I'll confess: I wish I would have come across your writing much sooner. When the Hunter Biden stuff went down, I didn't really see any issues with Facebook and Twitter blocking the post. I viewed it in the context of, "Well, they're a private company, they can do what they want, blah blah blah." Slowly but surely, though, I found myself unsettled by the overreach, to the point where when I finally started asking questions, I realized I was only regurgitating what others were saying. It was embarrassing, to say the least. Incredibly thankful I came across Glenn's writing, which led me to Blocked and Reported, which then led to you as well. It's been challenging and jarring, having to reconsider so much of how I've been raised and conditioned, but the exercise is worth it nonetheless.
I love reading this because I was somewhat similar. I wasn’t really a Democrat by the time of the Trump Presidency but these were still the people I spent the last decade plus being part of their tribe. I had a lot of cognitive dissonance of “well, I don’t like Trump or Republicans so yeah, but....” It’s a very unsettling feeling to hold a belief but know it’s weak or otherwise contradicts other things you believe.
For me, it was Russiagate, which I found gross and to be thin gruel, but also didn’t feel comfortable breaking with almost everyone I know. When I started reading Glenn and Matt it was a breath of fresh air to be greeted with an alternative point of view that I could intellectually engage with and - in this situation - find more persuasive.
Facebook, et al. are not really private companies. No corporation or LLC really is because they have the shield from the state protecting their owners from the company's liabilities. In my opinion, only sole proprietorships or partnerships are really "private companies."
This doesn't even get into the fact that as multibillion-dollar multinational corporations, they exert greater power in their sphere than many governments do. While it is true, one should be sceptical, especially of government authority that isn't exclusive by any means. You need to be sceptical of all authority.
Correct. It's less about skepticism; I've never trusted Twitter or Facebook to make the RIGHT decisions with this kind of stuff. I just mistakenly took the approach of, "Well, if they're within their rights, then they're within their rights." Even if it isn't correct. But I'll also admit my own case of TDS (mild, but still present) colored my perspective there as well. Thankfully, I've been cured of that, even if he is still an immoral dolt.
It is within their rights to decide what to allow on their platforms. The law is clear on that 100%. The issue is not the legality of their decisions to moderate or remove content, the issue is that the so-called liberals are pressuring big tech and other entities, like corporations and universities, to stifle opinions they do not like.
And in so doing, they are abandoning long-held principles like free speech, due process, fact-based inquiry, and democracy, which have traditionally been ideas that supported worker’s struggle, civil rights, anti-war protests, etc. Now we have the spectacle of so-called liberals carrying out the dirty work for the rich and powerful by calling for big corporations to exert even more control in society, by calling for truth commissions, by canceling anyone who challenges this move to ever greater concentrated power.
Matt and Glenn have been among the very few on the “left” to call this out. Most of the complaints have come from the right and this has served the establishment very well by making it easier for their mouthpieces to paint all criticism as racist, misogynist, transphobic, etc. Remember, the focus is always on who gets to decide what we can hear, not the content. You might not like the content, but do you want someone deciding for you what you are allowed to hear or say? It is a deep trap to be pleased that Trump was deplatformed no matter how much you don’t like what he says.
With Trump, I still stand by the fact he should have had the POTUS account, and not the RealDonaldTrump account. I don't think he should have been censored, but c'mon, man. You're the President of the United States. Reign it in for a few years, at least. I might be wrong, but it seemed like a good compromise.
I mean, you're not wrong! I'm just learning a lot of people are more sympathetic to everything here in private. They're just scared to indicate otherwise online. Which is such a shame. I understand it, with our current climate, but it shouldn't be that way.
I really don't know what to think about that. Of course I don't trust anyone in Silicon Valley to police public discourse but then should they be *forced* to host people and organizations who they see (right or wrong) as downright dangerous, whether in a direct physical sense or to social justice or liberal democracy? Hypocritical or not — I understand their view of "justice," "liberal," and "democracy" might differ from yours, or mine. Again, I really don't know. I was thrilled personally for the end of Donald Trump's twitter feed being part of my news diet but I'm extremely worried about the precedent it sends. I've lived long enough to watch the dominant political and social zeitgeist change on a dime. I'm glad reporters like Taibbi are asking the questions but I think he'd admit he doesn't have any hard answers yet.
The problem is the would-be censors like to use that "private company" excuse to insist what they do isn't real censorship. However, the intimate relationship between Big Tech and government (look up how much Facebook and Google poured into the Democrats' coffers, and how many times they've been hauled before Congress and ordered to "do something" about whatever isn't considered acceptable discussion) that claim no longer holds water.
Big Tech platforms may not be de jure censors, but any idea they aren't de facto censors is naive, at best. Just ask the independent news media on YouTube who are not only having their reporting yanked, but are no being threatened with banishment if they don't cease and desist.
I get that argument and lean towards your side. But if I were Google I’m not sure I’d want de facto endorsement of ISIS recruiting videos, etc by letting them sit on my site. I’m just saying it’s complicated.
That is the modern equivalent of "objectively", as described in my usual quote from George Orwell writing in 1945:
“One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ʻbourgeois libertyʼ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ʻobjectivelyʼ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.”
This right here is the problem. Censoring a legitimate political story is not the same as ISIS videos. By that token, Amazon and Google could claim anything even remotely pro-union is dangerous (it is to their bottom line), just like ISIS recruiting videos, and should not be seen.
In reality, I vastly preferred the old internet, beheading videos and all. You could at least piece together a view of reality.
It’s not fucking complicated. If something should be banned then let the democratically elected government ban it. Otherwise known as banning what’s illegal.
It is complicated, you're simple. If I run a blog I have to allow every comment and commenter, as long as they're not directly inciting violence? I feel like it's my right to have control over my own site.
If you run a tech monopoly that controls the bulk of news reporting, you mean. Much less complicated when you're not misrepresenting Google as a tender individual having their rights trampled.
The funny thing is, they leave a lot of that stuff up. They're slower to ban Iranian leaders who deny the Holocaust than Americans expressing mainstream conservative views.
If the phone company needs to allow Nazis to make calls and the USPS needs to allow anarchists to send pamphlets via first class rate... and a bakery in Denver needs to bake a gay wedding cake...
>I was thrilled personally for the end of Donald Trump's twitter feed being part of my news diet
Please accept this as charitably as it's intended, but is it possible your news diet is mostly junk food?
For the sake of discussion, I'll admit that I've never followed a President on Twitter (been using since 2007 though I stopped using it entirely many years ago), I haven't watched a State of the Union address since Clinton's last one, I don't pay an ounce of attention to election night, or frankly any other political events (conventions, press-conferences, hearings, etc.) and in over 20 years, I can't come up with a single thing I've missed or a single point of data pointing out I should have been more engaged.
I would like to hear an argument for why I, or anyone aside from journalists, should tap into this stuff. It could be, for instance, that the reason I find most direct political communications useless is they are 99% propaganda and pageantry and if that were less so, maybe more would be more useful...? Currently, the most useful political communications I receive are emails from my Aldermen (I actually subscribe to a few as I've moved around the city). I also subscribe to my congress-people and one of my Senators, though these emails are mostly just DNC talking points (aka propaganda), so I rarely read them.
I find a shocking resemblance to the hunter Biden story and citizens United. Without getting into the campaign finance aspects which are contentious, it was ultimately about blocking an unflattering Hillary documentary. Now a few years later the same happens with Biden; this time they enlist Silicon Valley to do their bidding since the courts say they can’t do it directly.
We all struggle with some kind of cognitive dissonance. Real humility goes a long way. But yeah, there's definitely a tension with allowing free speech and to what extent we're willing to go with that.
We would all be served to recall John Adams' defense of the British soldiers accused during the Boston Massacre. Due process is for us all, even the people we hate/don't agree with/can't understand/revile. Especially then.
If we hadn't become a country full of judgmental aholes, we wouldn't need to be reminded of this. But we have and we do.
«recall John Adams' defense of the British soldiers accused during the Boston Massacre»
Yet this report from A de Tocqueville's 1834 book "Democracy in America" shows that the opposite is a big part of american tradition, an early example of rather physical "cancel culture":
«A striking example of the excesses which the despotism of the majority may occasion was seen in Baltimore during the war of 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore. A newspaper opposed to it aroused the indignation of the inhabitants by taking that line.
The people came together, destroyed the printing presses and attacked the journalists' premises. The call went out to summon the militia which, however, did not respond to the call. In order to save those wretched fellows threatened with by the public frenzy the decision was taken to put them in prison like criminals.
The precaution was useless. During the night the people gathered once again; when the magistrates failed to summon the militia, the prison was forced one of the journalists was killed on the spot and the others were left for dead. The guilty parties, when standing before a jury, were acquitted.»
Went down the Floyd rabbit hole, not pretty. He almost killed himself in 2019 resisting arrest and eating a bunch of drugs to avoid being caught...wound up in the ER.
Watching the stay it home triple mask crowd act like Floyd running around with COVID and no mask, much less driving hammered with fake currency, is entirely meaningless has been odd. Though the media once again has been beyond scandalous in its reporting.
It is meaningless in terms of deciding Chauvin’s guilt in Floyd’s death. By nature the people who interact with police most aren’t the most solid citizens but due process works both ways.
I've not always loved the police, they have to act hard or quickly the veneer of authority is lost.
That said, determining a pattern of behavior which can easily result in death I wouldn't say is irrelevant. This trial vs. the Zucker coverage a year ago is night and day. Chauvin seemed awfully nonchalant given the circumstances, but he arguably followed protocol, as wrong as that might be. The medics could have come within 9 minutes, but the crowd was shouting violent threats, and EMTs are known to get attacked.
Perhaps I'm callous due to some undue, random violence I've encountered in urban areas, but these deaths at police hands have some much in common: past weapons charges, past violence/rape against women, repeated trafficking of narcotics, kids that seem to be abandoned, and of course resisting arrest, again often violently.
I expect a fair trial where what's decided is Chauvin's culpability, not whether Floyd's poor character and past criminal record would "result in his death". Quite an assessment in the context of a discussion about due process.
Perhaps you haven't seen the freeze frames of what looks to be pills in Floyd's mouth, or the white baggie he threw out while walking next to the cruiser, or heard about the dissolved pills found in the back of the cruiser with Floyd's DNA, that matched more pills in Floyd's Mercedes SUV. Floyds dealer voluntarily spoke with the FBI a year ago...the prosecution is seeking to bar this from the trial.
The point is, if you did something on your on volition to avoid arrest, and it almost killed you, and less than a year later, there is overwhelming evidence you did the exact same thing, then maybe Chauvin wasn't out hunting to see what minority he could lay six feet deep.
But with all the threats from BLM and the like, even Van Jones and Lemon and liberal politicians more or less tipping the scales for convict or large-scale violence, and the prospective jury members that said they fear for their safety, hard to see a fair trial here.
In my eyes, Chauvin probably shouldn't be a cop. He probably shouldn't see much if any time in jail either. But the prevailing narrative is once again built on censored truths and elevated bullshit.
Chauvin's defense began yesterday and is ongoing. However the county medical examiner ruled Chauvin's knee caused Floyd's death. It's very similar to Eric Garner, who was massively obese with typical underlying health conditions and yet his death was caused by Dan Pantaleo, not because he's fat and in poor health, or that he had a criminal record.
You should really read I Can't Breathe, which Taibbi references here. Despite the buzzy title, it's actually among the most damning assessments of Garner's character and record I've read while still arguing for his basic humanity and the fundamental issues with policing that led directly to his death.
Haven't read it, and I'm all for police reforms, but those public unions are tough to change, and that's no right wing conspiracy.
I'm unaware of Garner's character, and horrible health aside (at some point with communal healthcare more or less this fat acceptance has to go), but I'd still hold Floyd is different. If he did ingest all of these drugs, he could have died without being touched, and said he couldn't breathe before anyone touched as air passages, which the coroners report noted little to no injury.
Years back around 2000 in Cincinnati, there was a Floyd meets Garner thing, where lots of obesity and crack were involved, resisting and death in police hands. There were huge riots, even some related home invasions and murders. And in any of these situations, delirium alone can be a killer. Horrible health, hopped up on drugs, and just the thought of many more years in jail.....it sucks to think about because it will only get worse, or streets much more violent.
People simply succumbing to drug overdoses don't verbally protest about their inability to breathe, due to having so much pressure on their chest that they aren't able to properly inhale and exhale. (This does not lead to "injury to air passages", like having a bruised or fractured trachea.)
People succumbing to opioid overdoses don't say anything. They just fall out. They don't struggle to breathe, they lose their breathing reflex. This is eventually accompanied by cyanosis- turning blue, usually around the lips and the fingertips.
George Floyd was handcuffed. At worst, he was a flight risk, and his flight was destined to be ineffectual.
I've forcibly restrained someone before, with my arms around their chest. If they had complained of being unable to breathe, I would have let them free.
"...maybe Chauvin wasn't out hunting to see what minority he could lay six feet deep."
I don't think that was Chauvin's motive. But he showed a reckless disregard for the personal safety of someone under his immediate physical control, who was already handcuffed and not capable of effectively physically resisting and assaulting the police who were restraining him. George Floyd might possibly have run, but not very far.
I think Chauvin adopted a competitive mentality- that it was a wrestling match, and he felt he needed to assert dominant control over Floyd by pinning him, so to speak. But there's a reason that pinning people in wrestling only goes on for a count of three, and the person being pinned is supine rather than prone. Whereas with Chauvin it was more like "I will not permit you to escape my grasp, because that means you won."
Would Chauvin have done that with a white guy, even one physically larger than him? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Ignoring someone's pleas that they can't breather is indefensible no matter what, especially given the outcome. In my opinion.
I think for people unfamiliar with policing in America they believe George Floyd is a one off and don't understand the big deal/blame him for all the protests and violence over the Summer.
I don't think they realize this was the final straw. They had the entire Summer to witness police behavior if they had not been paying attention before. There were some that changed their views despite years of being inculcated by police procedural shows. Some that did not change their view of policing overall, but at least acknowledged we have difficulty removing the worst cops. A tiny minority dug in to the point of defending Derek Chauvin's actions. That's the small group you are debating here.
I have a friend who is a sex worker. Like many sex workers she has been raped by cops in the past. She tells me despite this she will still pretend to like a cop and suck his dick if he pays her. I tell her there are plenty of Americans who aren't pretending and are willing to suck a cops dick for free.
"Chauvin seemed awfully nonchalant given the circumstances, but he arguably followed protocol, as wrong as that might be."
The testimony of Derek Chauvin's superiors in the police department is that he did not follow protocol. There's no "arguably" there.
"The medics could have come within 9 minutes, but the crowd was shouting violent threats, and EMTs are known to get attacked."
You are bending over backwards with conjecture and speculation. The insinuation that the crowd- whatever their expressed hostility- was so unhinged that they would attack anyone in uniform- even the EMTs coming to Floyd's aid- is not only absurd, it implicitly relies on the assumption that the onlookers are nothing more than a pack of rabid dogs.
I heard some of that testimony firsthand on C-span radio. The witnesses did not present themselves as the type of people who are- or were- so deranged that they're unable to differentiate between the actions of the police officers on the scene and the role to be played by medical first responders pulling up in an ambulance.
As for my response to the question you raised about Derek Chauvin "arguably" following protocol, that's from witness testimony at the trail also. The police witnesses- which included the chief of the Minneapolis police- were unanimous in their position that Chauvin did NOT follow protocol. I don't feature how anyone can overrule their consensus view on that.
Imagine being a juror who is being "protected" by the Minneapolis police. Now imagine that the Chief of Police testifies in a way that shows he wants a conviction. Would you feel any pressure in reaching your verdict?
Just because a police officer goes out and kills a black man in cold blood, should that mean the public will no longer have his back? What's the point of having a Union at all if they aren't willing to cover for your crimes?
Hmm...what's the legal term for the exercise of that pressure...oh, yeah- Obstruction of Justice. A felony offense. And when more than one person is involved, even one overt act of furtherance- any proof of planning to exercise that sort of "pressure", even if the plan isn't carried out- is Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, which is an even more severe offense.
So your post is basically accusing the Minneapolis Chief of Police of a criminal inclination to conspire to obstruct justice, with his mere presence on the witness stand tantamount to a threat to the jury that he'll find ways to punish them if their verdict disagrees with his testimony. Testimony that he's offered under oath, as an accredited witness under the rules of criminal jurisprudence that apply to that trial. Officer Chauvin's defense team hasn't objected to his presence on the witness stand- much less casting it as jury intimidation, as you've done.
Where do you get the idea that Chief Arradando would commit such a crime? Do you have the slightest hard evidence on that score? You're inviting me to indulge your fantasy as if it had some relevance to real world events. That isn't just grasping at straws; the straws you're grasping at are imaginary. Based on the amount of evidence you've offered to support your scary concern trolling speculation, which is- Zero.
Well the cross examination was pretty rough on these folks credibility, and when their broader statements were broken down, they seemed to contradict themselves fairly severely.
But that said, it's not so easy sticking up for someone, much less your own protocol (if it is such), when violent mobs are demanding conviction or destruction. Hell I might fib just to save the city.
This trial is so overloaded its ridiculous. Humans are meeting superhuman circumstances....such it is in the late stages of an empire with a Marxist takeover disguised as *justice* underway.
Maybe many contributing factors but the video is horrible. No medical assistance or relief of any kind when Floyd was secured, cuffed and unconscious after complaining about not breathing. Hard to see anything but a guilty verdict of some kind next week. From what I saw That video should not depict legal policing standards anywhere. if they had just taken the knee off him and given first aid all involved would be active duty policeman right now even if Floyd had not survived.
However, one more thing is also true. If Mr. Floyd had been a white Pagan’s motorcycle gang dude with the same criminal record and conduct that day, his death would have barely made local news and there would have probably been no prosecution of anyone. Most social justice warriors would have likely said, if they saw the video, that karma is a bitch and the thug had it coming.
That's the name I was looking for. There are others, usually a white dude with a delusional mental disorder or severe drug problem. They usually don't have many gun charges or sexual violence against women, which seems to be a staple amongst the unfortunate deaths the narrow hegemony in the media likes to play up.
I think the situation partakes of much the same character as a lot of interpersonal or social friction, and breakdowns of communication between humans: the flashpoint isn't necessarily about the detailed specifics of one incident. Its more like it's a discharge point for a lot of stored grievances or repressed energy. As such, it should not be surprising. This is how humans are.
In the Floyd case, it's led to an emphasis on the racial aspect that's become a focus of nationwide outrage, as a concern that's almost exclusive. I don't think that it's dismissive of racial justice concerns to observe that emphasizing the racial aspect as if it were the sole point of focused concern and protest has a way of crowding out some other questions that are equally as relevant, such as how we got to the point where it's become routine for police to rely on paramilitary methods and resort to armed force to the extent that it practically seems like a default; or how "no-knock" searches ever got to be a thing; and the role played by the War On Drugs in the adoption of those tactics; and how much the War on Drugs has gotten energy at the expense of the performance of other arguably more traditional police duties and community relationships; and how it is that police tactics so violent and hostile and promoting of paranoia- for both the policed and the police- ever got so entrenched, despite the fact that the increased reliance on them has done nothing to stem the supply of illegal drugs or to lessen the economic and social status attractions from engaging in the illicit trade in forbidden drugs (attractions that exist irrespective of race, I hasten to add, although that option is definitely more tempting to poor people.)
Beyond that, you see how the reliance on "raids" and "stops" slops over to the entire scope of The Job of policing. Because any stop or confrontation COULD turn out to be an armed gangster with a rap sheet of the sort that so many Americans start earning in their teen years as participants in the lucrative economy of drugs and drug-related crime, even if most of the people who get stopped AREN'T armed desperadoes. People don't get to be a little bit too crazy or a whole lot scared any more; they're just treated a big-time Dangerous. Not excepting kids like this https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maryland-trooper-shoots-kills-teenager-who-had-airsoft-gun-police-n1264204
This is nothing new. It's been that way since I was old enough to read a newspaper (i.e., well over a half-century.) There's typically a "correct" ideological stance on cases like these, that might as well be determined by a checklist. The robotic right wing decrees guilt or innocence by the same method. Only the criteria differ.
Accept we all had a vested interest to care about "Russiagate" no matter how real or laughable you thought it was, or "Obamacare" no matter how illogical or saintly you believed it would become.
Today we increasingly have manufactured idols that are used as justification for antisocial at the individual level and revolutionary behavior at the group level. I've never seen such de facto bigotry, but just against those evil white males that might even be Christian or straight. That's a dangerous game to play.
I have an entire collection of mugs like that. It's just a place-holder. Police swag seems to be easier to find than swag from defunct money-laundering banks. I do have a neat Wachovia binder, though.
As for the rest of your post, it's a non sequitur that isn't responsive to the content of my post. You've merely used the space to flex with rhetoric.
Granted, your comment does work as implicit evidence of the phenomenon I was referring to. I'm hoping that at least some of the readers get that.
Many more american voters than in the past are older rentiers, who got theirs, and are terrified of losing even a little bit, and of everything.
What this growing constituency wants is absolute safety at any cost to someone else, they think that in the doubt it is safer to convict, that it is better for 10 innocents to go to jail than to leave 1 criminal free to be a risk to them, better safe than sorry. Even the right-wing Financial Times wrote almost 20 years ago, and the general demand for authoritarian if not fascist policies by many americans:
«But is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it. In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil.
Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years. [...] Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats.
Without this -- and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative -- Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004. [...]
In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush. It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy.
It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: "We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue."
This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were.»
Is due process available for someone working for a corporation who gets fired? No, it isn't. It's the special halo around police unions that he was talking about, not a legal right. Police unions need defunding, not the police.
Good article, and yes the left is becoming increasingly dystopian and Machiavellian. They are just so assured in their virtue, and the lack of Western civilization's virtue, that they want to take out anyone, for any reason, the doesn't push the narrative forward.
Carlson's spat with the ADL, over their grossly hypocritical position on borders domestically vs. abroad, is just one more example in the last few days. Instead of debating him, Greenblatt is calling for his head and going after sponsors...once again.
It's like nothing was learned from the 20th century.
“and yes the left is becoming increasingly dystopian and Machiavellian”
I’d add ‘Manichean’ as well, as a self-identifying (old-school, hippie-libertarian) lefty. I remember after 9/11 how the America right was. No one wanted to hear navel-gazing, self-criticism, or wishy-washy “maybe enabling the NSA is not a great idea or maybe we should have an exit strategy in place before we go in with guns a-blazing…” SILENCE! You are either with us or you are for the terrorists.
I’m sure Taibbi has made this point 1000 times, but its always worth repeating.
Shelby Steele provides the best explanation of how brilliant people can take positions on specific issues (like Michael Brown) that are provably false. It is very similar to having a religious faith and in this case the progressive/woke narrative is their religion. So, since they are certain that they are “directionally accurate” and morally superior, the individual facts are irrelevant. They follow a commitment to the “poetic truth” which is consistent with their morally superior narrative, which must take precedent over the “actual truth”. My version of Shelby’s analysis is that they believe they can live their lives in a John Lennon song. Of course, the fact that humans are significantly flawed (whether by the laws of nature or god) screws up this whole John Lennon / poetic truth ideology. So, you must silence and/or destroy those purveyors of actual truth that keep pointing out the fallacy of your poetic truth in the harsh real world we live in.
Thanks for the cold water splashed in my face. I admit I'm so eager to see Goetz go down I see myself nodding and grinning along with every allegation added to the stack. This while knowing the whole thing is wildly irresponsible, and if it were turned around (Khanna or AOC) I'd be livid. It's like M&Ms, where I can't wait to eat the next one even with five in my mouth.
And they picked the perfect target, given Goetz's particular obnoxiousness, vanity, rich kid reek, and personal weirdness (Nestor)... There's a reason you don't see many, or really any, on the Right lining up to defend him. Because what if it's true? Who wants walk back defending *that* POS? Reminds me of WMDgate which at the time smelled like bullshit but always in the back of my mind was, What if it's true? Then I'll be the guy who let America be attacked because I insisted shit make sense.
I would also like to point out the physical similarities between Gaetz and the very Leftist hypocrite and philanderer, Gavin Newsom. He also has that rich kid reek. The obnoxious politicians on either side have more in common with each other than with any of the people they supposedly serve.
Of course, the behind-the-scenes power loves vainglorious political operatives who have problems with sex, fidelity or *ahem* other predilections, since they are then blackmail-able or otherwise compromised and easily controlled.
Of course, now with deep-fakes, one doesn't even need to hire a private eye to take pics of you banging someone not your spouse. You can make it a fake threesome, kinky, heck even violence or CP. Just create that visceral reaction in the viewers, you don't even need a court of law to be found guilty and run out on a rail within hours.
Lol, sounds like you really hate Gaetz. My bet is the allegations are false, otherwise there wouldn't be the little extortion angle and say what you want, but Gaetz is quick on his feet, tall and decent looking. He can get laid, no Weinstein syndrome here.
And as awful as Iraq was, technically there were WMDs per NYT reporting, we just didn't find the nukes if they ever had them.
1) I do hate Gaetz (enough to misspell his name) though definitely not irrationally, and being able to get laid is irrelevant. Physical attraction is subjective but money and power is like a live instagram filter that turns you into Brad Pitt whatever your actual looks.
2) I wouldn't take a bet at this point because I won't be surprised either way. Though I called WMD bullshit correctly I fell face first for the main Russiagate narrative so my personal policy now is on the record proof or STFU.
Wasn't informed enough to call Iraq, was just learning how to ghostride the whip back then. That said, Iraq and the neocons that pushed it could have cared less about the oil or no-bid contracts. It was about security and entangling the US in the ME as cop there, and this only served very select interests.
That said, Russiagate smelled a lot like Jussie Smolliet at off the top. I found it really odd working with some informed people that are high-level financial analysts eating Russiagate up, spreading what were known falsehoods, just because they wanted it to be true. Frankly the birther thing was similar, although it didn't come straight out of the blue.
WMD was a while ago and so I can't explain my reasoning at this point. It just smelled wrong, one of those times where I had the Roddy Piper glasses and everyone else seemed out of their fucking minds. Russiagate was me succumbing to bias, taking my pre-political and personal knowledge of Trump (that he's fundamentally corrupt), stirring in a lot of weak circumstantial evidence, sprinkling in my continuing disbelief at his political success, and deciding "OF COURSE it's Russia!" Birtherism seemed as crazy as Pizzagate to me but then even though I know it's in the Constitution I guess I don't really care if a president was born here, so I was a bit meh from the get-go.
I surely wasn't cynical enough back then. Now I don't believe a word the political and media establishment says and tend to like the people the mainstream seem to sideline, like Paul and Gabbard.
Gabbard was an interesting case... My friends tend to be cultural elites (if not economic ones lol), hard Ds, and everyone had their fists pumping when Hillary made that crack about Tulsi being Russia's candidate (can't remember the exact thing, bear with me...). Meanwhile I dared say "Wait — one candidate just accused another of being a spy... Hate Tulsi all you want but don't we need, like, an elaboration, if not, you know... proof?" That went over about as well as you'd expect.
I remember Clinton's attacks on Gabbard like yesterday, same with Gabbard's attacks on Kamala, the single most memorable moment of the DNC primaries.
I've moved a lot and have a mishmash of friends from the sticks in flyover country, solid colleges, and I've spent plenty of time in Hamptons/Westchester/Fairfield....I know this type well. Ruthlessly conservative and exclusive on their home front, yet far left and "tolerant" otherwise.
Here is the brilliant and devastating response to Hillary after she accused Tulsi of "being Russian asset":
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
"we just didn't find the nukes if they ever had them."
A nuclear research program is not to be dismantled and hidden in someone's back yard. Consider the size of the footprint of the Iranian nuclear facility- and after 20 or so years of being "months away from being able to make an atomic bomb", they still aren't there yet.
Beyond that, it's always been exponentially easier for a terrorist organization to rely on conventional means and common materials that can be accessed quite easily within US borders to carry out truly horrific mass-casualty attacks, compared with the trouble and risk of messing with chemical or biological weapons. Bin Laden's group achieved cruise missile capability the only way they could- by hijacking airliners, with the teams willing to sacrifice their lives in kamikaze missions.
Speaking of which: in retrospect, the appeal of suicidal Islamic fanaticism has plainly been wildly exaggerated. It isn't entirely nonexistent- but if it were as popular an attitude as originally speculated, matters would have escalated far beyond what's actually proved to be the case. Willingness to commit suicide drastically widens the horizons of terrorist strategy and tactics. But it seems that it's more of a challenge to get young Muslims to buy into the Myth of Paradise than it used to be, at least in the US. I mean, we have Gallerias here, and swimming pools. Color TV in every room. Unveiled houris. All that and more.
Relatively speaking, we have a pretty nice setup here in this country. In fact, it's dismaying to observe the number of native-born whiteys who put so much energy into poor-mouthing our current conditions. Truth to tell, the majority of the complainers are comfortable, even affluent: the source of most of those complaints has much less to do with a current condition of deprivation than it does with buying into ghost stories about what's Inevitably going to happen Some Day, in the Future, now that Real Americans possess something less than 100% Control over Everything. Unless MAGA, and all that rot.
I think they are close to true, at least in the sense that Gaetz probably was the client to prostitutes who were likely half his age but still of age.
Not a big deal, but if I were investigating him for a security clearance or as a possible partner in a business deal, I would blackball him because he was involved in a long term relationship during this time and infidelity indicates a base character.
I tend to believe a base character is a prerequisite for almost any politician, though so the question becomes, is he much worse than anyone else in Congress or the guy that might replace him?
Sociopathy and Narcissism are the basis for all elected officials. Think of the kids who ran for student body president/student council at your high school. Then think of those who kept losing, and kept running the next year anyway. Those are your eventual elected officials. Hubris is their collective middle name.
Not to excuse it, but if infidelity is a disqualifier for public service the pool is gonna be very, very small, and we'll have to "cancel" a fair majority of past politicians as well. That said, I think it's a problem if someone is willing to lie under oath about it because that means they're too easily blackmailed and compromised.
I mean, you're right. Thats why I was against Bill Clinton's impeachment, even if I was barely old enough to really understand what was going on. Sure, he lied under oath but the subject he lied about was in no ways germane to their original investigation so he shouldn't even have been asked.
Everyone already knew "Slick Willy" was a douchebag, even 15 year old me, so I didn't quite understand what the point was.
I wouldn't vote for Gaetz the same way I wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton... but like I said I tend to think most politicians are at least as bad as they're accusing Gaetz of being or worse.
Honestly, I'd much rather most of our Representatives spend their time fucking barely legal co-eds if it means they have less time to screw us all over to special interests.
I'm a little older than you, but Whitewater was as plain a bullshit fishing expedition to me as Russiagate may have been to many on the Right. HOWEVER, when Clinton was going to allow 23 year old Monica Lewinsky to go to prison for perjuring herself (but for that DNA-crusted dress) it really changed my opinion of him and the Democrat/MSM cabal forever. Weird a blowjob would be my awakening on that front but there it is. Though I can't argue with your last point lol.
Sure, Bill Clinton was within his rights. But someone willing to jacket a 23-year old intern as a Stalker rather than come clean is not an honorable person. And Clinton's initial filmed appearance before the Starr chamber was just craven. Someone really had to be an apple-polishing Establishment protege to run scared of that lot. Quaking before that panel like a poorly prepared PhD candidate in an oral exam, instead of breaking script and telling them to pound sand. Disgraceful.
That wasn't just a one-time lapse in an otherwise noble character, either, as the accounting found in Roger Morris' book Partners In Power makes clear.
That's the whole point. He had many choices. He decided to litigate "is" instead of anything else. He should have remembered the stain he made on the blue dress.
it's easy to lose track of details like those. especially when you've been conditioned be long experience to regard it as a side benefit of a leadership position in government service. That's setting the ethical concerns aside, which had been the case for some time.
One problem with indulging in that behavior in high office is that the situation is easily worked. People can "have something" on you. But to be candid, the real scandal is Mena. Not a personal scandal; willing participation in a covert national security operation with unsavory aspects.
If the alleged minor that wasn’t a minor by her own admission was a Chinese spy the Democrats would offer Gaetz a position on the House Intelligence Committee next to Eric Swallowell.
Not to mention all the rapes and 20+ visits to Lolita Island where God knows what went on. Meanwhile, strolling unarmed through the Capitol building is considered “armed insurrection” and subject to no bail imprisonment. Imagine being the germaphobe Trump is and having to work at the Resolute Desk with Bill’s DNA all over it.
Eric Swallowell had an ongoing sexual relationship with a Chicom spy honeypot and not only hasn’t been sanctioned or removed from office, but retains his seat in the House Intelligence Committee. This should tell you all you need to know about this topic. Start learning Mandarin.
He had WMD and used WMD in the past so he either moved/hid them(looking at you Assad) or destroyed them(out of the goodness of his heart). If I had illegal weapons in my house and the police spent weeks and months warning me they were coming for those weapons and my neighbor was willing to help....
Sensible people who were being honest with themselves would know that Saddam Hussein got rid of his weapons because those warehouses and bases were inspected, and inspected, and inspected again. The aircraft of the Iraqi Air Force and over 90% of the armor was destroyed or dismantled. US warplanes flew well over ten thousand sorties over Iraq, and repeatedly bombed and strafed Iraqi installations in the Clinton years. The regime was irrefutably defanged.
It's conceivable as an abstract hypothesis that Saddam found a way to remove the last vestige of his chemical munitions supplies to Syria. But the evidence I've read about to support that theory is so threadbare that it's ridiculous. I think the adherents to that theory are basing their case on the inability of anyone to prove a negative.
In any case, the real whopper there is the insinuation that there's some magical quality about Sarin gas that would it work so much more effectively at producing a mass casualty terror incident than conventional weapons and techniques that it would be worth it for a terrorist network within US borders to undertake the the massive risks and hazards of smuggling it, storing it, preparing it, and using it. Only a citizenry nursed on blockbuster Hollywood thriller productions could fall for that. Which is what happened. Right down to a consensus of American news media luminaries, and a prevailing majority of our elected officials and political leaders.
True. He wasn’t. I was pretty angry after 911(like many Americans). My inclination was to take out two terrorist supporting regime’s rapidly and leave rapidly then make it (unofficial) policy that if you finance or accommodate terrorists we will destroy you
There's something mighty funny going on there. I don't pretend to know the full who what when where or why of it. But whatever it is, it's more than a couple of stray data points matched up with a hundred leading questions. I've read all too many books that work that way. But Triple Cross is not one of them.
I was referring to the trafficking/minor allegations, and given Gaetz’ disposition wouldn’t surprise me if someone tried to entrap him.
That said, I’m unsure what look you are referring to. I know plenty of girls that are downright money takers but not hookers. I’ve heard some stories of dudes meeting a girl and being half way thru the act then getting threaten. I know prostitution is frequent in the military.
All that said, Gaetz’s real problem is he speaks his mind and doesn’t seem to have handlers, like most politicians.
This is exactly what Matt was talking about in Hate, Inc. This “rooting for our side/against the other side” bullshit. It’s why Matt Gaetz got elected in the first place: his constituents would rather have that piece of shit represent them than elect a Democrat. Do you really think a fucking moron like Matt Gaetz would’ve ever been elected even as recently as twenty years ago? I mean, it’s possible, I guess, plenty of morons have been elected to the House of Representatives. But there was a time when even the faintest whiff of a scandal like the one Gaetz is involved in would’ve called for an immediate resignation. Now? The people who vote for him don’t give a shit, as long as he’s a Republican. It’s the same reason you’re willing to ignore the irresponsible reporting on him (even though you know it’s “wrong”). The real issue is that the irresponsible reporting will allow him (and every other politician) to conflate the reporting of their immoral and possibly illegal behavior with the behavior itself. People will get so wrapped up in “the media” that they’ll forget that the person they voted for is a slimy piece of shit. I’m pretty sure that’s intentional.
Keeping Trump sycophants like Gaetz around for the next election cycle would seem to be useful to the totalitarian left. Even if he wins his district they can use him to gin up a lot of hate, which is the most important thing.
Despite so many cultural shifts and upheavals we're still a deeply fucked up country when it comes to sex in general, and that's reflected by MSM handling of sex scandals of all kinds.
Due Process Is Good, He Said Controversially ... So They Fired Him:
"Brooklyn Center City Manager Curt Boganey was fired, Monday, after suggesting that the police officer involved in the shooting death of Daunte Wright should be afforded due process before being fired from her job, contradicting Brooklyn Center Mayor Mike Elliott, and, it seems, after the city council expressed fear that the manager’s “due process” comments would spark further violence."
If I may caveat my own comment, on second read it is a bit different from Matt's point. Due process of law before declaring people guilty of a crime is a bedrock of our Constitution and our freedom. The City Manager was talking about another type of due process which is a bedrock of our insufferable bureaucratic state: the right to due process of law before you can be fired from your job. Only "public servants" have this protection, which basically means they can only be fired if they commit a severe offense and even then they are often successful appealing based on technicalities. That should rub people the wrong way, and should be changed. At the same time it's still ridiculous that the City Manager was fired for simply pointing out that that is the current state of the law (according to the government employees in the judicial branch) and he was required to follow their decisions, at least until he got fired.
People need to read Glenn's article and respond to it, not to what they would like to think it means in order to excuse their own bigotry. He is spot on. As are you to defend him. He is not defending Gaetz, he is defending due process and the profession of journalism.
I've been banned from a forum for defending both regarding Russiagate and Trump, whom I find personally odious. I rejected Trump in the 70s when he came to public attention because he made his fortune getting politicians to tilt the playing field in his favor, and because he was simply not a good human being in my estimation. I was reviled by my fellow Democrats then because "he's one of us." The only thing that has changed about him is his party affiliation, which justifies denying him due process.
ps - to remain a liberal I left the Democratic Party and now identify as a lower-case L libertarian.
«He is not defending Gaetz, he is defending due process and the profession of journalism. I've been banned from a forum for defending both regarding Russiagate and Trump, whom I find personally odious.»
The keyword is "objectively": the merits of the case don't matter, if you are "objectively" helping an enemy, as George Orwell wrote in 1945:
“One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ʻbourgeois libertyʼ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ʻobjectivelyʼ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.”
«I rejected Trump in the 70s when he came to public attention because he made his fortune getting politicians to tilt the playing field in his favor»
He has been one of the largest political donors for decades, at the level of Adelson or the Koch brothers. That is the American Way.
«and because he was simply not a good human being in my estimation.»
His character seems quite despicable on a personal level, but that is pretty common among his class. He just does it more openly, less hypocritically than most of the others.
«I was reviled by my fellow Democrats then because "he's one of us."»
Most likely Trump has bribed pretty much every NY/NYC/NJ politician or official of note, almost all of them democrats; that's what real estate developers do. If one wanted to convict him I guess that's where one should dig, but the Democratic party cannot do that, because of this beneficiaries belong to the party, so they came up with the incredible fantasy that a real estate developer has been bribed by some politicians, "man bites dog" type of story.
Taibbi and Greenwald are the reasons I started publishing at all, and on Substack particularly. I wrote about Glenn and his coverage of the Taylor Lorenz matter here https://riclexel.substack.com/p/beyond-1984
The usual counter-arguments against either of these guys, or a Michel Tracey, is nothing more than ad hominem attacks. Word control is now creeping quickly into thought control. This is not a slippery slope, this is a black-double-diamond at Aspen. From the questioning of the word "is" 30 years ago, to the expanded definition of bipartisan and infrastructure, we have now arrived at beyond 1984. We are in for s hit-storm.
Matt really said most of what there is to say about this topic. But, one idea is still sticking in my craw a bit. I am still fleshing it out a bit, here is what I came up with:
Why is there this need for "rushed content" to 'foam the runways' for next story? Why can't we as the viewing or reading public just wait until real facts emerge? Being first to a speculative fact right or wrong is like being the smartest Kardashian - who the fuck cares?
Put another way, why is the media prematurely ejaculating all over their coverage? Whether it is the NYT trying to mask and merge story speculation or it is the "duh dun da" alert banners running across television screens - how many of these "news" stories have a beginning, a middle, or an end? It is really Sisyphusian.
Even more, when we go back and think about all the mistakes that are made in all our areas of society when we invite speculation in media without proper attention to facts
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction (taking the word of the intelligence state; Judith Miller)
8. Kim Jong-Un was on his deathbed (remember that one)
9. Anthrax attacks (Kristoff NYT accuses Steven Hatfill)
10. Duke University Lacrosse Rape Case (2007)
11. Entire prosecution of Julian Assange (rework facts backwards to prosecute)
12. James Clapper lying to Congress about Surveillance state (2013)
*** just a few places where the press was either happy to speculate or to ignore facts.
All of these events have one thing in common. If they had been properly researched, reported on accurately and were not rushed in the pursuit of real information, maybe we all might have reached different conclusions.
What does this mean above? We need to delay information gratification long enough to allow real journalists (not scribes) to do their jobs, and avoid the 24 hour cycle, pseudo news orgy to pass speculation off as a trajectory of potential truth and then eventually truth later. As we see in life, all one needs to do is repeat something for long enough in the public mind and it miraculous turns out to be "true". The media need a dick ring. Hold it. Hold it. Think of dead rodents (oh sorry Katie - the necrophiles won't like that reference).
«Why is there this need for "rushed content" to 'foam the runways' for next story? Why can't we as the viewing or reading public just wait until real facts emerge?»
This is based on a "cognitive bias" that is taught to PR people etc.: the public believes hearsay smears if they appear to be repeated by several sources. So propaganda campaigns use that extensively.
In older times most people lived in villages, small communities rife with gossip, and if just Bob said "I saw Jane and Jack kissing" other villagers might dismiss it as made up by Bob, but if Becky, Liz, John, Paul also said it they would start to believe. It used to be called "vox populi vox dei", or also "no smoke without fire".
"Why is there this need for "rushed content" to 'foam the runways' for next story?"
Because we now have the technology to provide instantaneous reporting to an on-air staff of "24 hour news" television. Infotainment values have been merged into the mission of Manufacturing Consent. A mission that no longer maintains a common basis of consensus on most issues- the MC Spin typically varies with the partisan leaning of the particular channel, and nobody even bothers to deny this. (I think PBS does a better, more ethical job than any of the commercial outlets. But their emphasis is nonetheless "blue-leaning", shall we say. It really would be interesting to have someone like Thomas Sowell show up to provide his views at least occasionally, on a network other than Fox. Swap out a David Gergen appearance to make room for Sowell, or something like that.)
I'll admit to anticipating the news media reaction to Biden's decision to withdraw US troops from the Graveyard of Empires with some enjoyment. The Washington Post is already weighing in with cheesy concern trolling over Biden's decision (the op-ed by David Ignatius) along with remonstrating with firmly voiced opposition as the official editorial stance (10:1 written by the odious Fred Hiatt.)
How are Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and Breitbart going to report it, is what I wonder. And how many of the Trumpists are going to twist themselves into knots, trying to do a 180?
I think you’re spending too much time on Twitter, Matt. Seriously. And I say that as a person who spent too much time on Twitter and finally said,”Fuck this. Twitter’s stupid.” I haven’t looked at Twitter in a couple weeks now and I feel so much better. I never even had an account, but I’d still check it out every day, multiple times a day. Twitter’s a cesspool, filled with morons who don’t care about anything other than reacting to something as quickly as possible, in order to garner the most “likes.” And one of the main reasons I ignore Twitter is because of what you’re referencing here, this,”Let’s put them all in jail!” reaction from, ostensibly, “liberals” who’s go-to reaction to anything they don’t like is,”They should go to prison for life!!” even though the things they’re tweeting in response to aren’t illegal. There’s something inherently wrong with people saying,”Lock them up!” in response to things that aren’t crimes. Hate to break it to you “liberals” tweeting about people you don’t like needing to go to prison, but if you’re first reaction is,”I don’t like them; let’s put them in jail!” you’re basically a trump supporter. Or you sound like them, anyway.
It isn’t even really that Twitter’s stupid, per se, so much as that there are just SO MANY fucking stupid people with outsized platforms there. And too many journalists are responding to fucking tweets as if they’re real life. I can assure you that the average person, the people that journalists claim to care so much about and insist they’re interested in, do not give a fuck about tweets. They don’t. I know I don’t.
The format of Twitter provides intractable obstacles to having an intelligent conversation. Which leaves the other kind, which the same format facilitates all too easily.
Twitter is sort of the inverse of television*: instead of a one-way transmission formatted into snippets with minimal analytical depth or provision for considering objective parameters and metrics, Twitter is an interactive medium that's delimited to be inherently shallow, which empowers "quotability", snappy comebacks, quips, and glib oversimplification at the expense of...everything else in communication. While allowing anyone with an account to chime in. So instead of a reasoned debate, what results is more like a battle royal. With 20 second rounds, and rabbit punching and nut-kicking allowed.
I'm (barely) old enough to remember conservative outrage over the Miranda ruling, but "progressive" distaste for due process is not exactly new. Way back in 2006 the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 prohibited the confiscation of citizens' personal property without due process in the wake of a natural disaster. Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, among others, voted against it.
Later the "progressive" media spent most of Trump's time in office ranting about Betsy DeVos' attempts to reintroduce due process to the investigation of on-campus sex crimes (and are now cheering Biden's efforts to reverse DeVos' policies).
And "progressive" enthusiasm for "red flag" laws also reflects a new skepticism over due process.
There is no justice in the justice system if there is no due process people. Anyone with $$ can sue for made up claims. The proof is in the due process.
Sorry, no. Glenn is not worried about due process. His pattern has been showing for a while, and I am not the only one who has noticed. He is appeasing and seeking to validate people on the right who believe Gaetz is a populist, who still believe in the Trump con. Glenn is trying to manipulate the conversation so he can get air time in places like the Tucker Carlson shit show. It is not only in this subject, it is everywhere. Other podcasters on the real left, progressives who don't really care about the democrats and liberal crowd have noticed this pattern as well.
I don't really believe in patterns indicating a hidden meaning or agenda. I instead base my opinions on the actual things people say and do. I think that's a much healthier and honest way to go about things, but you do you.
I see the pattern. Any time Donald Trump and/or the Republican Party is mentioned, formerly sane Democrats lose their shit and all sense of reason. This has been going on for 6 years straight now. It's a very big pattern.
That is one of the things Trump has done without trying. He causes leftists, and democrats to expose their butts just by his very presence. Most everyone of them has tossed out every precept of fairness and due process. Many, many of them openly hoped for his outright murder without even a modicum of embarrassment. They have become so demented over Trump that reason and sanity are abandoned. Foaming at the mouth is not a policy argument. Passion is not a substitute for facts and data. The only ones taking them seriously are other deranged Trump hating loons. These people make Obama haters look like reasoned intellectuals. It is impossible for them to self reflect on just what is driving them to the edges of sanity.
Yes and I recall so much level-headed policy discussion, facts and data from both Trump and the red hats at his rallies. The epitome of a rational leader with advisors and followers who’d never use extreme rhetoric to further their agenda.
The only agenda those rallies had was to offer people who were absolutely voting for the man a good show. It was unreasonable for corporate media to take any of it seriously.
Oh please. The media shouldn't take seriously what a presidential candidate says at a political rally? Even when he's directly relaying his views on serious policy like immigration, criminal justice, foreign intervention, trade, etc?
I've never seen any politician spew facts and data at a political rally. They are "spin and obscure" events. Because someone can string a bunch of meaningless phrases together with a heavy tone while clarifying absolutely nothing does not mean clarifying nothing while trying to entertain a crowd is a "worse" type of rally.
Not sure what happened around 2012-14, but that does seem to be an accurate pivot point. I thought the absurdity of Trump's election would be a wake up call, but it got so much worse and has accelerated into 2021.
I remember some of my friends back in 2012-14 that may have been in banking, went to Duke and the like, had wealthy parents posting on Facebook about how racist the country was, how oppressed they were. It was odd.
I heard Ari Fleisher talk about it shortly after 2016 at a private event, and he felt it was all economics. Economics were surely important, but not a single word about culture, free speech, silly neoglobalist wars, the Bill of Rights, or patriotism.
The Trump supporters I know cared much more about these topics.
Lol, no one is as oppressed as the white upper class “progressives” in the banking sector w/ their weekend houses in the hamptons! We are truly living in clown world.
It's human nature, it's not exclusive to any side or party. We want our friends to prosper and our enemies to fail. How long has the Right been waiting for the silver bullet that'll take down Hillary Clinton once and for all...?
Actually... the lack of appreciation for enlightenment principles which formed our Constitution and its original Amendments tends to be stronger on the "left" side of the aisle these days.
Republicans can be assholes about lots of things - especially when it comes to money and police liability.
But there is no doubt that only one side of the aisle truly wants to erase the past 250 years of American history - whether it be free speech, freedom of assembly, gun ownership, due process, rule of (Constitutional) law... basically all the big ones. And it ain't the Republicans.
Well within my lifetime it was the Right wielding censorship for the sake of Christian "morality" and Cold War anti-Communism. Right now, regarding the Establishment part of the 1A, who's behind allowing religious types to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply to them? Nor did I see any major nor most minor players on the Right standing up when the 4th was smashed to bits in fighting the Wars on Terror and Drugs.
If there's anything that one should glean from TK it's that destroying civil liberties is equal opportunity. Coming here to wave your Red flag is kinda beside the point.
You mistake me for someone who belongs to a political party. I don't care about either team R or team D. They should both be taxed into bankruptcy, as far as I am concerned.
Ed Meese was a monster, as was John Ashcroft. That doesn't mean that the current morons in charge are any better.
There really are people in government who believe that "due process" for campus sexual assault is "unfair" to the accuser. There are members of the "liberal" press who believe that accusations are the same as convictions in a court of law.
I wonder if the people who are flaying Gaetz today would be willing to say the same about Emmet Till - or even OJ Simpson (on camera).
100% (well, 90% at least) which is why I objected to your first comment. I'm not saying "both sides are the same" but you'd need a really really long scorecard to try and figure out who's "worse" on Civil Liberties, to the point where it's irrelevant at this point to put a R or D next to the abusers, or a Left or Right designation.
Be assured that both sides are humans and ALL that that implies. Whenever humans act in opposition to on an other in politics or any other field you can rest assured that excesses and "dirty politics" are sure to be employed. NO side has a corner on virtue or reasonability. To believe so would indicate that one believes that one side is not human beings but angels of God. This has been so since the dawn of time and is revealed over and over in the Bible and its many stories and lessons. Every civilization has documented the backstabbing and hypocrisy of its power wielding political class. It is just how ambition and power reveal themselves in the human character.
William F. Buckley Jr. was quite prominent on the right for denouncing what the War on Drugs had done to our Constitutional liberty before his death. I have yet to see his equal on the left make such a statement.
I was hugely amused to watch the left dance as Obama talked about descheduling marijuana - if only Congress would do so; ignoring of course that it is entirely within the realm of the Atty General (being charge of DoJ and DEA) to make a scheduling change under the Controlled Substances Act. Oh how the happy fools danced, and how disappointed they were at being left in the lurch.
Taibbi's whole point was that due process is way too easily cast aside when it doesn't fit a particular agenda. That's why I reject people who say "the left/right did x" in this context.
I see an additional point he's making, which is directed to the left. Defense of due process is a core value traditionally (at least in his life time) championed by the left. He sees it as a left value, not a right value. The right's "tough on crime" value has many times been at odds with due process. Matt is disappointed that the opportunistic casting aside of due process, when done by the left, directly contradicts a left value, but is SSDD when done by the right.
The Constitution protects the minority from the illegal overreach of the majority. The majority need no protection because, well, they are the majority.
Both parties love The Constitution when they are out of power and hate it when they are in power.
Who is currently out of power? That is the group that for the time being loves The Constitution the most.
Yes, but not right now. The viewpoint of the current left is that the Constitution is invalidated by its origins as a "White Supremacist" document. That has never been the position of most "right wing" people. Surely the HUAC and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and the War on Drugs included tremendous violations of the Bill of Rights - but it was never floated that the entire document was invalid.
Sure, and the Right stands up for the Constitution whenever some guy in a clown suit with a gun arrests another citizen because the Right is famous for questioning authority.
Hatred of the Constitution when it limits power and loving the Constitution when it provides protection is as bipartisan as endless war, the surveillance state, mass incarceration and laws that don't apply to those who write and enforce them.
The Constitution doesn't protect minority or majority. It establishes a system of checks and balances, to protect against government overreach by any one branch. More importantly, it prevents government from encroaching on rights inherent in the citizens it "governs." This is the portion Glenn has been addressing. Further, he addresses the trampling of one person's rights by those using their own rights as a cudgel (free press). Much like claiming a right to protest your government entitles you to damage government property, other people's property or loot whomever you please. The reason is irrelevant, the principle is far more important.
#The Constitution doesn't protect minority or majority. It establishes a system of checks and balances, to protect against government overreach by any one branch."
I believe you are making a distinction where there is no difference.
Taken to include the Bill of Rights, The Constitution does both protect the minority and create a pluralistic system of governance.
that said, even the checks and balances you refer to in The Constitution serve the minority. Otherwise, those in power would never stand for election once they came to power. You can't take the document as a whole without including both. I referred to protections for the minority here because that was the context.
In the context of Glenn's article, Gaetz is the minority (accused) facing the majority (accusers) and it's important that his rights to a fair trial be followed (look at the Bill of Rights in The Constitution, it covers this).
I believe that is the principle Mr. Greenwald is defending. We seem to agree on that last point. The disagreement appears to be whether The Constitution covers this (it does).
Then why are the politicians preaching ‘rob from the rich and give to the poor?’ Because there are way more poor people than rich and in elections most votes wins. That is the majority not the majority of money.
Progressives have disdained the Constitution since Wilson. It's been a long war and they've won far more than they've lost. It is important to remember that Progressives are not the dominant faction of Democrats though - so the conflict is almost as much intra-party as it is inter-.
The left openly and explicitly supports the “decolonization” of thought and has specifically named the Enlightenment a white supremacist system which needs to be dismantled.
I'm definitely of the Left in my voting history, political and charitable donations, and my takes on most policy issues and yet I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment as well. Oops, there goes your generalization.
Aww you deleted, "Do you put on lipstick when you kiss your hands, just so you can see the smooches?" Just as batshit as everything else you're saying but at least it's funny.
Somewhat selective memory on your part. Both parties, neither of which I vote for, have been busily creating an imperial presidency since the end of WWII, secure in their belief that whichever party was in power, one of their inner circle would always have the reigns of power, regardless, and then along comes the the orange nincompoop, and upsets the applecart.
Of all the rights in our Constitution, none has been so decimated as the 4th, and that attack reached its height under George W. Bush, though it's true his successors did little to change that course. It's instructive that of all the rights you listed, this one escaped your attention.
Illegal search and seizure is a big one, for sure, but - to your point - all politicians tend to be authoritarian, and therefore they all believe that nothing they do is illegal. I will say that the whole Carter Page/Russiagate started with a team D lie on a FISA warrant.
I think Hillary Clinton took down Hillary Clinton once and for all. A classical case of hubris, little so perfectly embodied since the good ol' days of the Greeks.
Someone explain to me how Hilary Clinton had any greater hubris or was any less a liberal than Obama. I'm asking this seriously. She was basically identical to Obama ( who I voted for twice) on domestic policy issues and foreign policy. Other than having endured 20 years of attacks and a philandering husband ( who I also voted for), she and Obama should have been equally supported by liberals. Instead Obama seemed to get a free pass from criticism while Hilary was pummeled about everything from her personality ( I had a liberal woman tell me with a straight face that she wasn't 'warm' and should behave like "a big sister' and not so assertively) to her centrist, hawkish positions, identical to Obama's, by Bernie and everyone else. The same people who criticized Hilary's personality loved Bernie's brash, ranting behavior. Presumably, Obama got a pass as the first black president, but even after that, when no woman had ever been elected president, it was open season, no holds barred when it came to Hilary. Someone explain this to me, please.
Hillary was tone deaf and not charismatic, and Obama was both of these things. America was done with Obama's policies after Obama. They didn't want more, and Hillary was a weak candidate. The house, senate, many state legislatures and a good number Governor's mansions were all lost to the GOP during Obama's tenure. It's not like dissatisfaction with the democratic party came out of the blue in 2016. There was a study done where the roles of Trump and Hillary were reversed in the debates, and the male Hillary came across as "punchable". Simply put, the American public rejected more of the same. To attribute the 2016 election to sexism or racism or whatever-ism is to be just as tone deaf as Hillary. It was the economic impacts of globalism on the US, endless bank bailouts, a federal reserve policy that favors the wealthy, and the abandonment of the working class in favor of identity politics that cost Hillary the election.
Oh and I forgot-- the support for endless foreign intervention also known as the forever wars cost Hillary some votes too. To this day one of the accomplishments Trump supporters can rightly boast about is that we didn't start any new wars from 2016-2020.
I agree about her lack of charisma and with many of the other posters' comments here and I think identity politics has way over-simplified in subscribing everything to clear-cut racism or sexism when there is usually a combination of factors at play, but I don't think there's any doubt that there was an element of sexism (a double standard) in the way Hillary was criticized, and a good part of that came from other women. (Just as minorities internalize negative stereotypes, so do women.) I don't put much stock in the theater exercise you cited, but I agree that some of Obama's actions, most importantly, his massive bail out of the banks while failing to hold one single major player accountable was a huge factor. Matt Tiabbi was one of the only reporters to actually point this out at the time rather than quietly giving Obama a pass. Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did. If most liberal and conservative political non-profit foundations were actually scrutinized like the Clintons' was, I'd bet you'd find all the same kinds of cozy conduct.
Looking back I can't readily think of any double standards. If there was anything overt she surely would have made political hay with it. Do you have any concrete examples of this double standard you can share?
>> Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did.
Hillary was raking in those fees long before she ran for potus, and was quite unapologetic about it when asked. "Because that's what they offered" was her explanation. I'm willing to bet that cost her more votes than a double standard.
You are talking about a woman from Chicago via Arkansas who claimed to be a Yankees fan her entire life - thinking that people wouldn't notice the bullshit.
This is a fair question and I will endeavor to answer it, although I don't think I will reach the level of explanation.
The easy answer is that America prefers a black man as President over a white woman. I think your analysis that their policy positions differed -- if at all -- insubstantially is accurate.
Barack was just a better bullshitter, is all. In a way, I feel for Hillary; she always did what she was supposed to do to get ahead in the system. But you can't buy charisma with gold stars.
That could be part, or all of the reason. Another theory is at a time when America wanted something different, Hillary Clinton brought a 40 year political history and Obama brought a year.
People can't tell me that they did not view Trump differently after 4 years than they did when he had a clean political slate. Those type of things allow people to project their wishes onto a candidate.
On a personal note I know someone who knew both Bill and Hillary in law school. He felt that in person they were just the opposite. Hillary came across as warm and friendly while Bill came off as arrogant and aloof.
We will never know, but that would not surprise me.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Obama protested it (he wasn't in the Senate yet). Clinton's longer history also hurt her, while Obama was fresh. The Clinton Foundation always seemed sleazy, and riding into the Senate on Bill's coattails was not a great look. I do think Obama's skin color helped him win the nomination.
I believe Trump's weird success was at least partially attributable to wearing his hubris on his sleeve, as opposed to HRC's faux-humble "dedicated public servant" jive.
It was "Hello, I'm a megalomanic and proud of it!" vs. "I'm not a megalomaniac at all! [even though I obviously am]."
100%. I've distrusted and often despised Trump since the 80s and have tested positive for TDA more than a few times over the past 5-10 years (whenever he jumped on the birther thing). Yet I admit I sometimes found his hubris amusing or even charming when it was about hyping real estate and other self-titled ventures, rather than politics.
Taibbi talks about how Trump is a complete product of the WWE-which he has dabbled with in the past. He is the ultimate heel-and the one thing a great wrestling heel has to have is insufferable hubris.
I do know what you mean. If you can so casually use that term, then opponents ARE your enemy. That is exactly why there is so much polarization in politics. People don’t think about the hurt their words cause. It’s all rah, rah my team, everyone else is the enemy.
I learned that in Kindergarten. Why don't they teach that poem anymore?
Also - why do so many progressives not believe fellow progressive Eleanor Roosevelt's observation that "Nobody can make your feel inferior without your consent."
“a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.”
I’m actively opposed and hostile to certain political ideologies and policies. So are you, and so is anyone who’s politically engaged. If you’re offended by such a common, obvious term then reading a blog like this must be pure torture for you.
This isn't directed at you, I wouldn't know one way or the other, but your comment brought it to mind. I think the biggest shift post-9/11 has been "actively opposed and hostile to certain political ideologies and policies" becoming, "rabid opposition and hostility toward anyone who supports political ideologies and policies with which I disagree." Hate for people seemingly far more rewarding than hatred of ideas.
Thank you! Ppl are increasingly incapable of abstracting a principle from specific facts of the case at hand. They see the question of “should a person be tried in the press in advance of any concrete evidence?” and “Shouldn’t we give Gaetz the benefit of the doubt until we have some solid evidence? ” as two separate and wholly unrelated questions. They don’t understand that a right selectively applied is no longer a right. They don’t understand the benefit of excluding prejudicial information from one’s analysis. They think blind justice is a glitch in the system.
I understand "projection" and "strawmanning" pretty well, though. If you glibly state what other people are, or believe, or support, based on unexamined assumptions and weak association, YOU are the one I'm not believing.
Just wanna alert everyone that Adriana is, in fact, being paid by intelligence agencies to undermine Substack. I've been watching her for awhile and the pattern is crystal clear.
The "real left"was just to differentiate from libs, but ok, you didn't get it. Patterns is observable by anyone, you just have to stop reacting emotionally and exercise critical thinking. And I don't know his intent, just as he doesn't know the intent of any media personality. He also observes the patterns of those talking heads.
Sort of like how your pattern is to spray vague, odious, and paranoid comments like a skunk in heat? Take your Seroquel, Adriana, the voices in your head aren't real.
Only God can judge the value of your life. However I am more than capable of judging the value of your opinions, and as stated, found them to be vague, odious, and paranoid.
I would also add that they lack a basis in reality, because as you've so admitted, "[you] don't need evidence for [you] opinions." That's called magical thinking, which is a feature of schizotypal disorder. Take your meds.
Yes. If we wanted 'vague, odious and paranoid comments,' we would probably be reading CNN, The Washington Post, or perhaps The New York Times. Instead, we want logical arguments with compelling evidence, and you have offered neither of those to back up your absurd, emotion-based assertions.
Alex Jones sees patterns everywhere too... I’m thinking the “left” has some tin foil hat wearers right along with right wingers. Horseshoe theory strikes again!
Yes, humans have been observing patterns for far longer than we've exercised critical thinking - thousands upon thousands of years. It is so ingrained into our brains that if we believe we've seen a pattern, there is almost nothing that will override that.
well, it takes some doing. but without exercising the ability to do some reflection and review in that regard, things are bound to go wrong at some point.
I'm thinking of the Amanda Knox case. The prosecutor, the victim's family, and much of the Italian press still appears convinced that she got away with a murder, as part of some occult conspiracy. From what I've read, my view is that the truth of the event is much simpler and more mundane. Which is the view that prevailed, eventually.
And the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I was initially persuaded that the Ramseys were the culprits in the death of their daughter. From what I've learned over time, they're innocent. And still unfairly maligned, by those who are convinced that they've Recognized the Pattern that leads to their guilt. As ritual child molesting murderers. A view shared by myself, for a while. But my saving grace is my reluctance to push all the chips in on cases like those, especially in situations where all I know is what I read in the papers.
That was part of my own "proto-Q" odyssey back in the late 1990s, when I was doing a lot of research into sordid stuff, and what I was learning was enough to get me sucked in to the edge of the rabbit role, so to speak. But fortunately, I retained enough doubt and skepticism to recover a rational sense of perspective. For a little while there, whew...some of the details of history are disconcerting. And then I kept on with my reading- focusing on context, instead of scurrillous titillation. And although I also kept turning up more and more scandalous nastiness, I eventually realized that it's just the way some people have always behaved on this planet. That it doesn't indicate that there's some unified Evilarchy running everything behind the scenes. So I got out of the rut that insisted on trying to fit all the horrific criminality of the world in history into a single pattern. But I did learn that it's easy to do.Speculative hypotheses can be very ambitious, and they always allow for a widening of the list of suspects.And there's something intoxicating about that sinister form of fictive infotainment.
Yes. Pattern recognition is like fear: easily learned and hard to overcome. It is a very potent evolutionary force, and my only quibble with what you say is that it's been operative for millions upon millions of years, not "thousands upon thousands of years."
Christina Hoff Sommers once used the term "click moment" to describe an event when, in a person's mind, what was an open question about conflicting observations and thoughts coalesced into an "ah-ha moment" of understanding. That is the moment when the nature of thought changes. Its rather like a religious conversion.
Anthony Pratkanis explained the significance of this "mind event" in his seminal article: "How to Sell a Pseudoscience." https://tinyurl.com/yvdxffty Here is Rule 2:
"Set a rationalization trap. The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right . . .."
Once the trap is sprung, one's confirmation bias becomes a very powerful force in proving that his decisions are correct, a master whose faithful servant (the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. https://tinyurl.com/yn6htys2 ) swings into action to reinforce the belief.
Understand the quibble, I was holding to what is more or less modern man as we began to evolve to larger social order beings. Even that should be of sufficient contrast to the two centuries or so of life in the age of Reason.
In fairness, that's how they've been trained and educated. I believe it's what universities are now offering in place of, you know, critical and evidence-based reasoning.
Perhaps then your problem with Glenn stems more from your own Brazilian origins, ie political, as in not a fan of Lula’s or Dilma’s (nor state owned natural resources vs privatized capital/elite-based foreign investment model)?
The criticism is meant in earnest. Take it to heart. It isn't wise to presume to know what people think or what motivates them without good evidence. "Patterns" is thin gruel.
Glen is a liberal who is attacking hypocrisy, groupthink and the progressives desire to forget that sometimes the shoe will be on the other foot. People who now think due process is for them only, not for the other guy. No, you are way off base Adriana. You don't get it. It is your type that is the problem. Anyone that thinks Trump was Hitler has been brainwashed. Anyone that think Trump was Jesus has been brainwashed. I don't believe Fox News nor MSNBC. They are just propaganda tools. They aren't the issue. Brainwashed people like you are the issue.
I’ve been following Glenn Greenwald since he was Slate during the Bush years. I’ve noticed a pattern and it is l the exact opposite of the one you laid out.
His reporting has been consistent, across the political spectrum and in at least a half dozen cases that come immediately to mind, he has taken a course of high idealism to his personal and professional detriment.
The fact he is a famous person at all is directly related to his remarkable virtue, specifically in regard to “walking the walk” of basic liberal principals.
It was Salon, I remember reading him about when he started writing there and Ive appreciated his insight ever since. Add up the Snowden leak, Freeing Lula( and making Moro pay for his fuckery) and you have someone who isnt just writing articles with opinions but someone, who had done world changing work that we are all better off for. Definitely a pattern Ive noticed. Its called being true to your principles regardless of which way the wind is blowing.
We know that you think this. We just don't understand why since you have presented no evidence or logic whatsoever to back it up. Was it testimony from your cat, perhaps? Pure emotion? Voices in your head?
Yeah you’re missing the point here. Greenwald appears to be all over the political map (left of the intercept, right of Tucker) to the uncalibrated eye because he adheres to a guiding principal of presumption of innocence that is fundamentally apolitical.
So putting aside the attack on Greenwald's motives and character, do you think he's correct that the hiring of a competent lawyer should not reflect in any way of our perception of a person's guilt or innocence? Because his tweet strikes me as 100% correct, and I don't know enough about him to pick him out of a lineup.
The argument is that he is not really concerned about due process, he is manipulating the conversation to appease his audience and validate the right (mostly)
Finally, something we can agree on! The more you talk, the more you reveal your total lack of evidence or logic to back up your 'argument' (it's more of a feeling at this point, isn't it?) that Glenn doesn't care about due process.
Of what political orientation do you understand Lula or David Miranda to be? Do you know anything about what GGreenwald has advocated for or aligned himself with in his writing? Thirdly, are you serious?
Why would you assume anyone is taking anything "personally" here? Since when is voicing a different opinion automatically taking it personally?
As for the dogpile, look at the sheer number of responses Adriana has posted. Adriana keeps replying and people keep responding to those replies. That's not a dogpile. The fact that no one appears to agree with Adriana is not a dogpile. The fact that Adriana keeps doubling down and refusing to concede any of the criticisms is interesting though.
I agree that the very few "take your meds" style comments are unhelpful and unnecessary.
When someone says, "I don't need evidence for my opinions," do you think this is an invitation for an open exchange of ideas?
I am open to well reasoned arguments on all topics from people of all ideological stripe, especially if they are at odds with mine. However, it's my personal policy to not waste my time engaging with those who use emotional reasoning as their ideological bedrock.
I do not tolerate baseless slander, nor do I tolerate this new trend of stuffing words in the mouths others. These features of the Twittersphere and center-left media consensus are why I've abandoned nearly all traditional news outlets and why I am a subscriber here.
Her post is not personally offensive in the slightest, but it is absolutely at odds with my motivations for being on this Substack to begin with. I will not grant her or those like her the legitimacy of good faith engagement, when that is something they have clearly abandoned a long time ago.
Largely because I'd rather discourage her further participation than legitimize it with a well reasoned rebuttal (which would largely be wasted anyway).
I agree that the mean-spiritedness of my comments are not flattering nor a quality I find commendable in myself or others. I can't argue with you there - your point is well taken.
That said, it is the result of years of frustration with individuals like her, who are predominant in spaces like Twitter and other mainstream places for discourse, as well as most mainstream news outlets (both left and right wing).
What do you feel would have been a more productive approach?
This topic comes up very frequently. The path I try to follow is to answer a post as if it comes from a real person with a good faith point of view. If, after a reply or two that demonstrates to me that the person is a professional troll or independent contractor troll, I stop responding. My posts can be quite pointed and critical but I do my best not to launch attacks on the person if for no other reason than other real people are reading here an I don’t want to put off people who might otherwise think about what I said. That said, I have cut back quite a bit on my attention to the comments because, in my humble opinion, there are lots of “people” with no real interest in a genuine discussion and I don’t have the time to keep sorting thru who is who.
The perception that Glenn is pandering to the right dismisses that the left won't have him on anymore. He goes where he will be heard. That his shunning by the left is characterized as his opportunistic money- or glory- chasing on the right is really something, when the substance of the values he advocates has remained consistent. The mirror is hard to look in for some people.
It boggles my mind that those who consider themselves liberal are quick to belittle a liberal as a rudderless opportunist, because he promotes liberal values on Tucker Carlson. I will never understand this.
It's like what happened to Bret Weinstein and the Evergreen State fiasco. People tried to use the fact that he went on Tucker Carlson as a criticism, when the real criticism should have been of EVERY left/center news outlet for not being willing to interview him.
Of course Tucker was happy to report on a story that made the left look like crazed idiots, but everyone else refusing to report on it at all made all of them look far worse.
Well when you get down to partisan conflict for control of power, then ideology is decidedly secondary. If you have principles you stick with them whether or not you are in a position of power. Those who give lip service to principles merely to gain power (and then immediately disregard those principles) aren't deserving of respect. But that's pretty much the game of both parties - they want power and they don't care much about principle.
Makes me think of Churchill's line about having enemies: "Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
Hillary brought back McCarthyism to destroy Trump and it seems to have spread through the media like corona virus. Thank God there are a few real journalists like Greenwald who keep dragging all the soap opera loving idiots back to actual facts. They hate it, but I pray that he keeps doing it.
I got in an argument on another forum about this same thing. I posited pretty much the same thing-that if Gaetz is guilty of sex with a minor, and transporting her across state lines for sex, he's a disgusting slimeball, and should be convicted and removed from office. The current information is insufficient to say one way or the other and... sad though it may be, the NY Times is no more trustworthy than a host of other news sources with less prestigious reputations. I was immediately attacked for suggesting that I wasn't convinced that Gaetz was guilty from the evidence at hand- the assumptions made by the mob seeming to be that I don't think sex trafficking is bad, that I am a huge Gaetz fan and I must have a MAGA hat and a rifle hidden in my hybrid car somewhere. Having a smug frat-boy attitude doesn't make him guilty of a crime-anymore than it makes him automatically innocent of one.
"The impact is on the next person with a byline who might be thinking about voicing an unpopular opinion." So true. That's the worst macro consequence. A micro consequence that's been bumming me out is that it's increasingly hard to share his work. You have to couch a recommendation in insecure-sounding, a priori defenses and pathetic disclaimers ("Don't google him before you read him!"). Greenwald does essential work that no one else does; he addresses many issues with a clarity that people are desperate for. It's painful and disempowering to feel confused about what's going on in the world, and finding a journalist who understands & explicates high-level corruption in concrete terms can give you a sense of almost physical relief. (I'd say the same of Tabbi, Halper, Yasha Levine, a few others.) (By contrast, every paid journalist with a legacy platform generally uses it to repeat and analyze recycled talking points, rather than offering anything that moves us forward. Mass distraction from the ruling class and its ongoing crimes.) I think Glenn is one of the only genuinely leftist voices out there (he might not identify that way, but many of his findings are essential to building a credible leftist critique of the media), and I want to be able to share his perspective on Russiagate, Wikileaks, the First Amendment, et cetera without having first to contend with blue-check trolls who live to discredit any real threats to the establishment. Their high-school sadism shouldn't overshadow--on a Google search or elsewhere--the work he's devoted his life to. Thanks for providing a concise but strong defense.
I'll confess: I wish I would have come across your writing much sooner. When the Hunter Biden stuff went down, I didn't really see any issues with Facebook and Twitter blocking the post. I viewed it in the context of, "Well, they're a private company, they can do what they want, blah blah blah." Slowly but surely, though, I found myself unsettled by the overreach, to the point where when I finally started asking questions, I realized I was only regurgitating what others were saying. It was embarrassing, to say the least. Incredibly thankful I came across Glenn's writing, which led me to Blocked and Reported, which then led to you as well. It's been challenging and jarring, having to reconsider so much of how I've been raised and conditioned, but the exercise is worth it nonetheless.
I love reading this because I was somewhat similar. I wasn’t really a Democrat by the time of the Trump Presidency but these were still the people I spent the last decade plus being part of their tribe. I had a lot of cognitive dissonance of “well, I don’t like Trump or Republicans so yeah, but....” It’s a very unsettling feeling to hold a belief but know it’s weak or otherwise contradicts other things you believe.
For me, it was Russiagate, which I found gross and to be thin gruel, but also didn’t feel comfortable breaking with almost everyone I know. When I started reading Glenn and Matt it was a breath of fresh air to be greeted with an alternative point of view that I could intellectually engage with and - in this situation - find more persuasive.
Honestly, I didn't look into "Russiagate" nearly as much as I should have. Reading Matt's reporting is what made me recognize how foolish I had been.
Facebook, et al. are not really private companies. No corporation or LLC really is because they have the shield from the state protecting their owners from the company's liabilities. In my opinion, only sole proprietorships or partnerships are really "private companies."
This doesn't even get into the fact that as multibillion-dollar multinational corporations, they exert greater power in their sphere than many governments do. While it is true, one should be sceptical, especially of government authority that isn't exclusive by any means. You need to be sceptical of all authority.
Correct. It's less about skepticism; I've never trusted Twitter or Facebook to make the RIGHT decisions with this kind of stuff. I just mistakenly took the approach of, "Well, if they're within their rights, then they're within their rights." Even if it isn't correct. But I'll also admit my own case of TDS (mild, but still present) colored my perspective there as well. Thankfully, I've been cured of that, even if he is still an immoral dolt.
It is within their rights to decide what to allow on their platforms. The law is clear on that 100%. The issue is not the legality of their decisions to moderate or remove content, the issue is that the so-called liberals are pressuring big tech and other entities, like corporations and universities, to stifle opinions they do not like.
And in so doing, they are abandoning long-held principles like free speech, due process, fact-based inquiry, and democracy, which have traditionally been ideas that supported worker’s struggle, civil rights, anti-war protests, etc. Now we have the spectacle of so-called liberals carrying out the dirty work for the rich and powerful by calling for big corporations to exert even more control in society, by calling for truth commissions, by canceling anyone who challenges this move to ever greater concentrated power.
Matt and Glenn have been among the very few on the “left” to call this out. Most of the complaints have come from the right and this has served the establishment very well by making it easier for their mouthpieces to paint all criticism as racist, misogynist, transphobic, etc. Remember, the focus is always on who gets to decide what we can hear, not the content. You might not like the content, but do you want someone deciding for you what you are allowed to hear or say? It is a deep trap to be pleased that Trump was deplatformed no matter how much you don’t like what he says.
Welcome to the club.
With Trump, I still stand by the fact he should have had the POTUS account, and not the RealDonaldTrump account. I don't think he should have been censored, but c'mon, man. You're the President of the United States. Reign it in for a few years, at least. I might be wrong, but it seemed like a good compromise.
It is better late then never - cliche' of the day!
I mean, you're not wrong! I'm just learning a lot of people are more sympathetic to everything here in private. They're just scared to indicate otherwise online. Which is such a shame. I understand it, with our current climate, but it shouldn't be that way.
"I'm just learning a lot of people are more sympathetic to everything here in private. They're just scared to indicate otherwise online."
. . . "Here" is not "online?"
I should state on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Where friends and family members are. In the Substack comments, you're fairly anonymous.
I really don't know what to think about that. Of course I don't trust anyone in Silicon Valley to police public discourse but then should they be *forced* to host people and organizations who they see (right or wrong) as downright dangerous, whether in a direct physical sense or to social justice or liberal democracy? Hypocritical or not — I understand their view of "justice," "liberal," and "democracy" might differ from yours, or mine. Again, I really don't know. I was thrilled personally for the end of Donald Trump's twitter feed being part of my news diet but I'm extremely worried about the precedent it sends. I've lived long enough to watch the dominant political and social zeitgeist change on a dime. I'm glad reporters like Taibbi are asking the questions but I think he'd admit he doesn't have any hard answers yet.
The problem is the would-be censors like to use that "private company" excuse to insist what they do isn't real censorship. However, the intimate relationship between Big Tech and government (look up how much Facebook and Google poured into the Democrats' coffers, and how many times they've been hauled before Congress and ordered to "do something" about whatever isn't considered acceptable discussion) that claim no longer holds water.
Big Tech platforms may not be de jure censors, but any idea they aren't de facto censors is naive, at best. Just ask the independent news media on YouTube who are not only having their reporting yanked, but are no being threatened with banishment if they don't cease and desist.
I get that argument and lean towards your side. But if I were Google I’m not sure I’d want de facto endorsement of ISIS recruiting videos, etc by letting them sit on my site. I’m just saying it’s complicated.
«de facto endorsement»
That is the modern equivalent of "objectively", as described in my usual quote from George Orwell writing in 1945:
“One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ʻbourgeois libertyʼ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ʻobjectivelyʼ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.”
That's a fantastic quote.
This right here is the problem. Censoring a legitimate political story is not the same as ISIS videos. By that token, Amazon and Google could claim anything even remotely pro-union is dangerous (it is to their bottom line), just like ISIS recruiting videos, and should not be seen.
In reality, I vastly preferred the old internet, beheading videos and all. You could at least piece together a view of reality.
It’s not fucking complicated. If something should be banned then let the democratically elected government ban it. Otherwise known as banning what’s illegal.
It is complicated, you're simple. If I run a blog I have to allow every comment and commenter, as long as they're not directly inciting violence? I feel like it's my right to have control over my own site.
If you run a tech monopoly that controls the bulk of news reporting, you mean. Much less complicated when you're not misrepresenting Google as a tender individual having their rights trampled.
The funny thing is, they leave a lot of that stuff up. They're slower to ban Iranian leaders who deny the Holocaust than Americans expressing mainstream conservative views.
If the phone company needs to allow Nazis to make calls and the USPS needs to allow anarchists to send pamphlets via first class rate... and a bakery in Denver needs to bake a gay wedding cake...
Making them utilities is definitely an option.
>I was thrilled personally for the end of Donald Trump's twitter feed being part of my news diet
Please accept this as charitably as it's intended, but is it possible your news diet is mostly junk food?
For the sake of discussion, I'll admit that I've never followed a President on Twitter (been using since 2007 though I stopped using it entirely many years ago), I haven't watched a State of the Union address since Clinton's last one, I don't pay an ounce of attention to election night, or frankly any other political events (conventions, press-conferences, hearings, etc.) and in over 20 years, I can't come up with a single thing I've missed or a single point of data pointing out I should have been more engaged.
I would like to hear an argument for why I, or anyone aside from journalists, should tap into this stuff. It could be, for instance, that the reason I find most direct political communications useless is they are 99% propaganda and pageantry and if that were less so, maybe more would be more useful...? Currently, the most useful political communications I receive are emails from my Aldermen (I actually subscribe to a few as I've moved around the city). I also subscribe to my congress-people and one of my Senators, though these emails are mostly just DNC talking points (aka propaganda), so I rarely read them.
I find a shocking resemblance to the hunter Biden story and citizens United. Without getting into the campaign finance aspects which are contentious, it was ultimately about blocking an unflattering Hillary documentary. Now a few years later the same happens with Biden; this time they enlist Silicon Valley to do their bidding since the courts say they can’t do it directly.
We all struggle with some kind of cognitive dissonance. Real humility goes a long way. But yeah, there's definitely a tension with allowing free speech and to what extent we're willing to go with that.
We would all be served to recall John Adams' defense of the British soldiers accused during the Boston Massacre. Due process is for us all, even the people we hate/don't agree with/can't understand/revile. Especially then.
If we hadn't become a country full of judgmental aholes, we wouldn't need to be reminded of this. But we have and we do.
Amen.
Decisively said.
«recall John Adams' defense of the British soldiers accused during the Boston Massacre»
Yet this report from A de Tocqueville's 1834 book "Democracy in America" shows that the opposite is a big part of american tradition, an early example of rather physical "cancel culture":
«A striking example of the excesses which the despotism of the majority may occasion was seen in Baltimore during the war of 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore. A newspaper opposed to it aroused the indignation of the inhabitants by taking that line.
The people came together, destroyed the printing presses and attacked the journalists' premises. The call went out to summon the militia which, however, did not respond to the call. In order to save those wretched fellows threatened with by the public frenzy the decision was taken to put them in prison like criminals.
The precaution was useless. During the night the people gathered once again; when the magistrates failed to summon the militia, the prison was forced one of the journalists was killed on the spot and the others were left for dead. The guilty parties, when standing before a jury, were acquitted.»
Didn't the Minnesota city manager get canned for saying something about due process? Due process, scoff scoff. How quaint!
Chelsea Handler, who is spastic and unfunny, once reflecting on why we even need a trial in the Chauvin case. The tweets were widely praised.
We all know George Floyd was a covid death, so why the trial?
Bada bing bada boom.
Went down the Floyd rabbit hole, not pretty. He almost killed himself in 2019 resisting arrest and eating a bunch of drugs to avoid being caught...wound up in the ER.
Watching the stay it home triple mask crowd act like Floyd running around with COVID and no mask, much less driving hammered with fake currency, is entirely meaningless has been odd. Though the media once again has been beyond scandalous in its reporting.
It is meaningless in terms of deciding Chauvin’s guilt in Floyd’s death. By nature the people who interact with police most aren’t the most solid citizens but due process works both ways.
I've not always loved the police, they have to act hard or quickly the veneer of authority is lost.
That said, determining a pattern of behavior which can easily result in death I wouldn't say is irrelevant. This trial vs. the Zucker coverage a year ago is night and day. Chauvin seemed awfully nonchalant given the circumstances, but he arguably followed protocol, as wrong as that might be. The medics could have come within 9 minutes, but the crowd was shouting violent threats, and EMTs are known to get attacked.
Perhaps I'm callous due to some undue, random violence I've encountered in urban areas, but these deaths at police hands have some much in common: past weapons charges, past violence/rape against women, repeated trafficking of narcotics, kids that seem to be abandoned, and of course resisting arrest, again often violently.
I mean at some point, what do people expect?
I expect a fair trial where what's decided is Chauvin's culpability, not whether Floyd's poor character and past criminal record would "result in his death". Quite an assessment in the context of a discussion about due process.
Perhaps you haven't seen the freeze frames of what looks to be pills in Floyd's mouth, or the white baggie he threw out while walking next to the cruiser, or heard about the dissolved pills found in the back of the cruiser with Floyd's DNA, that matched more pills in Floyd's Mercedes SUV. Floyds dealer voluntarily spoke with the FBI a year ago...the prosecution is seeking to bar this from the trial.
The point is, if you did something on your on volition to avoid arrest, and it almost killed you, and less than a year later, there is overwhelming evidence you did the exact same thing, then maybe Chauvin wasn't out hunting to see what minority he could lay six feet deep.
But with all the threats from BLM and the like, even Van Jones and Lemon and liberal politicians more or less tipping the scales for convict or large-scale violence, and the prospective jury members that said they fear for their safety, hard to see a fair trial here.
In my eyes, Chauvin probably shouldn't be a cop. He probably shouldn't see much if any time in jail either. But the prevailing narrative is once again built on censored truths and elevated bullshit.
Chauvin's defense began yesterday and is ongoing. However the county medical examiner ruled Chauvin's knee caused Floyd's death. It's very similar to Eric Garner, who was massively obese with typical underlying health conditions and yet his death was caused by Dan Pantaleo, not because he's fat and in poor health, or that he had a criminal record.
You should really read I Can't Breathe, which Taibbi references here. Despite the buzzy title, it's actually among the most damning assessments of Garner's character and record I've read while still arguing for his basic humanity and the fundamental issues with policing that led directly to his death.
Haven't read it, and I'm all for police reforms, but those public unions are tough to change, and that's no right wing conspiracy.
I'm unaware of Garner's character, and horrible health aside (at some point with communal healthcare more or less this fat acceptance has to go), but I'd still hold Floyd is different. If he did ingest all of these drugs, he could have died without being touched, and said he couldn't breathe before anyone touched as air passages, which the coroners report noted little to no injury.
Years back around 2000 in Cincinnati, there was a Floyd meets Garner thing, where lots of obesity and crack were involved, resisting and death in police hands. There were huge riots, even some related home invasions and murders. And in any of these situations, delirium alone can be a killer. Horrible health, hopped up on drugs, and just the thought of many more years in jail.....it sucks to think about because it will only get worse, or streets much more violent.
People simply succumbing to drug overdoses don't verbally protest about their inability to breathe, due to having so much pressure on their chest that they aren't able to properly inhale and exhale. (This does not lead to "injury to air passages", like having a bruised or fractured trachea.)
People succumbing to opioid overdoses don't say anything. They just fall out. They don't struggle to breathe, they lose their breathing reflex. This is eventually accompanied by cyanosis- turning blue, usually around the lips and the fingertips.
George Floyd was handcuffed. At worst, he was a flight risk, and his flight was destined to be ineffectual.
I've forcibly restrained someone before, with my arms around their chest. If they had complained of being unable to breathe, I would have let them free.
"...maybe Chauvin wasn't out hunting to see what minority he could lay six feet deep."
I don't think that was Chauvin's motive. But he showed a reckless disregard for the personal safety of someone under his immediate physical control, who was already handcuffed and not capable of effectively physically resisting and assaulting the police who were restraining him. George Floyd might possibly have run, but not very far.
I think Chauvin adopted a competitive mentality- that it was a wrestling match, and he felt he needed to assert dominant control over Floyd by pinning him, so to speak. But there's a reason that pinning people in wrestling only goes on for a count of three, and the person being pinned is supine rather than prone. Whereas with Chauvin it was more like "I will not permit you to escape my grasp, because that means you won."
Would Chauvin have done that with a white guy, even one physically larger than him? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Ignoring someone's pleas that they can't breather is indefensible no matter what, especially given the outcome. In my opinion.
I appreciate your thoughtful posts on this topic.
I think for people unfamiliar with policing in America they believe George Floyd is a one off and don't understand the big deal/blame him for all the protests and violence over the Summer.
I don't think they realize this was the final straw. They had the entire Summer to witness police behavior if they had not been paying attention before. There were some that changed their views despite years of being inculcated by police procedural shows. Some that did not change their view of policing overall, but at least acknowledged we have difficulty removing the worst cops. A tiny minority dug in to the point of defending Derek Chauvin's actions. That's the small group you are debating here.
I have a friend who is a sex worker. Like many sex workers she has been raped by cops in the past. She tells me despite this she will still pretend to like a cop and suck his dick if he pays her. I tell her there are plenty of Americans who aren't pretending and are willing to suck a cops dick for free.
"Chauvin seemed awfully nonchalant given the circumstances, but he arguably followed protocol, as wrong as that might be."
The testimony of Derek Chauvin's superiors in the police department is that he did not follow protocol. There's no "arguably" there.
"The medics could have come within 9 minutes, but the crowd was shouting violent threats, and EMTs are known to get attacked."
You are bending over backwards with conjecture and speculation. The insinuation that the crowd- whatever their expressed hostility- was so unhinged that they would attack anyone in uniform- even the EMTs coming to Floyd's aid- is not only absurd, it implicitly relies on the assumption that the onlookers are nothing more than a pack of rabid dogs.
This is literally from the prosecutions' witnesses and other recordings.
You should seek them out to buttress your iron clad case.
I heard some of that testimony firsthand on C-span radio. The witnesses did not present themselves as the type of people who are- or were- so deranged that they're unable to differentiate between the actions of the police officers on the scene and the role to be played by medical first responders pulling up in an ambulance.
As for my response to the question you raised about Derek Chauvin "arguably" following protocol, that's from witness testimony at the trail also. The police witnesses- which included the chief of the Minneapolis police- were unanimous in their position that Chauvin did NOT follow protocol. I don't feature how anyone can overrule their consensus view on that.
Imagine being a juror who is being "protected" by the Minneapolis police. Now imagine that the Chief of Police testifies in a way that shows he wants a conviction. Would you feel any pressure in reaching your verdict?
You ask a fair question.
Just because a police officer goes out and kills a black man in cold blood, should that mean the public will no longer have his back? What's the point of having a Union at all if they aren't willing to cover for your crimes?
Hmm...what's the legal term for the exercise of that pressure...oh, yeah- Obstruction of Justice. A felony offense. And when more than one person is involved, even one overt act of furtherance- any proof of planning to exercise that sort of "pressure", even if the plan isn't carried out- is Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, which is an even more severe offense.
So your post is basically accusing the Minneapolis Chief of Police of a criminal inclination to conspire to obstruct justice, with his mere presence on the witness stand tantamount to a threat to the jury that he'll find ways to punish them if their verdict disagrees with his testimony. Testimony that he's offered under oath, as an accredited witness under the rules of criminal jurisprudence that apply to that trial. Officer Chauvin's defense team hasn't objected to his presence on the witness stand- much less casting it as jury intimidation, as you've done.
Where do you get the idea that Chief Arradando would commit such a crime? Do you have the slightest hard evidence on that score? You're inviting me to indulge your fantasy as if it had some relevance to real world events. That isn't just grasping at straws; the straws you're grasping at are imaginary. Based on the amount of evidence you've offered to support your scary concern trolling speculation, which is- Zero.
Well the cross examination was pretty rough on these folks credibility, and when their broader statements were broken down, they seemed to contradict themselves fairly severely.
But that said, it's not so easy sticking up for someone, much less your own protocol (if it is such), when violent mobs are demanding conviction or destruction. Hell I might fib just to save the city.
This trial is so overloaded its ridiculous. Humans are meeting superhuman circumstances....such it is in the late stages of an empire with a Marxist takeover disguised as *justice* underway.
"he late stages of an empire with a Marxist takeover disguised as *justice* underway"
oh noes sky is falling Trump help us, or maybe Adolf
Maybe many contributing factors but the video is horrible. No medical assistance or relief of any kind when Floyd was secured, cuffed and unconscious after complaining about not breathing. Hard to see anything but a guilty verdict of some kind next week. From what I saw That video should not depict legal policing standards anywhere. if they had just taken the knee off him and given first aid all involved would be active duty policeman right now even if Floyd had not survived.
However, one more thing is also true. If Mr. Floyd had been a white Pagan’s motorcycle gang dude with the same criminal record and conduct that day, his death would have barely made local news and there would have probably been no prosecution of anyone. Most social justice warriors would have likely said, if they saw the video, that karma is a bitch and the thug had it coming.
That's why most people don't know the name Tony Timpa.
At this point I think that the "chosen" poster boys are chosen for a reason. Divisiveness.
That's the name I was looking for. There are others, usually a white dude with a delusional mental disorder or severe drug problem. They usually don't have many gun charges or sexual violence against women, which seems to be a staple amongst the unfortunate deaths the narrow hegemony in the media likes to play up.
Timpa even called the police himself.
I think the situation partakes of much the same character as a lot of interpersonal or social friction, and breakdowns of communication between humans: the flashpoint isn't necessarily about the detailed specifics of one incident. Its more like it's a discharge point for a lot of stored grievances or repressed energy. As such, it should not be surprising. This is how humans are.
In the Floyd case, it's led to an emphasis on the racial aspect that's become a focus of nationwide outrage, as a concern that's almost exclusive. I don't think that it's dismissive of racial justice concerns to observe that emphasizing the racial aspect as if it were the sole point of focused concern and protest has a way of crowding out some other questions that are equally as relevant, such as how we got to the point where it's become routine for police to rely on paramilitary methods and resort to armed force to the extent that it practically seems like a default; or how "no-knock" searches ever got to be a thing; and the role played by the War On Drugs in the adoption of those tactics; and how much the War on Drugs has gotten energy at the expense of the performance of other arguably more traditional police duties and community relationships; and how it is that police tactics so violent and hostile and promoting of paranoia- for both the policed and the police- ever got so entrenched, despite the fact that the increased reliance on them has done nothing to stem the supply of illegal drugs or to lessen the economic and social status attractions from engaging in the illicit trade in forbidden drugs (attractions that exist irrespective of race, I hasten to add, although that option is definitely more tempting to poor people.)
Beyond that, you see how the reliance on "raids" and "stops" slops over to the entire scope of The Job of policing. Because any stop or confrontation COULD turn out to be an armed gangster with a rap sheet of the sort that so many Americans start earning in their teen years as participants in the lucrative economy of drugs and drug-related crime, even if most of the people who get stopped AREN'T armed desperadoes. People don't get to be a little bit too crazy or a whole lot scared any more; they're just treated a big-time Dangerous. Not excepting kids like this https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maryland-trooper-shoots-kills-teenager-who-had-airsoft-gun-police-n1264204
This is nothing new. It's been that way since I was old enough to read a newspaper (i.e., well over a half-century.) There's typically a "correct" ideological stance on cases like these, that might as well be determined by a checklist. The robotic right wing decrees guilt or innocence by the same method. Only the criteria differ.
Accept we all had a vested interest to care about "Russiagate" no matter how real or laughable you thought it was, or "Obamacare" no matter how illogical or saintly you believed it would become.
Today we increasingly have manufactured idols that are used as justification for antisocial at the individual level and revolutionary behavior at the group level. I've never seen such de facto bigotry, but just against those evil white males that might even be Christian or straight. That's a dangerous game to play.
Cool mug though, you must be busy. Good luck.
I have an entire collection of mugs like that. It's just a place-holder. Police swag seems to be easier to find than swag from defunct money-laundering banks. I do have a neat Wachovia binder, though.
As for the rest of your post, it's a non sequitur that isn't responsive to the content of my post. You've merely used the space to flex with rhetoric.
Granted, your comment does work as implicit evidence of the phenomenon I was referring to. I'm hoping that at least some of the readers get that.
https://www.tookitaki.ai/news-views/from-wachovia-to-danske-bank-biggest-money-laundering-cases-in-recent-times/
Yep fired for defending due process. In America.
«fired for defending due process. In America.»
Many more american voters than in the past are older rentiers, who got theirs, and are terrified of losing even a little bit, and of everything.
What this growing constituency wants is absolute safety at any cost to someone else, they think that in the doubt it is safer to convict, that it is better for 10 innocents to go to jail than to leave 1 criminal free to be a risk to them, better safe than sorry. Even the right-wing Financial Times wrote almost 20 years ago, and the general demand for authoritarian if not fascist policies by many americans:
«But is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it. In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil.
Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years. [...] Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats.
Without this -- and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative -- Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004. [...]
In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush. It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy.
It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: "We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue."
This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were.»
Is due process available for someone working for a corporation who gets fired? No, it isn't. It's the special halo around police unions that he was talking about, not a legal right. Police unions need defunding, not the police.
Due process here relates to the murder charge against Chauvin, not an employment issue.
Good article, and yes the left is becoming increasingly dystopian and Machiavellian. They are just so assured in their virtue, and the lack of Western civilization's virtue, that they want to take out anyone, for any reason, the doesn't push the narrative forward.
Carlson's spat with the ADL, over their grossly hypocritical position on borders domestically vs. abroad, is just one more example in the last few days. Instead of debating him, Greenblatt is calling for his head and going after sponsors...once again.
It's like nothing was learned from the 20th century.
“and yes the left is becoming increasingly dystopian and Machiavellian”
I’d add ‘Manichean’ as well, as a self-identifying (old-school, hippie-libertarian) lefty. I remember after 9/11 how the America right was. No one wanted to hear navel-gazing, self-criticism, or wishy-washy “maybe enabling the NSA is not a great idea or maybe we should have an exit strategy in place before we go in with guns a-blazing…” SILENCE! You are either with us or you are for the terrorists.
I’m sure Taibbi has made this point 1000 times, but its always worth repeating.
Indeed
Good word there....I suppose even a hulking mental giant like myself can learn new things :)
Shelby Steele provides the best explanation of how brilliant people can take positions on specific issues (like Michael Brown) that are provably false. It is very similar to having a religious faith and in this case the progressive/woke narrative is their religion. So, since they are certain that they are “directionally accurate” and morally superior, the individual facts are irrelevant. They follow a commitment to the “poetic truth” which is consistent with their morally superior narrative, which must take precedent over the “actual truth”. My version of Shelby’s analysis is that they believe they can live their lives in a John Lennon song. Of course, the fact that humans are significantly flawed (whether by the laws of nature or god) screws up this whole John Lennon / poetic truth ideology. So, you must silence and/or destroy those purveyors of actual truth that keep pointing out the fallacy of your poetic truth in the harsh real world we live in.
Maybe we need to redefine "brilliant".
I remember reading that essay some time around the death of Trayvon Martin, and it was great.
IIRC, Steele went with the syllogism (old SAT format) "Poetic Truth:Truth::Poetic Justice:Justice"
Would love to see Shelby debate his brother....that would be interesting.
Thanks for the cold water splashed in my face. I admit I'm so eager to see Goetz go down I see myself nodding and grinning along with every allegation added to the stack. This while knowing the whole thing is wildly irresponsible, and if it were turned around (Khanna or AOC) I'd be livid. It's like M&Ms, where I can't wait to eat the next one even with five in my mouth.
And they picked the perfect target, given Goetz's particular obnoxiousness, vanity, rich kid reek, and personal weirdness (Nestor)... There's a reason you don't see many, or really any, on the Right lining up to defend him. Because what if it's true? Who wants walk back defending *that* POS? Reminds me of WMDgate which at the time smelled like bullshit but always in the back of my mind was, What if it's true? Then I'll be the guy who let America be attacked because I insisted shit make sense.
I would also like to point out the physical similarities between Gaetz and the very Leftist hypocrite and philanderer, Gavin Newsom. He also has that rich kid reek. The obnoxious politicians on either side have more in common with each other than with any of the people they supposedly serve.
Of course, the behind-the-scenes power loves vainglorious political operatives who have problems with sex, fidelity or *ahem* other predilections, since they are then blackmail-able or otherwise compromised and easily controlled.
Of course, now with deep-fakes, one doesn't even need to hire a private eye to take pics of you banging someone not your spouse. You can make it a fake threesome, kinky, heck even violence or CP. Just create that visceral reaction in the viewers, you don't even need a court of law to be found guilty and run out on a rail within hours.
Write a script. You have the next Netflix hit!
My greatest fear in doing so would be that I hit on an actual psy-op and end up on the wrong kind of "list" for the remainder of my days.
I want to knee-jerk disagree with you but I'm not sure I can lol.
I figured-that's why I decided to goad you. : )
Lol, sounds like you really hate Gaetz. My bet is the allegations are false, otherwise there wouldn't be the little extortion angle and say what you want, but Gaetz is quick on his feet, tall and decent looking. He can get laid, no Weinstein syndrome here.
And as awful as Iraq was, technically there were WMDs per NYT reporting, we just didn't find the nukes if they ever had them.
1) I do hate Gaetz (enough to misspell his name) though definitely not irrationally, and being able to get laid is irrelevant. Physical attraction is subjective but money and power is like a live instagram filter that turns you into Brad Pitt whatever your actual looks.
2) I wouldn't take a bet at this point because I won't be surprised either way. Though I called WMD bullshit correctly I fell face first for the main Russiagate narrative so my personal policy now is on the record proof or STFU.
Good policy. I am a fan of Gaetz’s but wait for evidence one way or the other.
Wasn't informed enough to call Iraq, was just learning how to ghostride the whip back then. That said, Iraq and the neocons that pushed it could have cared less about the oil or no-bid contracts. It was about security and entangling the US in the ME as cop there, and this only served very select interests.
That said, Russiagate smelled a lot like Jussie Smolliet at off the top. I found it really odd working with some informed people that are high-level financial analysts eating Russiagate up, spreading what were known falsehoods, just because they wanted it to be true. Frankly the birther thing was similar, although it didn't come straight out of the blue.
WMD was a while ago and so I can't explain my reasoning at this point. It just smelled wrong, one of those times where I had the Roddy Piper glasses and everyone else seemed out of their fucking minds. Russiagate was me succumbing to bias, taking my pre-political and personal knowledge of Trump (that he's fundamentally corrupt), stirring in a lot of weak circumstantial evidence, sprinkling in my continuing disbelief at his political success, and deciding "OF COURSE it's Russia!" Birtherism seemed as crazy as Pizzagate to me but then even though I know it's in the Constitution I guess I don't really care if a president was born here, so I was a bit meh from the get-go.
I surely wasn't cynical enough back then. Now I don't believe a word the political and media establishment says and tend to like the people the mainstream seem to sideline, like Paul and Gabbard.
Gabbard was an interesting case... My friends tend to be cultural elites (if not economic ones lol), hard Ds, and everyone had their fists pumping when Hillary made that crack about Tulsi being Russia's candidate (can't remember the exact thing, bear with me...). Meanwhile I dared say "Wait — one candidate just accused another of being a spy... Hate Tulsi all you want but don't we need, like, an elaboration, if not, you know... proof?" That went over about as well as you'd expect.
I remember Clinton's attacks on Gabbard like yesterday, same with Gabbard's attacks on Kamala, the single most memorable moment of the DNC primaries.
I've moved a lot and have a mishmash of friends from the sticks in flyover country, solid colleges, and I've spent plenty of time in Hamptons/Westchester/Fairfield....I know this type well. Ruthlessly conservative and exclusive on their home front, yet far left and "tolerant" otherwise.
Here is the brilliant and devastating response to Hillary after she accused Tulsi of "being Russian asset":
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
Forgot about this...
The primaries feel like 15 years ago and I honestly didn't remember Tulsi v Kamala so I just hit the first google that came up, on radical leftist CNN... And yeah, wow. Oceana becomes Eastasia REALLY fucking fast. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-debate/index.html
"we just didn't find the nukes if they ever had them."
A nuclear research program is not to be dismantled and hidden in someone's back yard. Consider the size of the footprint of the Iranian nuclear facility- and after 20 or so years of being "months away from being able to make an atomic bomb", they still aren't there yet.
Beyond that, it's always been exponentially easier for a terrorist organization to rely on conventional means and common materials that can be accessed quite easily within US borders to carry out truly horrific mass-casualty attacks, compared with the trouble and risk of messing with chemical or biological weapons. Bin Laden's group achieved cruise missile capability the only way they could- by hijacking airliners, with the teams willing to sacrifice their lives in kamikaze missions.
Speaking of which: in retrospect, the appeal of suicidal Islamic fanaticism has plainly been wildly exaggerated. It isn't entirely nonexistent- but if it were as popular an attitude as originally speculated, matters would have escalated far beyond what's actually proved to be the case. Willingness to commit suicide drastically widens the horizons of terrorist strategy and tactics. But it seems that it's more of a challenge to get young Muslims to buy into the Myth of Paradise than it used to be, at least in the US. I mean, we have Gallerias here, and swimming pools. Color TV in every room. Unveiled houris. All that and more.
Relatively speaking, we have a pretty nice setup here in this country. In fact, it's dismaying to observe the number of native-born whiteys who put so much energy into poor-mouthing our current conditions. Truth to tell, the majority of the complainers are comfortable, even affluent: the source of most of those complaints has much less to do with a current condition of deprivation than it does with buying into ghost stories about what's Inevitably going to happen Some Day, in the Future, now that Real Americans possess something less than 100% Control over Everything. Unless MAGA, and all that rot.
I think they are close to true, at least in the sense that Gaetz probably was the client to prostitutes who were likely half his age but still of age.
Not a big deal, but if I were investigating him for a security clearance or as a possible partner in a business deal, I would blackball him because he was involved in a long term relationship during this time and infidelity indicates a base character.
I tend to believe a base character is a prerequisite for almost any politician, though so the question becomes, is he much worse than anyone else in Congress or the guy that might replace him?
Sociopathy and Narcissism are the basis for all elected officials. Think of the kids who ran for student body president/student council at your high school. Then think of those who kept losing, and kept running the next year anyway. Those are your eventual elected officials. Hubris is their collective middle name.
I agree, but you should substitute “career politicians” for “elected officials” in your analysis, imo.
Not to excuse it, but if infidelity is a disqualifier for public service the pool is gonna be very, very small, and we'll have to "cancel" a fair majority of past politicians as well. That said, I think it's a problem if someone is willing to lie under oath about it because that means they're too easily blackmailed and compromised.
I mean, you're right. Thats why I was against Bill Clinton's impeachment, even if I was barely old enough to really understand what was going on. Sure, he lied under oath but the subject he lied about was in no ways germane to their original investigation so he shouldn't even have been asked.
Everyone already knew "Slick Willy" was a douchebag, even 15 year old me, so I didn't quite understand what the point was.
I wouldn't vote for Gaetz the same way I wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton... but like I said I tend to think most politicians are at least as bad as they're accusing Gaetz of being or worse.
Honestly, I'd much rather most of our Representatives spend their time fucking barely legal co-eds if it means they have less time to screw us all over to special interests.
I'm a little older than you, but Whitewater was as plain a bullshit fishing expedition to me as Russiagate may have been to many on the Right. HOWEVER, when Clinton was going to allow 23 year old Monica Lewinsky to go to prison for perjuring herself (but for that DNA-crusted dress) it really changed my opinion of him and the Democrat/MSM cabal forever. Weird a blowjob would be my awakening on that front but there it is. Though I can't argue with your last point lol.
He DID have the right not to incriminate himself. Amazing but true.
Sure, Bill Clinton was within his rights. But someone willing to jacket a 23-year old intern as a Stalker rather than come clean is not an honorable person. And Clinton's initial filmed appearance before the Starr chamber was just craven. Someone really had to be an apple-polishing Establishment protege to run scared of that lot. Quaking before that panel like a poorly prepared PhD candidate in an oral exam, instead of breaking script and telling them to pound sand. Disgraceful.
That wasn't just a one-time lapse in an otherwise noble character, either, as the accounting found in Roger Morris' book Partners In Power makes clear.
That's the whole point. He had many choices. He decided to litigate "is" instead of anything else. He should have remembered the stain he made on the blue dress.
it's easy to lose track of details like those. especially when you've been conditioned be long experience to regard it as a side benefit of a leadership position in government service. That's setting the ethical concerns aside, which had been the case for some time.
One problem with indulging in that behavior in high office is that the situation is easily worked. People can "have something" on you. But to be candid, the real scandal is Mena. Not a personal scandal; willing participation in a covert national security operation with unsavory aspects.
Correct, and so he should have pleaded the 5th. Lying under oath in the interest of not incriminating yourself is still perjury.
To me the point was always *where* Clinton was engaging with an intern 30 years his junior. I voted for the man twice and supported his impeachment.
If the alleged minor that wasn’t a minor by her own admission was a Chinese spy the Democrats would offer Gaetz a position on the House Intelligence Committee next to Eric Swallowell.
Bill Clinton.
Yup, perfect example. Once he was willing to put a 23 year old intern in prison to save his (political) ass, he should have been politically exiled.
Not to mention all the rapes and 20+ visits to Lolita Island where God knows what went on. Meanwhile, strolling unarmed through the Capitol building is considered “armed insurrection” and subject to no bail imprisonment. Imagine being the germaphobe Trump is and having to work at the Resolute Desk with Bill’s DNA all over it.
Eric Swallowell had an ongoing sexual relationship with a Chicom spy honeypot and not only hasn’t been sanctioned or removed from office, but retains his seat in the House Intelligence Committee. This should tell you all you need to know about this topic. Start learning Mandarin.
He had WMD and used WMD in the past so he either moved/hid them(looking at you Assad) or destroyed them(out of the goodness of his heart). If I had illegal weapons in my house and the police spent weeks and months warning me they were coming for those weapons and my neighbor was willing to help....
Sensible people who were being honest with themselves would know that Saddam Hussein got rid of his weapons because those warehouses and bases were inspected, and inspected, and inspected again. The aircraft of the Iraqi Air Force and over 90% of the armor was destroyed or dismantled. US warplanes flew well over ten thousand sorties over Iraq, and repeatedly bombed and strafed Iraqi installations in the Clinton years. The regime was irrefutably defanged.
It's conceivable as an abstract hypothesis that Saddam found a way to remove the last vestige of his chemical munitions supplies to Syria. But the evidence I've read about to support that theory is so threadbare that it's ridiculous. I think the adherents to that theory are basing their case on the inability of anyone to prove a negative.
In any case, the real whopper there is the insinuation that there's some magical quality about Sarin gas that would it work so much more effectively at producing a mass casualty terror incident than conventional weapons and techniques that it would be worth it for a terrorist network within US borders to undertake the the massive risks and hazards of smuggling it, storing it, preparing it, and using it. Only a citizenry nursed on blockbuster Hollywood thriller productions could fall for that. Which is what happened. Right down to a consensus of American news media luminaries, and a prevailing majority of our elected officials and political leaders.
Bottom line, they sold the Iraq invasion as Saddam being an immediate threat to American security.
True. He wasn’t. I was pretty angry after 911(like many Americans). My inclination was to take out two terrorist supporting regime’s rapidly and leave rapidly then make it (unofficial) policy that if you finance or accommodate terrorists we will destroy you
Yes, but invading the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be bad for business. Anyway, [redacted]
I'm just [redacted]
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/triple-cross-peter-lance/1111738687
There's something mighty funny going on there. I don't pretend to know the full who what when where or why of it. But whatever it is, it's more than a couple of stray data points matched up with a hundred leading questions. I've read all too many books that work that way. But Triple Cross is not one of them.
Seriously? You think Matt Gaetz never paid for sex? Get real, dude. That guy has “I pay for sex” written all over him.
I was referring to the trafficking/minor allegations, and given Gaetz’ disposition wouldn’t surprise me if someone tried to entrap him.
That said, I’m unsure what look you are referring to. I know plenty of girls that are downright money takers but not hookers. I’ve heard some stories of dudes meeting a girl and being half way thru the act then getting threaten. I know prostitution is frequent in the military.
All that said, Gaetz’s real problem is he speaks his mind and doesn’t seem to have handlers, like most politicians.
Kudos for your post. TK comments need more like you: able to admit your biases, and separate them from your ability to reason. (not being snarky)
This is exactly what Matt was talking about in Hate, Inc. This “rooting for our side/against the other side” bullshit. It’s why Matt Gaetz got elected in the first place: his constituents would rather have that piece of shit represent them than elect a Democrat. Do you really think a fucking moron like Matt Gaetz would’ve ever been elected even as recently as twenty years ago? I mean, it’s possible, I guess, plenty of morons have been elected to the House of Representatives. But there was a time when even the faintest whiff of a scandal like the one Gaetz is involved in would’ve called for an immediate resignation. Now? The people who vote for him don’t give a shit, as long as he’s a Republican. It’s the same reason you’re willing to ignore the irresponsible reporting on him (even though you know it’s “wrong”). The real issue is that the irresponsible reporting will allow him (and every other politician) to conflate the reporting of their immoral and possibly illegal behavior with the behavior itself. People will get so wrapped up in “the media” that they’ll forget that the person they voted for is a slimy piece of shit. I’m pretty sure that’s intentional.
Keeping Trump sycophants like Gaetz around for the next election cycle would seem to be useful to the totalitarian left. Even if he wins his district they can use him to gin up a lot of hate, which is the most important thing.
It would make sense though the "totalitarian left" isn't acting that way.
Welcome aboard!
Despite so many cultural shifts and upheavals we're still a deeply fucked up country when it comes to sex in general, and that's reflected by MSM handling of sex scandals of all kinds.
Due Process Is Good, He Said Controversially ... So They Fired Him:
"Brooklyn Center City Manager Curt Boganey was fired, Monday, after suggesting that the police officer involved in the shooting death of Daunte Wright should be afforded due process before being fired from her job, contradicting Brooklyn Center Mayor Mike Elliott, and, it seems, after the city council expressed fear that the manager’s “due process” comments would spark further violence."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/brooklyn-center-city-manager-fired-after-calling-for-due-process-in-duane-wright-shooting
If I may caveat my own comment, on second read it is a bit different from Matt's point. Due process of law before declaring people guilty of a crime is a bedrock of our Constitution and our freedom. The City Manager was talking about another type of due process which is a bedrock of our insufferable bureaucratic state: the right to due process of law before you can be fired from your job. Only "public servants" have this protection, which basically means they can only be fired if they commit a severe offense and even then they are often successful appealing based on technicalities. That should rub people the wrong way, and should be changed. At the same time it's still ridiculous that the City Manager was fired for simply pointing out that that is the current state of the law (according to the government employees in the judicial branch) and he was required to follow their decisions, at least until he got fired.
And this aids the case of justice exactly how?
«should be afforded due process before being fired from her job»
That is anti-american COMMUNISM, in the USA employment is or should be at will. :-)
People need to read Glenn's article and respond to it, not to what they would like to think it means in order to excuse their own bigotry. He is spot on. As are you to defend him. He is not defending Gaetz, he is defending due process and the profession of journalism.
I've been banned from a forum for defending both regarding Russiagate and Trump, whom I find personally odious. I rejected Trump in the 70s when he came to public attention because he made his fortune getting politicians to tilt the playing field in his favor, and because he was simply not a good human being in my estimation. I was reviled by my fellow Democrats then because "he's one of us." The only thing that has changed about him is his party affiliation, which justifies denying him due process.
ps - to remain a liberal I left the Democratic Party and now identify as a lower-case L libertarian.
«He is not defending Gaetz, he is defending due process and the profession of journalism. I've been banned from a forum for defending both regarding Russiagate and Trump, whom I find personally odious.»
The keyword is "objectively": the merits of the case don't matter, if you are "objectively" helping an enemy, as George Orwell wrote in 1945:
“One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ʻbourgeois libertyʼ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ʻobjectivelyʼ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.”
«I rejected Trump in the 70s when he came to public attention because he made his fortune getting politicians to tilt the playing field in his favor»
He has been one of the largest political donors for decades, at the level of Adelson or the Koch brothers. That is the American Way.
«and because he was simply not a good human being in my estimation.»
His character seems quite despicable on a personal level, but that is pretty common among his class. He just does it more openly, less hypocritically than most of the others.
«I was reviled by my fellow Democrats then because "he's one of us."»
Most likely Trump has bribed pretty much every NY/NYC/NJ politician or official of note, almost all of them democrats; that's what real estate developers do. If one wanted to convict him I guess that's where one should dig, but the Democratic party cannot do that, because of this beneficiaries belong to the party, so they came up with the incredible fantasy that a real estate developer has been bribed by some politicians, "man bites dog" type of story.
Taibbi and Greenwald are the reasons I started publishing at all, and on Substack particularly. I wrote about Glenn and his coverage of the Taylor Lorenz matter here https://riclexel.substack.com/p/beyond-1984
The usual counter-arguments against either of these guys, or a Michel Tracey, is nothing more than ad hominem attacks. Word control is now creeping quickly into thought control. This is not a slippery slope, this is a black-double-diamond at Aspen. From the questioning of the word "is" 30 years ago, to the expanded definition of bipartisan and infrastructure, we have now arrived at beyond 1984. We are in for s hit-storm.
Matt really said most of what there is to say about this topic. But, one idea is still sticking in my craw a bit. I am still fleshing it out a bit, here is what I came up with:
Why is there this need for "rushed content" to 'foam the runways' for next story? Why can't we as the viewing or reading public just wait until real facts emerge? Being first to a speculative fact right or wrong is like being the smartest Kardashian - who the fuck cares?
Put another way, why is the media prematurely ejaculating all over their coverage? Whether it is the NYT trying to mask and merge story speculation or it is the "duh dun da" alert banners running across television screens - how many of these "news" stories have a beginning, a middle, or an end? It is really Sisyphusian.
Even more, when we go back and think about all the mistakes that are made in all our areas of society when we invite speculation in media without proper attention to facts
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction (taking the word of the intelligence state; Judith Miller)
2. Russiagate Hysteria (derangement, MsNBC coverage, Impeachment)
3. CoVid details for Public (do/don't wear masks, where did it originate, schools/restaurants)
4. Fake coup attempt in Venezuela (just a bunch a crazy kids)
5. Elections in Bolivia, Brazil and Honduras over the last decade (partial facts)
6. Opioid crisis (early on, little mention of Purdue Pharma; blamed upon individuals)
7. Iowa caucuses (Buttigeig declares victory, DNC app failure)
8. Kim Jong-Un was on his deathbed (remember that one)
9. Anthrax attacks (Kristoff NYT accuses Steven Hatfill)
10. Duke University Lacrosse Rape Case (2007)
11. Entire prosecution of Julian Assange (rework facts backwards to prosecute)
12. James Clapper lying to Congress about Surveillance state (2013)
*** just a few places where the press was either happy to speculate or to ignore facts.
All of these events have one thing in common. If they had been properly researched, reported on accurately and were not rushed in the pursuit of real information, maybe we all might have reached different conclusions.
What does this mean above? We need to delay information gratification long enough to allow real journalists (not scribes) to do their jobs, and avoid the 24 hour cycle, pseudo news orgy to pass speculation off as a trajectory of potential truth and then eventually truth later. As we see in life, all one needs to do is repeat something for long enough in the public mind and it miraculous turns out to be "true". The media need a dick ring. Hold it. Hold it. Think of dead rodents (oh sorry Katie - the necrophiles won't like that reference).
«Why is there this need for "rushed content" to 'foam the runways' for next story? Why can't we as the viewing or reading public just wait until real facts emerge?»
This is based on a "cognitive bias" that is taught to PR people etc.: the public believes hearsay smears if they appear to be repeated by several sources. So propaganda campaigns use that extensively.
In older times most people lived in villages, small communities rife with gossip, and if just Bob said "I saw Jane and Jack kissing" other villagers might dismiss it as made up by Bob, but if Becky, Liz, John, Paul also said it they would start to believe. It used to be called "vox populi vox dei", or also "no smoke without fire".
"Why is there this need for "rushed content" to 'foam the runways' for next story?"
Because we now have the technology to provide instantaneous reporting to an on-air staff of "24 hour news" television. Infotainment values have been merged into the mission of Manufacturing Consent. A mission that no longer maintains a common basis of consensus on most issues- the MC Spin typically varies with the partisan leaning of the particular channel, and nobody even bothers to deny this. (I think PBS does a better, more ethical job than any of the commercial outlets. But their emphasis is nonetheless "blue-leaning", shall we say. It really would be interesting to have someone like Thomas Sowell show up to provide his views at least occasionally, on a network other than Fox. Swap out a David Gergen appearance to make room for Sowell, or something like that.)
I'll admit to anticipating the news media reaction to Biden's decision to withdraw US troops from the Graveyard of Empires with some enjoyment. The Washington Post is already weighing in with cheesy concern trolling over Biden's decision (the op-ed by David Ignatius) along with remonstrating with firmly voiced opposition as the official editorial stance (10:1 written by the odious Fred Hiatt.)
How are Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and Breitbart going to report it, is what I wonder. And how many of the Trumpists are going to twist themselves into knots, trying to do a 180?
I think you’re spending too much time on Twitter, Matt. Seriously. And I say that as a person who spent too much time on Twitter and finally said,”Fuck this. Twitter’s stupid.” I haven’t looked at Twitter in a couple weeks now and I feel so much better. I never even had an account, but I’d still check it out every day, multiple times a day. Twitter’s a cesspool, filled with morons who don’t care about anything other than reacting to something as quickly as possible, in order to garner the most “likes.” And one of the main reasons I ignore Twitter is because of what you’re referencing here, this,”Let’s put them all in jail!” reaction from, ostensibly, “liberals” who’s go-to reaction to anything they don’t like is,”They should go to prison for life!!” even though the things they’re tweeting in response to aren’t illegal. There’s something inherently wrong with people saying,”Lock them up!” in response to things that aren’t crimes. Hate to break it to you “liberals” tweeting about people you don’t like needing to go to prison, but if you’re first reaction is,”I don’t like them; let’s put them in jail!” you’re basically a trump supporter. Or you sound like them, anyway.
It isn’t even really that Twitter’s stupid, per se, so much as that there are just SO MANY fucking stupid people with outsized platforms there. And too many journalists are responding to fucking tweets as if they’re real life. I can assure you that the average person, the people that journalists claim to care so much about and insist they’re interested in, do not give a fuck about tweets. They don’t. I know I don’t.
The format of Twitter provides intractable obstacles to having an intelligent conversation. Which leaves the other kind, which the same format facilitates all too easily.
Twitter is sort of the inverse of television*: instead of a one-way transmission formatted into snippets with minimal analytical depth or provision for considering objective parameters and metrics, Twitter is an interactive medium that's delimited to be inherently shallow, which empowers "quotability", snappy comebacks, quips, and glib oversimplification at the expense of...everything else in communication. While allowing anyone with an account to chime in. So instead of a reasoned debate, what results is more like a battle royal. With 20 second rounds, and rabbit punching and nut-kicking allowed.
[*C-Span is the singular exception.]
I'm (barely) old enough to remember conservative outrage over the Miranda ruling, but "progressive" distaste for due process is not exactly new. Way back in 2006 the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 prohibited the confiscation of citizens' personal property without due process in the wake of a natural disaster. Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, among others, voted against it.
Later the "progressive" media spent most of Trump's time in office ranting about Betsy DeVos' attempts to reintroduce due process to the investigation of on-campus sex crimes (and are now cheering Biden's efforts to reverse DeVos' policies).
And "progressive" enthusiasm for "red flag" laws also reflects a new skepticism over due process.
Great title!
There is no justice in the justice system if there is no due process people. Anyone with $$ can sue for made up claims. The proof is in the due process.
Sorry, no. Glenn is not worried about due process. His pattern has been showing for a while, and I am not the only one who has noticed. He is appeasing and seeking to validate people on the right who believe Gaetz is a populist, who still believe in the Trump con. Glenn is trying to manipulate the conversation so he can get air time in places like the Tucker Carlson shit show. It is not only in this subject, it is everywhere. Other podcasters on the real left, progressives who don't really care about the democrats and liberal crowd have noticed this pattern as well.
H
I don't really believe in patterns indicating a hidden meaning or agenda. I instead base my opinions on the actual things people say and do. I think that's a much healthier and honest way to go about things, but you do you.
I only know of one other person who ever signed off as "H".
Shit! I am not depressed! I would in no way ever kill myself! I am not a klutz or accident prone, either!
You should watch what you say. Arkancide is a serious danger.
It was a typo and I don't know how to edit
That's OK. I was thinking Kissinger. He signed with a big K.
Thought you meant Hitler and was going to have to apply Godwin's Law.
the typo was Abby, my cat's fault, walking on the keyboard.
Of course you have a cat.
Hahahaha
So you don't understand what a pattern is
I see the pattern. Any time Donald Trump and/or the Republican Party is mentioned, formerly sane Democrats lose their shit and all sense of reason. This has been going on for 6 years straight now. It's a very big pattern.
That is one of the things Trump has done without trying. He causes leftists, and democrats to expose their butts just by his very presence. Most everyone of them has tossed out every precept of fairness and due process. Many, many of them openly hoped for his outright murder without even a modicum of embarrassment. They have become so demented over Trump that reason and sanity are abandoned. Foaming at the mouth is not a policy argument. Passion is not a substitute for facts and data. The only ones taking them seriously are other deranged Trump hating loons. These people make Obama haters look like reasoned intellectuals. It is impossible for them to self reflect on just what is driving them to the edges of sanity.
Trump won because they are all acting like trump
Yes and I recall so much level-headed policy discussion, facts and data from both Trump and the red hats at his rallies. The epitome of a rational leader with advisors and followers who’d never use extreme rhetoric to further their agenda.
The only agenda those rallies had was to offer people who were absolutely voting for the man a good show. It was unreasonable for corporate media to take any of it seriously.
Oh please. The media shouldn't take seriously what a presidential candidate says at a political rally? Even when he's directly relaying his views on serious policy like immigration, criminal justice, foreign intervention, trade, etc?
Yeah, I get that. But still, those shows were not political, nor were they meant to be. They were literally "shows" and often funny as hell.
Humor is subjective but I can't see how a political candidate talking about political issues isn't political.
I've never seen any politician spew facts and data at a political rally. They are "spin and obscure" events. Because someone can string a bunch of meaningless phrases together with a heavy tone while clarifying absolutely nothing does not mean clarifying nothing while trying to entertain a crowd is a "worse" type of rally.
That he was going to work on resolving a broken immigration system is political. The hyperbole and downright attacks he used to describe how was show.
Both sides are whacko. People who dont see that are whackos themselves
Not sure what happened around 2012-14, but that does seem to be an accurate pivot point. I thought the absurdity of Trump's election would be a wake up call, but it got so much worse and has accelerated into 2021.
I remember some of my friends back in 2012-14 that may have been in banking, went to Duke and the like, had wealthy parents posting on Facebook about how racist the country was, how oppressed they were. It was odd.
Sadly the elites on both sides misunderstood the meaning of Trumps election.
I heard Ari Fleisher talk about it shortly after 2016 at a private event, and he felt it was all economics. Economics were surely important, but not a single word about culture, free speech, silly neoglobalist wars, the Bill of Rights, or patriotism.
The Trump supporters I know cared much more about these topics.
Lol, no one is as oppressed as the white upper class “progressives” in the banking sector w/ their weekend houses in the hamptons! We are truly living in clown world.
Tom Macdonald reference?
Yeah, and Greenwald's "pattern has been showing for awhile . . ." We better continue to monitor his activities.
It's human nature, it's not exclusive to any side or party. We want our friends to prosper and our enemies to fail. How long has the Right been waiting for the silver bullet that'll take down Hillary Clinton once and for all...?
Actually... the lack of appreciation for enlightenment principles which formed our Constitution and its original Amendments tends to be stronger on the "left" side of the aisle these days.
Republicans can be assholes about lots of things - especially when it comes to money and police liability.
But there is no doubt that only one side of the aisle truly wants to erase the past 250 years of American history - whether it be free speech, freedom of assembly, gun ownership, due process, rule of (Constitutional) law... basically all the big ones. And it ain't the Republicans.
Well within my lifetime it was the Right wielding censorship for the sake of Christian "morality" and Cold War anti-Communism. Right now, regarding the Establishment part of the 1A, who's behind allowing religious types to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply to them? Nor did I see any major nor most minor players on the Right standing up when the 4th was smashed to bits in fighting the Wars on Terror and Drugs.
If there's anything that one should glean from TK it's that destroying civil liberties is equal opportunity. Coming here to wave your Red flag is kinda beside the point.
You mistake me for someone who belongs to a political party. I don't care about either team R or team D. They should both be taxed into bankruptcy, as far as I am concerned.
Ed Meese was a monster, as was John Ashcroft. That doesn't mean that the current morons in charge are any better.
There really are people in government who believe that "due process" for campus sexual assault is "unfair" to the accuser. There are members of the "liberal" press who believe that accusations are the same as convictions in a court of law.
I wonder if the people who are flaying Gaetz today would be willing to say the same about Emmet Till - or even OJ Simpson (on camera).
100% (well, 90% at least) which is why I objected to your first comment. I'm not saying "both sides are the same" but you'd need a really really long scorecard to try and figure out who's "worse" on Civil Liberties, to the point where it's irrelevant at this point to put a R or D next to the abusers, or a Left or Right designation.
Whenever someone says "This is primarily the problem of party X and I say that as someone who hates both parties,"
they are playing you for a chump.
Be assured that both sides are humans and ALL that that implies. Whenever humans act in opposition to on an other in politics or any other field you can rest assured that excesses and "dirty politics" are sure to be employed. NO side has a corner on virtue or reasonability. To believe so would indicate that one believes that one side is not human beings but angels of God. This has been so since the dawn of time and is revealed over and over in the Bible and its many stories and lessons. Every civilization has documented the backstabbing and hypocrisy of its power wielding political class. It is just how ambition and power reveal themselves in the human character.
William F. Buckley Jr. was quite prominent on the right for denouncing what the War on Drugs had done to our Constitutional liberty before his death. I have yet to see his equal on the left make such a statement.
I was hugely amused to watch the left dance as Obama talked about descheduling marijuana - if only Congress would do so; ignoring of course that it is entirely within the realm of the Atty General (being charge of DoJ and DEA) to make a scheduling change under the Controlled Substances Act. Oh how the happy fools danced, and how disappointed they were at being left in the lurch.
"Nor did I see any major nor most minor players on the Right standing up when the 4th was smashed to bits in fighting the Wars on Terror and Drugs."
I didn't see *anybody* within the systemic hierarchy standing up for the 4th.
I think the U.S. "right" has a lot of shit to answer for, but they aren't uniquely guilty.
Taibbi's whole point was that due process is way too easily cast aside when it doesn't fit a particular agenda. That's why I reject people who say "the left/right did x" in this context.
I see an additional point he's making, which is directed to the left. Defense of due process is a core value traditionally (at least in his life time) championed by the left. He sees it as a left value, not a right value. The right's "tough on crime" value has many times been at odds with due process. Matt is disappointed that the opportunistic casting aside of due process, when done by the left, directly contradicts a left value, but is SSDD when done by the right.
I have a different theory:
The Constitution protects the minority from the illegal overreach of the majority. The majority need no protection because, well, they are the majority.
Both parties love The Constitution when they are out of power and hate it when they are in power.
Who is currently out of power? That is the group that for the time being loves The Constitution the most.
Yes, but not right now. The viewpoint of the current left is that the Constitution is invalidated by its origins as a "White Supremacist" document. That has never been the position of most "right wing" people. Surely the HUAC and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and the War on Drugs included tremendous violations of the Bill of Rights - but it was never floated that the entire document was invalid.
Sure, and the Right stands up for the Constitution whenever some guy in a clown suit with a gun arrests another citizen because the Right is famous for questioning authority.
Hatred of the Constitution when it limits power and loving the Constitution when it provides protection is as bipartisan as endless war, the surveillance state, mass incarceration and laws that don't apply to those who write and enforce them.
The Constitution doesn't protect minority or majority. It establishes a system of checks and balances, to protect against government overreach by any one branch. More importantly, it prevents government from encroaching on rights inherent in the citizens it "governs." This is the portion Glenn has been addressing. Further, he addresses the trampling of one person's rights by those using their own rights as a cudgel (free press). Much like claiming a right to protest your government entitles you to damage government property, other people's property or loot whomever you please. The reason is irrelevant, the principle is far more important.
#The Constitution doesn't protect minority or majority. It establishes a system of checks and balances, to protect against government overreach by any one branch."
I believe you are making a distinction where there is no difference.
Taken to include the Bill of Rights, The Constitution does both protect the minority and create a pluralistic system of governance.
that said, even the checks and balances you refer to in The Constitution serve the minority. Otherwise, those in power would never stand for election once they came to power. You can't take the document as a whole without including both. I referred to protections for the minority here because that was the context.
In the context of Glenn's article, Gaetz is the minority (accused) facing the majority (accusers) and it's important that his rights to a fair trial be followed (look at the Bill of Rights in The Constitution, it covers this).
I believe that is the principle Mr. Greenwald is defending. We seem to agree on that last point. The disagreement appears to be whether The Constitution covers this (it does).
You really think we have majority rule? Did the public schools teach you that? How then did 1% obtain 38% of the wealth?
Then why are the politicians preaching ‘rob from the rich and give to the poor?’ Because there are way more poor people than rich and in elections most votes wins. That is the majority not the majority of money.
Do you take a politicians word at face value?
It is a simple mathematical equation. Do you doubt the nose on your face?
bingo
Progressives have disdained the Constitution since Wilson. It's been a long war and they've won far more than they've lost. It is important to remember that Progressives are not the dominant faction of Democrats though - so the conflict is almost as much intra-party as it is inter-.
You’re off your rocker.
The left openly and explicitly supports the “decolonization” of thought and has specifically named the Enlightenment a white supremacist system which needs to be dismantled.
I'm definitely of the Left in my voting history, political and charitable donations, and my takes on most policy issues and yet I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment as well. Oops, there goes your generalization.
Oops there goes another balloon of narcissistic self-importance carefully maneuvering away from any pinprick of awareness.
Aww you deleted, "Do you put on lipstick when you kiss your hands, just so you can see the smooches?" Just as batshit as everything else you're saying but at least it's funny.
It posted twice. Higher than you can count. Wasn’t worth the time of a normal person to retype. But you did.
Totally irrelevant to the discussion but at least you used up a week's worth of pages on your Word of the Day desk calendar.
Somewhat selective memory on your part. Both parties, neither of which I vote for, have been busily creating an imperial presidency since the end of WWII, secure in their belief that whichever party was in power, one of their inner circle would always have the reigns of power, regardless, and then along comes the the orange nincompoop, and upsets the applecart.
Of all the rights in our Constitution, none has been so decimated as the 4th, and that attack reached its height under George W. Bush, though it's true his successors did little to change that course. It's instructive that of all the rights you listed, this one escaped your attention.
Illegal search and seizure is a big one, for sure, but - to your point - all politicians tend to be authoritarian, and therefore they all believe that nothing they do is illegal. I will say that the whole Carter Page/Russiagate started with a team D lie on a FISA warrant.
Can you tell me more about your last paragraph?
I think Hillary Clinton took down Hillary Clinton once and for all. A classical case of hubris, little so perfectly embodied since the good ol' days of the Greeks.
When Tulsi Gabbard called her the Queen of Warmongers she stuck in the fork and said "done".
Someone explain to me how Hilary Clinton had any greater hubris or was any less a liberal than Obama. I'm asking this seriously. She was basically identical to Obama ( who I voted for twice) on domestic policy issues and foreign policy. Other than having endured 20 years of attacks and a philandering husband ( who I also voted for), she and Obama should have been equally supported by liberals. Instead Obama seemed to get a free pass from criticism while Hilary was pummeled about everything from her personality ( I had a liberal woman tell me with a straight face that she wasn't 'warm' and should behave like "a big sister' and not so assertively) to her centrist, hawkish positions, identical to Obama's, by Bernie and everyone else. The same people who criticized Hilary's personality loved Bernie's brash, ranting behavior. Presumably, Obama got a pass as the first black president, but even after that, when no woman had ever been elected president, it was open season, no holds barred when it came to Hilary. Someone explain this to me, please.
Hillary was tone deaf and not charismatic, and Obama was both of these things. America was done with Obama's policies after Obama. They didn't want more, and Hillary was a weak candidate. The house, senate, many state legislatures and a good number Governor's mansions were all lost to the GOP during Obama's tenure. It's not like dissatisfaction with the democratic party came out of the blue in 2016. There was a study done where the roles of Trump and Hillary were reversed in the debates, and the male Hillary came across as "punchable". Simply put, the American public rejected more of the same. To attribute the 2016 election to sexism or racism or whatever-ism is to be just as tone deaf as Hillary. It was the economic impacts of globalism on the US, endless bank bailouts, a federal reserve policy that favors the wealthy, and the abandonment of the working class in favor of identity politics that cost Hillary the election.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
Oh and I forgot-- the support for endless foreign intervention also known as the forever wars cost Hillary some votes too. To this day one of the accomplishments Trump supporters can rightly boast about is that we didn't start any new wars from 2016-2020.
I agree about her lack of charisma and with many of the other posters' comments here and I think identity politics has way over-simplified in subscribing everything to clear-cut racism or sexism when there is usually a combination of factors at play, but I don't think there's any doubt that there was an element of sexism (a double standard) in the way Hillary was criticized, and a good part of that came from other women. (Just as minorities internalize negative stereotypes, so do women.) I don't put much stock in the theater exercise you cited, but I agree that some of Obama's actions, most importantly, his massive bail out of the banks while failing to hold one single major player accountable was a huge factor. Matt Tiabbi was one of the only reporters to actually point this out at the time rather than quietly giving Obama a pass. Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did. If most liberal and conservative political non-profit foundations were actually scrutinized like the Clintons' was, I'd bet you'd find all the same kinds of cozy conduct.
Looking back I can't readily think of any double standards. If there was anything overt she surely would have made political hay with it. Do you have any concrete examples of this double standard you can share?
>> Obama, a few years later, would accept huge speaking fees from Wallstreet groups. That is as 'sleazy' as anything the Clinton Foundation ever did.
Hillary was raking in those fees long before she ran for potus, and was quite unapologetic about it when asked. "Because that's what they offered" was her explanation. I'm willing to bet that cost her more votes than a double standard.
You are talking about a woman from Chicago via Arkansas who claimed to be a Yankees fan her entire life - thinking that people wouldn't notice the bullshit.
This is a fair question and I will endeavor to answer it, although I don't think I will reach the level of explanation.
The easy answer is that America prefers a black man as President over a white woman. I think your analysis that their policy positions differed -- if at all -- insubstantially is accurate.
Barack was just a better bullshitter, is all. In a way, I feel for Hillary; she always did what she was supposed to do to get ahead in the system. But you can't buy charisma with gold stars.
That could be part, or all of the reason. Another theory is at a time when America wanted something different, Hillary Clinton brought a 40 year political history and Obama brought a year.
People can't tell me that they did not view Trump differently after 4 years than they did when he had a clean political slate. Those type of things allow people to project their wishes onto a candidate.
On a personal note I know someone who knew both Bill and Hillary in law school. He felt that in person they were just the opposite. Hillary came across as warm and friendly while Bill came off as arrogant and aloof.
We will never know, but that would not surprise me.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Obama protested it (he wasn't in the Senate yet). Clinton's longer history also hurt her, while Obama was fresh. The Clinton Foundation always seemed sleazy, and riding into the Senate on Bill's coattails was not a great look. I do think Obama's skin color helped him win the nomination.
LOL indeed, she and Trump were better-matched in the hubris department than most voters would acknowledge.
I believe Trump's weird success was at least partially attributable to wearing his hubris on his sleeve, as opposed to HRC's faux-humble "dedicated public servant" jive.
It was "Hello, I'm a megalomanic and proud of it!" vs. "I'm not a megalomaniac at all! [even though I obviously am]."
100%. I've distrusted and often despised Trump since the 80s and have tested positive for TDA more than a few times over the past 5-10 years (whenever he jumped on the birther thing). Yet I admit I sometimes found his hubris amusing or even charming when it was about hyping real estate and other self-titled ventures, rather than politics.
Taibbi talks about how Trump is a complete product of the WWE-which he has dabbled with in the past. He is the ultimate heel-and the one thing a great wrestling heel has to have is insufferable hubris.
Enemies? Americans. Those enemies?
Political enemies, you know what I mean. No need for shirt rending.
I do know what you mean. If you can so casually use that term, then opponents ARE your enemy. That is exactly why there is so much polarization in politics. People don’t think about the hurt their words cause. It’s all rah, rah my team, everyone else is the enemy.
"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
Woody Allen
Words can’t hurt you unless you allow them to.
I learned that in Kindergarten. Why don't they teach that poem anymore?
Also - why do so many progressives not believe fellow progressive Eleanor Roosevelt's observation that "Nobody can make your feel inferior without your consent."
Great question to ask them. Perhaps because half of them are psychologically ill?
http://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition
“a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.”
I’m actively opposed and hostile to certain political ideologies and policies. So are you, and so is anyone who’s politically engaged. If you’re offended by such a common, obvious term then reading a blog like this must be pure torture for you.
This isn't directed at you, I wouldn't know one way or the other, but your comment brought it to mind. I think the biggest shift post-9/11 has been "actively opposed and hostile to certain political ideologies and policies" becoming, "rabid opposition and hostility toward anyone who supports political ideologies and policies with which I disagree." Hate for people seemingly far more rewarding than hatred of ideas.
That depends on knowing who our enemies actually are.
Exactly. Far left and Far right should be exiled so that we can have a reasonable country again. Both sides are whacko's.
Because “exiling” people you disagree with isn’t a whacko opinion lol.
Exiling whackos to the funny farm is what i would do
When i am announced as worldwide leader
I get the sentiment, but, as always, who gets to define "far left and far right" and who gets to identify those for exile based on the definition?
Me.
Court packing legislation was introduced today.......it’s getting real from the State....
"It's the deep breath before the plunge." We should not be surprised by anything, anymore. Sadly.
DC statehood is making its way too.
So true. Amazing to watch.
True
Russian bot
I see a pattern of people not addressing actual arguments but making vague assertions about things with no supporting evidence.
Thank you! Ppl are increasingly incapable of abstracting a principle from specific facts of the case at hand. They see the question of “should a person be tried in the press in advance of any concrete evidence?” and “Shouldn’t we give Gaetz the benefit of the doubt until we have some solid evidence? ” as two separate and wholly unrelated questions. They don’t understand that a right selectively applied is no longer a right. They don’t understand the benefit of excluding prejudicial information from one’s analysis. They think blind justice is a glitch in the system.
So it was you, Cathy Newman!!
Called someone that earlier today!
So you're saying you hate lobsters??
CN: So you're saying you wouldn't eat blue ham on a train or a plane or in Portugal? JP: ???
Don't know who or what that is
The "So what you're saying is..." lady.
Ok?
Watch the full Cathy Newman / Jordan Peterson interview. He makes a statement, she twists it. Repeat.
It was a joke. Sort of. Very funny.
Humans are REALLY good at finding patterns.
Unfortunately, a lot of them are wrong. Like this one!
Of course we are good at finding patterns-we fall into them so easily as a matter of course-in all cultures.
I understand "projection" and "strawmanning" pretty well, though. If you glibly state what other people are, or believe, or support, based on unexamined assumptions and weak association, YOU are the one I'm not believing.
Not all Dems do it, but it's a pattern...
Just wanna alert everyone that Adriana is, in fact, being paid by intelligence agencies to undermine Substack. I've been watching her for awhile and the pattern is crystal clear.
How do I know this? I can just tell.
Agreed. I sniff that pattern too.
"Persons closely involved with the issue have confirmed..."
Patterns.... patterns...everywhere patterns....
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Yes, a very clear and distinct pattern of sabotage. I feel it in my gut. Oh, and I also have testimony from an anonymous source over at CNN.
I guess I have to change my name now, comment as someone else? You got me.
How about the handle NSA TROLL? Already taken?
Amazing that you and "podcasters on the real left" can read his mind a decipher his intent.
The "real left"was just to differentiate from libs, but ok, you didn't get it. Patterns is observable by anyone, you just have to stop reacting emotionally and exercise critical thinking. And I don't know his intent, just as he doesn't know the intent of any media personality. He also observes the patterns of those talking heads.
Sort of like how your pattern is to spray vague, odious, and paranoid comments like a skunk in heat? Take your Seroquel, Adriana, the voices in your head aren't real.
And I am the odious one?
Yes, and a jealous one at that. Pissing on people to make yourself look good doesn’t work any more.
Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know who and what I am: jealous odious vague paranoid, skunk in heat who needs medication. Is my life even worthy?
Only God can judge the value of your life. However I am more than capable of judging the value of your opinions, and as stated, found them to be vague, odious, and paranoid.
I would also add that they lack a basis in reality, because as you've so admitted, "[you] don't need evidence for [you] opinions." That's called magical thinking, which is a feature of schizotypal disorder. Take your meds.
No.
Well, actually no, no it isn’t.
Well, you said it.
Yes. If we wanted 'vague, odious and paranoid comments,' we would probably be reading CNN, The Washington Post, or perhaps The New York Times. Instead, we want logical arguments with compelling evidence, and you have offered neither of those to back up your absurd, emotion-based assertions.
Did I stutter?
Alex Jones sees patterns everywhere too... I’m thinking the “left” has some tin foil hat wearers right along with right wingers. Horseshoe theory strikes again!
Indeed... a sad state of affairs.
Yes, humans have been observing patterns for far longer than we've exercised critical thinking - thousands upon thousands of years. It is so ingrained into our brains that if we believe we've seen a pattern, there is almost nothing that will override that.
well, it takes some doing. but without exercising the ability to do some reflection and review in that regard, things are bound to go wrong at some point.
I'm thinking of the Amanda Knox case. The prosecutor, the victim's family, and much of the Italian press still appears convinced that she got away with a murder, as part of some occult conspiracy. From what I've read, my view is that the truth of the event is much simpler and more mundane. Which is the view that prevailed, eventually.
And the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I was initially persuaded that the Ramseys were the culprits in the death of their daughter. From what I've learned over time, they're innocent. And still unfairly maligned, by those who are convinced that they've Recognized the Pattern that leads to their guilt. As ritual child molesting murderers. A view shared by myself, for a while. But my saving grace is my reluctance to push all the chips in on cases like those, especially in situations where all I know is what I read in the papers.
That was part of my own "proto-Q" odyssey back in the late 1990s, when I was doing a lot of research into sordid stuff, and what I was learning was enough to get me sucked in to the edge of the rabbit role, so to speak. But fortunately, I retained enough doubt and skepticism to recover a rational sense of perspective. For a little while there, whew...some of the details of history are disconcerting. And then I kept on with my reading- focusing on context, instead of scurrillous titillation. And although I also kept turning up more and more scandalous nastiness, I eventually realized that it's just the way some people have always behaved on this planet. That it doesn't indicate that there's some unified Evilarchy running everything behind the scenes. So I got out of the rut that insisted on trying to fit all the horrific criminality of the world in history into a single pattern. But I did learn that it's easy to do.Speculative hypotheses can be very ambitious, and they always allow for a widening of the list of suspects.And there's something intoxicating about that sinister form of fictive infotainment.
Yes. Pattern recognition is like fear: easily learned and hard to overcome. It is a very potent evolutionary force, and my only quibble with what you say is that it's been operative for millions upon millions of years, not "thousands upon thousands of years."
Christina Hoff Sommers once used the term "click moment" to describe an event when, in a person's mind, what was an open question about conflicting observations and thoughts coalesced into an "ah-ha moment" of understanding. That is the moment when the nature of thought changes. Its rather like a religious conversion.
Anthony Pratkanis explained the significance of this "mind event" in his seminal article: "How to Sell a Pseudoscience." https://tinyurl.com/yvdxffty Here is Rule 2:
"Set a rationalization trap. The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right . . .."
Once the trap is sprung, one's confirmation bias becomes a very powerful force in proving that his decisions are correct, a master whose faithful servant (the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. https://tinyurl.com/yn6htys2 ) swings into action to reinforce the belief.
Example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc:
1. Ford makes cars.
2. I see a car on the street.
3. Therefore I see a Ford.
Understand the quibble, I was holding to what is more or less modern man as we began to evolve to larger social order beings. Even that should be of sufficient contrast to the two centuries or so of life in the age of Reason.
Ah, Carnac, you are back from the dead?
What is a carnac?
Ladies and Gentlemen... a millennial.
In fairness, that's how they've been trained and educated. I believe it's what universities are now offering in place of, you know, critical and evidence-based reasoning.
haha, I am so old, you wouldn't believe!
An "old" who doesn't know Johnny Carson? Not American.
You are right. American citizen, born and raised in Brazil for half my adult life.
Perhaps then your problem with Glenn stems more from your own Brazilian origins, ie political, as in not a fan of Lula’s or Dilma’s (nor state owned natural resources vs privatized capital/elite-based foreign investment model)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_the_Magnificent
Meh.
The criticism is meant in earnest. Take it to heart. It isn't wise to presume to know what people think or what motivates them without good evidence. "Patterns" is thin gruel.
If you read enough of anyone, you see how they think, including blind spots and biases. This seems obvious to me.
I don't need evidence for my opinions. I don't expect everyone to agree.
An there you have it folks!!! Emotionalism doesn't need evidence, it is self generating from within.
Good. Then you won't mind us criticizing you when you make silly observations on the basis of "patterns".
no, criticize away. I will have to mute this soon, need to get things done. But keep up after I am done here
Glen is a liberal who is attacking hypocrisy, groupthink and the progressives desire to forget that sometimes the shoe will be on the other foot. People who now think due process is for them only, not for the other guy. No, you are way off base Adriana. You don't get it. It is your type that is the problem. Anyone that thinks Trump was Hitler has been brainwashed. Anyone that think Trump was Jesus has been brainwashed. I don't believe Fox News nor MSNBC. They are just propaganda tools. They aren't the issue. Brainwashed people like you are the issue.
I’ve been following Glenn Greenwald since he was Slate during the Bush years. I’ve noticed a pattern and it is l the exact opposite of the one you laid out.
His reporting has been consistent, across the political spectrum and in at least a half dozen cases that come immediately to mind, he has taken a course of high idealism to his personal and professional detriment.
The fact he is a famous person at all is directly related to his remarkable virtue, specifically in regard to “walking the walk” of basic liberal principals.
It was Salon, I remember reading him about when he started writing there and Ive appreciated his insight ever since. Add up the Snowden leak, Freeing Lula( and making Moro pay for his fuckery) and you have someone who isnt just writing articles with opinions but someone, who had done world changing work that we are all better off for. Definitely a pattern Ive noticed. Its called being true to your principles regardless of which way the wind is blowing.
Ah, right Salon...my error. I get them mixed up sometimes, thanks for the correction.
I'd add the Awl-Awlaki drone killings too, I don't recall anyone else being as vocal about that except maybe Jeremy Scahill.
Defending due process is a noble endeavor You are wrong
Learn the difference between standing up for due process for all, and hunkering down in your tribal cave, it well help you immensely.
Missed the point. Due process is important. I don't think Glenn is making videos about this case because of due process though
Of course you don't. You want to see the world the way you want it to be, not the way it is.
He got your point. It's just that your point is stupid.
We know that you think this. We just don't understand why since you have presented no evidence or logic whatsoever to back it up. Was it testimony from your cat, perhaps? Pure emotion? Voices in your head?
Yeah you’re missing the point here. Greenwald appears to be all over the political map (left of the intercept, right of Tucker) to the uncalibrated eye because he adheres to a guiding principal of presumption of innocence that is fundamentally apolitical.
You know, Greenwald should think about becoming a defense attorney.
Oh, wait a minute.....
Bullshit! Did you even read Taibbi's article, bullshit!
So putting aside the attack on Greenwald's motives and character, do you think he's correct that the hiring of a competent lawyer should not reflect in any way of our perception of a person's guilt or innocence? Because his tweet strikes me as 100% correct, and I don't know enough about him to pick him out of a lineup.
Your ability to read people's minds and know their true intentions is impressive. You're a real Uri Geller.
Gotta love seeing them lash out when one of their gods is attacked without disputing your actual argument
There's an argument? Glenn is right wing?
Right. This is something I haven’t been able to comprehend: Those on the left accusing Greenwald of being right wing.
The argument is that he is not really concerned about due process, he is manipulating the conversation to appease his audience and validate the right (mostly)
How diabolical. He's getting away with it too. Maybe you can get him cancelled from substack.
No, not into canceling people. Let them talk. The more they talk, the more they reveal. He has other things to say that are importatn
Reveal, huh? Oh, I see.
Finally, something we can agree on! The more you talk, the more you reveal your total lack of evidence or logic to back up your 'argument' (it's more of a feeling at this point, isn't it?) that Glenn doesn't care about due process.
Of what political orientation do you understand Lula or David Miranda to be? Do you know anything about what GGreenwald has advocated for or aligned himself with in his writing? Thirdly, are you serious?
That’s not an “argument”, it’s an opinion. Know the difference?
Thanks for teaching me.
So in other words an ad hominem fallacy.
Yes, I suppose that's an argument. It's just not presented with any evidence or related to reality in any way.
Mind reading is not an argument.
Cult of personality.
Do you actually disagree with anything he said on this topic or is your problem just with his character?
Why would you assume anyone is taking anything "personally" here? Since when is voicing a different opinion automatically taking it personally?
As for the dogpile, look at the sheer number of responses Adriana has posted. Adriana keeps replying and people keep responding to those replies. That's not a dogpile. The fact that no one appears to agree with Adriana is not a dogpile. The fact that Adriana keeps doubling down and refusing to concede any of the criticisms is interesting though.
I agree that the very few "take your meds" style comments are unhelpful and unnecessary.
When someone says, "I don't need evidence for my opinions," do you think this is an invitation for an open exchange of ideas?
I am open to well reasoned arguments on all topics from people of all ideological stripe, especially if they are at odds with mine. However, it's my personal policy to not waste my time engaging with those who use emotional reasoning as their ideological bedrock.
I do not tolerate baseless slander, nor do I tolerate this new trend of stuffing words in the mouths others. These features of the Twittersphere and center-left media consensus are why I've abandoned nearly all traditional news outlets and why I am a subscriber here.
Her post is not personally offensive in the slightest, but it is absolutely at odds with my motivations for being on this Substack to begin with. I will not grant her or those like her the legitimacy of good faith engagement, when that is something they have clearly abandoned a long time ago.
Largely because I'd rather discourage her further participation than legitimize it with a well reasoned rebuttal (which would largely be wasted anyway).
I agree that the mean-spiritedness of my comments are not flattering nor a quality I find commendable in myself or others. I can't argue with you there - your point is well taken.
That said, it is the result of years of frustration with individuals like her, who are predominant in spaces like Twitter and other mainstream places for discourse, as well as most mainstream news outlets (both left and right wing).
What do you feel would have been a more productive approach?
This topic comes up very frequently. The path I try to follow is to answer a post as if it comes from a real person with a good faith point of view. If, after a reply or two that demonstrates to me that the person is a professional troll or independent contractor troll, I stop responding. My posts can be quite pointed and critical but I do my best not to launch attacks on the person if for no other reason than other real people are reading here an I don’t want to put off people who might otherwise think about what I said. That said, I have cut back quite a bit on my attention to the comments because, in my humble opinion, there are lots of “people” with no real interest in a genuine discussion and I don’t have the time to keep sorting thru who is who.
GG’s record proves his motives are pure and his values consistent. If you can’t trust that what can you trust?
The perception that Glenn is pandering to the right dismisses that the left won't have him on anymore. He goes where he will be heard. That his shunning by the left is characterized as his opportunistic money- or glory- chasing on the right is really something, when the substance of the values he advocates has remained consistent. The mirror is hard to look in for some people.
It boggles my mind that those who consider themselves liberal are quick to belittle a liberal as a rudderless opportunist, because he promotes liberal values on Tucker Carlson. I will never understand this.
It's like what happened to Bret Weinstein and the Evergreen State fiasco. People tried to use the fact that he went on Tucker Carlson as a criticism, when the real criticism should have been of EVERY left/center news outlet for not being willing to interview him.
Of course Tucker was happy to report on a story that made the left look like crazed idiots, but everyone else refusing to report on it at all made all of them look far worse.
Well when you get down to partisan conflict for control of power, then ideology is decidedly secondary. If you have principles you stick with them whether or not you are in a position of power. Those who give lip service to principles merely to gain power (and then immediately disregard those principles) aren't deserving of respect. But that's pretty much the game of both parties - they want power and they don't care much about principle.
Makes me think of Churchill's line about having enemies: "Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
No, not at all. Greewald reports facts, which has started making many liberal members of the press "uncomfortable".
There is absolutely nothing wrong with populism.
That is the stupidest comment I have read this month.
Hillary brought back McCarthyism to destroy Trump and it seems to have spread through the media like corona virus. Thank God there are a few real journalists like Greenwald who keep dragging all the soap opera loving idiots back to actual facts. They hate it, but I pray that he keeps doing it.
I got in an argument on another forum about this same thing. I posited pretty much the same thing-that if Gaetz is guilty of sex with a minor, and transporting her across state lines for sex, he's a disgusting slimeball, and should be convicted and removed from office. The current information is insufficient to say one way or the other and... sad though it may be, the NY Times is no more trustworthy than a host of other news sources with less prestigious reputations. I was immediately attacked for suggesting that I wasn't convinced that Gaetz was guilty from the evidence at hand- the assumptions made by the mob seeming to be that I don't think sex trafficking is bad, that I am a huge Gaetz fan and I must have a MAGA hat and a rifle hidden in my hybrid car somewhere. Having a smug frat-boy attitude doesn't make him guilty of a crime-anymore than it makes him automatically innocent of one.
"The impact is on the next person with a byline who might be thinking about voicing an unpopular opinion." So true. That's the worst macro consequence. A micro consequence that's been bumming me out is that it's increasingly hard to share his work. You have to couch a recommendation in insecure-sounding, a priori defenses and pathetic disclaimers ("Don't google him before you read him!"). Greenwald does essential work that no one else does; he addresses many issues with a clarity that people are desperate for. It's painful and disempowering to feel confused about what's going on in the world, and finding a journalist who understands & explicates high-level corruption in concrete terms can give you a sense of almost physical relief. (I'd say the same of Tabbi, Halper, Yasha Levine, a few others.) (By contrast, every paid journalist with a legacy platform generally uses it to repeat and analyze recycled talking points, rather than offering anything that moves us forward. Mass distraction from the ruling class and its ongoing crimes.) I think Glenn is one of the only genuinely leftist voices out there (he might not identify that way, but many of his findings are essential to building a credible leftist critique of the media), and I want to be able to share his perspective on Russiagate, Wikileaks, the First Amendment, et cetera without having first to contend with blue-check trolls who live to discredit any real threats to the establishment. Their high-school sadism shouldn't overshadow--on a Google search or elsewhere--the work he's devoted his life to. Thanks for providing a concise but strong defense.
*Taibbi