I think I'll side with Don DeLillo on this one.Now, I do wonder why Greenwald is hooking up with this billionaire, as Arthur Silber warns; but so far, Greenwald hasn't shit himself publicly. I don't expect he will. Rather, I expect him to continue doing what he has always done, fighting for universal principles.Obviously, you and I are at a complete impasse on the subject. You resent Greenwald for reasons I fail to understand, whereas I love him for his obvious efficacy. He is a splinter in their mind. He causes them pain, a justified pain, which I welcome.
I wonder how much the Greenwald cult of personality is a function of Greenwald NOT being a villager?
swede,the "cult of personality" charge could be fairly leveled at the admirers of Mr. Best Advertising Campaign of 2008, but not Greenwald's admirers. This is simply your doltish invention to avoid the mental discomfort of facts.
Actually i just lifted the expression from a twitter exchange.
whereas I love him for his obvious efficacy.What is this "obvious" efficacy of his, exactly? It's certainly not obvious.
He causes them pain, a justified pain, which I welcome.Exactly. And it should be added, he does this by revealing their actual behavior, in considerable detail. Yet somehow, saying that makes you a fanatical adherent to a cult of personality. Go figure.BTW, since it's been a while since I've stopped by, when did driftglass drop the Bradbury (mis)quote? Are we to take this to mean he no longer cares about "preventing the future"?Judging by snide little posts like this, I guess so. If the future is one in which individual privacy is as antiquated a concept as a merkin. And am I the only one who found yesterday's Mandela banner kind of ironic? Especially since driftglass likes to play these "what if" historical scenarios with drones? Well, here's one for you: what if the Reagan administration had had drones, and shared them with the Apartheid regime? (Who were, you may recall, our BFFs at the time.) Chances are, today's revered elder statesman (not to mention some indeterminate number of innocent bystanders) would long ago have been a grease spot on a charred wall. After all, he was officially declared a terrorist by our government.Even assuming nothing could have prevented apartheid from going down the tubes, anyone care to guess what the new South Africa, run by a vengeful, far more radicalized ANC, would probably look like? I'd say, Zimbabwe. Only worse.But honestly addressing these kinds of questions requires some genuine soul-searching. It's so much easier instead to come back with an oblique pop-culture reference. This isn't clever, though: it's just a lazy way to duck the issues.
So, an non post ref to GG still draws word wall shitting flies around this place?Pompeii for the pompous...seems appropriate.
Anonymous:It says "Greenwald" in the damn title!It was a complete coincidence that I checked out this blog yesterday, after staying away for months because I'd had all I could take of driftglass' prolonged bed-shitting.But that's ok. Every one of these threads clearly demonstrates not a one of you could argue your way out of a wet paper bag. The best you can manage is some feeble snark topped off with a not-particularly-original insult.Maybe that kind of crap passes on Twitter, but AFAIC you got nothin', and does it ever show.OBS:Sometimes people say things which are so obviously ridiculous that it's really hard to know how to respond. Since apparently I've annoyed poor Anonymous and yourself by using complete sentences in an attempt to make a coherent argument, this time I'll try to make it as succinct as possible:Any journalist worth their salt would give their right arm to have broken a story of this magnitude -- if they had the balls to take on the Security State. I'm pushing 60, and I can't remember anything like the global controversy he's stirred up.This shit is just plain wrong, and needed to see the light of day. If you're trying to say what he's done wasn't efficacious because the NSA's still trying to stuff us all in the panopticon, then congratulations: You've just won today's prize for "The Stupidest Thing Said on the Internet".
Any journalist worth their salt would give their right arm to have broken a story of this magnitude -- if they had the balls to take on the Security State. I'm pushing 60, and I can't remember anything like the global controversy he's stirred up.This shit is just plain wrong, and needed to see the light of day. If you believe that, Greenwald is exactly the wrong person to leak this shit to. Any real journalist would've made sure this stuff saw the light of day. From day one though, for Greenwald, this has been all about him.And if you'll look carefully at those very few simple words I typed that set you off (read slowly if necessary): I was asking what he's been so fucking effective at. He's certainly NOT been effective at actually, y'know, publishing those leaked documents. He'd much rather hang onto them and work out a book deal first. If they're so god damned earth shattering, why the fuck don't we know about them all yet? Where's his incredible concern for our security and privacy? Oh yeah, that shit doesn't matter anymore, because he needs to get richer first.The dude is only effective at making himself money. He doesn't give two shits about anything else, and to pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance at this point. Wait, no, he's good at one more thing: he's really fucking effective at getting people to buy into his shtick. As smarmy as Assange is, at least he would've just dumped the damn documents and then begged for cash afterward.
@ pro__fane"It says "Greenwald" in the damn title!"How very observant of you. Did you notice a post anywhere after that title? A header with GG's name and a music video clip from a 40 year old movie were enough to set you off on an insulting rant spanning drones to apartheid. ...but you just dropped by! with a fucking insult novella for everyone to enjoy. Here is one for twitter: TLDRPut down the keyboard, I think there may be some kids on your front lawn.
Quick, kids, set the controls for the heart of the paint!Coordinates: escifti 207
And we're back to this nonsense: Messenger=arghhh!Message=meh.....See you in a couple of months. Unless I forget about this place altogether. *sigh*
A quarter billion. That's as much money as Mitt Romney admits to having. -Doug in Oakland
Post a Comment