mask the fact that he has very little to say, and covers by saying it in a very long-winded way.
Glenn Reynolds is the anti-greenwald. He can make a trenchant statement in one sentence that has more insight and food for thought than 2 pages of Greenwald.
I also sincerely doubt any of greenwald's 'fans' actually slog through all that mush. They confuse erudition with verbosity and deem him a genius, skim the main points and deem it good.
Then there is the entirely different matter of greenwald feeling the obsessive, and yes, psychotic need to register and log on dozens of blogs with multiple identities and defend himself and his posts. After being busted by his IP, he used the 'my bf did it' defense. I assume he's gotten better at it by now, so it quite possible that by using proxies, about half of the defenses of greenwald on this very page are indeed greenwald HIMSELF, defending himself.
I'm also of the opinion he games hit counters and unique visitor counters the inflate his hitcount. Its easily done, and he shows a propensity for deceit, so its a valid surmise.
I hope that clears things up, Ann.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा